I think AC3 is actually one the strongest games in the series so...

Also I played them within like... weeks of each other.

I actually bothered to finish Revelations so that one. Seeing Ezio off was kinda cool, I liked revisiting Altair, and the multiplayer was better in Revelations than it was in 3.

3 easily. It's not a bad game. The ending to the Demond stuff is utter shit, and the way the Haytham stuff wraps up is also shit, but the rest of it's great.

Revelations wast mostly a waste of time, and also the only time I got sick of the tutorial section of these games. I don't need to fucking walk through this goddamn town too.

Revelations, easily. I don't understand why so many people dislike it. Istanbul, Old man Ezio, filling out Altair's life, the hookblade... so much to love about it. Sure, the Desmond platforming was a bit naff, as was the base defenses (I just let them be lost and retook them personally) but i still remains one of my favourite games in the series.

Man I couldn't pick, those are easily the two worst games in the series. I couldn't even finish Revelations with it's stupid tower defence levels. It was also repetitive as all hell which is saying a LOT for the AC franchise. I'd say 3 if any because at least it moves the plot forward while simultaneously setting it up so that the plot in the series no longer matters and they can just throw down whatever pirate/ninja/whatever type game they want and call it Assassin's Creed.

Revelations is a better game. AC3 tries a lot but it has so many issues.

Revelations was the culmination of AC systems. The hook was actually pretty useful in both traversal and combat. They tacked on a whole bunch of other useless crap but at it's core it was a solid AC game. The plot was always pretty bad in these games but at least Ezio started to become almost tolerable, for me personally as I was never a fan of the character.

I never bothered to play Revelations, but I'm unwilling to give the vote to AC3, so...

I definitely liked AC 3 more. There's nothing like stabbing a bear in a back, and running away and onto a tree.

I enjoyed both games, but I liked Assassin's Creed 3 more.

Revelations by about a billion miles, ac3 is too boring to finish. I just can't bring myself to play through this copy I paid full price for.

I really don't like Revelations. I got Rev and 3 last year but haven't finished Rev or started 3. So I guess I like 3 better by default.

AC3 has the best multiplayer in the series and it's the best console multiplayer of the last generation so AC3 by a lot. It's also just better than ACR's singleplayer; though ACR does have Castel Gandolfo which is probably the best multiplayer map of any game ever (aside from Brood War). ACR is a good game it's just the worst of the bunch other than AC1 which was awful.

Never played Revelations, it always seemed like unnecessary filler. That being said... I sort of hated a lot of where AC3's story went by the end. The gameplay was fine for the most part, even if the game gave ZERO reason to do any of the side stuff.

Before 4 came along, 3 was my favourite. I felt as though they perfected the combat, I enjoyed the in-animus story a lot and the hunting and side activities were good. The setting was a nice change of pace as well. I finished Revelations but I couldn't tell you a single thing about it's story apart from that Maria woman. I think that was her name.

Couldn't make it through either. I made it further in AC3 though. But that was only because I got really into the home building side missions. That stuff was legitimately really cool, if memory serves.

I have the probably unpopular opinion that, sans IV because I haven't played it yet, AC3 is my favorite game in the series. And Revelations is probably my least favorite.

@creepingdeath0 said:

Any idea if they changed how the base defenses work? I remember people saying to just wait till it is lost and then take them back, but I had a Den "under attack" for half my game, it never got to the point where I could just kill the one dude and light the tower, always wanted me to do the tower defense and fuck that.

@ulquiokani: Sofia, but Maria is a fine replacement for a name.

@humanity: Never understood the love Ezio got right off the bat, thought he was the worst part in AC2 and got better with each game.

AC3 is the better game. It has more interesting setting with better characters. The melee combat is the best in the series and there is a lot of great side content in that game.

Ass Rev cause it has Ezio

Revelations is fun and has the mission where you're pretending to be a musician. All the people that shrug at playing that game will never see one of Ezio's finest moments.

I liked Revelations, and thought it wrapped up Ezio pretty well.

While I liked 3, I never got around to finishing it, so I suppose my vote goes to Revelations.

I think AC3 is the best in the series (I haven't played 4 yet) so yeah, 3.

I enjoyed Revelations more. Mostly because I expected less from it. It was also mostly just building off of Brotherhood and while the inclusions (tower defense) were pretty bad it still stuck with the core of what made Brotherhood good.

AC3's pacing was just a mess and the homestead and trading aspects all seemed half-baked. The ship combat was good, but was completely out of place and mostly just seemed like a gameplay prototype for 4.

revelations by far. had easily some of the stronger story bits in the series.

I didn't play Revelations, so I voted for that one. There is no way I could ever imply AC3 was a valuable use of time.

