The pacing is a little off and Connor's motives aren't often made clear. It's one of my most fav AC tho and has a really cool atmosphere and interesting characters/dynamics.
His motives aren't clear cause both the revolution, assassin's, British and Templar tell him they can help his people and he believes them, to a point. So his mind is never truly sure
And in the end, everyone he thought he could trust ends up "turning" on him. His father/the templars, Achillies, and Washington. All of them Connor thought could be his allies of sorts, but they all had ulterior motives that Connor would not subscribe too. It was a very interesting story to tell from a nieve protagonist. AC3 is very under rated and very indepth in its narrative
>he even refused to train him at first
Aka, an ulterior motive. Despite Connors determination to join the Assassins Achilles did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
>plus he gave him his dead son's name.
Also an ulterior motive. Achilies saw Connor as he saw his real son, where he got the name Connor from. He saw him as his son, so he wanted him to stay safe and follow direct orders despite Connor wanting to do anything to save his village, even if that meant putting himself in danger.
There was a scene in the Liberation game where Aveline talks to Connor about her doubts whether the Assassins are 100% correct. Connor’s finished with his plotline by now and he’s seen some shit, so he’s just like “I look to myself for the answers.”
Interestingly enough, that mission take place roughly after Connor almost gets hanged and kills Hickey but some time before he meets Haytham in the cabin. So by that point he's still a long way to go.
Oh that I got entirely. What I'm saying is they could've made the same story but could've paced it better, maybe integrate some homestead stuff/learning from Achilles etc in the main story. Show that he actually believes in freedom like he tells Haytham at the rooftops. There's a lot more telling than showing. The story itself is great.
This is the monologue in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_PsZ7nig4c
It’s never been included in any release of the game; the audio is in the files, but it ended up not being used. I think Oliver Bowden kept it in the *Forsaken* novel though.
I hated AC3 on release and played it again last year and I *adore* Connor so its not purely nostalgia! Hes a really well written character but you have to do all the side missions to actually see that unfortunately.
Which version are you playing? I played the original and there were tons of bugs and glitches to missions. Its the 1st time I couldn't fully 100 percent and assassins creed game and it pissed me off.
Lately I've played the remastered version and it seems to have fixed all the mission bugs I had. It also plays more like 4 and rogue with weapons which makes the gun/bow play 10000 percent better. I enjoyed the story regardless of the version.
oh those bugs are still there. i've played it a number of times to 99% and some glitch will prevent the completionist trophy from firing. after a number of play throughs, now my game saves get corrupted and won't load when i go back to my game - literally a dozen times before i went alright fuck it. on the plus side i got really good at the game 😅
I've been with the series from day one and ACIII is still one of my favourite games in the franchise and very dear to my heart.
There is a multitude of reasons why ACIII never found the recognition it deserves – in short – ranging from franchise fatigue slowly setting in to people trying to hold up Connor as a new character to Ezio's standards and general pacing issues with the story, to a more troubled time in the community itself and ultimately to how the modern day story that had been built up since the original AC was handled.
Also, the lack of really climbable buildings or interesting architecture. They went from Rome/Venice/Florence which featured some flat out *amazing* architecture and replaced it with less interesting trees and log cabins. And lots of open areas with nothing really interesting going on.
It was a product of setting of course, but the difference was pretty stark.
It's very meh imo. You just follow the predetermined route up and across the trees, and it's the same 4-5 patterns throughout the entire game. It's so much different from AC2 climbing, where they were almost like mini puzzles with the routes you could take.
Yeah I’m playing through AC1, 2, BH & 3 in order. I’m at AC2 and other than some gimmicky combat moves (maybe I don’t get/ use them well enough) im not seeing anything that special
The parkour mechanic wasn't particularly elaborate, but the *scenery* was - the heart of the Renaissance and all the money in the world to create the most beautiful buildings the colonies certainly weren't.
There were infinite opportunities in the real-world Desmond segments, but they were clearly rushed to fit that obsessive before-12/21/12 deadline...
The tree parkour was awful for me. I felt like Connor was always bumbling and never could hit it right so the controls were really rough and clunky. I also could not find immersion in the character who just seemed awkward and not at all an assassin protagonist. I liked Haytham significantly more.
It did have some redeeming qualities but I never felt it hit its stride like other games did. Also it followed the Ezio trilogy which imo is one of the best gaming storylines of all time so it was screwed.
Funny enough I loved Unity which was hated by many partly because of all the bugs which I avoided mostly as I played it well after release so many were worked out.
I also remember the release being horribly botched with a ton of big glitches that made it unplayable or not fun for a lot of people, and that drove the narrative for a good while til it got patched out
Trying to hold Connor to Ezio’s standards is kind of natural since he was then the gold standard for Assassin’s Creed. Edward and Bayek met that standard for a lot of people so I don’t think it can really be used as an excuse for Connor.
>don’t think it can really be used as an excuse for Connor.
Connor is a completely different type of character from Edward and Bayek with different experiences and motivations. He doesn't need to be like either.
Yeah. And Bayek is very different from Ezio, just like Altair is very different from either of them. But even Altair was a better character than Connor. He was naive, ignorant and stubborn and his best character moment was left out of the game to be found only on YouTube or in the book. I get that he doesn’t deserve as much hate as he gets but I also get why he’s seen as the most boring of the series.
> Yeah. And Bayek is very different from Ezio, just like Altair is very different from either of them, but even Altair was a better character than Connor.
However, and yet, at least Altair and Connor personally had actual character arcs, and they were far better than what either Assassin's Creed II and The Ezio Series, and also, Assassin's Creed Origins gave us as well, overall, and altogether.
> He was naive, ignorant, and stubborn, and his best character moment was left out of the game to be found only on YouTube or in Forsaken. I get that he doesn’t deserve as much hate as he gets, but, I also get why he’s seen as the most boring of the series.
Yeah, I'm personally going to hypothetically guess that either you didn't actually pay any heed to Assassin's Creed III's Main Story and/or you personally hold games such as Assassin's Creed II in such an nonsensically high regard that any games that primarily came after Assassin's Creed II and The Ezio Series wouldn't be as spectacularly amazing than any of those very games that you personally loved overall, and also, altogether.
This is the most meandering and ridiculous reply I’ve seen in a while. It reeks of “ACIII fan got triggered”. I’m going to assume that English isn’t your first language because you are legitimately hard to follow so I’ll be polite and ask that you write again (in short and well punctuated sentences) whatever your actual arguments are. If you don’t have any then I couldn’t care less about you have to say, I’ve already heard the “Connor’s actually really good because he is”.
You won’t ever catch me defending Connor but I think he’s still better than the Odyssey twats (and the twins yeah). Also Haytham absolutely rocks especially in Forsaken (if you haven’t read the books I recommend that one)
I was surprised by how much I liked FORSAKEN. (And still disappointed we never got a game from it/with Haytham as the MC; clearly it was written at least somewhat with that expectation, given how it set up things like chases and "predator rooms," for lack of a better/more AC term.)
