Assassins Creed III is a disappointment

[Josh123]

You guys do know you can "rent" video games right? But yes, I've played them all and never enjoyed any of them. I had high hopes for ACIII but I didn't even get to the main character or whatever before returning it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You guys do know you can "rent" video games right?

For the PC? This is a PC gaming forum...the console forum is the other way lol.

Gamefly sorta rents PC games with their unlimited PC play but have you looked at the list? They are mostly casino games, old titles and low budget titles. Nobody is renting Assassin's Creed 3 or Tomb Raider on PC.

 

[Josh123]

For the PC? This is a PC gaming forum...the console forum is the other way lol.

Gamefly sorta rents PC games with their unlimited PC play but have you looked at the list? They are mostly casino games, old titles and low budget titles. Nobody is renting Assassin's Creed 3 or Tomb Raider on PC.

Meh, they were probably all ported over from the Xbox anyway so I'm sure there isn't much difference lol.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Meh, they were probably all ported over from the Xbox anyway so I'm sure there isn't much difference lol.

Uh huh...xbox can't do tessellation, has lower resolution textures(sometimes 4x lower), doesn't run at 1080p and higher, and the PC version has some shader improvements over the console release. As a side benefit some of the glitches they patched out of the console release were fixed out of the box on the PC.

It is the same game, but looks entirely different side by side. All that said, if you didn't like it you wouldn't like it with the new graphics either.

 

[blackened23]

Meh, they were probably all ported over from the Xbox anyway so I'm sure there isn't much difference lol.

Wrong.

 

[Josh123]

Uh huh...xbox can't do tessellation, has lower resolution textures(sometimes 4x lower), doesn't run at 1080p and higher, and the PC version has some shader improvements over the console release. As a side benefit some of the glitches they patched out of the console release were fixed out of the box on the PC.

It is the same game, but looks entirely different side by side. All that said, if you didn't like it you wouldn't like it with the new graphics either.

Right. I'm not saying the graphics are the same but the gameplay is. Even with the high quality graphics I'd still dislike the game.

 

[blackened23]

Well I personally enjoyed it. But gaming tastes obviously are very subjective, and I can see why some may not. I really feel like these days, that people apply less of their attention span to games and spend 10 minutes playing without investing whatsoever to find the backstory or to discover mechanics. It's a pitfall of the call of duty generation who want instant gratification. I actually had a friend who attempted to play Bioshock 1 and 10 minutes in declared it to be a terrible game. Lack of attention span, I guess. I'm not saying that applies to anyone here, but I didn't find instant gratification in any AC game. It required some investment in the game, and once you do so - is very rewarding. On a side note, System Shock 2 is one of my favorite games of all time - I feel like a game like that, released today, would not be commercially viable. Gamers are too used to instant gratification, immediate gameplay within 2 minutes of picking it up. They're not used to applying critical thinking or imagination while playing. Unfortunate really. Anyway, I do recognize that gaming tastes are complete subjective, and what may do it for me may not for someone else.

 

[Hinda65]

I'm at sequence 7 and really diggin it...I must say my expectations were not all that high for anything new and improved aside from the scenery which doesn't disapoint, particularly @ the frontier and homestead.

I will agree the fighting is a little too dumbed down and the horses are, as always, worthless in most instances. I think the 100% sync requirements in each mission help make up for the lack of challenge and I've found myself repeating most missions to get 100% and really enjoying them.

I'm always a sucker for the sandbox side missions/distractions and I have found myself really getting into the world....I still can't beat that goddam checker game where you have to line your pieces up in a row, i did get a draw the other night...

 

[cmdrdredd]

The Assassins Creed games pride themselves on melding real world religious beliefs, real world cultural history, and fictional characters that mold some of that history. Some of the information on architecture and the like are very rewarding to me but maybe that's because I love history.

That said, the meat of this franchise isn't really felt until a bit into the game. The first few minutes are generally without much story, without much push, and seemingly have no purpose.

 

[Sleepingforest]

@Blackened23: For me, the big turn off isn't the gratification issue. It's a lack of the free running from before (I mean, trees, wilderness, and colonial buildings are charmingly rustic, but they lack the fun of Rome or Venice, for example, and they took out a lot of the free running in missions), the incredibly easy, and thus largely boring combat, and the presence of glitches which have been prevalent for 4 games now that make it less fun.

 

[blackened23]

@Blackened23: For me, the big turn off isn't the gratification issue. It's a lack of the free running from before (I mean, trees, wilderness, and colonial buildings are charmingly rustic, but they lack the fun of Rome or Venice, for example, and they took out a lot of the free running in missions), the incredibly easy, and thus largely boring combat, and the presence of glitches which have been prevalent for 4 games now that make it less fun.

Well to be fair, all of the AC games have been easy But, I can see your argument even if I don't necessarily agree on some of the other points. I mean like I said, gaming tastes are completely subjective. As an example, I don't believe i'll buy BF4 because those type of games just aren't my thing now - that genre is so old, so very very old and tired at this point. But I'm about 99% sure that it'll be a good game even if it's not to my liking.

 

[lilrayray69]

I did rent it on 360 once and absolutely hated it. The first part of the game is soo boring and tedious. I revisited it on PC like a month later and finally got past the boring stuff and had a little fun, but still didn't care for it that much

 

[Sleepingforest]

Well to be fair, all of the AC games have been easy But, I can see your argument even if I don't necessarily agree on some of the other points. I mean like I said, gaming tastes are completely subjective. As an example, I don't believe i'll buy BF4 because those type of games just aren't my thing now - that genre is so old, so very very old and tired at this point. But I'm about 99% sure that it'll be a good game even if it's not to my liking.

I understand why you say what you say. It (AC3) is certainly enjoyable, but not as much as AC2, for example. Assassin's Creed is already starting to feel a little tired and a little too "lowest common denominator:" too much fighting, which is too easy. Plus, the biggest advantages of a mouse, panning speed and precision, are removed because of dumb locks on panning speed (play AC2 and then Brotherhood to see what I mean. The sensitivity is WAY down) and weird "fixed-angle" moments all the time. It caters to console gamers, who have higher control than WASD for movement but a harder time aiming around. Then there the relative plot symplicity compared to the first game, and moral decay.

SPOILERS FOR AC2: Particularly, I feel like in AC3, Connor fails to fight for freedom of thought. In AC1 and AC2, you fought for an ideal. The maturity can be seen as Ezio does not kill Rodrigo, but leaves him alive because killing him will do nothing to bring back his family. This is a huge change from the rash teen who swore bloody vengeance on the Pazzi. There is a central pillar of morality where we see that even though Assassin's are inherently murderers, they are discriminant in who dies and fight for freedom of choice and thought.

In AC3, we see instead an angry man out for vengeance and to protect his land. It's pretty good reasoning, but Connor seems to have lost the noble, higher sentiments that guided older Assassins. His primary tool is brute force, and he lacks the finesse and political savvy of earlier protagonists. Many of his targets appear more sympathetically than Connor, especially those trying to bring peace. He also ultimately fails: the colonies still have inequality, his people moved, and he never seemed to reach a cathartic moment of understanding or balance.

Anyway, I'm feeling upset that the next one basically has nothing to do with a higher level struggle about ideology and morality. It's a pirate, for God's sake. Everyone knows that (pseudo-)ninjas and pirates don't mix.