Your thoughts on AC3?

[EyeZ]

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

 

[ShadowSoldier]

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]

I see ShadowSoldier is playing ACIII right now.




/Stalkers gonna stalk

 

[EyeZ]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JulietStMoon]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[JulietStMoon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.