• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

What did GTAV do great vs what AC3 did wrong?

S

Scrabble

Member
I know that the immediate gut reaction by most here is "EVERYTHING" but I really don't see the two games as being that different. They're both made by huge AAA 1000+ people studios and I find It's guilty of the exact same issues AC3 had, and somehow that game gets hated while this game is heralded as being the best game this generation? Why does no one seem to be criticizing this game for basically leading a player on a leash for all the missions? Often times you'll fail a mission precisely because the game doesn't make it clear what exactly the parameters for failing a mission are, and if you so happen to deviate from the script the designers laid out for you than it's mission failure. Most of the missions are also pretty much free of any critical thought because you just end up playing simon says with the objectives. "Go here", "Get the money", "Get back in the car" etc for pretty much every mission in the game and it becomes dull and tiresome real quick. It's more egregious than AC3 is in its hand holding and restrictive mission structure. And for a game supposedly about planning and implementing heists there's very little critical thought actually placed on the player to enact and complete these missions. There's also too few of them, which results in the system of upgrading your crew being largely moot and pointless. Their just aren't enough heists to make that system worth having or to be interesting.

Combat in both games is far too simplistic, but I feel GTAV is even less so by virtue of the only tactic being 'tap left trigger and hold right trigger' until all the enemies in a room are dead. And you could say "oh well just play using free aim"; I think free aim in this game is awful. It's obviously not a competent third person shooter otherwise it would have been free aim only. Not to mention It's incredible how bad the controls still are. RDR gets away with it somewhat by virtue of it being a more open space, but navigating interiors in GTAV is fucking infuriating sometimes. "No HURRY THE FUCK UP, go down the stairs. No don't walk backwards go down the fuckin steps, great mission failed." "GO UP THE LADDER, no don't walk past the ladder, go up it, UP UP FUCK..." These kind of issues aren't acceptable anymore and their far more of a problem than than the off chance you take a bad jump to your death in AC3

Also both games make money and the overall economy largely meaningless unless your the kind of player to strive to 100% a game.

Don't get me wrong though, I still loved this game for it's story and open world, but I'd be a fool to praise the mechanics, controls, mission design etc as being anything but pretty sub par. I just don't understand why all the issues players had with AC3 are basically in full force for GTAV and no one seems to take issue. And please don't misconstrue this as a GTAV hate thread because that's not at all what this is. I'm just genuinely interested as to what GTAV did to make these issues less obvious or apparent.
 
Gta doesn't have bugs everywhere (singleplayer), and actually runs decent compared to the fps drop fest that was AC3.
 
AC3 is boring and completely loveless. It feels like it was designed by robots in China. Every inch of GTA5 is lovingly crafted, and pretty wonderful.
 
GTA doesn't have a 5 hour tutorial full of hand holding and isn't boring after the first 20 minutes.
 
GTAV story > AC3 story.
I actually think the mechanics in AC3 were pretty good, it was just the story that was awful. It took me 5 hours just to get past the longest opening in video game history.
However it looks like they've learned from their mistakes in AC4 and I'm looking forward to getting it on PS4.
 
Assassins Creed 3 destroyed completly the mythology of the series and denied everything what was build up since the first part.

Thats why I wont ever pay more than 20€ for a Assassins Creed game in the future...
 
What was the development time/manpower behind GTAV and the development time/manpower behind AC3? You might find clues for your answer there.
 
I don't think I understand your complaints about the missions. In one instance you feel that the games hold your hand too much and guides you through scenarios step by step, but you also feel as though the conditions of failure aren't clear. How so? Give me examples.

And your complaints about the controls made no sense to me. I've never had problems getting a character to go down steps.
 
The fact that GTA V shows the completion of your "optional objectives" after the mission is completed rather than during, is a small indicator but shows a lot on the approach of the games. ACIII is more of a checkbox open world game, rather than GTA which is more about exploring.
 
GTA V's playable characters are great vs. AC3's whiny, unrelatable "charles lee?!?!" main character.

And GTA V immediately lets you loose in the open world whereas AC3 took hours to release you from tutorial hell.

I didn't have the greatest time with GTA V either but almost everywhere AC3 stumbled GTA V didn't.
 