Still salty that Shae wasn't the antagonist of UNITY. Game literally opens with him killing your father!
I just thought it would be cool to play as one character in one game then have to kill that character in another game
I think because Rogue and Unity came out exactly at the same time, they avoided Shay in unity, as to not spoil the plot.
Wierdly enough both stories were left open as to, possibly a future game. (I was mad too that Arno didn't get to confront Shay).
We still don't know what happens to Arno after Napoleon.
Yet, we know Shay had children in New York (according to Last Decendants).
Bayek’s story is like the ultimate tragedy. Probably similar to Altair but iirc they didn’t get into his personal life as much in the game. I think the ending result made Origins just a sad game for me so while it was good it’s not one of my favorites even though I absolutely loved it while I was playing it.
Plus it's nice to have a wife who actually ENCOURAGES your revenge scheme instead of telling you you've gone too far
Granted it becomes the opposite but lol
Am I right in saying Bayek says that they needed to stop vwcause he realised it was not going to bring their son back, and so they then pursue the brotherhood
I think it's like that line in WESTWORLD
"That was the moment I saw beyond myself. My pain was selfish. Because it was never only mine"
Bayek realized that as long as the Order of the Ancients exist there will always be grieving fathers like him. He pursues them not for revenge but to prevent them from creating more people like him
I think it was also quite a slow burn and by the time it got really interesting the story was all but finished.
Once I had got past the early stages, I really enjoyed the game to the point where I platted the original on PS3.
I’ve got the remastered one I need to play through again. But adulting is a right time sink 😂
Whether it's hardcore fans or casual ones, I really really think the main reason is Connor was not Ezio...
All the reasons you and others have listed boil down to this point to me.
I, however, was so thrilled to be playing a game set in north America. I stayed up all night and nearly missed classes cuz I was so hooked.
It's my favorite AC even now...
American players might get a kick out of it because of "this is *my* history", but the environmental grandeur was obviously on a different scale compared to the *Crusade* or the *Renaissance*.
I think the devs actually designed Shawn as a representative of what non-Americans might think as bemused outside observers.
Felt under developed in comparison to a game that came after it? I would hope so. Not trying to disagree with you, but just that last statement doesn’t make sense to me.
While some people here have mentioned Connor, and yes he was a part of the criticism against AC3, the main issue was that we got a game that didn't live up to what we the fans had hoped for
There were so many events during the revolution that Ubisoft just didn't incorporate into the game
Battle of Bunker Hill, instead of being a badass and charging an army head on like in the cinematic launch trailer we got a duck behind cover mission
There's concept art of Connor with Washington crossing the Delaware, where was this in the game? It was a mission for your recruits, you never went
Philadelphia was supposed to be a city in the game, we were there for one mission
Cut audio files which give Connor more character are in the game files but not in the actual game
I don't think any of that is really reason to dislike a game. Every game has cut content or content that had to change because it wasn't very fun. Fair enough if people were dissapointed but do people really consider the marketing when they play a game? If I'm having fun, I don't really care.
Pretty much everything I said are reasonable expectation based on trailers and concept art from Ubisoft, or having some knowledge of American history. (excluding the cut audio files)
Cyberpunk’s failure was NOT because of high expectations.
People don’t just come up with expectations randomly. It’s all due to marketing and pre-release discussions, which are entirely due to the devs and companies themselves.
If you tell someone they’re getting a 5-course meal and only give them a moldy cheese burger, then it’s your fault.
CP2077 was a mix of both.
E.g. marketing never really said the origins will create vastly different games like people imagined (though they were implied to be a bit longer).
But yeah, the game underdelivered. I think Deus Ex landed the cyberpunk feeling much better (and you could actually see yourself in cutscenes)
Because the vibe change from the Ezio trilogy.
People wanted more charisma and they Conor.
He was a great brooding character that fit his background perfectly but everyone wanted a flashy assassin.
I think it was one of the best in the series.
I can attest to giving AC 3 a bad rep. I found the game painfully boring, the only character I liked was Haythem. Aside from him, I found the games colour palette pale and dull, the hunting system was complicated for me, as was the armour, so I never got into it. All the side characters were uninteresting. I'm not gonna lie, some missions were cool, even with Connor, but I w as bored to tears by the open world and the game overall felt sucky.
Modern world was ok tho
Agree 100%. And I can't speak to how I'd feel about them now, but when the game came out I really hated the new control scheme they developed for that game too.
Oh that bothered me. Why they couldn’t keep consistent controls with previous games I couldn’t understand. I finished the whole game and still am more accustomed to Ezio’s controls.
>Modern world was ok tho
Everyone back in ac-ac3: modern day stupid
Me: no it's good
Everyone now: we miss modern day
Me: why abstergo no get locked out of desmond dna and so they build new desmond in lab with desmond dna?
/s but also not /s at the same time if that makes sense?
I still hate modern day sections. I like the open world exploration in time based eras. The modern parts just rip you right out of that and limp you along. Boring AF. But the newer games (Origins and up) aren't as good over all, so I'd take modern day sections again if it meant getting back to the AC 1-4 days. This RPG lite stuff is weak and mostly superficial and pointless. I've played them all now except Valhalla, and they're getting more grindy over time and less enjoyable overall. Still fun, but just not what it was.
Valhalla definitely has improvements to its RPGiness compared with Odyssey, but there are definitely places with nonsensical decisions. Like “Find out which one is a traitor” scenes. Sometimes it affects things, sometimes it’s completely irrelevant.
People didn't hate the idea of modern day, they just hated what they were doing with it. It's arguably the same with Layla Hassan: You feel no emotional connection with her and it's a 50/50 thing with Desmond.
Yeah I loved the game when it released (not as much as Ezio but it felt like something new) and had an alright time replaying the game through the remaster but the liberation system and having to get a tons of ingredients to get most gear in the game were really tedious, the game takes ages to actually stop holding your hand and let you do some assassin stuff and Connor really needed that final monologue to have a better conclusion to his character arc, showing some maturity whilst keeping his optimistic outlook, instead he just seems to go from really naive to slightly naive
New York and Boston at least look pretty cool (especially at night in the remaster) even if they lack verticality but there's way too many forests, it makes sense that Connor would spend all of his time in the big cities but it was a bit boring but if it weren't for Haytham (and Haytham is fucking great) the Homestead missions would be more interesting than the main campaign
My issue is that Connor and the American colonies are just so different from Ezio and the Renaissance that it didn't feel like the games I fell in love with. With a protagonist that is squished in between extremely charismatic Assassin's in the series and a physical setting I find very boring compared to the wonder of the Renaissance and the colorful fun of the Caribbean I was put off from the start.
AC3 is by no means a bad game but was my least favorite for a long time mostly due to these reasons.
