• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Assassins Creed III is a disappointment

dpodblood

Diamond Member
I finally picked up AC3 on a Steam sale since I had heard such great things about it, but I have to say it's a huge disappointment. This was the chance for Ubisoft to do something new with the series. New setting and new character. They could have changed, or improved the game mechanics as well. But instead they have released another derivative AC game, no different, yet somehow worse than previous iterations.

First off I'll start with the positive notes. I have always played the AC games for the story and for the environments. And in this game things are as good as always. Boston and the surrounding wilderness is truly beautiful. Even though the game is not that impressive on a technical level, it is still very nice to look at. For the most part the places feel real and alive. The story is still intriguing as well, and having all kinds of bits of American history makes things very interesting.

Too bad this is where the positives stop for me. The gameplay is exactly as it is in every other game in the series. There can be depth to the combat, but for the most part it's simpler just to draw a sword and counter kill, until the mob is dealt with. Sure there are other ways to deal with an encounter, but the game does a particularly bad job of motivating you to mix things up. The game is also littered with optional stuff to do, but again the game gives you no reason whatsoever to bother with any of it. There are optional mailman quests, assassinations, collectables, and even optional objectives in the main missions. None of it seems to have any reward. You always have enough money to keep your ammo and bombs fully stocked, and completing optional objectives seems to have no reward whatsoever.

But where this game really falls apart for me is in the controls. When the originally Assassins Creed game came out the idea of free running and climbing was revolutionary. Since then other open world games like Arkham City and Sleeping Dogs have improved by leaps and bounds in that category. AC3 though is the same old thing. First off the camera is just far too close to the character. You cannot get a clear view of your surrounding. Secondly the free running/climbing mechanic is just plain bad. I am running through the streets and suddenly the character decides that he wants to start climbing a wall I wasn't even pointed at. Or I want to jump to a ledge, but for some reason that ledge isn't grabbable even though it totally should be. I want to drop down off a ledge, but for some reason I need to press the button 30 times before it seems to register. And don't even get me started on the horses. The horses can jump a fence, but god forbid they come across a stick or a rock. That's just too much for them to handle!

Mind you these issues are nothing new for the AC series. But with the yearly iterations of the franchise I am tired of seeing a new game every year with no significant changes or improvements whatsoever. And the controls are so clunky, and dated they completely ruin my enjoyment of the game. Honestly I think this is the last game in the AC franchise I will play. Playing through it just feels like a slog at this point, which is really too bad for a series that started with such pedigree and promise.
 
This is what I do to mix things up: use only secondary weapons, like snares, trip mines, the bow, and poison to counter-kill. If I run out, I have to stop fighting and run away, and I can only restock via crafting. Only use the most basic weapons possible. Never use the pistol unless the mission forces you to. Try to do everything without getting caught. Turn off every HUD element. Play at full notoriety the whole time.

These things will make the game much harder (it'll force you to be stealthy in the cities, which makes a lot of since, since your clothes are, let's be honest, super conspicuous. Your money will also bleed away quickly if you keep trying to fight). Assassin's Creed, especially after playing a few, is like Pokemon: you have to make up rules to challenge yourself.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's not very good. The environment itself is neat, but there's not much reason to explore 90% of it. The story in my opinion was ridiculous and annoying. I kept thinking the characters were just plain stupid. Also, there were far too many cutscenes. It felt like the game and cinematics were completely separate, like a tv show versus the commercials.

I've always thought AC's climbing mechanics need more fine tuning. The character will jump in directions not wanted, climb when you don't want to climb, run into things you try to avoid, jump off buildings you're trying to climb up, etc...

One thing I really liked in AC3 though was the boat combat! That was super fun, unfortunately it was more of an optional mini-game than anything. I'm hoping AC4 will be more about the boat stuff since it's pirate-themed.

I tried playing the DLCs for AC3, but it's just boring and some of the missions are soooo tedious - like the one where you have to sneak past dogs that can sense you from a mile away.

And lastly I thought AC3 was pretty horribly optimized, at least for me. Just upping the AA or shadow quality to high would significantly cripple the FPS, while hardly making the game look different at all. Part of the problem is how it had about 4 total graphics options, only with Medium-High-Very High settings or whatever.
 
Assassin's Creed, especially after playing a few, is like Pokemon: you have to make up rules to challenge yourself.