I think I have to disagree there OP. I found GTA 5 to be an extremely fun and polished game (SP) compared to Assassin's Creed 3 which had fundamental issues like a dull protagonist, uninspiring gameplay, and mind-numbing repetitiveness. The naval battles were good but that's the only redeeming quality about the game. Basically, playing AC3 was like watching paint dry.
 
Don't really get your complaints about the freeaim. I've been using it the whole time and have had zero issues with it, it controls about 8000 times better than any other GTA game. Shooting feels totally fine.

Honestly I don't get most of your complaints.

""No HURRY THE FUCK UP, go down the stairs. No don't walk backwards go down the fuckin steps, great mission failed." "GO UP THE LADDER, no don't walk past the ladder, go up it, UP UP FUCK..."

Like what? It's not a hard to control game. Clearly this isn't your first time using dual analog sticks, right? I don't see why it's any harder to control than any other dual analog game.

AC3 isn't even a very comparable game to GTA5 to begin with, for that matter...which is why no one is comparing them.
 
The simple and quick way to answer is that there is nothing fun to do in the AC games. Every single element is a chore made worse by controls and performance that makes GTA's look perfect by comparison. Rockstar's open worlds are better and deeper and the GTAs, with the exception of 4, always have a bunch of fun things to do.
 
The biggest problem with AC 3 is how everything is cluttered. You can tell the game has been made by a gazillions of studios. GTA V makes this flaw even more obvious.

On a more personnal note, I hate how everything is scripted and automated in Assassin's Creed, but that doesn't only apply to AC3, it's all of them. You basically just have to press up, R and A/X and the character will cross the whole map. I hate how you feel more than a spectator than an actor in the AC games. GTA V's controls aren't perfect, but at least I feel in total control, now if the crosshair could be bigger and more visible than a tiny white pixels, it wouldn't hurt!

Speaking of which, Rockstar should really path the game and make a "I don't have a 70 inch TV, I want bigger texts and HUD" option. Playing this game hurts my eyes. I gives me a weird memories of the early HD days with games that were not meant to be played on SD TV. Expect this game runs at 720 and I'm playing it on a 32" display (not big, but big enough to have no problem of the sort with any PS360 game).
 
FunkyPajamas said:
What was the development time/manpower behind GTAV and the development time/manpower behind AC3? You might find clues for your answer there.
Click to expand...

I get the point you're making, but AC games do have massive development teams. AC2 had nearly 500 people working on it and AC4 is closing in a thousand (spread across 7 studios).
 
I could do what i wanted in GTA after about 20 minutes max I think.

I was on Rails for 2 hours maybe for assassins creed 3?
 
mullet2000 said:
Don't really get your complaints about the freeaim. I've been using it the whole time and have had zero issues with it, it controls about 8000 times better than any other GTA game. Shooting feels totally fine.

Honestly I don't get most of your complaints.

""No HURRY THE FUCK UP, go down the stairs. No don't walk backwards go down the fuckin steps, great mission failed." "GO UP THE LADDER, no don't walk past the ladder, go up it, UP UP FUCK..."

Like what? It's not a hard to control game. Clearly this isn't your first time using dual analog sticks, right? I don't see why it's any harder to control than any other dual
Click to expand...

I think the OP is playing the game with his feet.
 
Rockstar has 1000+ people?

Pretty sure Rockstar north solely develops GTA, not like Ubisoft breaking up their games into a billion pieces
 
The heist missions in GTA5 are more fun than anything I did in AC3. And some of the character-specific missions are also really great, if only to develop the character's personality (I'm thinking of a couple bizarre missions for Michael in particular here).
 
GTA V felt like it was made by people who actually gave a shit and worked on their own schedule until it was done.

With all jokes aside, seriously its hard to compare the two in quality. While AC 3 did do some pretty cool stuff, overall it felt rushed and not fleshed out properly. Also the long ass "tutorial" was a bit of a turn off.

GTA V is so well done that it feels almost surreal that its on the same system GTA IV was. Sure that may sound like its over praise, but if you look at the two its like night and day.

Mihael Mello Keehl said:
One developed by people who wanted to make a good game and money. The other developed by people who want money.
Click to expand...

haha well put.
 
Pretty much all the missions in GTAV I've done were fun, side mission or not.

The characters are engaging.

