I'm still going to pick up AC3 on PC. I'm completely blind to criticism regarding the series because I'm such a history nut. Historical tourism has allowed me to thoroughly enjoy all of the AC games regardless of relative quality. I'm just glad Ubisoft found an excuse to make this kind of game possible.
EDIT: Nice post, I remember you giving Revelations a fair go last year and hoping things would be improved. Turns out they weren't.
Nice post, I hope Ubisoft actually makes the game better next time instead of going the cash in route again. Another AC with basically the same gameplay with more useless junk upgrades you don't need may start getting stale even for the die hard fans.
I'm glad you enjoyed Assassin's Creed 3 but I must ask you. Don't you think that with every irritation it seems like the dev team are getting further away from what the core of AC games. crafting bombs, shop quests, tower defense, ship battles, hunting animals, defending convoys, finding lost treasures are fun and all but what does it have to do with being an Assassin? I don't see Agent 47 doing all those things?!
The game just seems to become more like a pseudo Elder Scrollish RPG and less about being a lone assassin fighting against a group of people hell bend on world domination. That's why to me the first AC will be the the purest in the series. It was very repetitive but the experience was the in it's pure form. Reach your point, gather information on your target, and now go find the best way to assassinate that target. I think that's why it resonated so much with people.
It just feels like every game game in the series is trying to one up the one that came before it. I would not be surprised if the next AC you will be commanding a huge army. I have a feeling the next game in the series will be set in the US civil war time and Abraham Lincoln will be featured.
I just feel like that with every game they are moving further away from the creed of the AC game. I hope they give the series a long deserved rest once Watch Dogs comes out.
Very well read, I hear you and feel the same about AC3. There are parts I just wish to ignore and some parts that are rather annoying if you decide to tackle them. I'm having very mixed emotions about the game. I'm not feeling the Naval battles though, but I guess I should upgrade my ship or something. The ledgers seem confusing still to me. Maybe I'll figure them out. I know I can't afford to equip my ship, that's for sure. Fucking game. I want to love you, but I feel like you hate me for some reason.
I totally agree about the trinket missions, they are some of the best in the game. I found it weird how a couple of them are shown in the trailers as big actiony selling points only for them to be hidden behind a pretty huge time consuming fetch quest.
@Morrow: If you're willing to go out on Black Friday, I know a few places will be selling it at $35. Definitely worth it at that price.
Black... Friday? Sorry, I guess that's some kind of special day that doesn't exist in Europe... oh, and there are also no stores here that sell ACIII at that price ^^ I'm all Amazon, btw. And I don't mind waiting, my list of games I've yet to finish is huge anyway...
Really good post. I am only half-wayish throught he game at the moment - just got to New York and done the first mission or so there. I really agree with a lot of what you say from the amount of the game I have seen so far. I am always amazed how beautiful it looks and once they take the leash of and really let you explore it can be really rewarding and exciting.
The problem for Ubisoft seems to be that they are on this punishing release schedule so instead of taking a bit of time to think about exactly how the game should be constructed they are just madly iterating and adding to features without thinking of their worth. This means there is tons of stuff to do, but none of it works together to really progress your character.
In this game we have hunting, crafting and trading, running a guild, collecting and building up your homestead and naval warfare(!) but it seems as if you could ignore all off these and would have no trouble finishing the game by just following the main questline. For the next game (which is probably too late as it will be out this time next year so will already be well underway) they need to scrap all this stuff and add some systems and tasks into the game which, when you complete them, make the game more fun to play, either by adding powers or weapons etc. Upgrading Connor's (or whoever's) abilities or tools through side quests would make the world feel much more compelling. At the moment it just feels like pointless collection to fill out this big beautiful space they have created.
I think they need to refocus the series in general. Every major release the game becomes bigger and bigger so naturally they need to fill it with more features and more useless fluff.
