Reading threads like this make me believe I was the only one who acutally enjoyed this game. Yes, the intro is too long and it's overloaded with features that aren't needed but I still had loads of fun with it. Only thing that really bothered me was the bloody framerate. God, the framerate was so bad....
Most of the history comes later and in the data logs, not much exposition in the Haytham stuff. The opening six hours of AC3 are just a harebrained attempt to screw with the audience just for the sake of screwing with them. The opening is utterly superfluous and painfully contrived. And the game only gets worse from there...
Yeah, I wondered if I'm finding the Haytham chapters so boring because I already spoiled myself on the twist, but even if I didn't know about it, I imagine the intro would still be a tiring slog. The character of Haytham himself is mildly interesting, but I cannot work up even a molecule of interest in the rest of the cast or the storyline up to this point. And from the sound of it, things don't exactly improve when the real protagonist shows up, so not much motivation to push my way through it, anyway.
In retrospect, I love the first part of the game with Haytham than anything after it with Connor. I really like Haytham and at least for me the story was interesting. But is true that the first time I played the game I was like : "who the fuck is this guy, I want to jump from tree to tree with Connor".
2 months ago, my friend lent me his copy of AC3 because he previously lent me AC2 and he said it was also good. At the same time, I had extra cash and wanted to give the MGS series a try.
I played the first 2 hours of AC3 and holy shit was it boring as fuck. Nowhere near AC2 and I now doubt my friend's tastes in video games. So I started to play MGS and could not help compare the two series. AC3 has officially made the series complete shit for me.
Couldn't agree more. Poignant. Loved the previous entries and was really excited for this one. The introductory 2-3 hours were so tedious and devoid of fun, I couldn't bring myself to play any further. It felt like a chore. Wound up trading it in a couple weeks later.
Haytham was good fun but as already said in this thread, I mainly spent the whole time thinking "Where's Connor? I wanted to play as Connor."
Then Connor turns up. As a kid. And wow that was boring.
I see what they're trying to do with building up the story, taking their time to make it feel epic - but they didn't pull it off.
I keep explaining to my wife whilst I play this game that there are so many experiences that I didn't buy this game for. Walking slowly stalking someone on a linear path. Faux Splinter Cell stealth sections where guards can see your every move across a massive, crowded room.
The Frontier, whilst graphically and technically impressive, is a complete waste of time.
However, despite all this, running on rooftops, chasing down guards, diving from high places, stringing up guards in trees, group combat - this is all fantastic. The developers needed to realise that this is why I bought this game - and love this game (I know, I know) and continue to play it.
Leave all the other stuff on the cutting room floor. I'd be happy if the game was 10 hours shorter too.
PS. I really like
d
Connor
until he started being really rude to Achilles all the time! I mean, what?!
Awesome intro to a meh game! I loved intro, it disappoints me that people have such low patience and they can't appreciate a slow build-up in games/Movies etc, that gives you insight into its world and characters and gives a purpose to your actions.
Well, AC III is actually lacking the story. The settings, the historical context does not help with that. So they built up a story for it. Which is boring and lacks pace. Enzio had personality, but was also helped by the time and place the game was in. It's not for nothing that Machiavelli was part of that game. The era fitted perfectly the idea of the AC games. You didn't need to invent events, you had it all there: intrigue, politics, assassinations, war, treason.
Maybe with Black Flag they can get back the charm. I hope they don't invent a story just for the sake of it, but rather link together famous pirate stories. If they ruin a pirates game this time I will be mad.
Damnit, I was really hyped for AC3 because of the historical setting and even after hearing so much shit about it I was still interested in playing it but I never got around to it because franchise fatigue kicked in after AC2.
I love pirate themes so I hope ACIV delivers...
I still can't believe how badly Ubisoft screwed this one. American Revolution, a brand-new setting that is very rarely done in games (if ever, I can't think of it being done before), a cool new Native American assassin, it all seemed so promising. Instead we got a very bland world (Boston and New York were VERY forgettable cities) and just about everything felt like a chore to do. Traversing the wilderness felt like a pain in the butt the whole time, and I never bothered with free-running through the trees unless it was required for a mission. Combat still is a complete joke - why bother with stealth when you're a one-man army? And don't even get me started on those terrible underground tunnels...
These problems are further magnified by Ubisoft's storytelling in AC3, which is downright atrocious at times and makes Connor an incredibly unlikeable protaganist. Tell me,
why does he decide to just murder his lifelong friend instead of explaining to him what Charles Lee is really up to?
Also,
why the hell do we have to chase down Lee at the end of the game, only to injure him but not catch him, but then we hop a ferry and watch a cutscene where Connor follows Lee into a bar and then kills him?
I just don't understand what Ubisoft was thinking with these decisions it made in the story.
Edit: Also Paul Revere's ride. Nothing more needs to be said.
Funny... I got AC1, 2 and Revelations with my GTX 670 when I bought it. I tried 1 and just stopped playing it. I couldn't get into it at all and I never bothered touching the other 2 games.
I've never played 3 but it looked like it had some cool moments and the setting looks OK but like... I'm actually REALLY interested in AC4. I absolutely love all the main character designs because honestly, who doesn't like a hooded character? Not only that but the setting in 4 looks freaking amazing!
I totally disagree. The Haytham part remains one of my favorite segments of the game. Then again, I'm typically more interested in the historical setting aspect of the Assassin's Creed games than I am in the actual action or set pieces.
MGS2 was just like that... you had to play as some old dude for a couple of hours in a tutorial level, some tanker that had nothing do to with the Big Shell that was in the main game. And you lost all your weapons and stuff you collected when you finally got to play as Raiden.
I wonder what they expected with a creative director who's track record consists of two titles: Spore and Army of Two.
I'd love to see a post-mortem on this game. I mean, Ubi made some amazing errors in judgement in regards to the development of this game. Gameplay, narrative, pacing, mission design, cutscenes. The game is flawed on every aspect of the spectrum.
I really hope AC4 can get the franchise back on the rails after the lackluster Revelations and terrible ACIII.
Man, and here I was, feeling all terrible because I thought I was the only one who hated this game.
The entire thing feels like a massive project, with every 5% of the game being developed by a different studio and in the end they all just threw it together into a ball hoping it would stick together. Spoiler: it didn't. From the extremely long and tedious tutorial, to the a hundred bazillion confusing sidemissions in all kinds of catagories, to the terrible pacing.
None of the sidemissions are properly introduced, and they're all introduced in quick succession so I felt incredibly lost. The map is unreadable because of all the different icons and I don't know what they mean. The pacing is set up so you never feel like you can just take it easy and do some sidemissions because it's always like "You have to go there NOW!". When I did try to do some missions I gave up quickly afterwards because a lot of them makes you notorious and losing the guards is somehow incredibly frustrating in this game as opposed to the ones before. The game is glitchy as hell. I had to restart more than two missions because some event (cutscene) wasn't triggering, or this guy I was supposed to protect stopped moving, or I fell through the ground, etc. Just terrible. Not to mention the useless horses, or some of the sneaking missions that clearly want you to proceed in one specific way because otherwise it's impossible.
You know what, I'm gonna stop right there. I really don't see how this game got these high scores. Same with Bioshock Infinite, which I thought was an amazing world and story with terrible gameplay tacked on to it. I guess some journalists just get caught in the hype or something. :/
I totally disagree. The Haytham part remains one of my favorite segments of the game. Then again, I'm typically more interested in the historical setting aspect of the Assassin's Creed games than I am in the actual action or set pieces.