The game "gives me" something in the first few minutes; house, clothes, cars, dog, etc. All things I actually like to have (ok I don't care about the dog because it's annoying to walk him around).

Compare the level of polish from GTAV's presentation, the seamless cinematics, the acting, etc. In AC3 you are constantly hit with loading screens, boring cinematic with boring characters, loading screen, then walk a few meters, loading screen, another cinematic, loading screen, and then play a broken or boring mission.

And 6 hours in AC3, you still don't know why you are playing, because the game has yet to do anything else than tell you to "proceed to the next sequence". It sucked horribly.
 
Well, GTA gets away with a lot of stuff because the story is fantastic, the characters are really well written, with great voice overs, it offers more diversity and it's actually fun to play. Even when you decide to stop following the main plot for a bit, and just fuck around.
This is something you can't really do in AC3, mess around, since it's pretty much devoid of anything interesting or fun to do besides missions or sidequests. After some time, climbing towers and fighting with guards feels very repetitive and tedious. I've never had that problem with car/plane/boat chases in GTA.

About the Simon says structure of the missions: GTA gets it right because you KNOW what you have to do, and the game allows you to do it properly.
For instance, stealth missions. That's not a strong feature of GTA but in the few levels that require stealth, it's actually achievable. In AC3, it's almost never the case. Ever.

Same thing for with chase sequences: chasing someone in GTA traffic and desert is awesome and fun, you're free to do it however you want, you can choose several ways of stopping the guy, decide to take a shortcut, blast through water and rocks.
Chasing Charles Lee was a scripted nightmare.
 
Eidan said:
I don't think I understand your complaints about the missions. In one instance you feel that the games hold your hand too much and guides you through scenarios step by step, but you also feel as though the conditions of failure aren't clear. How so? Give me examples.

And your complaints about the controls made no sense to me. I've never had problems getting a character to go down steps.
Click to expand...

It's hard to give many specific examples, but having completed the game I feel there were too many instances where I would just get a mission failure and not know exactly why. The mission where you have to tail the guy to his apartment in particular was a disaster. Even if I could see my target from 15+ feet away or whatever, If I wasn't exactly 2 car lengths the mission would fail. Even at a red light with my target stopped in plain view I had a mission failure right as the person I'm with yells at me "what are you doing your going to lose him." And once I get to his apartment I get out of my car to confront him, nope mission failure because "you spooked him away." What are you talking about he's right here in front of me. I have to wait for him to physically walk through the doors of his apartment.

This kind of restriction I feel manifests its self in every mission in the game. Where if you don't play Simon Says the way the designers have specifically laid out than it's mission failure.

And I'm glad you had no issue with the controls, but to me they are just as bad as GTAIV and no where near where they need to be. Why do I have to keep tapping A to sprint? Why do I have to hold A just to move at a fast pace while aiming? Did no one think that was in the least bit cumbersome?
 
I could probably write a book about this but I'll just mention one simple thing. GTA V is fun to play, and it's even fun when you fail and die. AC3 is never fun.
 
OP you have a point though AC3 was even worse with its handholding and terrible mission structure. But, one thing they both have in common is that they both of tons of side missions that have no real point or purpose to them. You can hunt, dive swim, catch bounties, etc. but they serve no point to the overall story.

However, for GTA those side missions are basically the point of the whole game not the main story, whereas AC is all about its single player story so things like the pointless naval missions and other distractions seem out of place.
 
I enjoyed both games, but tend to somewhat agree with OP. As a preliminary matter, my experience with GTAV was buggier than my experience with AC3. Bugs aren't game-breaking for me, though, so I won't consider the difference in the following analysis.

Story-wise, people often complain about AC3 wrapping things up neatly in a somewhat nonsensical way:
Desmond just going into Abstergo and killing everyone there; the decision at the end, etc.
GTAV also does exactly this:
the final mission where they just decide to go kill all of the bad guys at once - why not do this at the outset? Why have that big shootout beforehand? Also, Michael's reunion with his family and Trevor's reconciliation with Michael, or the lack of his retribution whatsoever, just left that plot point hanging with a complete lack of resolution

So, in that regard, GTAV certainly dropped the ball the same way AC3 did.

