# Your thoughts on AC3?



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 31, 2012)

First of all, I'm a huge AC fan. Have been since the very first and still love that game to death.

I preordered AC3, went to the midnight release, was stoked for the game.

So I pop it in, start playing, so far I'm kind of not that impressed. I'm really not having fun as playing as Haytham. There are a few gameplay parts that kind of irritate me with the jumping and such.

Maybe it's just me, but it feels like ever since Patrice Désilets left, the games have been getting more and more different from AC2. I still think AC2 is the best one in the series, and then Brotherhood and Revelations changed the formula, and now AC3 is as well. I want to get in this game, but fuck, I don't want to play as Haytham and do these retarded missions.

I'm also not a fan of the whole optional objectives thing that AC has going for it now. It's stupid.

Anyways, that's my thoughts so far, what are yours?


----------



## Satangel (Oct 31, 2012)

I haven't played it yet, but plan on doing it next month when the PC version hits. 
I think Brotherhood is the best game in the series, superb locations (Colosseum, fuck yeah) and cool missions, also really really liked the country around around Rome, where you could ride your horse and do some cool combo's.
Looking forward to AC3, I've heard there's again a plethora of collectible shit (feathers, animus fragments, flags, ingredients (?), ....) and that's never a bad thing IMHO.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 4, 2012)

So I've been spending some time in it. I'm in sequence 8, and I have to say, this is the worst Assassin's Creed game. I thought Revelations was bad, but this just takes the cake. Here are my main gripes with the game:

- The controls suck.
Which is funny as shit because in the game, you get an email from Rebecca that says "I made the controls better so you won't accidentally run into things and objects". Except I've been doing that the whole game. I'll try to jump straight off of an object, and Conner will jump the opposite direction and tackle a person.

Also, this is a small personal preference, but there's only two speeds in the game, walk, and run. In AC2 and others, there was a 'jog' option, which would let you go fast, but still slow enough to enjoy the scenery, not in this game.


- The story is basically not about Templars or Assassin's at all.
It's more about the American Revolution with just an Assassin in it. There's hardly any talk of Templars after the first sequence or so. Which, in my mind, makes for a bad Assassin Creed game.



- Some of the tutorials are god awful and not helpful at all.
Like for example the mini games in the game. No idea how to play them and the game only gives you a stripped down version of how to play. I'm at a point in the game where the game says to chase my enemy. That's it. It has a red target over his head, so I assume that I'm supposed to kill him, after all, that's what the game tells you, red means kill. Nope, not this guy.



- What the hell is the point of hunting?
Seriously, there's no need for it at all in the game. It doesn't add anything, and you don't get punished or get stopped at a point in the game because you haven't hunted.



- Remember in AC2 (which stands as the best Assassin's Creed game) when you get a mission like a courier mission, or assassination contract, your map would show you where to go?
Yeah, well that's scrapped in this game. Basically, from what I've been noticing, when you get these missions, you don't get told where to go, and the only time you find the target is just by pure coincidence. You're in the area because of another mission? Okay, then the map will tell you.



- Viewpoints are useless. When I play AC games, I like to do all of the viewpoints at once and uncover all of the map. Well in here, Viewpoints are useless and only uncover the tiniest portions of the map which leaves a crap ton of exploring left to do. It also doesn't help that the map, is waaaay too dark to navigate. It's too blue.



- Why the fuck did the last 3 Assassin Creed games have "Optional Objectives" ?
Okay, in AC:B and AC:R it wasn't as bad. But in this game, the optional objectives really do feel almost mandatory, and if you don't do them, the game really does a good job of making you feel like a total failure by having the failed objective in red on screen at all times. Not to mention, some of the optional objectives are damn near impossible to get and will require a lot, I mean A LOT of "Restart from checkpoint" to the point where it's really infuriating.



- Shopping for new weapons or clothes? Pointless.
It really is. It adds nothing to the game. Ya they might be a bit stronger, but it's really not worth it at all. You should just save the money for upgrading your ship that you get in the game, which as sad as it is, is the best part of the game. Seriously, the ship missions should just be it's own game, it is easily the best and most entertaining aspects of the game. The only downside is they're too short.



- The exploring missions where it's just you and the level to get to a chest or something are really short.
To me, I really liked these parts in the AC games. They were amazing platforming games. But in here, they're too damn short to really enjoy. Even the GameStop/EB Games exclusive Mayan mission is way too short. It was maybe 5 minutes long, that's it.