A leveling system would be a cool addon if done right. Earning exp points through various action would make some of the more tedious actions, this series has, a little bit more bearable. As far as the collectibles in the game then I think they need to maybe give actual reward for them either by giving you in-game content or extras like developer's commentary or some more "behind the scene" stuff. It still amazes me developers will just add items for you to collect and have it only go towards meaningless trophy/achievement. Why am I collecting flags and feathers? What will spending all these hours collecting them end up giving me? They really have no meaning besides having a 100% sync which still has no meaning whatsoever.
@Morrow said:
@mordukai: I guess that's the GTA-ish influence on the mainstream appeal. The first AC was actually quite niché.
A niche game that sold over 8 million copies. People say most of it was the marketing for this game but I don't think they sold 8 million copies on the strength of marketing alone. The game obviously resonated with people. The changes they made going from 1 to 2 were welcomed but I think every game since then kinda lost focus.
@mordukai: I guess that's the GTA-ish influence on the mainstream appeal. The first AC was actually quite niché.
A niche game that sold over 8 million copies. People say most of it was the marketing for this game but I don't think they sold 8 million copies on the strength of marketing alone. The game obviously resonated with people. The changes they made going from 1 to 2 were welcomed but I think every game since then kinda lost focus.
I agree somewhat. While the extra stuff is completely optional, in a way I like that. I don't really like the hunting, but I enjoy the naval missions, so I'll do more of that and ignore the hunting. This is contrary to Revelations that kinda forced the Tower Defense on people, and nobody liked it. At least this way you can do what you want, based on the merit of fun.
Another problem is the fact that the game's too easy, so you never need a varied/specific approach (optional objectives notwithstanding). With the Rope Darts, guns, bows, AND Assassin minions, there's no need to use all that, and usually no accomplished feeling for using all the tools are your disposal since there's too many, and the game's too easy.
It's a shame they didn't take more cues from RDR. They could have filled the Frontier with all kinds of random and interesting shit. Hell maybe that would have made some of the bugs more endearing instead of annoying. It's a cool world to just live in and explore but they could have done so much more. I think it's still a great game, just one that missed out on the potential to be more than that.
I totally agree. Most of your points, I've been pointing them out since AC2. Especially the one about the tools at your disposition. Why have a sword AND a tomahawk? What's the difference between the two? There's none. Sure, we could argue that the stats vary, but in reality, there's none. You'll still end up killing your foe the exact same way but with different finishers. Why have trip mines? Who built them? And what's the deal with poison darts? It always sucked and nobody toyed with those even back in AC2, except if you wanted to do the throw money + darts combo.
I would much rather have, as you pointed out, a talent tree of things that I could improve and make choices. Do I want to excel with a bow or with guns? Do I want poison darts or explosive mines? And seriously, they should make these items useful, because they're not.
I also really don't like the weapon weel in AC3. It's like switching weapon in a menu screen, something we did back in the DMC1 and 2 days.
Remember when Assassin's Creed about was climbing around citys and actually assassinating people. I think the first AC is much better then AC3. AC3 just messes up the fundimentals of why I even liked this series in favor of being true to the time period and shoving up in historical events.
Nice post, I hope Ubisoft actually makes the game better next time instead of going the cash in route again. Another AC with basically the same gameplay with more useless junk upgrades you don't need may start getting stale even for the die hard fans.
I think there's a lot to like about the current game, but I think Ubisoft could really nail it if they looked at the things from each game that worked really well. The great new addition from this game is obviously the naval missions, but the homestead, hunting and assassin's guild are either useless, or poor implementations of systems that worked better in previous games.
Ideally the things they would use:
naval combat from ACIII
the assassin's guild from AC:brotherhood
Climbing puzzles and glyphs from ACII and Brotherhood
The estate buidling of AC II
More side areas like the assassin's tombs
More of a sense that I was killing people for a cause rather than for revenge, like in the first game
@ImmortalSaiyan: The worst part? In AC3, the eternal struggle of Templars vs Assassins has been boiled down to five guys vs one angry dude. In previous games they really felt like two deeply entrenched secret organizations going at it--especially in AC2 and Brotherhood thanks to the way the Templars embedded themselves in the Catholic church. Similarly, Ezio built up strongholds and guilds and controlled underlings. It just felt like a secret war. In AC3 it doesn't feel that way at all. Connor is pretty much the only assassin, and the Templars are just a group of sneaky British dudes. I thought it was going to be couched in the greater conflict of the colonies vs Britain, but it's not really. You're just one guy after a small group of other guys--and not really because they're Templars, but because you want revenge. Man...so much missed potential with this game.
