>Looking for a game to buy
>ACIII Remastered is on sale for 7 dollars
>Most reviews online are shitting on the game
>Buy game
>Starts out a little slow
>Begin to play as Connor
>Solid combat for a game originally released in 2012, decent story
What's everyone complaining about? First time playing the game btw, only ever AC I've played so far is Odyssey
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
it's kind of easy but it's fun if you ignore the teammate abilities and stuff. the frontier is cool. i mostly remember finding feathers or something to get a skin
For sure, combat isn't super difficult but it provides at least somewhat of a challenge so that I'm not absolutely breezing through everything. I love the cities of New York and Boston, great places to parkour
Gotta remember that this was following the Ezio trilogy. Connor in comparison was pretty unlikable.
He's sort of a bland protagonist, I'll agree with that. He might as well be silent at some points lol
Has he got a cigar in his mouth?
Looks it it, but not, that's just a window pane in the background
Ass Creed 3
The Good
Naval combat feels simplified but good.
Seeing some historical figures was cool. Glad they added my boy LaFayette in.
The Homestead was fun and had lots of world building in it
The Haytham plot twist was pretty good.
The Meh
Not a whole lot to spend money on, I ended up with at least 20k on me at all times. I ended the game with 80k and that’s after I was trying to find things to spend money on.
Connor has two moods: stoic modern SJW and ‘grr I’m angry at u dad’.
Finding the fast travel locations in the underground was a hassle.
I only used two weapons in the game, default assassin’s axe and the superior French Navy axe.
Kind of ambiguous Desmond ending.
The Ugly
The almanac pages becoming moving targets was a terrible idea. This was literal ‘Moving the Goalpost’ tier bad
Hunting wasn’t rewarding nor were the land/sea convoys. Hunting went from 'patiently laying traps and snares and waiting' to 'Thundering out of the underbrush brandishing my hidden blade, stabbing any creature that gets within arms length of me'
Controls are too simplified leading to Connor tap dancing on things you didn’t want him to.
Even in the Remastered version there’s still lots of bugs and AI fumbling moments.
The Connor ending. Your fight with Dad is overly simplified and killing Charles Lee is just a chase scene and a cutscene.
I did go into this game with the mindset of grinding it out as fast as possible and I didn’t start having fun until about 20 hours in. However, I realized that I had fun when I stopped treating the game like a stealth game and more like an action game with some stealth elements. 2/10 stealth game, 6/10 action game.
Yeah that tracks. I was honestly considering a refund one or two days after buying the game cause of all the negative reviews I was reading on it, but now that I've kept playing it I would say I'm enjoying it more. Was continuing to play the game a worthwhile move in your case?
Yeah, about around sequence 7 or 8 is when the game became fun, unfortunately it takes that long but it is what it is.
Well, guess who just started Sequence 7 yesterday
Since the Remaster is a bundle, what are your thoughts on all the other content it comes with?
Go into a forest in New England and start raping deer, you’ll pretty much get the same experience.
I'm from Connecticut, can confirm this is a regular past time over here
The remaster was extremely shitty and lazy from what I've seen.
80% of tards on this board never player an AC game, 10% are capibaras and 10% can offer legit criticism on the franchise's titles. do what you want with this information.
ac3 is a solid title for what it's worth although the ship part of the game peaked in the next one, black flag. the parkour is limited but does its best with what it has, it's for the old titles what valhalla's parkour is for the new ones aka mediocre due to it's limitation in game design but good with the small amount of what it has to work with. mirage improved in some aspects the valhalla's parkour. the combat is your standard old AC style nothing new. the story is a typical ac story nothing too out of the ordinary but i personally liked the setting which is barely used in games. also the controls are responsive, less than in unity but more than in black flag for example. although it's a collect-a-thon it's not that much compared to both it's previous titles and the ones after it especially the modern ones. i'd recommend it + the remaster unlocks 60fps as default.
The colonial style houses really hampered the verticality the series is known for. I was disappointed that the ubisoft towers were generic trees and buildings; in Brotherhood you were at least climbing historic buildings.
true. i expected them to eventually go down that route but not that early in the franchise. if origins+ was the moment the vertical was toned down, it would be more natural both from a in-game setting scenario but also from a practical perspective. the 3rd one and arguably the 4th as well should have been made, settingXparkour wise post Origins imo. I'd go a little extreme and say Mirage should have been in their place if we would be forced for a trade for the sake of the discussion.
there has never been a good AC game but 3 is definitely on the lower end of the shit spectrum
So in your opinion, what's on the higher end of the shit spectrum?
>also the controls are responsive, less than in unity but more than in black flag for example
Why the frick are you lying, Black person? Unity's controls are slow and unresponsive. Worst AC experience I've ever had. You spend more time trying to get Arno to go where you want him than actually parkouring.
The biggest flaw of all the AC games is when you're enjoying being an assassino in old times and the game forces you to play as Desmond or whatever the frick his name is in the modern era.
>inb4 "B-BUT MUH ALIENS AND CONSPIRACY IT TIES INTO THE STORY REEEE"
it always fricking sucked, the story should've been told in the eras that the games take place in.
Yeah as someone who knows little to nothing about AC lore the modern day levels are meh. Cool change of pace but I have no idea what the frick Desmond's handlers are blabbering about. All I can surmise is that Templars=bad and Assassins=good
The overarching story could've also been told in the respective era of each game, and then tied together in the later games, there wasn't any reason for the whole
>muh ancestors memories
and
>le evil templar corporation
or whatever the frick was going on, just made me zone out because I wanted to get back into the actual game.
Altaïr is the best protagonist, and the games were derailed already in the first game when they kept bringing me back to the modern day setting.