- What's the point of the horse?
Seriously, this thing will have you stopped more times than you put the controller down. It is simply useless. It can't go anywhere really and it can't even go down the tiniest of rocks or anywhere near trees.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

I don't know if any of the other AC titles have this problem (I've only played a bit of the first on 360 and the second on PS3, and that was a while ago), but I watched my friend play the PS3 version of AC3 yesterday for a couple hours, and I swear, the frame rate is just godawful, more so than any other game I've seen. unless you have zero NPCs and not much going on the screen, you're lucky to get anywhere near of a decent frame rate. And I don't mean "nitpicky, it dropped one frame in a minute during a cutscene, I'm gonna whine now." I mean legitimately terrible frame rate. Seriously, the frame rate felt worse than the original version of Zelda: OoT about half the time (which had roughly 15 FPS, for anyone wondering).


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 4, 2012)

Yikes, if this game is that bad, I think I'll preorder Arkham City instead.


----------



## nasune (Nov 4, 2012)

This will contain SPOILERS (can't get the tags to work)

Well, I can't say that I don't agree with you. I was pretty excited for this game too, hell I even preordered the Join or Die edition (cost me 75 euro's too), and, after finishing it, I thought it was pretty bad. -Storywise it was for the most part about a brat who wanted revenge on his mothers killers and in the end did not even complete that (Washington lived). And don't get me started on the ending, that was just a plot twist for the sake of a plot twist.
-The main character was IMO an annoying brat with his killing is bad attitude, he's an assassin for god's sake (if he hated seeing so many dead he should've found another job).
-The controls were so bad in this one, I don't know how often I suddenly began to run up a wall, jump in a random direction, started to walk instead of running (this was mostly after cutscenes if you held the trigger throughout the cutscene), or hide without meaning to.
-The goddamn bugs in this game pissed me off too, I saw pieces of the scenery flying in mid air,the horse stopping in the middle of a path and refusing to go forward (like you're standing on a cliff), the guards randomly attacking for no reason at all (yes, even when you are incognito and walking on the ground), hell in one mission I actually had to reset my xbox because there was a wall where there shouldn't be one, and, while harmless, the clipping in this game annoyed me.

And something I didn't get was the lack/alteration of some of the features of the previous games. I mean where's the hookblade (they obviously knew about Ezio), what's the use for the money in this game (I only used it to bribe some people I could do the rest without updating anything), why the regen (it makes everything so easy, if you're hurt just hide for a minute and you're good as new).

All in all I was really dissapointed by the game, I expected so much more.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 4, 2012)

Yep, that's it, I'm changing the preorder for the Wii U game.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

I was looking forward to eventually getting this game, but considering what I've heard... yeah, I think I'm going to put the $60 elsewhere.

Maybe I'll pick it up when it's cheaper and the bugs are fixed, but I'll have to see about that.


----------



## Hadrian (Nov 4, 2012)

Anyone liking the game who aren't into the Assassins Creed games? I've tried them all and none of them really entertained me that much but I do like the theme with this one.



the_randomizer said:


> Yep, that's it, I'm changing the preorder for the Wii U game.


I've read a lot about how the Wii U version of Akrham City is extremely sub-standard and visually there are a lot of glitches with that version. This was a few months back though so maybe things have been fixed, but personally I'd hold off on that game and wait for it to come down in prize. I don't see it selling as well so it'll be reduced in price soon.


----------



## kylster (Nov 4, 2012)

what is AC3 if it's not the audio format? Advent Children?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 4, 2012)

Hadrian said:


> Anyone liking the game who aren't into the Assassins Creed games? I've tried them all and none of them really entertained me that much but I do like the theme with this one.
> 
> 
> I've read a lot about how the Wii U version of Akrham City is extremely sub-standard and visually there are a lot of glitches with that version. This was a few months back though so maybe things have been fixed, but personally I'd hold off on that game and wait for it to come down in prize. I don't see it selling as well so it'll be reduced in price soon.


 
Then what Wii U game would you suggest, if AC3 is going to suck balls? Arkham City doesn't look bad from the video anyway.  And no, it will be a very cold day in Hell before I get Nintendoland.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Then what Wii U game would you suggest, if AC3 is going to suck balls? Arkham City doesn't look bad from the video anyway. And no, it will be a very cold day in Hell before I get Nintendoland.


 
(I'm not Hadrian, but whatever)

Of the launch library, Rayman and ZombiU seem to be pretty good bets.


----------



## emigre (Nov 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> (I'm not Hadrian, but whatever)
> 
> Of the launch library, Rayman and ZombiU seem to be pretty good bets.


 
Rayman is meant to be the stuff of legends. Also its been delayed till 2013.


----------



## Hadrian (Nov 4, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Then what Wii U game would you suggest, if AC3 is going to suck balls? Arkham City doesn't look bad from the video anyway. And no, it will be a very cold day in Hell before I get Nintendoland.


Personally I'm going for ZombieU,  NSMBU (I guess if you've seen the many gameplay videos and it does nothing for you plus you're tired of that series it's a miss) and Nintendoland because the games I've seen look pretty fucking good and word is that this title is going to surprise a lot of people.