Good point. I never thought of that but it's absolutely true. They lost the broad conflict completely. The only other assassin is the old guy. Conners tale does not even intertwine with the amercian revolution plot well. Heck, they did a poor job with the American rev story too.
I find it hard to think of any good things about Assassin's Creed 3.
I've played the original Assassin's Creed and then Brotherhood, and I will probably never get over how amazing Brotherhood turned out that I think I might just skip Revelations and III until Ubisoft completely throws everything out and starts anew. Truly anew. Oh well. Three stars is fine, but nothing to get excited over.
@MildMolasses: YES! That list is perfect. There are side areas in AC3, but the only way to get them is by collecting stupid Trinkets. I would add the consequential platforming from Revelations. That was my favorite inclusion of that otherwise derivative game. The hook blade required an extra button press to use when swinging between platforms. It was a simple thing to add, but it made you more aware and present during platforming. Instead of just holding up and steering Ezio, you actually had to pay attention and press the right button to nail a jump. I want more of that. Maybe a button for roll or something.
I'd also keep the basic tech of AC3. The running feels better now that it's just on the trigger. Also, I said it earlier, but I love the subtle juke move Connor does when you pull to the left or right while running. Ezio didn't do that, he just sort of turned. That juke allows you to dodge obstacles while running forward without destroying your momentum. It makes running through a crowd or around trees feel more urgent and fluid.
@ImmortalSaiyan: There's plenty of good in there, and I wouldn't say anything is outright, offensively bad. It's just that you can so clearly see what COULD be better, that it's frustrating. Ubisoft obviously didn't read my blog last year. Next year, I won't be a sucker and give them my money until I've confirmed they've made some significant changes.
I never did any of the side content. I plowed through the main campaign and rarely enjoyed it at all. I found nearly every minute a hassle. The navel battles are not bad and the story had it's moments. But the over reliece of combat over stealth. Terrible old school stealth mechanics. Awful tutorial that for the six hours it takes barely tells you anything. How there is very little to actually climb and 95% of the climbing is perfectly linear. Speaking of linear all main quest missions feel really linear and with little interactivity in service of it's plot. Like riding a horse or running back and forth between troops pressing B. I feel punished for Ever wanting for climb around as there is now easy way to dispatch roof guard due to the lack of throwing knifes. Its is too easy to get caught on roofs as It seems since the buildinging are so small the guards below usually see me. When you are caught it's very hard to escape because there are no hiding spots on roofs, or as many places to hide on the ground and the towns are open so breaking line of site is difficult.
Sorry for the rant there but I had to get it off my chest.
At first I thought the density of the game was a positive. However, the more I play the more I come to realize it's not dense, it's fat. All the extra junk doesn't add anything to the experience. If anything it detracts from the overall quality of the game to have all these disparate mechanics and hold-over features all cobbled together.
I really hope they take a good, long look at how bloated with feature creep this series has become, cut out all the superfluous bullshit, and focus on making a superb assassin game.
@yeah_write: There is a moment in RDR that I was thinking of when I made this point. Out of nowhere and without warning you stumble across a man crying over a corpse. You approach thinking there is something you must be able to do but there's nothing so you decided to walk away. As soon as you turn your back you hear a gunshot, you turn around and the person who was crying is now laying dead next to his friend by self inflicted gunshot.
I realize that there is a ton of stuff to do, that's what I'm doing now and I'm enjoying it way more than the story missions. Just living in and navigating the world. But aside from collectibles, missions, and some very cool traversal the world seems kind of hollow in the frontier. Almost like RDR multiplayer if you will. There are NPCs but they seem to be just there. RDR had random bandit encounters, cannibal attacks, and strange random encounters in the desert like the one I described. It also had cool bugs like the donkey woman that when people found them they would post them to youtube. Stuff like that would make what is arguably the best part of the game, and I would say just fucking about and living in the past is the best part about AC for me, even better.