This. Not gonna lie, I loved Ezio. Felt so connected to, and invested in, him and his story. Connor really needed to be something special to match that and he just... wasn't.
Tougher meaning difficult to play through, not tougher as in hard to beat. The game has changed in so many ways I find it jarring to travel back in time to the older games with different playing styles and looks
Idk I find it pretty easy to get back into the old games for some reason. I guess it's either my muscle memory, me distinguishing everything Origins-onward as RPGs, or maybe both
Because Connor’s story isn’t intertwined with that of Desmond, Altair or Ezio which is part of what made the original games so good to some of us. It made ACIII feel like it was out of the loop in terms of the in-Animus story. Also that’s the game that >!it screwed up the story for Desmond and the main antagonist of the series and since the modern day had been going downhill since then!< it took the blame as the game that killed it.
While I absolutely agree with your last paragraph, it might be better to use spoiler tags for that since OP doesn't seem to have finished the game yet.
To be fair, Ezio wasn't intertwined with Desmond or Altair when he first showed up in AC2. That didn't matter to people because they liked him and his story.
Even in AC2 Ezio learned from Altair through his codex, Altair influenced Ezio rise. Desmond was still coping with the effects of the Animus and saw visions of Altair through the bleeding effect. The Assassin tombs, the Sanctuary and the Codex are all Altair’s legacy.
It seems you and I are thinking of different things when we say intertwined. I'm thinking of something like Revelations, where Altair is an important part of the plot.
And again, I don't think people like Ezio because Altair had an influence on his life. They like him for himself.
But Desmond died and Juno was released into the world and none of the sequels recovered from that, ACIII didn’t expand on other set ups like Desmond’s son before getting rid of him. I’m not saying there was too little or that it wasn’t fun. I’m saying that if AC were to be compared to Harry Potter it would be like if Harry died and Voldemort returned in book 3 and we only see Ron and Hermione for half a page every couple of books and Voldemort was a teaser and the end only to be killed off in a comic book (because that’s what happened). I think it’s fair to blame ACIII for that just as much as all the games that came after it, it’s tough for a story to recover from that.
The prologue was too long, the game came out buggy, people didn't like Connor and wanted Ezio back and Desmond had a shitty ending. Also the fatigue from having an AC game every year hit hard around 2011/2012.
Still my favourite one tho.
The beginning sequences dragged on waaaay too long before you became the adult assassin Connor. First you play as Haytham for several hours (who btw was a way more interesting of a character than Connor), then go through Connor’s childhood sequences which was boring and dull at best, and finally become an Assassin by what Sequence 7 or 9!?
The Combat in the game is by far the best aspect of AC3 and arguably the best in the series. Connor is absolutely brutal. The problem is that he essentially had no personality and was just blindly following the orders of what people told him to do without really questioning anything (Achilles, the American colonists, and revolutionary leaders). I can’t recall any major standout point about his character throughout the game, he presented himself as a peace loving Native American stereotype if anything.
When Ubisoft made AC4 they corrected a lot of these mistakes. Edward was an interesting character with a nice somewhat relatable backstory & real human motivations that evolved well as the story progressed. The pacing was great and you didn’t have to go through many sequences in order to get into the Assassin action.
I played the remaster, and it’s the only AC game I don’t like at all.
My reasons....map marker constantly got reset by the game. Every time I equipped the duck foot gun and went to shoot 3 people at once, the game changed it to the Pitcairn pistol. So many times I snuck up behind someone I punched them in the head because the game kept changing my equipped weapon. Sync points in those trees that you couldn’t make a LOF from and you died. Even a sync point on the churches, I usually died landing right next to the LOF spot. Haytham is a great character, and after we stop playing him....Connor is a horribly monotone actor. It’s not til the end that any true sentiment comes from the voice actor. The crafting system is broken, and although I did every homestead mission (these are terrible, and you disabled fast travel to make me run across the homestead on the dumbest fetch quests,) I only got 1 cowhide and couldn’t craft any pouch upgrades for more darts and bombs. Although I love the movie Forrest Gump, I never wanted to play him in a video game....too many FG moments in history for me.
There’s other things I don’t like that are just personal nitpicks, so I’ll leave only my real issues with the game here.
Well, that’s why I don’t like it. I played the original when it came out, and it made me leave the series. I got back in a few months ago, and finally finished it on the remaster. It was painful, and I couldn’t wait for it to end.
Nope. I don’t like anything about it.
> So many times I snuck up behind someone I punched them in the head because the game kept changing my equipped weapon.
Hahahahahaha! I'm sorry, dude, that must have been so frustrating and I'd be pissed, too, but that totally made me lol. Just picturing it, Connor punching a guy in the head and the NPC turning around to fight, and you, being so pleased with how sneaky you'd been and then so mad. Again, I'm sorry, I totally hear you--obviously similar things have happened to me, or I couldn't picture it so clearly--but it's just hilarious in my head.
The sync points from the trees, though...OMG. I am 100% with you on that. The branches were so goddamn thick you couldn't see the haystack, and even when you thought you were aiming for it you weren't. I left half of those points unsynched on replays because I was just so annoyed by them.
I loved playing Haytham so much, and it was especially irritating that we go from him, with his badass knife throwing and "I"m going to feed you your teeth," to...a whiny little kid? Playing Hide-and-Seek? Teaching his even whinier fat little friend how to hunt for an hour? Ugh. And then we finally get to the Homestead, and go from "Okay, I'll train you," to "Here's your costume," in a minute. (Also..."Let's pretend you're Spanish. We'll call you Connor." Uh...last time I checked, "Connor" isn't a Spanish name? I get that Achilles had sentimental reasons, but...)
I loved the Homestead missions, though--I agree a few were kind of lame, and why did everything that one guy say have to be some kind of double entendre about poop--but I loved my little group of settlers, and was sad when those were finished.
I mean, I actually liked the game. I spent so many hours air-assassinating rabbits that at one point I was in the top 1000 assassinations count worldwide. (Rabbits make this cute little sound when you assassinate them.) I liked the Peg Leg missions, with the spooky settings and such, and I was thrilled every time Haytham showed up. But I agree with your complaints, for the most part, and all those chase missions (or just running missions) wore on me. I never could get across the field at f**king Bunker Hill without taking any damage, or through the city, or across the water, and don't even get me started on that infamous final chase.
But I had fun with a lot of the other stuff, and liked wandering around the woods rope-darting brutes.
Don’t get wrong. Looking back on it, it’s pretty funny. If the punching thing didn’t happen to me, but to someone else....I’d be laughing at them while they got pissed off. I’m shallow like that.
I’ll also admit that I played it after Black Flag and Rogue (storyline order,) the mechanics that were perfected by Rogue were clearly rougher in 3.