There's CoD:BO2...I'm not buying that one, though it looks a lot better than the last load of entries but I'll pirate it for PC to see what it's like.

I actually kinda want the new Skylanders, lots of people saying it's a really good 3D platformer but I dunno, maybe I'll try the first game IF it ever goes on sale.



Gahars said:


> (I'm not Hadrian, but whatever)
> 
> Of the launch library, Rayman and ZombiU seem to be pretty good bets.


Rayman Legends isn't out until next year now, think Feb at the earliest now.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

emigre said:


> Rayman is meant to be the stuff of legends. Also its been delayed till 2013.


 
Ah. Well, there's always the option of not getting the system at launch, instead waiting until the library expands and the library expands... but pfft.


----------



## Lurker2 (Nov 4, 2012)

You can get Darksiders 2, if Batman and Assassin's Creed aren't to your liking. Anyone else think that ZombiU might not be a great exclusive?


----------



## Hadrian (Nov 4, 2012)

Lurker2 said:


> Anyone else think that ZombiU might not be a great exclusive?


Well it is Ubisoft and they have a habit of making a first entry in a potential series to be a bit of a let down only to do something brilliant with it afterwards.

My only two worries are length and if it will get repetitive after a while. No doubt if it sells well then the sequel will be pretty damn good.  I'm not going to pre-order it (I'm not even getting a Wii U until Jan anyway) but then I hardly ever pre-order unless there is no doubt in my mind that it'll be great.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 4, 2012)

WOW

This is certainly disappointing. Guess I'll just pre-order the Mass Effect Trilogy like I had originally intended.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 4, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> I don't know if any of the other AC titles have this problem (I've only played a bit of the first on 360 and the second on PS3, and that was a while ago), but I watched my friend play the PS3 version of AC3 yesterday for a couple hours, and I swear, the frame rate is just godawful, more so than any other game I've seen. unless you have zero NPCs and not much going on the screen, you're lucky to get anywhere near of a decent frame rate. And I don't mean "nitpicky, it dropped one frame in a minute during a cutscene, I'm gonna whine now." I mean legitimately terrible frame rate. Seriously, the frame rate felt worse than the original version of Zelda: OoT about half the time (which had roughly 15 FPS, for anyone wondering).


 
The framerate has always been bad in the AC games, but you learned to deal with it. But in here, even the cutscenes suffer from it. Speaking of the cutscenes, no matter what costume you have on, in cutscenes Conner will always have the default outfit on. Which is weird considering in the other ones, what you were wearing were on you no matter what. Not a big deal, but I thought that was a bit of a letdown.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 4, 2012)

I'm waiting for the PC version. I've watched a couple of videos and goddamn, the framerate is horrible. But no worries, I'll be playing the 1680x1050, 4x MSAA, stable framerate version on the PC.

Impressions have been largely negative comparing it to the first AC game rather than the vastly superior second making me a little skeptical.


----------



## EyeZ (Nov 4, 2012)

I was so close to pre-ordering this, after reading this thread i'm glad i held off.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 4, 2012)

eyes said:


> I was so close to pre-ordering this, after reading this thread i'm glad i held off.


 
It's still a somewhat enjoyable game if you can look past it's faults. But it's just a shitty Assassin's Creed game.


----------



## emigre (Nov 4, 2012)

I see ShadowSoldier is playing ACIII right now.




/Stalkers gonna stalk


----------



## EyeZ (Nov 4, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> It's still a somewhat enjoyable game if you can look past it's faults. But it's just a shitty Assassin's Creed game.


 
I've read enough in this thread to say i'll give it a miss.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 4, 2012)

I'll probably try it around Christmas although nothing this year is really a priority for me. Surprisingly the rest of the year doesn't have many "must-haves" for me. Maybe I'll get it when it's around $30 early next year (like I did for Revelations).


----------



## Hadrian (Nov 4, 2012)

Some user quotes from Metacritic, these are the more coherent and less "OMG!!1!!!! DIS GAME IS BETTER DEN COD!!!" or "OMG!!!11!! THIS SUCKS WORSE THAN MARIO GALAXY". Users combined score is 7.5, critics score is 8.5.


Positive:



> I rarely write any reviews on any games simplky because I find it to be a waste of time; taking into account that the many opinions that will be generated. That being said, I must write this review on Assassins Creed III simply because it is one of the best games I have ever played in my life.....period!


 


> Assassins Creed III may be both a technical feat, and an astonishing game with high polish but it still doesn't innovate and falls lackluster with it's core flow and gameplay mechanics. This game is another AAA game that pushes the boundary both technically, but yet still falls short of another lackluster rehash of what seems a forever drawn out game that doesn't do anything new.