Both games have control issues, but while GTAV's feel like there is a layer between your character and the game world, AC3's feel grounded and weighty, giving navigating the world a certain satisfaction. AC's platforming controls are criticized as automatic, when the whole point is easy and convenient traversal of a game world in which the entirety of it is interactive. GTA's controls often go the opposite extreme, controlling your character often seems like a fight against the game, with virtually none of what you see around you being interactive (i.e. all the buildings, houses, etc.). Vehicle navigation in GTA is a different story, with most all of the game world around you being interactive, and the series is all the better for it.

This whole "Ubisoft open-world games are check-the-box games" thing has gone way overboard on GAF, and is starting to border on self-parody. Ubisoft's open-world games have the same amount of checklist content as other open-world games, and has far, far less of this than GTAV does.

AC3 also gets derided for the linearity of its missions while GTAV gets praised for it. Most of GTAV's missions, barring two or three basic shootouts, are completely linear, with the player being told exactly what to do every step of the way. I still personally find the heists exhilarating, but the fact is they dropped the ball on player control: heists are highly scripted and linear. GTA also has the annoying optional objectives. Cover it up by saying they only pop up after the mission, the fact is they are still there, and just as arbitrary.

The whole lifeless world complaint about Ubisoft games is also starting to get out-of-hand. These people will often make excuses for AC's high sales by saying, "The only thing keeping people coming back to these games are these nice, well-crafted historical worlds!" They then turn around and say the opposite when criticizing the game. It's one or the other, and most often it is the former. People play AC games for their beautiful open worlds that convey a sense of time and place, and Ubisoft Montreal has mastered this craft. Rockstar has also mastered the craft of world-building, but, like all open-world games, including AC, there is a certain lifelessness to it post-game. GTA and AC are no different in this regard.

Again, I enjoy both of these games, but the fact is that GTA gets praised for doing the same things AC gets lambasted for, while some of the criticisms for the AC series and Ubisoft games as a whole have gone so far out of proportion as to be farcical.

The fact is that message board folks seem to resent the yearly model as excessive, while the general populace recognizes it for what it is: Ubisoft is making money for giving fans what they want. As soon as fans no longer want these games on a yearly basis, they'll stop buying them, and Ubisoft will stop the release schedule, and everything will be fine. No reason for the vitriol or hatred displayed to an embarassing extreme on GAF - it's simply a business transaction, buy what you want and pass up what you don't. Move on with your life and play the game, or don't. Or be the tiny minority that jumps on a message board and writes cute euphemisms about games you don't like or whose success you don't like, deriving an empty satisfaction in the process.

GTA, on the other hand, comes out once in a blue moon. Fans can't afford to deride it like they do yearly games, as it would mean their precious release and all of the time spent waiting was meaningless, all of the hype and anticipation for nought. Hence the covering up for the game's flaws while other games see the brunt of this criticism. The reality is less sexy but more reasoned: both games get some stuff right, both games get some stuff wrong.
 
AC3 felt stale, full of bugs, boring gameplay and poor story and writing. I felt bored to tears while playing whereas for GTA V, I wanted to rush home, stop all activities and just play for 7 hours at a time.

Maybe the series became stale for me. But it's super fun, going from a jetski in Vespucci Beach, to drive to Chiliad Mountain Wilderness and start shooting up backpackers and riding ATV's etc.

GTA V's sales and success should be a wake up call to developers who think gamers want annual releases or will keep paying $60 for games.
 
foxtrot3d said:
OP you have a point though AC3 was even worse with its handholding and terrible mission structure. But, one thing they both have in common is that they both of tons of side missions that have no real point or purpose to them. You can hunt, dive swim, catch bounties, etc. but they serve no point to the overall story.

However, for GTA those side missions are basically the point of the whole game not the main story, whereas AC is all about its single player story so things like the pointless naval missions and other distractions seem out of place.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't care very much about what matters to the story or not as long as it's fun to do. I went golfing in GTA5 a good 3 or 4 times because they fleshed it out just enough to make it fun for a non golf-focused game, and I actually lost a game to one of the random event NPCs I saved.

I wont' pretend all of the side content is fun, triathlons especially feel like Rockstar wanted to inflict punishment on people for no other reason than getting sadistic joy from it, but there's enough diversity where if there's 5 activities I don't like that's ok because there's 13 that I do like.
 