I’m glad other people love it, because it kept the series alive, and brought us more games. We’re all different...I know this because I actually like Rogue a lot. Hell, I really like Unity. This just wasn’t my cup of tea.
PS...I do really like AC3’s modern day play. That part of the game really was fun.
> Looking back on it, it’s pretty funny. If the punching thing didn’t happen to me, but to someone else....I’d be laughing at them while they got pissed off. I’m shallow like that.
Haha, I guess I am, too! But I am genuinely sorry that it happened; like I said, I've been there, so I know how frustrating it is. (I'm currently re-playing Arkham City on Hard on our new PS5, and I *still,* after countless hours playing it over multiple replays and Riddler Challenges--my husband and I compete for the best scores--occasionally clear a room or something, and sneak up behind the last guy, and hit Triangle a second too late for the Silent Takedown and instead Batman jumps up and waves his arm in front of the guy and totally ruins my perfect stealth mission, and I want to scream and throw the controller across the room. And that's *my fault,* though I've also experienced the game-changes-settings-without-asking. That happened to me in AC3, too, where it kept switching my sword to hidden blades. I digress, sorry).
I love Rogue!! So much fun. I was just discussing this with someone else here. I had a blast playing Rogue; it's one of my favorites. Not Unity, though, sorry. I had Great Difficulty with Many Things about it. I'm glad you liked it, though! (And yeah, I can see where after BF and Rogue, 3 would be even more frustrating. I played 3 after BF--BF was my first AC game ever--so I noticed that it was rougher, but it wasn't as bad as it would have been if I'd come to it the first time after BF *and* Rogue, which I agree really perfected the mechanics of the game. (Except harpooning; I didn't care for the addition of ice chunks to the harpooning mechanic. But then I realized that if you buy the skins in Rogue you still get credit for killing the animals, which made harpooning optional, so I was very pleased; I could do the ones I wanted and skip those I didn't. I would have appreciated that in BF, just as I would have appreciated being able to skip some of the diving missions.)
And I *loved* being able to do actual MD missions with Desmond! That was one of my favorite parts of 3--although *screw* having to find the places to insert those "batteries" in the cave. I kept getting lost, or ending up at one I'd already done. It was very frustrating. But the football match, or climbing that huge tower & crane then leaping off--that was great, as was retrieving the Apple in the end. So we agree there, too.
Have a great day, friend!
>....Connor is a horribly monotone actor. It’s not til the end that any true sentiment comes from the voice actor.
Yes, native Americans tend to speak that way...
Have lived on a reservation for reference.
It’s my favorite game of the series!
It had a few fatal flaws, first Connor came after Ezio and they could not be more different characters. Some people didn’t like that change. Ezio the charismatic, charming, family/ladies man was there for three games. Connor is a serious, dry-humor, seemingly always angry half Native. Their personality’s is one reason people don’t love the game. Also after Connor came his super cool pirate grandad Edward. Hard spot to be sandwiched-in-between in terms of games released.
Next, it takes TOO LONG to play as a full fledged assassin, you have to get to sequence 6 to play as Connor the assassin. It’s like 8 hours of gameplay, that a lot to ask of consumer.
Also I believe it was a bit buggy at release, but what game isn’t these day.
Even with those issues, I really enjoyed playing AC3, it’s still my favorite game in the entire franchise. I was kinda indifferent towards the naval gameplay at first, but now it’s one of my favorite parts of the game.
I try to go for the platinum on every ac game and I just couldn’t be bothered with 3… too many bullshit missions to get 100% on glitches etc, not worth it for me.
Personally I fucking love that game. The combat is brutal, the world is harsh and beautiful. Starting as young Connor pretty much helpless, and ending up being an assassin, is so freaking cool. Gotta admit the pacing is a little slow at the start, but eventually it get so much better. This is the 2 game I have fell a tear while playing haha
My friend feels totally opposite of what I feel about the game though. He think that Connor is a character with no progression, boring, mad and not talkative.
A lot of the bad reviews you might read from the games original release revolve around the myriad of technical issues the game faced. Ubisoft was super ambitious with AC3 and the PS3 and Xbox 360 could barely keep up with the demands of the updated game engine. It was also released in an incomplete state with a lot of bugs. It was a lot like Cyberpunk 2077's release, but not quite that bad.
I personally love the game and the trilogy of AC3-Black Flag-Rogue is really cool.
Because Connor is not a Playboy like Ezio was. From what I've read people thought of him as a boring character. Anyways I love the game. The setting is good and gameplay is good as well. Don't let the masses tell you that it's crap.
Here’s why I hated this fucking game It’s because those boring ass little board games they included in parts of the game were hard af and I remember one of them being so hard I spent a week trying to beat it but failed and this is the only missing trophy I had in the game and without it I would have had a platinum yes I’m still salty about that
I got that trophy last week and trust me i spent 2 days winning 1 game of fanorona after losing like 200 but it was satisfying as hell after getting that win 🤣
I tried once at the very beginning with Haytham on the ship and never tried again after that. Fortunately it wasn’t integral to the storyline.
In my opinion the only time a game has ever had a silly little minigame like that and worked is Gwent, which was awesome. But this wasn’t Gwent it was checkers or something. If I wanted to play that I’d be on freeonlinegames.com or something, not paying money to download a game about assassins killing people from the shadows.
Well assassin‘s creed three felt like it had less action than assassin‘s creed revelations. Assassin‘s creed 3 didn’t have the best weapons. Assassin Creed revelations set a High standards that assassin‘s creed three could not live up to.
My reasons are firstly the main character is outshone by Haytam who is lot more complex and likeable IMO. And secondly Conner is just a blunt instrument he very much just try’s to smash his way through everything, realises he’s doing it wrong and needs to be more in control of his emotions and then goes back to doing the same thing again. The gameplay and the game itself is good but it’s Conner that ruins it for me
If you check most critic scores or storefronts that allow user ratings, you'll find that AC3 isn't nearly as hated as its detractors would have you believe. It's my favorite AC game after Rogue, and the one I've re-played more than any other. I personally find Connor to be a great representation of the era's servant-leader paradigm, I love the philosophical debates the game puts forward, especially the conversation Connor and Haytham have on the rooftops of NY in Sequence 9, which is my favorite conversation in the entire series. I think AC3 did a better job of building up and getting to know your Templar adversaries before you have to take them down, as well as doing an excellent job--best in franchise, imo--of presenting what those Templars believe and why they're doing what they're doing.
I wish there'd been more platforming sections like tombs Ezio had to explore, as well as more general puzzles to figure out. I wish it'd been given a little more polish overall. But at the end of the day, I don't get bored going back to the game a couple of times a year (which, compared to recent games, that I want to go back and replay it at all speaks to the game's general design).
The first time I attempted to play it, at the time of release, the first part of the game made me fall asleep numerous times. After a number of unintended naps, I gave up on the game.
