Did you like Assassins Creed 3?

[size=12][/h]I recently played Assassins Creed 3 (LATE!) and I thought it was horrible! The story wasn't compelling and there were all kinds of graphical flaws. And I just wanted to know if I was the only one to think this was the worst of the series?

I still haven't played Revelations yet. They need to slow the fuck down.

Wrong section for serious answers.

Nope.

I havent played it yet, Still need to play Revelations.

Never played any of them.

Gave up after Assassin's Creed 2.

I love that gif so much.

hmm... there is this add running on bottom of this site where female gets some anal, and she got this eyes poping out thing goin on, that was my expression when i saw AC3 ending on youtube, needless to say wont spend money on that one.

Heard it sucked, so skipped it. 4 looks promising though.

Haven't played the third one. I've yet to complete the the first one. Got it with my PS3, played an hour or so of it, sold it.

Skipped three since it lots of people are complaining. Although the fanboy in me is screaming to buy it when it goes on steam salte

Played it, enjoyed it, saw all that lost potential since the overworld was so fucking massive and they never took advantage of it. Could have been so much more but it was enjoyable in its own right.

I never heard about all these complaints. I like part 3. Its just as good as the other games but it has even more stuff to do. Those people that complained that is bad probably expected absolute perfection and there was something that didn't work they way they wanted. This is reminds me of Mass Effect 3 everybody got there panties in a bunch complaining out the ass about the game. Just because shit didn't go the way you want doesn't mean the game sucks

I have it, but haven't played it yet. I don't have the first two, though.

I enjoyed the first bit until Conner arrived in Boston. Then it became pretty weak in terms of characters, story and gameplay. So I didnt enjoy the game overall. It was better than the previous 2 assissins creed 2.5 games because they were pretty much rehashes of II with one new gimmick. The new gimmicks here are the total change of environment, the wilderness running, the homestead questline, hunting (lol), and ship combat. I enjoyed the ship combat I must admit but the rest was nothing special. I also found Connar to be a rather poor protagonist. He reminded me of Anakin skywalker in episode 2. Yeah, not a good thing. So it made the story hard to get into. I actually really liked his dad as a character though.

Ah and then the whole assassins = patriots, templars = loyalists thing was pretty meh even though I saw it coming. Being Canadian Im not as inocculated with Americas "herioc" history so it didnt do anything for me. The first time I did one of the free roam fort conquest thingies I facepalmed when Connar raised the American flag. What made it worse was that, at the time in the story questline, he had yet to meet any patriots or become involved in their cause. Which brings me to my next point, the story itself kind of jumped around at parts without explaining the full reasons behind alot character meetings and quests. Anyway, I can see why people like it but it wasnt for me.

It's hard to explain how I felt about Assassin's Creed 3 besides to say:

The Story/Characters were ok but the ending is ass.
Gameplay was solid but repetitive.
But when I play through I felt something in the game was missing and I don't what was missing from the game.

I agree with solanin for the most part, especially with the patriots/tories part. My favourite aspect of one is that the Assassins were separate from government on both sides, and the Templars infested small (but influenced) parts of either.

Other than that, my big bitch was the new controls. I mean, it made more sense with Connor's fighting style, when compared to Ezio's, but it was really disorienting. I think it amounts to a lack of detail too, when Desmond controls like Connor and not Ezio.

I did really like Connor growing as the game progressed. Yes, he did maintain some level of ignorance throughout, but I think that's just his optimistic self. More than anything, I valued his outsider's perspective----as a Huron and a half Englishman.
It may be an old Mulatto's bias, but I identify with characters who can move throughout cultures, but can't become a full part of one or the other.


Maybe I'll go back and play it again, for a better thought out opinion. The first time, I blazed through the main storyline without touching anything else. Two days of excitement, building from a four game marathon the week before.

You think this is the worst one? Did you play revelations?

I liked the story of III, well, Conners story. Plot twists, character development, betrayal. Fair enough, Conner's character as an adult was... Shit most of the time. Sea battles were a good addition. End boss was a joke.

Desmond's story was fine till the end. The end was a joke filled with holes. Apart from Desmonds face, the graphics were fine to me.

Altiar - Angry because of his failure. Ezio - Angry bcause of his family's death. Conner - Angry because of his mothers death and his land being taken. Desmond - Angry because he was born into the brotherhood. Assassins are a very angry people.

in the others before AC3 there was stuff to do, like find the secret armor and side missions to liberate areas. And yeah you can do that in AC3 but it wasn't as rewarding as the others.