Let me guess, you think Ezio is the best protagonist in the franchise and not the one that derrailed AC into what it is today
>derailed AC into what it is today
>Ezio, the first protag
as opposed to
(You)
>~~*the first protag*~~
You're a moron. The important narrative was *always* happening in the present, not the past. Altaïr had already gone through his story, so had Ezio. Their stories were over, written in history. Desmond's didn't have an end, it was the present. AC1's story wasn't important because Altaïr got his honor back, it was important because the Apple he came in contact with showed the location of other artifacts which Abstergo needed for their plans. AC2's story wasn't important because Ezio got his revenge, it was important because his role as the Prophet was to pass on a message. If you eliminate these jumps in time, the "Who are we, who have been so blessed to share our stories like this? To speak across centuries?" point Ezio makes at the end of his Assassin career, there's nothing left but a bunch of dudes in hoods fighting moustache twirling villains in virtual turism for the next 25 real life years. So Yakuza but in history, less historically accurate and worsely written. The peaks of the series - AC1's ending of Desmond unlocking the Eagle Vision and seeing the creepy messages written in blood, AC2's ending with Minerva speaking not to Ezio but through him, Revelations' ending of Ezio learning from Altaïr that he will not be the one to see his battle's end - wouldn't exist if not for the original creative intent. Instead you'd be left with the generic annual husk John McNormie praises to the heavens alongside CoD you have today.
Assassin's Creed wasn't supposed to be Marvel, it wasn't supposed to have countless sequels. It would've been a trilogy, five games at most. Beginning, middle, ending. This stupid idea of "just make infinite games of dudes in hoods with each game teasing the next one in a neverending spiral of mediocrity" is precisely what they're doing now. Did the camera with legs and a tablet from Black Flag to Syndicate pay off? Was Layla's arc a good one? Exactly. Enjoy your Marvel-like nu-AC slop.
So what AC games should I be playing?
None past 2014 at most
>they could've
But they didn't want to. That's not the story they wanted to tell, how hard is it to grasp that. The plot was always about uncovering the past to save the present, it was always about Desmond fighting Abstergo, it was always about seeing the Apple's effect on Masyaf so you could instantly get what mounting an Apple on a satellite would do to the whole world, it was always about the Bleeding Effect presenting a risk of losing yourself in your brain and the multitude of ways that could be used in a game, like having you revive fragmented memories or see things that aren't there.
>You seem to think that the story needed to be told this way for some reason
It did, because that's how Patrice Désilets and Corey May deemed it to be told. And I just so happened to like the way it was told. I've endured people wanting Desmond gone then complaining about the games post-Desmond losing focus for 16 years, I'm so fricking tired of the missing of the forest for the trees
I'm still fairly new to the series, list some good entires if you will
Anon, just play them in order. That way both the narrative and the mechanics evolve with each game, there's no reason to skip any game up to Black Flag then Rogue's story is shit but its gameplay is like Black Flag's which at least is fun; and Unity is heavily flawed but its ideas seem to call back to the roots of the franchise far more than what came after it.
>AC
>ACII
>AC: Brotherhood
>AC: Revelations
>ACIII
>ACIV: Black Flag
>AC: Rogue
>AC: Unity
Don't burn yourself now
>instead we got the moronic version of the story
Only starting with Brotherhood
>Unity
Stop recommending that piece of shit to newcomers. Seriously, your whole experience will be tainted. Finish with Black Flag or Rogue.
>newcomers
>Finish
moron
>Black Flag or Rogue.
great games
I am aware they didn't want to, and that is my issue with the games. I would've loved the series if they went in another direction, but instead we got the moronic version of the story.
>The important narrative was *always* happening in the present
which is exactly my fricking point, they could've made the important narrative happen within each game and then tie it together (like an actual good story would) instead of going back and forth constantly.
You seem to think that the story needed to be told this way for some reason, and that there was no other way of telling it. You change some things around and you wouldn't need the stupid Asbestos to find memories, or Desmond climbing skyscrapers.
Let's see
>worse combat than previous games
>worse stealth than previous games
>worse parkour than previous games
>far worse map layouts than previous games
>five hours of railroaded tutorials
>Connor Forrest Gumps his way through the Revolution
>shit resolution for Desmond's plot
>remaster looks like absolute fricking ass
Your only point of reference is the single worst AC ever released
It's hard to view AC3 in isolation because the series up to that point was built on verticality in huge citiy settings and led by a charismatic and fun protagonist who has actual development. Sending you to colonial America with tiny towns full of short buildings with a boring protag was a major step backwards for a lot of people.
Most fun I had was playing angry Indian in the forest killing redguards, listening to Iron maiden.
Wasn't bad, Wasn't great
>solid combat
As in press parry to kill enemies who just circle around you and attack once in a minute?
>decent story
Until the Connor part.
imagine caring about it 12 years later
You cared enough to comment, troglodyte
shut up you dumb worthless Black person have a nice day id spit in your fricking face if i could, dog
>Solid combat for a game originally released in 2012
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What has changed between now and then that would lead you to believe it wouldn't be "decent" based on when it came out?
Connor got a raw deal as a protagonist and would have been better off as a templar. The story is more depressin the more I think of it. Poor guy. Those Kenways really got the shaft.
>Looking for something new to play
>Oh, I know!
>I'll check out that Assassin Creed franchise everyone talks about
>Look up the first game
>It was never ported to modern consoles
Fine, nevermind then
ACIII remastered is worse than the original. Taste in the gameplay and story is subjective, but the "remastered" version is objectively worse visually and bug wise (which you may or may not encounter on your playthrough.) That's the source of the bad reviews for the most part.
The map sucked ass compared to Italy
Connor sucked ass compared to Ezio
The story sucked ass compared to all the ACs before it
Gameplay saw basically zero improvements
even average games made before 2014 for the 360/ps1/ps2/pc are the equal of modern games