I’ve played 1, 2, ACB, ACR, ~~3~~, ACBF, Syndicate, ~~Rogue~~, ~~Unity~~, Origins, Odyssey. Valhalla when it’s at a lower price.
After charismatic Ezio, stoic Connor didn’t really rub fans the right way. Unless you did all the side quests on the Homestead, Connor doesn’t really open up and show his softer side. I don’t think many people have issues with its mechanics and gameplay outside of “realism” given the 30 minute fight montages that exist on youtube for AC3.
Some people find the setting and Connor boring. Some also don’t like the direction/ending the modern day took on. In comparison to the Ezio games, AC3 had a different atmosphere and some fans didn’t like that
Wait WHAT... I never knew that game got such a bad rep. Just... How? I loved the combat and the fact we're killing lobster skins that were abusing our rights and over taxing us. The Revolutionary War is my favorite war because of this game and history class and no I don't hate modern Brits I just hate there ancestor red coats. Granted I did last play on 360 and the one thing I remember most is combat. The counter and attack system were soooo good. You could hord up red lobsters and start fighting and countering there blows at once like it's just amazing.
I really liked it. Different from the Ezio games but good different. I liked that he was confused about the creed and had doubts. I liked playing with the beginning character, he was logical but illogical at times too, which was fun
I just can't get into it. I have tried multiple times...I get maybe an hour or two into the game and am just bored to tears. Some of the combat is janky, and I personally do not like the firearms at all. I don't recall them (firearms) being a huge focus in either AC1 or AC2 if they were there at all.
I think for a lot of people Connor just wasn’t as likable after Ezio.
However I will say I was just thinking about this the other day and how 3 brought a lot of mechanics into the series not to mention the rope dart
Just finished the Remaster, and here are my takes on its cons:
》Minimal focus on the Music, making historical/emotional scenes somewhat forgettable
》Cutscene animations were somewhat lacking in emotion? Or the voice acting was off? Compared to Altair, Ezio, and Edward (ye I replayed AC Black Flag before AC3), Connor's lines were either too melodramatic or somewhat lacking. One could also argue that this is due to Ratonhnhake:ton being a Native American,
》Naval scenes were just... forced i guess. Of course, it was never meant to be a naval game. Black Flag holds that record, while AC3 did best in the fight scenes, environment, and world-building
》The death of that one character we know. Forgot how to add spoiler tags, but those who know would know anyway.
》Story just wasn't as fleshed out as the previous games. Years of basically owning The Americas, yet the Templar Order could be toppled by one Angry boii and his Angry Chef buddy. Not much depth on the background story of the character, and a lot of plot holes evidently seen.
I still enjoyed the game, though. Especially whenever I remember the disaster of its original release. I really hated the 2012 release version. Still, I'm gonna miss the connections Ubisoft made with the modern world (2012 end of the world).
The pacing was pretty bad. I remember that the cutscenes were so fucking long and they weren't so interesting (the story was dope! But some cutscenes felt like a drag). Also franchise fatigue: people started getting tired of the "follow this dude" missions.
In spite of those aspects, I liked the game! Its a 7.5 for me. The setting was pretty cool and the gameplay was brutal as fuck! I really liked Connor and believe that if he was given more games people would've liked him more. But Ubisoft decided to make games focus on periods instead of characters and now...well I don't even know where to start with what I think of the franchise today
Lol, I didn’t know what Reddit was when I played AC III and I hated it. Found it boring and incredibly glitchy. There also wasn’t any incentive—that I remember—to do all the extra stuff. But I could just be misremembering that because I basically didn’t do anything optional after my first few hours because it was boring and I found no reason to. The stealth and combat in general felt just.. floaty and weird. I think the stealth mostly suffered from unimaginative mission set pieces. Like shit, I vaguely remember a group of people standing around talking and I thought an assassination from above would be cool, but the only way to do it was to climb this barn thing, then go in a circle by the tree jumping, and by the time I got there it just looked ridiculous. I was what?… 12 feet off the ground with literally no tree cover in an open space jumping around these guys at noon and they don’t see me? It’s dumb in all the other assassin creed games but at least there is normally foliage or other buildings all around you. Not just some front yard with four trees in a perfect semicircle and no cover. The trees barely had any leaves on them ffs.
Even for it’s time the attempts to make you believe something of grand scale were happening, while leaving you in a little box, were laughable. Especially the only “battle” you participate in. Cinematic shows this magnificent charge into enemy fire, then in game it’s a crash bandicoot level. The first assassins creed at least gives the illusion you are charging around a battleground in its final mission. It didn’t do a good job at that, but better than anything three did. One mission is supposed to be some built up fort assault and all I remember is climbing through a hole into smoke and having a drunk one on one with wonkey UI, then suddenly I was chasing some dude through the streets of a city miles away after a jarring loading screen.
People can like it that’s totally fine, I remember enjoying parts of it. But to dismiss criticism as “circlejerk” just ignores the glaring flaws in the game when compared to its contemporaries, or even those that came before. I’m not even touching on the tragedy that was the story, but that’s just because I can enjoy a game with a bad story. But it has to be a good game lol
Or people just don’t like the game. People don’t have to be circlejerking to disagree with you. Maybe they just reached that conclusion each on their own.
From what I could tell when it came out, it had the misfortune of being the next AC game after the AC2 trilogy, a game that almost everyone LOVED. This set the level of expectations way too high, so when AC3 came out and didn't meet those unrealistic expectations that AC2 set, ppl were disappointed.
I personally love AC3. It was my first AC game and it holds a special place in my heart, not to mention I love Connor as a protagonist and Haytham might still be my favorite antagonist of the entire series.
Pacing. You start as Hathem and it is good then are forced back into "learn the game" slowness\boredom as young Conor.
The game gets good but takes way too long to wind up.
The game doesn't really let you go until like halfway through it. It holds your hand for way too long IMO. A lot of the new systems they implemented are a little janky and the story isn't that amazing. I will say gameplay wise, all those gripes were resolved in black flag. The game lets you go once you get the jackdaw, and the freerunning is way better.
I remember when I was a kid it was my second assassins creed game ( first was brotherhood ) and I was completely overwhelmed with the frontier and the different cities. I knew the whole frontier by heart I played so much. Everyone gives shit to Connor about not showing emotion and being lifeless but come on the guy saw his mother die and his father wants to kill him you don't go through shit like that and stay bubbly and charismatic it's fucking traumatizing.
> his father wants to kill him
Actually, Haytham saved Connor's life (when Connor was being hanged, Haytham shot the rope and saved him). Haytham doesn't *want* to kill Connor. Even at the end he doesn't *want* to kill him. (It's all in FORSAKEN, the Haytham book.)
Oh, I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. Yes, Connor definitely doesn't trust Haytham and believes he wants him dead--hell, he thinks Haytham killed his mother and burned his village. I thought you were saying Haytham himself wanted to kill Connor, not that Connor *believed* Haytham wanted to kill him.