Does GTA 5 get heralded as the best?

the game follows the tried and proven GTA formula and pretty much is a natural evolution of IV (including the game engine).

the single best thing is probably the three protagonists, which isnt new to the franchise (IV also had three) but the storytelling switching between the three characters sure was great. However as GTA IV, GTAV just falls flat in comparison to GTA SA. it feels so small and condensed in comparison to San Andreas in GTASA (which not only had Los Santos but Las Venturas and San Fiero as well)

Compared to that Assassins Creed 3 tried a lot new stuff. They abandoned the old formula of Assassins Creed 2 (which they iterated with Brotherhood and Revelations) which probably did not sit well with a lot of the old fans. And if you try something new that will always be risky because you dont really have the balance down yet ( I think the main issue was probably the combat on foot. However they also introduced ship combat which reallywas well made). One additional issue also was the setting. You had renaissance Italy cities in Ass 2-revelations and now you have rather boring pre-independence boston and new york.


Overall Id say Ass3 gets too much shit. it isnt really that bad.

Oh i fot got about the Story of Ass 3 regarding the Demond parts, which was horrible.
 
AC3 made the combat/traversal worse.

GTA5 made the driving/running/combat BETTER.


These simple things above all are the biggest differences.
 
CraftySkills said:
It's hard to give many specific examples, but having completed the game I feel there were too many instances where I would just get a mission failure and not know exactly why. The mission where you have to tail the guy to his apartment in particular was a disaster. Even if I could see my target from 15+ feet away or whatever, If I wasn't exactly 2 car lengths the mission would fail. Even at a red light with my target stopped in plain view I had a mission failure right as the person I'm with yells at me "what are you doing your going to lose him." And once I get to his apartment I get out of my car to confront him, nope mission failure because "you spooked him away." What are you talking about he's right here in front of me. I have to wait for him to physically walk through the doors of his apartment.

This kind of restriction I feel manifests its self in every mission in the game. Where if you don't play Simon Says the way the designers have specifically laid out than it's mission failure.

And I'm glad you had no issue with the controls, but to me they are just as bad as GTAIV and no where near where they need to be. Why do I have to keep tapping A to sprint? Why do I have to hold A just to move at a fast pace while aiming? Did no one think that was in the least bit cumbersome?
Click to expand...

Strange. I never had the kind of issues you seem to have. Tailing missions have been pretty self explanatory in GTA for a while now. Stay close, but not too close, with the characters usually giving you an indication of when you're letting a subject get too far away. *shrug*

And no, I found nothing cumbersome about those controls. At all. Hold A to make a character run, tap A rapidly to make them sprint...do you find this convoluted or something?
 
StuBurns said:
AC3 is boring and completely loveless. It feels like it was designed by robots in China. Every inch of GTA5 is lovingly crafted, and pretty wonderful.
Click to expand...

That's how I felt, the world is pretty but feels incredibly sterile with set routines and behaviour that just reminds you you're playing a game constantly.

The story is complete horse shit too.
 
Eidan said:
Strange. I never had the kind of issues you seem to have. Tailing missions have been pretty self explanatory in GTA for a while now. Stay close, but not too close, with the characters usually giving you an indication of when you're letting a subject get too far away. *shrug*

And no, I found nothing cumbersome about those controls. At all. Hold A to make a character run, tap A rapidly to make them sprint...do you find this convoluted or something?
Click to expand...

I think one problem with that is at times you can skip calls by accident, if you are running like after a mission then a call comes in character answers phone then cuts off due to hitting the button to sprint.

Kinda wished that they thought it out a little better.
 
dropbear said:
I enjoyed both games, but tend to somewhat agree with OP.

Story-wise, people often complain about AC3 wrapping things up neatly in a somewhat nonsensical way:
Desmond just going into Abstergo and killing everyone there; the decision at the end, etc.
GTAV also does exactly this:
the final mission where they just decide to go kill all of the bad guys at once - why not do this at the outset? Why have that big shootout beforehand? Also, Michael's reunion with his family and Trevor's reconciliation with Michael, or the lack of his retribution whatsoever, just left that plot point hanging with a complete lack of resolution

So, in that regard, GTAV certainly dropped the ball the same way AC3 did.

