Assassin´s Creed III - Part 2

[Llama_Shepherd]

Is it Sequence 5 when you get the robes? If so, then yes. The game does have a much more noticeably slower start, but it's worth it because Hayhtam is awesome.

[SpideyVille]

Storywise, the first 5-6 sequences are good, but the game doesn't really become the game you were expecting it to be until after Sequence 6.

[Havok83]

I thought the first 5-6 sequences were awful. Completely unneceasry for the most part. It went on way too long and should have been condenced to maybe 3-4 sequnces with more of that stuff left to cutscenes. Even DLC with a bit more gameplay there would have worked.

[SpideyVille]

I had the same feeling when I first played it. After the twist, I thought it would have been better served to be DLC, although so much of the game revolved around what had happened after that that it seemed too important to cut from the main story, although I agree it should have been condensed.

But looking back, I still wish they would have kept the meeting between Connor and his dad a secret until the end. It was cool to see them team up for a while, but I felt like he could've made a better end game bad guy than Lee did, especially given how Lee dies.

[AxlsAppetite]

I liked the Haytham sequences, it was the Kid Connor sequences that I felt were unnecessary.

But Im still here just for that single player DLC. Im not very fond of multiplayer dlc, even though it was an easy 100GS.

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by SpideyVille

I had the same feeling when I first played it. After the twist, I thought it would have been better served to be DLC, although so much of the game revolved around what had happened after that that it seemed too important to cut from the main story, although I agree it should have been condensed.

But looking back, I still wish they would have kept the meeting between Connor and his dad a secret until the end. It was cool to see them team up for a while, but I felt like he could've made a better end game bad guy than Lee did, especially given how Lee dies.

I wish Kenway was the last boss, to be honest. He was probably the best character in the whole game.

[SpideyVille]

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

I wish Kenway was the last boss, to be honest. He was probably the best character in the whole game.

Yeah, I felt like I had completely missed something when we first saw Connor confront his dad because it seemed like they were a bit too close for people who weren't really supposed to have any kind of relationship at the time, especially after what happened to his mother.

[Drz]

Kenway was the most interesting character of the 3rd game. I think that's the biggest mistake AC3 made, by having this Darth Vader character and an unstoppable force of law of a son, you're far more intriqued by how an Assassin family member became an Templar.

[Havok83]

I couldnt stand Kenway. I was glad to see the douche killed

[zenith16]

• 
  
• 
  Assassin’s Creed III – Tyranny of King Washington: The Infamy Gets A Release Date
  
  News
  on Jan 24, 2013 at 12:00 PM
  4,629 Views
  
  26
  The first episode of a three-part story line surrounding George Washington is hitting soon. Get ready to explore an alternate history of the events following the American Revolution.
  ... More
  

source: GI

[dude love]

http://acinitiates.com/ seems to be leading to some sort of announcement. It's at 73% at the moment and is projected to hit 100% on February 12th.

Might be some kind of AC4 news.

[AxlsAppetite]

So this just came from AC Initiates.

AC3 SPOILERS
http://i.imgur.com/5SaM7qB.png

Things just got really interesting.

[SpideyVille]

Hmmm, interesting indeed. Let the speculation ...... BEGIN!!!

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

It seems like Desmond is indeed dead, but what would Abstergo want with his body? His DNA?

[DACrowe]

Finally played ACIII over the last month, completing it last night. A few thoughts.

I liked Haytham Kenway. A lot. He is hands down the series' best villain (though Rodrigo Borgia/Pope Alexander VI was a great one too, though Cesare Borgia was treated too cartoonishly) and I loved that it tricked me into thinking he was a good guy for the first 1/4 of the game. I also loved the relationship between him and Connor and his death scene. I have no problems with Charles Lee being the final antagonist, because Haytham honestly does a better job selling the Templar's philosophy than any other villain in the series. He's more an anti-hero than villain. Lee is someone who you really want to see die and that final scene in the tavern is both so satisfying and so empty, because it ultimately signifies and achieves nothing...kind of like the whole Assassin's Creed/Order you realize by the end of this game.

Connor was pretty generic. He still has more personality than Altair did in AC1, but he is no Ezio. He is pretty much your generic non-shooter game protagonist with a dose of politically tip-toeing Native American background thrown in.

The story is pretty cobbled together and convoluted at times. That's the case with all of the AC games though, save for Brotherhood. Setting that one solely in Rome and being totally about Ezio vs. the Borgias made it the most focused and narratively strongest of the five games.

The gameplay got a much needed face lift. While I do think the gameplay is ultimately better in AC2, after playing it essentially twice again, it needed something new. The use of incongruous parkour through the woods and the hunting that went with it was awesome. Also, as an American, I always loved the Revolutionary iconography growing up and found the era of 1770s Boston especially fascinating. Great locale that proved better fitting for the series than I initially thought with the whole "battle for the soul of the New World" going on.

However, the side missions and scope felt much smaller. Unlike the other games, you are in the training wheel path too long. You're literally halfway through the story before you can explore. And unlike the Ezio-based games, ou cannot do all that much beyond minigames. There are no amazing side missions that play with history like the Da Vinci stuff in Brotherhood. The homestead is not nearly as interesting to restore or explore as the Villa in AC2. And other than the GREAT Naval Battles added to AC3 (best part of the game), really it is just the story and hunting to your heart's content.

And lastly there's Desmond. As per usual, his story seems highly important but kind of awkwardly shoved in. I didn't like the sudden rewrite that Lucy was bad. I preferred that Desmond had innocent blood, his love interest no less, on his hands thanks to Juno. It would have informed the ending better which is that Juno is evil. I liked how they used that to get all the way back around to its negative view on organized religion. Otherwise, this would have been the first AC game to not trash the institutions.