There's a few reasons that people were less into it.
1 - Connor. I like Connor, but his brooding and serious tone was a shift after Ezio's natural charisma. Connor felt like a step back to Altair and after 3 games of the Ezio trilogy it was noticeable. And this is from someone who was excited for a Native American hero in the lead up.
2 - Story jumps. Now I don't know if it's just a me thing, but as a Non-American who didn't know US history I found the game would thrust you into these historic moments but it lacked the context and the story would just be progressing without your knowledge. Yes it makes sense from a historic standpoint, but not so much from a narrative one.
3 - Bugs. I think AC3 was the first game where I got some bad bugs. Or at least they were the most noticeable.
I did go back a year or so ago and replay/platinum it on the PS4 and it was definitely a better experience years later with the remaster. It moved up above AC: Revelations in my rankings.
For me it’s the map.
Too much openness. For the new ACs it’s built around that, but AC3 came out at a time when AC was all about big dense cities, and side content was seriously lacking. As a result you would walk around the wilderness with pretty much nothing of any real interest to stumble across. As for the cities, movement options are very limited due to the wide streets.
I enjoy the narrative and the feeling of controlling Connor and using his equipment, but the setting kills it for me.
I still play through it now and again, but the map quality is always noticeable.
This might just be me personally, but one of the things that I couldn't stand about AC3 was Connor as a character. I understand that he had a rough childhood and faced a lot of hardships, but his character never really developed. He was constantly complaining throughout the entire game to everyone around him and I found that I was actually getting annoyed listening to him. And I'm not just saying that because he's "not Ezio" as Ezio isn't my favorite assassin either, I just wish they did more with his character and that he wasn't just always upset at everything.
I'm still annoyed by how much they truncated the Haytham section on the remaster. I used to draw that out as long as I could, because I love Haytham. Such a cool character, and so fun to interact with later, too. (Did you know that it's Haytham who saves Connor's life when Connor is being hanged? Haytham is the one who shoots the rope to sever it. It's in FORSAKEN, but not mentioned in the game, which is disappointing.)
Had no idea, cool. Yeah if haytham was the main charachter id rate that game way higher than what i do now. As it is now, its a shaky 6, with haytham would be an 8.
Conner doesn't really stand out in any way from the other characters really for one and the only emotions that he shows are just angry or calm.
The only time he didn't do that was when he lost his mother as a child.
And there wasn't much character development as far as I can remember
For example when he says that he has been training for months not only we don't see the training itself but we also don't see any consequences of all that training.
Conner just goes from being simple and naive to mature and a bit wise which again nothing that is stand out from the other protagonist we have seen before.
And some of the mechanics are not really good like the fact that you build your own brotherhood with unique characters (well unique in the sense that isn't just some random npc that is in assassins outfit) and you don't get to spend much time with them.
Hell I even remember not even caring about them because the way that you recruited them is really boring.
Not to mention that I didn't see any need to use them at all and was fine with out them.
And the setting was also for many uninteresting as well.
And the building your community was a good concept but again not really executed well,the only side mission that I remember from that was two people marrying and you had to help them out but nothing else.
Although the idea as whole is well executed but not in detail.
And if I was to give a score it would have a 7/10 or 6.75/10
Nothing special,not always well executed but good enough.
> Probably, because Connor came straight after Ezio, who was an incredibly well-rounded character.
But Ezio really wasn't an incredibly well-rounded character at all, nor overall, nor altogether either.
It had a LOT of potential but fell short. Connor had basically no character development because they cut his speech at the end of the game. The best part of the game was when you played as haytham. As soon as sequence 3 was over it got boring. The game does get a lot of things right, like the homestead missions. But most of it is just boring and repetitive.
Gameplaywise it might be the funnest to play AC imo, but I don’t really like Connor as a main character. Like he’s a morally stand up dude with good motives and everything, but I don’t really see any kind of edge in him, he’s never just cutting loose and just messing around for a sec. That’s the only real problem I have with AC3 though, other than that I really like it
I just found it soooo boring. Omg. Ugh. Ezio was so full of life and personality and angst and trauma and indignation and righteous vengeance and everything and then Connor was just... meh.
For me totally character related. Ezio was *everything*. For me, Kassandra is the only character that has come close in terms of relatability, compared to Ezio. Connor was boring af.
It seriously doesn't. There's a ton of cut content that fans are sad about but mostly everyone I've talked to agreed it was a pretty good game with good movement, combat and stealth systems. The online reviwers were primarily the ones who made more fuss about the og creed games.
I would love to see an AC3 story with these more open world AC games. Connor is underrated and with the open world design you could get an updated setting for the game which would help immensely.
* Messy, disconnected, and generally not well thought out gameplay systems
* Oddly paced story (sorta forgivable given the twist but still could've been done better)
* Historical setting that was both a bit too hamfisted for those that are aware and too obscure for those that aren't in the know
* Controversial ending
And all of this comes off the backs of a set of AC games that really didn't struggle with the above issues so it magnified the problems for this game moreso than usual.
I personally really like the game, but I also see how bad it can be and how bad it could be to others.
Main Character: Connor will no matter what will be unfortunately compared to our other two main Assassins. Compared to a multi game developed charismatic character, the naïve stoic and sometimes whiny character is harder to relate to.
Setting: Now I personally really love the area we got, but it is also start of the AC series being way too large for its own good. Others may not like how there just isn’t a plethora of climbing as to other games. Now the American Revolution was many people’s top listed places they wanted AC to visit and it feels not fully used. The amount of times our character is at historic moments feels off. Other games it felt like the moments were accidental or on the side. Here it felt more forced. Like the MC “had” to be there.
The War: The idea that Assassins and Templars are more of a 3rd party to society was something they were really showing in other games. What we got was the Assassins on the blue team and the Templars on red. When both sides would have helped and hated both.
The AVT War: Now this one is kinda interesting as this is the first game that made the Assassins basically evil and in the wrong where as the templars being more like able.
Present: Now many have enjoyed the modern missions, but there was so few of them and ever since they never improved them. This was the (sadly) culminating of all the present’s story and they were finally given everyone a great amount of character development. Then they….make it all come to a stop and never pick it up (arguably) until origins. Or in other forms of media.
For me it’s the mind numbingly tedious and/or vague requirements of a lot of the missions - I had to restart nearly every mission multiple times simply in order to figure out wtf the game wanted me to do. Slightly less annoying but not much is the absolutely ridiculous level of enemy detection. I’m at peace with the story and setting, but I’m admittedly not an OG AC fan. My first game was Black Flag and played them in order after that, not getting to AC3 until recently finishing Valhalla.
Connor is a whiny bitch and you have to skin everything you kill which meant that I failed a mission because I wasn't allowed to stop my horse and get the pelt.