@yeah_write Agree with this - If I was judging the product solely on Single Player, I would give it 3 stars. Multiplayer is currently bumping me up to 4/5 on the personal opinion meter.
I recommend people try multiplayer if they haven't. If it's seemed intimidating before, there are now 3 tutorial levels, a bot playground, and a PVE Co-op horde mode I don't see mentioned much. It's called Wolfpack, and it's a lot of fun, even played alone.
Regarding time spent with Desmond in the "Real World", it erases a lot of the cognitive buy-in AC has built in as a series. As a player, you buy that the people you interact with in the Animus are brain-dead because the whole conceit of the game is you are re-experiencing vague traces of genetic memories. When you go to a stadium full of "real people"in 2012 and they behave in the same way (including guards with 9mm weapons drawing a bead on you like they're holding a flintlock), the lack of an interesting AI systems is put in sharp relief. Desmond as a character disconnects his "real world" actions from consequences in a way that feels quintessentially "video gamey," while the developers take half-steps to try to avoid that by stripping out (most of) the Animus UI overlays. "Oh man, I'm surrounded by guards! Should I run a way and escape? Knock them out? Nah, quicker to stab 15 dudes and be on the FBI's most wanted list as a terrorist. Great, now that's done! Oh, let's not dwell on the fact that I just stabbed 15 dudes, I'm sure they deserved it and their clumsy punches were too tempting not to counter. Besides, I'm totally good at murdering people, so whatever."
The naval battles frustrated me a bit. It was the new feature I was most excited about, and it definitely works as advertised. It basically plays like Sid Meier's Pirates, which is all I thought I wanted. What seemed to be lacking, and is missing throughout the game for almost all of the features, is a narrative hook to actually care about. I got all the Naval missions done, but Conner doesn't really get anything for my investment. Dynamic ship boarding is a must if they do this again, and they need to do some camera tweaking, but I like the direction they're heading in with Naval Combat. How about some straight up Privateer missions that increase guard patrols in the colonies as a result? (Pirate hunters out to get you in the streets)
The convoy/homestead system was terrible. I finished all the Homestead missions, and I put enough time and effort into convoys to make a sizable amount of money over the course of several hours, but the menu system is ABYSMAL and actually taking the time to craft things seems less profitable than just pushing out the dozens of pelts you acquire throughout the course of the game. The concept is great. The execution is pathetic. The writing for the Homestead Missions was fine, but again, no payoff (except another costumer that's not as cool as Conner's default).
I'm interested to see where they go next year - They seemed to throw away a lot of what they were building in the overall plot in a pretty brazen way, and I hope it's because they have some better ideas on how to frame the series as a narrative going forward.
It's crazy to say it, but I'm technically already half-way through ACIII and yet I don't feel like I've really done anything.
The beginning was too long (and this is coming from someone who usually relishes a good story) because I wanted to play as Connor more than I really cared about the backstory even though I understand why it's there.
The entire hunting aspect is just stupid; it really is. I don't want to hunt animals in ACIII--I want to hunt down and assassinate Templars in stylish ways; not shoot rabbits with a bow and arrow. This isn't RDR and I'm not John Marston. I already played that game, Ubisoft, what the hell were you thinking?
All in all I am enjoying it as much as it can be enjoyed, but I was probably expecting more. ACII was the true breakout title for the franchise and it appears Ubisoft will continue to chase that type of balance if they ever want to top it in the next AC game.
I feel like skipping Rev is gonna help me enjoy the game. I got tired of Ezio, point blank. I think he is a great character, in fact he is one of the best characters, he gave the series a face, but I got tired of him. I see all the complaints, but they don't bother me, b/c I'll play what want to play, and if I want to continue doing certain missions, I'll go down that route. I'm just glad that we're done with Ezio, done with Italy.. and we have a new playground to run around in.
That is what I wanted out of ACIII, and despite complaints, it's what I keep seeing.
32 Comments