I really did enjoy this game, got to get back to the side quests soon
waiting for PC version. Hope they don't mess that up
I've had an extremely buggy and disappointing time with this game, plus i just don't think the world or story is as good as that in 2 or Brotherhood. I even like the world of Revelations and 1 to the boring US cities of 3.
If not for the boring, boring Haytham segment, the Desmond ending and those AWFUL, nonlethal chase sequences, It'd have been an easy fiver for me, anyway. I was lucky enough to not suffer any bad glitches.(PS3 version.)
Wow great review, guess it was worth the wait. After all the negativity in the press and the lengthy delay on the review wasn't expecting such a positive reaction. Fully agree the main storyline is what you're there for and the chases and eavesdropping missions are only minor missteps. The naval stuff is great too but everything else is fluff.
I loved my time with Connor, IMO he is the best character in the series so far. Even though the game was buggy and the voice acting was really bad in some places I loved exploring Boston and New York. The Frontier was great too, I spent a few hours just running through the wilderness and hunting. The Connor story was also really really good. That said, the modern day story was absolutely awful. I feel bad for anyone who was invested in Desmond's story. The ending to the game was absolutely awful, way worse than ME3. The game is still definitely worth checking out, free running is better than ever and the combat is easy but loads of fun.
So a review after all, eh?
Fall of the Fours
That last star is kind of surprising to me, as the impression I got from the QL was pretty negative.
I really enjoyed this game.
It felt so good to finally stab dudes as Desmond, I thought it was cool that they didn't show any of the hud stuff for those sequences.
This review is only further evidence that this is a steam sale game. Sounds like PC will fix a lot of the problems with this game and there's no reason to play it immediately since it's setting the world on fire with anything that it's doing.
I love falling through the map six times!!! That was by far my favorite part. My second favorite part is a six-way tie between pointless cut-scenes, walking 20 ft into another cut scene, random loading screens, five hours worth of tutorials tepid naval combat, horse bugs, and an implausible story. Oh, I meant a 7-way tie, sorry. Man, I like how linear this game is! I was really getting annoyed with playing the AC games how I wanted to play them; PLEASE spoon-feed me more! Needs more chase scenes! OMG I LOVE CHASE SCENES!!! If only they could somehow interweave quick-time events into chase scenes!!! HEAVEN! Watch out, another wolf is jumping at you! Quick, press B!!! OMG I love it. More pressing B please!!! --- I can't believe I wasted my money on this game.
I agree pretty much entirely with this review and all of it's points. AC3 is not a bad game, but there are a lot of little things it does that keep it from being perfect. I enjoyed it quite a bit, for what that's worth.
"the handful of handheld digressions" Oh Ryan, how charmingly garrulous of you! Sounds like a competent Assassin's Creed game. Not quite the rush that AC2 was, similar to Brotherhood in that it brings a new element to the table and a better story than Revelations. All in all, a comprehensive and useful review.
I still haven't played Revelations yet, and I'm confident that I'll play both that and ACIII one day. One of my favorite parts of the earlier games were the giant, tall structures you could climb and just gaze out over the big cities, and it's extremely disappointing to see that feature more or less gone. I'm sure the game is good in its own way, but to me it just doesn't feel like an AC game, not just because of the previously lost feature, but just...small things combined.
It's a shame to hear the Desmond portions are as much of a letdown as the quick look made them seem. The meta-story of Assassin's Creed and the building of the conspiracy they use to link everything together has always been the most fascinating part of the series to me.
What the hell is Beardy looking at in the first picture?
I keep feeling with all of the talk in how Ryan was disappointed in Revelations, it shouldn't have got the four stars he gave it, certainly when you look at what a four star is supposed to mean. It's supposed to be easily recommendable, and yet it was very easy for him to dismiss it. I guess that's off topic though.
Yup. I was really into that stuff, was hoping for an epic conclusion. Hell, I wished it was concluded with a whole game dedicated to Desmond, Shane, Rebecca and the other assassin cells present fight against the Templars, solving the mysteries of the first civilization etc. Some would say that it would turn out as a bad game, based on the parts where you play as Desmond in earlier games, but giving the A-team the chance to wrap that stuff up could have, and should have been awesome. Guess I don't need to emphasize how disappointing the end was for me. Oh, video games, you break my heart.