 


> This game has an slow start but overall was extremely entertaining! The combat is fast and fun although at times a little easy. Free running is also fast with much more realistic movements. In my opinion Connor is a much more relate-able character than Ezio


 


> The best Assassin's Creed in the series. This game delivers from the beginning, you have some tweaked mechanics that work really well as you fluently glide through all that oppose you. The story is captivating and engrossing, you get sucked into a world of characters that matter, with a writer that knows what he's doing.


 


> My favorite Assassin's Creed by FAR, with the most developed protagonist yet. Connor is more elegant and brutal than his forebears, and the sheer scope of it's story, wilderness, towns and gameplay offer the most immersive AC yet. Naval battles, and Red Dead Redemption style hunt and trade system are welcome additions.


 
Negative:



> Controlling your character feels like controlling a drunk bicycle


 


> It's worse than every other Assassin's Creed except Revelations. The game starts off with a 5-7 hour tutorial. It will range from mildly interesting to mind-numbingly boring.


 


> I WANT to love this game because I enjoyed prior AC titles AND I'm a huge U.S. history geek. Thankfully, I can say it's not the era of the game that disappoints me as they've done a good job of making it feel as though you're in the colonies and 18th century cities. My disappointment stems, almost entirely, from gameplay changes.


 


> It has so many bugs, online servers offline a lot. forgettable boring characters and the story means nothing to me as an international player. The game keeps talking about people like i should know who they are... game tries and fails to rip off Red Dead Redemption.


 


> I've been a huge fan of the game and series... until now. The new combat mechnics just dont play or feel right. characters wanting to run up a ladder or wall when your trying to get to a hidespot. where was the stealth game-play?


 


> It's just walking to cutscene to cutscene. EVEN MORE THAN MAX PAYNE 3


 
I guess for someone like me who never got on with the series, this won't be the game to change my mind. The negative aspects from above do actually appear in the positive reviews too and for me I really don't want to play something that has too many bugs, cutscenes and poor combat.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> The framerate has always been bad in the AC games, but you learned to deal with it. But in here, even the cutscenes suffer from it. Speaking of the cutscenes, no matter what costume you have on, in cutscenes Conner will always have the default outfit on. Which is weird considering in the other ones, what you were wearing were on you no matter what. Not a big deal, but I thought that was a bit of a letdown.


 


soulx said:


> I'm waiting for the PC version. I've watched a couple of videos and goddamn, the framerate is horrible. But no worries, I'll be playing the 1680x1050, 4x MSAA, stable framerate version on the PC.
> 
> Impressions have been largely negative comparing it to the first AC game rather than the vastly superior second making me a little skeptical.


I'm intending to play through the previous AC games on 360 and then maybe grabbing this one on the Wii U, if I like them enough. Hopefully the presumably stronger hardware power of the Wii U makes for a better frame rate.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 4, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> I'm intending to play through the previous AC games on 360 and then maybe grabbing this one on the Wii U, if I like them enough. Hopefully the presumably stronger hardware power of the Wii U makes for a better frame rate.


 
If it does, then I'm going to grab it on that console as well. And I'll be honest, I can't see it faring much better on the PC. The other AC games haven't, they just basically have faster load times, that's it.


----------



## Vinnymac (Nov 4, 2012)

I have played every Assassins Creed, and I have enjoyed AC3 a lot. I do feel they have shifted the game from the original formula. In my opinion Brotherhood was the best AC in the series. This game is good, but the mechanics seem a tad bit simplified. I love the story and the way events flow throughout. I am almost at the end of the game, and I think one of the largest problems is consistency. I don't mind this at all, but I know some do. They use tutorials pretty much throughout the entire game. As if you will actually use that knowledge at some point. But due to the fact that you are always being taught, there is never a moment where you feel you have mastered any one thing. It is just another mechanic added in. Like Hunting for example, it is just something cool you can do. I think they tried to simplify too much, but in the end it isn't a bad game, just not as good of a game as I wanted. If AC3 came out, as an original title, it would be incredible, but by this point they should have been able to come out with better mechanics.

Personally, I feel ACII and AC:B both had better gameplay mechanics than ACIII.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> If it does, then I'm going to grab it on that console as well. And I'll be honest, I can't see it faring much better on the PC. The other AC games haven't, they just basically have faster load times, that's it.


Why on earth would they not take advantage of the more variable powers of PC to add options for better frame rate (on capable machines, of course)?


----------



## Lurker2 (Nov 4, 2012)

Hadrian said:


> Well it is Ubisoft and they have a habit of making a first entry in a potential series to be a bit of a let down only to do something brilliant with it afterwards.
> 
> My only two worries are length and if it will get repetitive after a while. No doubt if it sells well then the sequel will be pretty damn good. I'm not going to pre-order it (I'm not even getting a Wii U until Jan anyway) but then I hardly ever pre-order unless there is no doubt in my mind that it'll be great.