I really don't feel like I should need to make my own challenges, or avoid using certain game mechanics just to make the game into a reasonable challenge. It should do it on its own. That's just bad design, and something which could have been remedied by some more time and thought into making a better game instead of just another sequel.
 
I agree 100%. But you already have it, so you might as well try. Who knows, you might get some extra fun out of it.

When I originally played AC2, my computer was so bad that the image lagged behind a full second or more consistently. I had to learn to listen for the guard's attacks right before they happened. It didn't help that I only used the Hidden Blade, which has the smallest counter-kill timing, and there were no execution streaks. Pretty much every Assassin's Creed feels easy after that.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's not very good. The environment itself is neat, but there's not much reason to explore 90% of it. The story in my opinion was ridiculous and annoying. I kept thinking the characters were just plain stupid. Also, there were far too many cutscenes. It felt like the game and cinematics were completely separate, like a tv show versus the commercials.

I've always thought AC's climbing mechanics need more fine tuning. The character will jump in directions not wanted, climb when you don't want to climb, run into things you try to avoid, jump off buildings you're trying to climb up, etc...

One thing I really liked in AC3 though was the boat combat! That was super fun, unfortunately it was more of an optional mini-game than anything. I'm hoping AC4 will be more about the boat stuff since it's pirate-themed.

I tried playing the DLCs for AC3, but it's just boring and some of the missions are soooo tedious - like the one where you have to sneak past dogs that can sense you from a mile away.

And lastly I thought AC3 was pretty horribly optimized, at least for me. Just upping the AA or shadow quality to high would significantly cripple the FPS, while hardly making the game look different at all. Part of the problem is how it had about 4 total graphics options, only with Medium-High-Very High settings or whatever.

Wow this summarizes my feelings on the game perfectly, and your description of the controls is exactly what I have been experiencing. Too many things are automated, or context sensitive, and you simply don't get enough control over the character. Both in traversal and in combat. I also agree on the cutscene issue. The game basically breaks down into 40% running to the next objective marker, 40% cutscenes, and 20% actual gameplay. Sometimes when I am playing I can't help but think it could make a better TV series than a video game.

In terms of performance on the PC I have not had too many issues, but textures are ugly close up, and nothing is particularly exceptional. The one thing I have noticed though with AC3 specifically though is that there is particularly bad pop-in. NPC's just appear out of nowhere sometimes, and even parts of the environment will just "materialize" into view once you get within a certain distance. Certainly not a polished game by any means.
 
Oddly a lot of people hated the naval battle minigames over in the Console forum. I thought that was the best part. It seems this is what AC4 will be built around so that's good.

I got bored of AC3 around the Boston Tea Party missions. It's a game that just seems to drag on. Pacing is pretty slow. A lot of the fun aspects of the Ezio series are gone. Not as much climbing. And YES, the jumping mechanics still need improvement. The OP is spot on with that one.
 
It's funny how people seem to praise the naval battles as the best part of the game even though it's just a mini game. Yet this is a game that was highly praised by the press. Sometimes I find there is a huge disconnect between how games review, and the general view of the gaming community.
 
The naval battles were such a letdown. Way too simple and there was no real command. Just point and shoot. They sucked, badly.
 
AC is a "churn them out by the year" franchise. Of course the games are crap. THey haven't made an interesting one since AC 2.

These games could have been great. THey could have used each one to explore a new time period, but three games of Ezio killed off any interest for me.
 
AC is a "churn them out by the year" franchise. Of course the games are crap. THey haven't made an interesting one since AC 2.

These games could have been great. THey could have used each one to explore a new time period, but three games of Ezio killed off any interest for me.

AC3 was in the works as soon as AC2 finished. That was back in 2009. So they spent 4 years getting the game ready while another team did Brotherhood and revelations.

Ezio is the main person in Desmond's past that can reveal certain truths, or so they thought. He did the most stuff and was the most important Assassin in history really. So I do see why they dedicated a few games to his character, that said I was supremely disappointed with the whole "I am your father" turn of events in AC3 and it felt really cheap.
 
I agree that they didn't change enough, but think it's better than brotherhood and revelations by a decent margin. Brotherhood was okay but on my end was hampered by technical issues and odd framerate dips that I don't remember having in AC2. Revelations was pretty much the exact same thing, but more of a grind and some of the enjoyable parts of Brotherhood taken away. AC3 was better for me because I liked the location better and it performed better for me, but it didn't break too far from their aging formula.
 