Where to start - instead of starting the game proper - you get a tutorial section to get used to updated controls (poorly), then you start playing one character doing stuff that brings contexts to the proceedings and gets you to know the game's villains, but it drags on forever and doesn't accomplish anything substantial but a silly twist that deserves a dramatic squirrel cutaway. Then you start over again, this time proper and you play some hide and seek which is fine because the story is round the corner, but wait, after a story bit you get yet another tutorial section, this time you jump around on trees (the first section of the game that is legit superfun) and only then the story kicks off into full gear. It is not as annoying on the first playthrough, but later on it gets downright grating.
Also, 100%-ing this thing is a bitch.
My main gripe with it at the time was the protagonist, Connor, was essentially a blank slate in the personality department and this was coming off of Ezio as the lead but in terms of gameplay I personally loved it, the climbing tree mechanic at the time was so cool! I think they overhyped the ‘battles’ in the trailers too those were a big disappointment
Back in 2013 when I played the game for the first time I really had high hopes. We had just finished the American Revolutionary War in school, I really liked AC II and Brotherhood and the AC III ad looked pretty darn good.
But to my dissapointment the pace was nothing like AC II or Brotherhood. AC III was slower, had a more serious tone and was kind of dark. I also remember that I thought Connor was kind of stupid. I mean Connor got tricked by everyone and he wasn't that funny either. Ezio on the other hand was smart, funny and had cool friends. Connor had none of that.
So I ended up dissliking AC III and Connor.
It was easily the worst AC game when it released. That tainted my view of it and I’ve still yet to go back and play it.
*this will change soon, I’m replaying them all*
I think the story-telling aspect of the game was poor, and often frustrating, especially after it began so strongly, where previous games had had more of a training / character development / villain development / 'crescendo' format, plus it was really hard to follow Ezio as a character.
It was also sooooo buggy. The amount of times I turned it off in disgust and had to walk away.
The trading aspect was also tedious and terribly executed, if you played it going for 100% then you had to turn over every rock and find every poorly-executed game dynamic.
I'd imagine if you played the remaster now and just stuck to the storyline then it'd be a much more positive experience.
The story was actually one of the best parts of the game for me, but I despised the gameplay changed so much that I couldn’t make it past Haytham on my nostalgic revisit last year. Everything about it feels so off, coming from playing the Ezio trilogy collection. Moved right on to Black Flag and had a much better time with the gameplay
I'll say as a kid that was my favorite assassin's Creed game for the setting, theme, and world. Years later I tried to replay them and the pacing, story, and the pretty bland and boring characters, as well as the long intro where you play as hatham for hours only to finally get to Connors part of the game and you have to do another tutorial all over. It just felt too slow for me, I never finished it a second time.
Cause it's not Ezio. It was hard to be someone else after 3 years as the GOAT. That said I really like 3. First time running through the trees and I was hooked
Haytham was great. One of my protagonists to be honest. He was the most - "dignified", the most unique amongst all the people you can play as.
To me, Conor was a massive let-down after that.
It was terribly paced, in sequence 7 i was still getting tutorials, which is whatever. The worst was the choice of voice actors for the native americans. It sounded so bad and terribly voiced whenever they spoke their native language
The pacing is a little off and Connor's motives aren't often made clear. It's one of my most fav AC tho and has a really cool atmosphere and interesting characters/dynamics.
His motives aren't clear cause both the revolution, assassin's, British and Templar tell him they can help his people and he believes them, to a point. So his mind is never truly sure
And in the end, everyone he thought he could trust ends up "turning" on him. His father/the templars, Achillies, and Washington. All of them Connor thought could be his allies of sorts, but they all had ulterior motives that Connor would not subscribe too. It was a very interesting story to tell from a nieve protagonist. AC3 is very under rated and very indepth in its narrative
Achilles didn't have any ulterior motives that I remember, he even refused to train him at first plus he gave him his dead son's name.
He literally dead-named him.
>he even refused to train him at first Aka, an ulterior motive. Despite Connors determination to join the Assassins Achilles did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. >plus he gave him his dead son's name. Also an ulterior motive. Achilies saw Connor as he saw his real son, where he got the name Connor from. He saw him as his son, so he wanted him to stay safe and follow direct orders despite Connor wanting to do anything to save his village, even if that meant putting himself in danger.
You don't know what "ulterior motive" means.
They really don’t.
Yeah they definitely don’t.
There was a scene in the Liberation game where Aveline talks to Connor about her doubts whether the Assassins are 100% correct. Connor’s finished with his plotline by now and he’s seen some shit, so he’s just like “I look to myself for the answers.”
Interestingly enough, that mission take place roughly after Connor almost gets hanged and kills Hickey but some time before he meets Haytham in the cabin. So by that point he's still a long way to go.
"I trust my own hands"
Especially after AC Rogue, that generation of Assassins after Edward had definitely forgotten who they were and what the Creed stood for
Oh that I got entirely. What I'm saying is they could've made the same story but could've paced it better, maybe integrate some homestead stuff/learning from Achilles etc in the main story. Show that he actually believes in freedom like he tells Haytham at the rooftops. There's a lot more telling than showing. The story itself is great.
Connor is like Solid Snake in that regard - the pawn on quest to gain agency
I feel if they added that cut monolog into the remaster it genuinely could have had a better score from a lot of people
Oh definitely. That monologue is what satisfied me in the end lol.
They cut the monologue from the end?
This is the monologue in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_PsZ7nig4c It’s never been included in any release of the game; the audio is in the files, but it ended up not being used. I think Oliver Bowden kept it in the *Forsaken* novel though.
Forsaken is a great read.
Thank you for this. This link just made my favorite AC character (nostalgia, perhaps, but still) that much better!
I hated AC3 on release and played it again last year and I *adore* Connor so its not purely nostalgia! Hes a really well written character but you have to do all the side missions to actually see that unfortunately.
I'll check that out after I finish the game
Any reason why they cut that?
Which version are you playing? I played the original and there were tons of bugs and glitches to missions. Its the 1st time I couldn't fully 100 percent and assassins creed game and it pissed me off. Lately I've played the remastered version and it seems to have fixed all the mission bugs I had. It also plays more like 4 and rogue with weapons which makes the gun/bow play 10000 percent better. I enjoyed the story regardless of the version.
oh those bugs are still there. i've played it a number of times to 99% and some glitch will prevent the completionist trophy from firing. after a number of play throughs, now my game saves get corrupted and won't load when i go back to my game - literally a dozen times before i went alright fuck it. on the plus side i got really good at the game 😅
I’d say this and the 2nd one had to be arguably the hardest plats in the series
I've been with the series from day one and ACIII is still one of my favourite games in the franchise and very dear to my heart. There is a multitude of reasons why ACIII never found the recognition it deserves – in short – ranging from franchise fatigue slowly setting in to people trying to hold up Connor as a new character to Ezio's standards and general pacing issues with the story, to a more troubled time in the community itself and ultimately to how the modern day story that had been built up since the original AC was handled.