Well the problem with to me with Ubisoft's new games on new consoles is that they sometimes add useless gimmicks in their games. Look at Assassin's Creed Liberation, some of their early DS games and Blazing Angels. Of course in the Blazing Angels games using the sixaxis controls were optional but they were crappy.
Honestly besides the fact it might be a bad game I'm worried the use of the tablet features may make the game worse.


----------



## emigre (Nov 4, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Why on earth would they not take advantage of the more variable powers of PC to add options for better frame rate (on capable machines, of course)?


 
Because they're Ubisoft innit.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

Lurker2 said:


> Well the problem with to me with Ubisoft's new games on new consoles is that they sometimes add useless gimmicks in their games. Look at Assassin's Creed Liberation, some of their early DS games and Blazing Angels. Of course in the Blazing Angels games using the sixaxis controls were optional but they were crappy.
> Honestly besides the fact it might be a bad game I'm worried the use of the tablet features may make the game worse.


 
There was actually a recent preview video where a guy had just that problem.

A lot of the features (Perma-zombification and all that) sound really intriguing, and actually boosted my interest in the game, but the tablet features seem kind of tacked on. I'm still skeptical about the Wii U's tablet controller, honestly; while I'm sure a few games here and there will find a good use for it, I'm afraid it might become something of an immersion breaking gimmick everywhere else.

This is also my problem with motion controls a lot of the time. It's a constant reminder that you are playing a game rather than letting you get absorbed in the experience.


----------



## Hadrian (Nov 4, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Why on earth would they not take advantage of the more variable powers of PC to add options for better frame rate (on capable machines, of course)?


See previous console to PC ports by Ubisoft.  Ubisoft reckon that most people pirate their games on PC hence why they don't put much effort in those versions, they just rather throw out a cheap port. Even though they tend to be released sometime after the console versions they always tend to be the worse version.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 4, 2012)

Lol I'm actually running into a weird glitch in the game right now.

Everybody knows what pop-ins are. It's where something in the environment just randomly pops in. Kind of like fading in, but it just pops up. Well I'm riding my horse in the town, and the people in the town are popping out, as in they're just disappearing as I come close to them lol.

Also on the discussion of Ubisoft being lazy:


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 4, 2012)

emigre said:


> Because they're Ubisoft innit.


That doesn't even make sense. Assuming a PC is capable enough, it should be able to run at a better framerate. Unless it's a locked framerate but who the fuck does that anymore?

And the previous Assassin's Creed games were pretty damn good ports. Only issue was the use of uPlay.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 5, 2012)

soulx said:


> That doesn't even make sense. Assuming a PC is capable enough, it should be able to run at a better framerate. Unless it's a locked framerate but who the fuck does that anymore?
> 
> And the previous Assassin's Creed games were pretty damn good ports. Only issue was the use of uPlay.


 
Revelations was no better on the PC. It still has horrible framerate. Also, uPlay is awesome, I'm sorry but it is. I love unlocking extra stuff, like extra pouches, multiplayer skins, themes/wallpapers. I think it's sweet. Hell, I wanna get Ezio's outfit for AC3.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 5, 2012)

I liked Arkham Asylum so I'll like Arkham City most likely. And from the videos and screenshots I've seen, it doesn't look like THAT bad of a port.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 5, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Revelations was no better on the PC. It still has horrible framerate. Also, uPlay is awesome, I'm sorry but it is. I love unlocking extra stuff, like extra pouches, multiplayer skins, themes/wallpapers. I think it's sweet. Hell, I wanna get Ezio's outfit for AC3.


Framerate problems are the fault of your PC, not the game.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 5, 2012)

soulx said:


> Framerate problems are the fault of your PC, not the game.


 
Except if my PC is able to run games like Arkham City and Borderlands 2 on max with no hiccups which have higher spec requirements than AC:R, then it's the game, and not my PC.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 5, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Also, uPlay is awesome, I'm sorry but it is. I love unlocking extra stuff, like extra pouches, multiplayer skins, themes/wallpapers. I think it's sweet. Hell, I wanna get Ezio's outfit for AC3.


 
uPlay is uSeless to those who reinstall previously purchased games only to find out you can't get a new serial key. Lucky for me I cracked the game since I own it.  But one thing's for sure, I'll change my preorder to another game.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 5, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> uPlay is uSeless to those who reinstall previously purchased games only to find out you can't get a new serial key. Lucky for me I cracked the game since I own it. But one thing's for sure, I'll change my preorder to another game.


o_0

I have no idea what you are about. If you already have a uPlay account, just use it.