...Still, Desmond's ending felt abrupt and unsatisfying after 5 games of leading to this. I may play more AC, but only if the time period is new and really fascinating. AC3 felt like the culmination of the series and it is both stunning and missing that extra something. Only AC2 and Brotherhood fully amaze me.

Where it ranks:

1. Assassin's Creed II
2. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
3. Assassin's Creed III
4. Assassin's Creed
5. Assassin's Creed: Revelations (only one that I never finished)

P.S. The next non-numerical AC game will be about Connor going with Lafayette back to France and then sticking around for the French Revolution in the 1790s. I guarantee it.

[dude love]

You should youtube the ending of Revelations at the very least. Ezio 'meeting' Altair and his speech to Desmond is amazing.

[dude love]

Originally Posted by AxlsAppetite

So this just came from AC Initiates.

AC3 SPOILERS
http://i.imgur.com/5SaM7qB.png

Things just got really interesting.

S*** just got real. I have a feeling there's more to this than

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

his DNA, which Abstergo would already have.

[Léo Ho Tep]

Revelations is way better when you think about it as the ending of Ezio's story. It's not as powerful as AC 2 or brotherhood, because there isn't the same kind of emotional investment. It's more a zen story, about someone looking for knowledge, and finding peace in the process, which was very interesting.

I loved AC III ending, mostly because when you think of how Desmond has grown as a character since ACI, it's epic. He's not a selfish douchebag anymore, he's a true hero, a martyr.

But I'm convinced he's not really. We're in a Spider-man kind of situation. while he's dead, because he has no physical form anymore, his spirit is probably still alive. Maybe he's trapped like Junon was for instance. I certainly hope we'll see more of him in the next games, since I'm probably the only one who cares for him.

[Wolvieboy17]

I think overall, out of everything, my biggest problem with AC 3 was just the lack of historical mystery. In AC 2 and brotherhood, you had all the truth puzzles and the tombs that felt very connected to the history and the world Ezio was in.

AC 3 was missing the truth puzzles and the frontiersmen missions and the Captain Kidd missions felt REALLY seperated from the main world and story. They felt like they could have been pre-order DLC missions or something. I think there should have been way more side missions like helping out soldiers pinned down, fight with militia etc. The world just needed to be more connected through these kind of events.

Also, did anyone else feel like the 'Clubs' system was much more dumbed down than Ubisoft led us believe? I was anticipating more physical and tangible involvement... Like, do some theivery, get contacted by the thieves guild and invited to their hideout etc. In fact, the whole 'masonic tunnels' would have been perfect for the thieves guild and they could have tied that into thief missions instead of having them just feel useless additions.

In fact, I'd say the side missions of Revelations were vastly superiour to AC 3. It simply needed more things like that. I enjoyed the Homestead missions but why do all the side missions have to revolve around that? Where were the missions with his tribe, to help them out? So many missed oppurtunities... Where were the George Washington side missions?

[Quasimod0]

Thankfully, AC3 had the best combat and free running of them all. I love going through the trees

[Léo Ho Tep]

Overall, AC2 will always be one of my favorite games ever. It's such an intense ride, with an amazing protagonist, an incredible story... it's beautiful, it's epic, it's like one of the biggest adventures ever. So it's also my favorite AC game. But I do think AC3 i really great. while it may be flawed storywise, or gameplaywise, it's big, it's full of things to do, the settings are incredible, and the story is really interesting as well.

[AxlsAppetite]

All three episodes of King Washington have been dated. The first one being released on the 19th. Two and three come out 3/19 and 4/23.

My body is all ready for it.

[Spider-Who?]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

I think overall, out of everything, my biggest problem with AC 3 was just the lack of historical mystery. In AC 2 and brotherhood, you had all the truth puzzles and the tombs that felt very connected to the history and the world Ezio was in.

AC 3 was missing the truth puzzles and the frontiersmen missions and the Captain Kidd missions felt REALLY seperated from the main world and story. They felt like they could have been pre-order DLC missions or something. I think there should have been way more side missions like helping out soldiers pinned down, fight with militia etc. The world just needed to be more connected through these kind of events.

Also, did anyone else feel like the 'Clubs' system was much more dumbed down than Ubisoft led us believe? I was anticipating more physical and tangible involvement... Like, do some theivery, get contacted by the thieves guild and invited to their hideout etc. In fact, the whole 'masonic tunnels' would have been perfect for the thieves guild and they could have tied that into thief missions instead of having them just feel useless additions.

In fact, I'd say the side missions of Revelations were vastly superiour to AC 3. It simply needed more things like that. I enjoyed the Homestead missions but why do all the side missions have to revolve around that? Where were the missions with his tribe, to help them out? So many missed oppurtunities... Where were the George Washington side missions?

I agree with this. There wasn't the sense of awe and wonder to this time period that Ubisoft gave the other games, which was disappointing. Colonial America is one of my favorite moments in history, and I just felt like it was far less of a character itself than any of the other periods.

I'm also really disappointed we weren't more involved in the war itself, and the consequences of it didn't seem too present. I remember how Obisoft was boasting about how great their new engine was…that you’d be able to sit and watch or even take part in massive battles with hundreds of NPCs…Aside from your typical “defend the bridge” mini-games, there was only ONE big battle that you were forced to run through. Was really disappointed with that – another huge missed opportunity.

Loved the game for what it was, but they advertised it as being so much more than what we got.

[Upset Spideyfan]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/new-ass...he-way-6403590

the next installment in the Assassin's Creed franchise will launch in the company's fiscal 2014 (April 1, 2013-March 31, 2014). The game will feature a new hero and will be set in a new time period.

[AxlsAppetite]

Called it.

Like I said, no reason to play as Connor anymore.

[dude love]

Just when I was starting to warm up to a Connor game set in the French revolution.