Also I'm not going to play Revelations.

Revelations was tired but it was still a solid game like the ones before it.

I was more into 3 of the two. Revalations felt like more of the same, while 3 brought a fresh atmosphere to the series regarding the setting. I really do want to go back and finish them both at some point.

I haven't played either so I am going to skew your poll horribly by choosing Revelations because I always wanted to go to Turkey.

Aside from the half-assed Desmond junk in Revelations, it was pretty damn good. They managed to make Altair likable and wrapped up the Eizo story on a bittersweet note.

I much prefer 3 over Revelations, I even think Revelations is the weakest in the series when taken in perspective. Revelations did almost nothing new, it didn't do much that was out right bad but it was like the definition of an annual release. I thought the environment of Revelations was boring, and it was too cluttered with stuff to really make any one aspect be notable.

3 may have had a boring character and not a great story but it finally did some new things. I liked the changes to the combat and the homestead stuff. It also layed the groundwork for the awesome naval stuff of 4. While Connor was a less fun character than Ezio he was for sure a more intimidating figure, he felt like a more powerful killing machine. The Desmond stuff in 3 was decent as well. Frankly I think the game takes too much flak for its poor story and characters.

AC Revelations reminded me a lot of MGS4 where you really felt the age of Ezio. He was wise and he felt the pain when he fell off a ledge. And if they said there's a 4th game I'd totally be down to play it. He is such an amazing character which was the biggest flaw of Connor.

AC3. I loved the Homestead and Frontier stuff, even if the Desmond side of things was lacking (it was never good) and the main story had its obvious downfalls, overall it was pretty enjoyable.

I wouldn't say I hated any of them, but I definitely enjoy Revelations a bit more than ACIII. I think it was largely because of Ezio, since I liked the gameplay improvements in ACIII but just didn't find Connor or any of the characters in the story (apart from Haytham) all that interesting.

I didn't care for either but at least Revelations has a likable lead and the game wasn't quite as bloated as AC3.

I haven't played Revelations, but I really enjoyed ACIII. From what I understand, the game was really buggy when it first came out, and I'll agree that the first Haytham section that was pretty much useless and wiped all your cash/unlocks was pretty damn annoying and that the Desmond stuff was too lengthy, so I guess that's why people hate it. I didn't buy ACIII when it first came out, so most of the bugs had been patched by the time I played it, which may color my perception a bit compared to some. I really enjoyed the setting/story. First off, I'm a bit of a history nerd and find the American Revolution especially interesting, so it inherently appealed to me. Additionally, the Native American angle was one I was glad they explored. It's embarrassing how much Native Americans are glossed over and forgotten here. People seem to not want to acknowledge a really dark part of our history, and that's probably at least part of the reason some people didn't like the story in ACIII. It was never going to end happily ever after; it was going to end in futility, so some people inherently weren't left feeling overly satisfied. I liked it, though. Connor trying to carve out his little slice amidst the beginnings of "manifest destiny" nonsense was something that resonated a bit. I was also pleased that the game wasn't too pro-'Merica. Overall, I think ACIII is a better game than it gets credit for.

AC3 from a gameplay stand point is way better than pretty much any of the previous games, where it fails is in the story and mission design. Neither of the big new additions in Revelations (Bomb Crafting and the Hookblade) have been used since.

Not sure.

Assassin's Creed 3 has higher highs, but takes an inordinate amount of time to get there. And it whiffs the trilogy's landing in spectacularly hammy fashion.

Assassins Creed Revelations gets a reliable level of quality by sticking closely to the Ezio-template established by the previous games, but inadvertently renders itself obsolete by doing so.

Revelations is absolutely the worst in the series.

they are the worst in the series like you mentioned,but between the two i would say that its about a tie to be honest.both have a good amount of faults and a good amount of interesting ideas.in the end they are about the same in quality.if i had too choose i would say revelations,but it really is so close that the deciding factor really is which time period you like more,which i would say i liked ac3 way better.i wish there was a ac game in the ac3 time period as good as black flag.

It's impossible to make an AC worse than the first one. The only good thing about that game is that they tried really hard!

I would have to say revelations for the most part. The game play was the classic assassin creed feel with some additions. The hook and the bombs were cool and i like that they kept and did more with you training and recruiting assassins. The few things that sucked was the story felt more like a filler than something that had revelations in it. Also the tower defense parts were lame and i did not have fun doing them at all. Lastly the desmond subject 16 parts was pretty much a letdown. It was almost like an afterthought. Assassin creed 3 just felt like a train wrack after the 5 hour mark. Everything was scaled back and was worse than what the passed games have done.

Revelations is probably the best AC game. It just suffered mightily from being basically the same as the two previous games.

3 was just tedious and boring.