I've been using the same one since Assassin's Creed 2. Unless of course you mean for online stuff, then it's no different then games that have online passes.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 5, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> o_0
> 
> I have no idea what you are about. If you already have a uPlay account, just use it.
> 
> I've been using the same one since Assassin's Creed 2. Unless of course you mean for online stuff, then it's no different then games that have online passes.


 
I bought Splinter Cell Conviction in late 2010, and I had to reinstall it after formatting my HDD.  Once I did that, I couldn't use my serial key, so I downloaded the update for the game after it installed (before it asks for the code), and uPlay got installed.  Ubisoft had no way of giving me a new serial key, so, I cracked the uPlay and internet-based DRM so I could play the game I legally obtained in the first place.  I had every right to bypass the draconian DRM.  Here's hoping Wii U doesn't have crappy DRM that requires an internet connection.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 5, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> I bought Splinter Cell Conviction in late 2010, and I had to reinstall it after formatting my HDD. Once I did that, I couldn't use my serial key, so I downloaded the update for the game after it installed (before it asks for the code), and uPlay got installed. Ubisoft had no way of giving me a new serial key, so, I cracked the uPlay and internet-based DRM so I could play the game I legally obtained in the first place. I had every right to bypass the draconian DRM. Here's hoping Wii U doesn't have crappy DRM that requires an internet connection.


 
Why would the WiiU have it when the Xbox or PS3 doesn't? lol.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Nov 5, 2012)

Got mine in a PS3 super slim bundle. Played for a solid 5 hours. Just wasn't feeling it, so I tossed it on ebay. No love lost, Ubi. I'll be waiting for Watch Dogs.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 5, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> Got mine in a PS3 super slim bundle. Played for a solid 5 hours. Just wasn't feeling it, so I tossed it on ebay. No love lost, Ubi. I'll be waiting for Watch Dogs.


 
In all honesty, that's what I felt at first too. But I trucked through it and the game does get better. But you have to experience it after and make up your own mind about it.

I will say one thing, the characters are really memorable and lovable in this game. Except for Conner. Worst acting job ever.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 5, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Why would the WiiU have it when the Xbox or PS3 doesn't? lol.


 
Because it's Ubisoft. Need I say more? Anyway, I'll stick with Batman; judging from what I've seen, it clearly isn't a botched port. Skyrim on the PS3 however...


----------



## Hadrian (Nov 5, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Except if my PC is able to run games like Arkham City and Borderlands 2 on max with no hiccups which have higher spec requirements than AC:R, then it's the game, and not my PC.


Yup, you can have the hottest PC that can run any game on highest settings without breaking a sweat but if developer hasn't put in the right effort or coding then you can't expect the game to have problems. All that is needed is a patch to fix these issues, not upgrading a system.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 5, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Because it's Ubisoft. Need I say more? Anyway, I'll stick with Batman; judging from what I've seen, it clearly isn't a botched port. Skyrim on the PS3 however...


 
The only problem with Skyrim on the PS3 right now is the DLC isn't coming to it. But other then that, fantastic game and I haven't had a single issue with it at all.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 5, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Because it's Ubisoft. Need I say more?


I think you're being overly negative. No, Ubisoft is NOT going to force online DRM on a console that I'm sure wouldn't allow it even thoguh they haven't done it on other consoles "just because it's Ubisoft."

Tl;dr try again.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 5, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> I think you're being overly negative. No, Ubisoft is NOT going to force online DRM on a console that I'm sure wouldn't allow it even thoguh they haven't done it on other consoles "just because it's Ubisoft."
> 
> Tl;dr try again.


 
I was pointing out that they've been known for doing stupid things, I know they wouldn't do something like that, especially if they really wanted to help Nintendo.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 6, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> I was pointing out that they've been known for doing stupid things, I know they wouldn't do something like that, especially if they really wanted to help Nintendo.


That isn't what your posts made it sound like, since you were arguing that it would happen despite there being no reason. But whatever, I'll drop it.


----------



## Lurker2 (Nov 6, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> I was pointing out that they've been known for doing stupid things, I know they wouldn't do something like that, especially if they really wanted to help Nintendo.


Capcom did it on the PS3 for Bionic Commando 2 and stopped. Always on DRM is not going to be widely used on consoles anytime soon except on the rare game that is pretty much based on online play. Hybrid being a example.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 6, 2012)

I just beat the game, and I have to say, the ending is fucking horrible. Like... okay I'm going to keep this short:

Basically everything that happened in the last games story wise and how important was, yeah, thrown out the window. This game kind of made it's own story and was a huge let down. Nearing the end of the game, I felt no importance or anything like I did with the other games. There was nothing there. No emotion, no involvement, nothing. In fact, I'd say that this game, actually ruins the Assassin's Creed series.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 6, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I just beat the game, and I have to say, the ending is fucking horrible. Like... okay I'm going to keep this short:
> 
> Basically everything that happened in the last games story wise and how important was, yeah, thrown out the window. This game kind of made it's own story and was a huge let down. Nearing the end of the game, I felt no importance or anything like I did with the other games. There was nothing there. No emotion, no involvement, nothing. In fact, I'd say that this game, actually ruins the Assassin's Creed series.