I don't know if it will make it to Steam, since Ubi really wants to push uPlay.
Ryan does not know what "high concept" means.
This is an excellent review. A joy to read in itself and pretty damn comprehensive as far as covering AC3, I feel. Sad that they really drove the original's excellent premise off a fucking cliff - as least that's how it seems to me. The whole Altair/ 'Nothing's true, everything is permitted' bit is so fascinating even though I probably am projecting a whole lot onto that initial plot setup due to a severe Schopenhauer obsession.
Other than that Brotherhood's glorious MP variants are still great of course but they just don't seem to be a big enough part of that franchise to achieve relevance. When giving the PC version a shot it just wasn't very populated at all (at least not for a reasonable amount of time) and I'm not going to waste time waiting for games even if they're cool when they eventually transpire.
Sadly AC is one of those mainstream franchises that desperately tries to please so many people that it can just feel disappointingly mediocre more often than not. Which is very disturbing when I inevitably think about all the talent and raw money that has to go into these endeavors.
I'm looking forward to playing it, personally. I like the really obscure things they touch on in the series and just now recently started playing Brotherhood and Revelations soon after I finish Brotherhood. Thankfully, a buddy of mine had them both already and is letting me go through them while he plays through III. Not to mention... assassins, ya know? They're just fun. I like games like this that let you focus greatly on stealth but don't punish you incredibly too much by giving you no fighting abilities when you're found out. Cool to be able to hack people up in sword fights when you wanna take a more brutish approach to things.
Wished I waited for PC version, graphics arent that great but story and game are fantastic.
I like the game, the parts I've played anyway why there is a severe lack of stabbing dudes in the main quest. It's not so much Assassin's Creed as Jobsworth's creed, run here, escort this guy, ride here, defend this point, do a mini game with these soldiers.
Called it. Ubisoft needs to take a break from AC and focus on making not shitty Prince of Persia games now.
I mean, in a way the game is high-concept: "what if assassin's and templar's were always stabbing each other?"
But yeah, I don't think it's used in the way it normally is here.
For as late as it is, this is a surprisingly well-written and informative review. I still want to play this game, but maybe I'll just buy Brotherhood whenever it's on another steam sale first?
OH MY FUCKING GOD THAT HEAD
I guess I'll pick this game up after I'm finished with Halo 4 and if the game only takes a week to finish then I can squeeze it before Hitman Absolution and the Wii U launch.
DAT SAFE 4!
Half joking. GBs 4 seems to cover way too much ground. But this was a well written review so good on Ryan.
Just finished it today and it's by far my favorite in the series. Conner is by far my favorite character in the games (well, maybe other than mack-daddy Benjy F.).
Nice review ryan. I agree with everything in it. I really enjoyed it though even for its flaws. I would give it a 5 stars. But im also going for a S rank so im a crazy person
Ezio didn't overstay his welcome, the series did.
@Ryan Great review! Really even handed and fair to the series. Also, TYPO: second last paragraph, second last sentence, you got a double the in this sucker. "In addition the the returning..."
Only problem with the review was I was laughing non-stop because I just can't divorce ACIII from "stab people like Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh". Seriously, just laughing like crazy at work right now. No one walk into my office dammit!
I would have gone lower with that score. I loved the past AC games but this one has been really disappointing.
Good review. I'm only about 4 hours in and I keep having these moments of "This is awesome! This game is great!" immediately followed by moments of "This is dragged out, why am I doing this? This doesn't work well" Which fits a very common theme this year of games I was super excited for being, not bad at all, but disappointing to me in various ways, like ME 3, Darksiders 2, and Diablo III. All games that are amazing yet at the same time do a bunch of things I don't like
Fucking A! They ended PoP 2008 with that fat cliffhanger and haven't said shit about it since then.
@phrosnite said:Called it. Ubisoft needs to take a break from AC and focus on making not shitty Prince of Persia games now.Fucking A! They ended PoP 2008 with that fat cliffhanger and haven't said shit about it since then.
I'm pretty sure there was DLC. I never bought it because it's still expensive.