Both games have control issues, but while GTAV's feel like there is a layer between your character and the game world, AC3's feel grounded and weighty, giving navigating the world a certain satisfaction. AC's platforming controls are criticized as automatic, when the whole point is easy and convenient traversal of a game world in which the entirety of it is interactive. GTA's controls often go the opposite extreme, controlling your character often seems like a fight against the game, with virtually none of what you see around you being interactive (i.e. all the buildings, houses, etc.).

This whole "Ubisoft open-world games are check-the-box games" thing has gone way overboard on GAF, and is starting to border on self-parody. Ubisoft's open-world games have the same amount of checklist content as other open-world games, and has far, far less of this than GTAV does.

AC3 also gets derided for the linearity of its missions while GTAV gets praised for it. Most of GTAV's missions, barring a two or three basic shootouts, and completely linear, with the player being told exactly what to do every step of the way. I still personally find the heists exhilarating, but the fact is they dropped the ball on this on player control: heists are highly scripted and linear.

The whole lifeless world complaint about Ubisoft games is also starting to get out-of-hand. These people will often make excuses for AC's high sales by saying, "The only thing keeping people coming back to these games are these nice, well-crafted historical worlds!" They then turn around and say the opposite when criticizing the game. It's one or the other, and most often it is the former. People play AC games for their beautiful open worlds that convey a sense of time and place, and Ubisoft Montreal has mastered this craft. Rockstar has also mastered the craft of world-building, but, like all open-world games, including AC, there is a certain lifelessness to it post-game. GTA and AC are no different in this regard.

Again, I enjoy both of these games, but the fact is that GTA gets praised for doing the same things AC gets lambasted for, while some of the criticisms for the AC series and Ubisoft games as a whole have gone so far out of proportion as to be farcical.
Click to expand...

Well said, and again, I enjoy both games, but GTAV is guilty of the same issues that plagued AC3. Also these comments of "AC3 has a boring world and GTAV feels alive" seem laughable to me. Walking the streets of Colonial Boston or New York most definitely feel like they are alive and have soul to them. Just like every game in the series it feels like I've been transported back in time, and I can't think of a greater complement than that to give to a game.
 
SporeCrawler said:
Does GTA 5 get heralded as the best?

the game follows the tried and proven GTA formula and pretty much is a natural evolution of IV (including the game engine).

the single best thing is probably the three protagonists, which isnt new to the franchise (IV also had three) but the storytelling switching between the three characters sure was great. However as GTA IV, GTAV just falls flat in comparison to GTA SA. it feels so small and condensed in comparison to San Andreas in GTASA (which not only had Los Santos but Las Venturas and San Fiero as well)

Compared to that Assassins Creed 3 tried a lot new stuff. They abandoned the old formula of Assassins Creed 2 (which they iterated with Brotherhood and Revelations) which probably did not sit well with a lot of the old fans. And if you try something new that will always be risky because you dont really have the balance down yet ( I think the main issue was probably the combat on foot. However they also introduced ship combat which reallywas well made). One additional issue also was the setting. You had renaissance Italy cities in Ass 2-revelations and now you have rather boring pre-independence boston and new york.


Overall Id say Ass3 gets too much shit. it isnt really that bad
Click to expand...

AC3 did very little that was new. It pulled a bunch of ideas from other games like hunting and didn't bother putting any effort into balancing them or making them fun. I'm having a hard time following your line of thinking that it got rid of the AC2 formula. It was exactly like AC2 and the expansions. A set of open maps that have a ton of icons placed on the map for all of its checklist features that are no fun to do and the missions had the bonus objectives to do which had been around since...Brotherhood I think?

Only truly new thing I can think of is the ship stuff and in traditional Ubisoft fashion they made it so shallow that by the time I was done with all of the missions for it I never wanted to set foot on another boat in an AC game again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What speedrunning did become?
12
434
Black_Stride replied
What the hell did they do to Lara Croft?
3 4 5 6 7
302
3K
Senua replied
Resident Evil requiem | What camera did you use?
2
85
964
squallbr replied
What should Nintendo do next?
2
68
250
Windle Poons replied
What is wrong with Nintendo's account system?
2
75
1K
rodrigolfp replied
Top Bottom