Spoiler: possible spoiler question



Someone gave me a brief overview and said the ending is a lot like Mass Effect 3's. Is that true at all?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 6, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Spoiler: possible spoiler question
> 
> 
> 
> Someone gave me a brief overview and said the ending is a lot like Mass Effect 3's. Is that true at all?


 
No because Mass Effect gave you choices to make through out the game even at the end. And even then, the ending wasn't that bad. AC3 just rushes it and you feel really empty completing the game.

Throughout the series, it all had to deal with Dec. 21, 2012, but yet in this game, when you're playing it, that takes a backseat. It's a real let down. The ending was completely rushed and was pathetic. Ever since AC2, the series has been going down hill, and this is the lowest. Ever since Beardo (Patrice) left Ubisoft, the AC games have not been the same. It's like a different team is trying to tell their own story.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 6, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> No because Mass Effect gave you choices to make through out the game even at the end. And even then, the ending wasn't that bad. AC3 just rushes it and you feel really empty completing the game.
> 
> Throughout the series, it all had to deal with Dec. 21, 2012, but yet in this game, when you're playing it, that takes a backseat. It's a real let down. The ending was completely rushed and was pathetic. Ever since AC2, the series has been going down hill, and this is the lowest. Ever since Beardo (Patrice) left Ubisoft, the AC games have not been the same. It's like a different team is trying to tell their own story.


That's a real shame.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 6, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> That's a real shame.


 
You're telling me. I mean, okay this is some pretty heavy spoilers below, but seeing as how a lot of people in this thread won't be playing it...



Spoiler



At the end, Desmond dies. I was under the assumption with all of this hype and talk, that Assassin's Creed 3 will be the final installment because the whole series was based on Dec. 21, 2012. And in the third game, it happens. Desmond dies and basically sets free this First Civilization person, Juno, who wants revenge on humanity, in order to save the Earth on the 21st from a Solar Flare. It was either that, or let the Earth be scorched, killing billions of people, and only Desmond and a few live and life basically restarts from the Bible ages.

But Desmond decides no, lets out Juno, he dies, she starts to walk the earth in order to basically get revenge on humanity.

There were so many unanswered questions and it was a poor ending. Now instead of going off of like real world events like 2012, they're basically making their own story out of it now. Which sucks. And the ending of the game contradicts what happens in Brotherhood. In Brotherhood one of the First Civ people, Minerva, takes control of Desmond, and kills Lucy because she's a Templar. But in AC3, Desmond says that he wanted to kill her. So really, everything that was set up from AC1 to Revelations was thrown out the window with no real ending, and instead have this like somewhat new ending pushed down our throats. Which basically means, yeah, there's going to be an Assassin's Creed 4 and the Templars and Assassin's might team up to destroy Juno, which means that the Assassin's and Templars were sort of after the same thing.

Which is more confusing because in AC3 when you're playing as Conner, your dad is a Templar and he even says they want the same thing. But in previous AC games, The Templars (Abstergo) wanted to put a satellite into space to control people. So the writers actually changed the entire fucking story all together.


 
I hope that clears up some stuff and gets you guys caught up and can see why someone like me who actually loved the story of AC, am now really pissed off.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 6, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> You're telling me. I mean, okay this is some pretty heavy spoilers below, but seeing as how a lot of people in this thread won't be playing it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for explaining. And... wow. That really really IS disappointing.


----------



## chartube12 (Nov 7, 2012)

I had a feeling he was going to die since they introduced his father. But I also have a feeling he may never have left the Animus. Like the whole AC3 modern story part is a test and is made to show him what would happen if he made the wrong choices. BTW. I have not beat'n the game yet. And only have played threw AC1 and Brotherhood.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 7, 2012)

chartube12 said:


> I had a feeling he was going to die since they introduced his father. But I also have a feeling he may never have left the Animus. Like the whole AC3 modern story part is a test and is made to show him what would happen if he made the wrong choices. BTW. I have not beat'n the game yet. And only have played threw AC1 and Brotherhood.


Well since Ubisoft announced this one would be last game with Desmond, I doubt it.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 8, 2012)

chartube12 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I had a feeling he was going to die since they introduced his father. But I also have a feeling he may never have left the Animus. Like the whole AC3 modern story part is a test and is made to show him what would happen if he made the wrong choices. BTW. I have not beat'n the game yet. And only have played threw AC1 and Brotherhood.