I am shocked that, after leaving this review in the oven to bake for a week, Ryan mentioned NOTHING about the smorgas board of bugs and glitches in this game. This is one of the glitchiest AAA games I've seen this gen. It has made me regret the day one purchase.
I've been loving this game a lot, I even think it may be my favourite in the series. I seem to be in the minority, though. Enjoyed reading this review, I wish Ryan wrote reviews more often.
I feel like maybe Ryan's personal choice to overly depend on the fast travel was translated, for him, as the game was badly designed in this aspect?
I mean he didn't have to use the fast travel and it also was in previous games, granted you had to go to a certain nearby part of the city to use it but the feature was there to a lesser degree none the less.
Please bare in mind that I'm an AC series nut(outside of handheld games for which I have not had the chance to touch) and have have played and enjoyed all games in the series. I thought AC1 was good, needed polish but I liked it, so maybe my response to Ryan's review is tinted by my own love of the series and world within the games.
I think this basically says exactly how I feel about the game (Except for the side-missions, but I'm the completionist type). Great review Mr. Davis.
I think 4 stars is being a bit generous...
If the game was nothing but the combat and the tree traversal that would make some kind of sense. how the hell can you get past the pointless gd chase sequences without just stabbing yourself in the face? The name of the game is "Assassin's" Creed and you're in the street chasing people in the middle of the day...it's all kinds of stupid
I still think II is way, way better than Brotherhood (though Brotherhood did have some cool things in it), and I'm kind of disappointed to hear the mostly lukewarm to mildly positive response from reviewers and players alike. I thought this'd be a shoe-in for GOTY, but the best games this year are original properties or revamps of old series (XCOM, for example). Kind of nuts.
I can hear gasps of those who impatiently awaited this review.
Thanks for the review, Ryan. I think this will be a Black Friday pickup for me.
The issue with the bevy of side activities in the game not meshing together or being interesting (with some exceptions here and there) has plagued this series since AC2; it was something I hoped they would have fixed by now, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
On the other hand, the new characters/story/setting sounds like it was the shake-up this series needed after the Ezio games dragged on for so long. Sounds like I'll need to turn off the completionist part of my brain when I get around to playing this, and just barrel through the story (+ the always awesome multiplayer). I'm interested to see what this horde mode they cooked up is like.
Sounds about right. Definitely a good game, but still doesn't hit all the notes it could, and some spots get muddy. Also, what the fuuuck is up with the modern day peoples' faces in this series. Like good fucking lord they just get weirdly deformed in different ways every game.
I like how giantbomb's comments are less... how do I put it - Influenced - than the more 'mainstream' outlets. For example, users are mentioning "ryan has a certain perspective on something, I might have another perspective" Compared to say, ign. That is a revelation of the human spirit.
A lot of users are now judging everything on a score, and the few that are not are suggesting that a site should become score free. I think both are extreme reactions to a simple problem. Reviews and scores are held is some godlike regard. These people in which we trust, are just people. Just because they would give something 8.8/10 or 4/5, that does not mean that our views are invalidated.
If every single game reviewer was introspective (and they probably are not), I would almost suggest a review system that has two scores. The objective one and the subjective one. I personally don't like the game for 'this' reason, however objectively it get's a lot of things right.For example, dishonoured I LOVE this kind of game. So the shade of my glasses is 'positive'. The subjective part of my gives the game a 10/10. The objective part of me notices the AI flaws, short game length, etc. Which is more in line with a 8/10.
Recently jeff reviewed Forza horizon and need for speed most wanted. He liked both games, however his subjective slant was leaning towards hot pursuit and it's crazy multiplayer action. He gave into the objective 'reviewer' requirement and gave horizon a deserved 5/5. Although that's probably not the game that brought the biggest smile to his face.Similar story with halo 4, his subjective self would probably give it a 2/5 or 3/5, however he gave it a 4 based on the greater majority of the audience being people who would want 'more halo' and not something innovative.
If jeff split that score into a Halo fan's 5/5 and his 3/5. That would tell two groups something more specific. It would tell the halo fans that they have a great halo game, and it would tell people who share gaming tastebuds with jeff that it's a shiny new coat of paint on the same warthog.