I personally found that the controls were awkward as always, the mouse didn't move quickly enough, many objects were "unclimbable" because the developers didn't consider it, and they still have those god-awful "fixed camera angle" moments. HOW I LOATHE THEM. Every time I play a part with a fixed camera, I want to cut the devs' hands off and ground out an eye, because they are honestly just being inconsiderable when they make a section like that.

On the other hand, the combat was pretty enjoyable (though generally too easy) and many of the missions had a decent balance of stealth and massacring mooks.
 
That reminds me of another thing I don't like. When control is taken away. Like in certain sequences where they force you to walk instead of run, or where they take away the ability to control the camera. Then sometimes certain context actions just plain don't work. Like if I equip my hidden blade, sneak up behind someone, and the silent kill action just doesn't want to work. Next thing you know a million guards are alerted.
 
On the other hand, I'm amazed that it's worked as well as it has. The glitches, at least in AC2 and the games built off the same engine, were understandable. But I'm frustrated that the devs haven't seen fit to fix it yet.

That, and the relative ease of continuing an execution streak is frankly ridiculous. Maintaining an execution street should require skill--I honestly prefer the old combat in almost every way (except the new secondary weapon usage, which is pretty cool).
 
AC3 was mediocre. Wouldn't say it was bad but it had a lot more potential. At some point they need to stop calling it Assassin's Creed and rename it to Terminator Chronicles or something because they've jumped the shark with the assassination thing. Now you're just an unstoppable killing machine who barely needs to free-run and on top of that, naval battles?

I thought the story was a big letdown though. With the larger cast, I thought they would dedicate some time into exploring the Templar side of things. I was actually starting to feel sympathetic for them but instead they did an about-face and instantly made all the Templar evil supervillains with no dimension. And Connor was just whiny throughout the entire game.

AC4 is going to be fun.
 
I really don't feel like I should need to make my own challenges, or avoid using certain game mechanics just to make the game into a reasonable challenge.

While I agree, I've also been told a number of times that that's a wonderful "feature" of other games lol
 
I really don't feel like I should need to make my own challenges, or avoid using certain game mechanics just to make the game into a reasonable challenge. It should do it on its own. That's just bad design, and something which could have been remedied by some more time and thought into making a better game instead of just another sequel.

That reminds me of another thing I don't like. When control is taken away. Like in certain sequences where they force you to walk instead of run, or where they take away the ability to control the camera. Then sometimes certain context actions just plain don't work. Like if I equip my hidden blade, sneak up behind someone, and the silent kill action just doesn't want to work. Next thing you know a million guards are alerted.

I'm confused, you said you don't want to have to make up challenges and that the game should do it on its own. Then when there's sections where the game DOES try to limit you and you say you don't like when control is taken away. Do you want your freedom to do what you want or do you want the game to tell you what you're allowed to do? You make some good points but it's hard to believe it all at this point as your conflicting statements are making it sound like you're just picking stuff to whine about now that you've already decided you don't like the game.
 
I think you're just misunderstanding. I want the game to be inherently challenging. I don't want to "make my own fun" so to speak. Taking away my ability to run or locking my camera angle for no specific reason doesn't make the game more challenging, just more annoying.

Now if they wanted to introduce some missions where you need to assassinate someone using a specific weapon, or approach a scenario in a particular way that would be fine.
 
I really like the story in the games. The use of real world locations and the bit of history lessons in the game. Unlike most game series, this one actually assumes you have some knowledge of your history.
 
I've hated all of them. I'm not sure what it is about them but I find them extremely boring.

Have you actually played all of them? I'm not saying you should, I'm just curious. If you hated the first two then why would you keep buying them? That's stupid. If you didn't actually play all of them (there's 5 now), then why would you lie about it? That's stupid.
 
Have you actually played all of them? I'm not saying you should, I'm just curious. If you hated the first two then why would you keep buying them? That's stupid. If you didn't actually play all of them (there's 5 now), then why would you lie about it? That's stupid.

He probably just pirated them all. Either way who cares, he is right. I own one and played it 30m. Borrowed 3 and didn't make it quite as far.
 
He probably just pirated them all. Either way who cares, he is right. I own one and played it 30m. Borrowed 3 and didn't make it quite as far.

To be fair, assassin's creed 1 is by far the worst in the series. Compared to any of the others it's not even in the same category.
 
Back
Top