 
Dude come on, spoil that up. Also as for your theory:



Spoiler



At the end of AC3 after the credits, there are some more missions to do with Conner. One of which involves finding "Pivots" in Boston and a mysterious voice saying after finding all the pivots (Which by the way are just hacks for the game like invinvibility) "Holy crap, we did it, it's done. His data's uploading to the cloud!"

Which could mean that Desmond is inside the Animus, well some form of him, after all, he was in it before in Revelations along with Subject 16.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 8, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Dude come on, spoil that up.


I was gonna say!
Also as for your theory:


ShadowSoldier said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



In the next game: A million years in the future, a descendant of Desmond from a child he didn't know he had relives Desmond's memories, and when Desmond lives Ezio's memories who lives Altair's memories, it's a memory inside a memory inside a memory.

Inception! BRMMMMMMMM!!!!!


----------



## SubliminalSegue (Nov 16, 2012)

I'll be honest. I was really excited for it. I was hoping it was going to change up the franchise pretty well, but after playing it for a while, I felt like I was shoved back into this hovel of useless fetch quests and poorly executed AI. Mix that in with credits that go on for like 20 minutes and the fact I honestly skipped all the cutscenes, I was really disappointed in AC3. Connor had a Shenmue thing going on, where it was all about revenge and it just got really drab after a few hours.

Shame, too. It was promising.


----------



## Creqaw (Nov 28, 2012)

I was slightly underwhelmed at the end, expected something big I guess. Cba to do the pivot thing at the end, will wiki to see what it does.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 28, 2012)

Creqaw said:


> I was slightly underwhelmed at the end, expected something big I guess. Cba to do the pivot thing at the end, will wiki to see what it does.


 


Spoiler



It unlocks animus hacks so you can activate cheats in the game. Then after you find it all, some weird voice says that the data is being uploaded to the cloud. So perhaps Desmond isn't dead, a part of him is inside the animus cloud or something. It's weird too because it says your name (for example mine): "hommmer589 is synced". But it's pretty useless. Also the Pivots are a little bit hard to find.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Nov 28, 2012)

its not as bad as the OP describes it
the only annoying part for me is slow down in some areas. my desktop has a Nvidia 450Gx Card (1GB GDDR5) while my laptop has an AMD Radeon 4670 Card (1GB GDDR3) but it runs better  on the laptop. thats bcz my laptop's processor is a better dual core than my desktop.
it seems cpu threading (multi-core usage or threading) has not been optimized.
graphics and gameplay i love. haytham boring in the beginning but u learn to like him and if he continued on with assassin's clothes, i think he could have been my favorite but now he is just too dull and.....u will know

the game was meant to be difficult (optional objectives).
AC2 still my favorite game of all time on the PC.


----------



## Creqaw (Nov 28, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> It unlocks animus hacks so you can activate cheats in the game. Then after you find it all, some weird voice says that the data is being uploaded to the cloud. So perhaps Desmond isn't dead, a part of him is inside the animus cloud or something. It's weird too because it says your name (for example mine): "hommmer589 is synced". But it's pretty useless. Also the Pivots are a little bit hard to find.


It screams Assassin's Creed IV, though, I thought it was supposed to be a trilogy.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 28, 2012)

Creqaw said:


> It screams Assassin's Creed IV, though, I thought it was supposed to be a trilogy.


 
Yeah, so did I. But nope, apparently have way through the series, I missed a quote where Ubisoft said "it's the end of the Desmond saga". Which is one of the reasons why I'm disappointed by it.


----------



## Creqaw (Nov 29, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Yeah, so did I. But nope, apparently have way through the series, I missed a quote where Ubisoft said "it's the end of the Desmond saga". Which is one of the reasons why I'm disappointed by it.


Oh, so just Desmond was supposed to be a trilogy, so what now? Animus in an Animus by Desmond's descendant that was trying to figure out why the hell the world is what it is?


----------



## R2DJ (Nov 29, 2012)

Loved the AC franchise since the beginning. But AC3 didn't give me that good feeling that I had when I bought, owned, played and finished AC2. It's a fresh new game but it didn't have that spark. I know there's a patch released now, but when I got the game, some missions were too annoying, controls kinda sucked, the occasional glitches (getting up a tree viewpoint and not knowing where the haystack is so you're forced to jump off to death, character collides with blank space for some reason, horse stops moving) but I didn't mind and I kinda liked the twists. The ending was confusing and a bit of a letdown for me. 

I am also a big fan of the multiplayer and I'd say it's much more improved than Revelations', but Brotherhood for me had the best MP. A lot of my friends loved playing the MP in Brotherhood. They were skeptical about Revelations and that game had a long and winding road of problems and complaints when it comes to MP. AC3 is a massive improvement: love Wolfpack mode, fresh multiplayer components, a lot smoother, and it's just general fun. 

I'm gonna close this post off with this.


----------

