Forums → Games → Assassin's Creed III general discussion
| 87 | 15075 |
This is a general discussion thread for the last installment of the Assassin's Creed series. My general opinion about this game is mediocre, but I've played it enough to support my view. I was hoping to discuss with anyone about this game and since there was no thread about it, you can post here now.
What do you like and don't like in this game?
- 87 Replies
Charles Lee's death was illogical, he's a military man and would have easily killed Connor with a pistol/knife or alerted the pile of Redcoats by the fort near the Last Drink Tavern. To be honest, I liked Charles, I didn't get why he went from a happy, loyal man to "Living in the dirt like animals" It was weird.
Not just one, but 200% agreed. He was a good, loyal character who could have indeed alerted the entire Fort, but it seems Ubisoft wanted him to have accepted his fate.
And the Templars that Connor killed, if they were telling the truth, should have lived. Connor effectively secured the destruction of his people
No he didn't.He killed so many people (William Johnson, John Pitcairn, Washington's messengers etc.) not because he was a real Assassin and despised the Templars, but because he wanted to secure the fate of his people. Despite that, at the end of the storyline (after the final cutscene) he goes to the village only to find it abandoned.
Conversing with a Frontiersman reveals that the government (the Patriots had already won the war) intended to use the land and so they kicked out the Kanien:kehaka or whatever their name is.
At least half of the assassinations performed by Connor for nothing. Ironic isn't it?
Connor was a pretty worthless character, all things considered. I liked Haytham more, his manner and his beliefs seemed a lot more thought-out and believable. His team was more awesome too, especially Hickey and his subtitled lines like "Wot?"
Conversing with a Frontiersman reveals that the government (the Patriots had already won the war) intended to use the land and so they kicked out the Kanien:kehaka or whatever their name is.
Either way, Connor's battles did little for him.
But I like the aspects of the game, especially the Frontier and the lively cities. But my all-tim favorite part is the Naval Combat, even though the Aquila is the least realistic ship I have seen. I hope Ubisoft picks up on the mechanics and gives us a pirate game with all the mechanics of the Naval Combat things plus an some other seafaring thingamajigs. Like GOING INTO THE CAPTAIN'S CABIN.
I agree that Connor was undeniably the worse character in all of Assassins Creed. They failed to connect me to Connor in the same way I was connected with Ezio and Altair (is that how you spell it?). With Ezio, it didn't take long to forge a connection between the player and the character. With Connor, however, his character was simply unlikeable. He wasn't charming, witty, wise, etc. I don't think I saw him smile even once in the whole entire game.
But even though we all hate Connor, I think at the core, the story/plot was all wrong. It was too simple. Guys mom dies, guy wants revenge, guy forges alliances, guy gets betrayed, guy gets his revenge. Typical.
But I like the aspects of the game, especially the Frontier and the lively cities.
I totally agree. I didn't hate the game, certainly not. Most of it was enjoyable. I LOVED the hunting system they created in the game, same with the naval missions.
I really hope the next Assassins Creed (if there is one) can step up to the plate. It would be really interesting to see an Assassins Creed in the beginning of early civilizations. But thats just me
Altair (is that how you spell it?).
Actually it is Altaïr but Altair is good enough had to say it.
But I agree, Conner wasn't the best character they used. But I liked the weapons he used. I mean I favor the bow over the op crossbow or the hidden gun. I'm glad they didn't put those in. And the Tomahawk was really nice.
But even though we all hate Connor, I think at the core, the story/plot was all wrong. It was too simple. Guys mom dies, guy wants revenge, guy forges alliances, guy gets betrayed, guy gets his revenge. Typical.
But I think it is wrong to put the story in this way. If you shuffle it you can get the story of AC II
ACII. Guy gets betrayed, Guys familie dies, guy wants revenge, guy forges alliance, guy gets revenge. Although they spread it over multiple games.
Btw sorry if I miss important stuff, haven't played 2 since I completed it. (started at release).
I loved it, especially the naval battles. But it's the first AC game I've played. I'm buying AC2, AC Brotherhood, and AC Revelations soon.
Might buy the story DLC too, I plan on buying The Tyranny of King Washington, not really worried about the multiiplayer stuff, though I do like Wolfpack every now and then on AC3. Not sure if it's on the others.
But I think it is wrong to put the story in this way. If you shuffle it you can get the story of AC II
Hmmm, I guess you're right. I never thought of it that way
Might buy the story DLC too, I plan on buying The Tyranny of King Washington
It looks so good. I wish I could give you a critique on it, sadly I haven't bought it yet. The story of a broke teenager, I guess.
ACII. Guy gets betrayed, Guys familie dies, guy wants revenge, guy forges alliance, guy gets revenge. Although they spread it over multiple games.
Maybe its the stupid protagonist who is in turn making the whole story bad. Let's face it; Connor is by far the worst character in the series. I sometimes couldn't even figure out how was he feeling. In turn, the first playthrough for the story gets worse.
im gettin it soon is it good games
awesome game for me
Please elaborate. This is considered spam.
Maybe its the stupid protagonist who is in turn making the whole story bad. Let's face it; Connor is by far the worst character in the series. I sometimes couldn't even figure out how was he feeling. In turn, the first playthrough for the story gets worse.
I admit, Conner wasn't a Ezio or Altaïr, he was just a flat character. But a main-character which I do liked was Haytham. He was, for me, far more interesting and a better character than Conner.
But my problem with Haytham is that, like Vaas in Far Cry 3 (another Ubisoft title from 2012, coincidence) that I didn't hate him. I didn't want to murder him, I wanted him to stay alive.
But a main-character which I do liked was Haytham. He was, for me, far more interesting and a better character than Conner.
But my problem with Haytham is that, like Vaas in Far Cry 3 (another Ubisoft title from 2012, coincidence) that I didn't hate him. I didn't want to murder him, I wanted him to stay alive.
I agree he was a much better and cooler character. I didn't want him murdered either.
I really hope the next Assassins Creed (if there is one) can step up to the plate. It would be really interesting to see an Assassins Creed in the beginning of early civilizations. But thats just me
I have a feeling that the next Assassin's Creed will take place in the French Revolution, with Connor again. His conversation with Lafayette seemed to be hinting to that. Lafayette also seemed like one of the only guys Connor trusted. The setting has potential, and Connor still has potential. They could have him looking for a new life since everyone he cared about is gone and the manor is thriving. He takes up Lafayette's offer, travels to France, and gets caught up in the Revolution. Plus, they could add a love interest, because he had to be married at some point.
I want more Middle Ages, without the bloody Crusades. Then, there'd be a lot of assassinations.
Am I the only one wanting an Assassin's Creed in the modern day? Besides, I wonder who is going to pop into the Animus.
You must be logged in to post a reply!