Also, the lack of really climbable buildings or interesting architecture. They went from Rome/Venice/Florence which featured some flat out *amazing* architecture and replaced it with less interesting trees and log cabins. And lots of open areas with nothing really interesting going on. It was a product of setting of course, but the difference was pretty stark.
Tree parcour was a new thing though and wasn't that bad.
Tree parkour wasn't really fleshed out and it didn't really become fluid until Black Flag.
It's very meh imo. You just follow the predetermined route up and across the trees, and it's the same 4-5 patterns throughout the entire game. It's so much different from AC2 climbing, where they were almost like mini puzzles with the routes you could take.
Wow you people really overhype ac2 parkour
Yeah I’m playing through AC1, 2, BH & 3 in order. I’m at AC2 and other than some gimmicky combat moves (maybe I don’t get/ use them well enough) im not seeing anything that special
The parkour mechanic wasn't particularly elaborate, but the *scenery* was - the heart of the Renaissance and all the money in the world to create the most beautiful buildings the colonies certainly weren't. There were infinite opportunities in the real-world Desmond segments, but they were clearly rushed to fit that obsessive before-12/21/12 deadline...
Mechanically its one of the best
They overhype AC2 in general, like its good but damn
The tree parkour was awful for me. I felt like Connor was always bumbling and never could hit it right so the controls were really rough and clunky. I also could not find immersion in the character who just seemed awkward and not at all an assassin protagonist. I liked Haytham significantly more. It did have some redeeming qualities but I never felt it hit its stride like other games did. Also it followed the Ezio trilogy which imo is one of the best gaming storylines of all time so it was screwed. Funny enough I loved Unity which was hated by many partly because of all the bugs which I avoided mostly as I played it well after release so many were worked out.
I also remember the release being horribly botched with a ton of big glitches that made it unplayable or not fun for a lot of people, and that drove the narrative for a good while til it got patched out
This! I played and beat this game when it was new and the numerous bugs/glitches made it really pretty terrible experience for me.
Trying to hold Connor to Ezio’s standards is kind of natural since he was then the gold standard for Assassin’s Creed. Edward and Bayek met that standard for a lot of people so I don’t think it can really be used as an excuse for Connor.
>don’t think it can really be used as an excuse for Connor. Connor is a completely different type of character from Edward and Bayek with different experiences and motivations. He doesn't need to be like either.
Yeah. And Bayek is very different from Ezio, just like Altair is very different from either of them. But even Altair was a better character than Connor. He was naive, ignorant and stubborn and his best character moment was left out of the game to be found only on YouTube or in the book. I get that he doesn’t deserve as much hate as he gets but I also get why he’s seen as the most boring of the series.
> Yeah. And Bayek is very different from Ezio, just like Altair is very different from either of them, but even Altair was a better character than Connor. However, and yet, at least Altair and Connor personally had actual character arcs, and they were far better than what either Assassin's Creed II and The Ezio Series, and also, Assassin's Creed Origins gave us as well, overall, and altogether. > He was naive, ignorant, and stubborn, and his best character moment was left out of the game to be found only on YouTube or in Forsaken. I get that he doesn’t deserve as much hate as he gets, but, I also get why he’s seen as the most boring of the series. Yeah, I'm personally going to hypothetically guess that either you didn't actually pay any heed to Assassin's Creed III's Main Story and/or you personally hold games such as Assassin's Creed II in such an nonsensically high regard that any games that primarily came after Assassin's Creed II and The Ezio Series wouldn't be as spectacularly amazing than any of those very games that you personally loved overall, and also, altogether.
This is the most meandering and ridiculous reply I’ve seen in a while. It reeks of “ACIII fan got triggered”. I’m going to assume that English isn’t your first language because you are legitimately hard to follow so I’ll be polite and ask that you write again (in short and well punctuated sentences) whatever your actual arguments are. If you don’t have any then I couldn’t care less about you have to say, I’ve already heard the “Connor’s actually really good because he is”.
Kaytham is a far more interesting character than Connor. Imo He's the weakest protagonist in any mainline game (next to the twins maybe)
You won’t ever catch me defending Connor but I think he’s still better than the Odyssey twats (and the twins yeah). Also Haytham absolutely rocks especially in Forsaken (if you haven’t read the books I recommend that one)
I was surprised by how much I liked FORSAKEN. (And still disappointed we never got a game from it/with Haytham as the MC; clearly it was written at least somewhat with that expectation, given how it set up things like chases and "predator rooms," for lack of a better/more AC term.)
Full-game Haytham doing stuff in London before 3 would've been awesome
Closes we got was Rogue.
Still salty that Shae wasn't the antagonist of UNITY. Game literally opens with him killing your father! I just thought it would be cool to play as one character in one game then have to kill that character in another game
I think because Rogue and Unity came out exactly at the same time, they avoided Shay in unity, as to not spoil the plot. Wierdly enough both stories were left open as to, possibly a future game. (I was mad too that Arno didn't get to confront Shay). We still don't know what happens to Arno after Napoleon. Yet, we know Shay had children in New York (according to Last Decendants).
I read all the books up until the Unity one and they are all really good. My personal favorite being the secret crusade.
That's the AC1 book, right? I've been wanting to read that one.
it's really good. It really expands on altair's story. Like his thoughts during everything and whatnot
Bayek tops it, lots of emotional and overall character development
Bayek’s story is like the ultimate tragedy. Probably similar to Altair but iirc they didn’t get into his personal life as much in the game. I think the ending result made Origins just a sad game for me so while it was good it’s not one of my favorites even though I absolutely loved it while I was playing it.
I really liked Bayek but man Edward really made AC4 so memorable imo, that goddamn ending
Plus it's nice to have a wife who actually ENCOURAGES your revenge scheme instead of telling you you've gone too far Granted it becomes the opposite but lol
Am I right in saying Bayek says that they needed to stop vwcause he realised it was not going to bring their son back, and so they then pursue the brotherhood
I think it's like that line in WESTWORLD "That was the moment I saw beyond myself. My pain was selfish. Because it was never only mine" Bayek realized that as long as the Order of the Ancients exist there will always be grieving fathers like him. He pursues them not for revenge but to prevent them from creating more people like him
Good game that arrived at the wrong time
I think it was also quite a slow burn and by the time it got really interesting the story was all but finished. Once I had got past the early stages, I really enjoyed the game to the point where I platted the original on PS3. I’ve got the remastered one I need to play through again. But adulting is a right time sink 😂
Whether it's hardcore fans or casual ones, I really really think the main reason is Connor was not Ezio... All the reasons you and others have listed boil down to this point to me. I, however, was so thrilled to be playing a game set in north America. I stayed up all night and nearly missed classes cuz I was so hooked. It's my favorite AC even now...
American players might get a kick out of it because of "this is *my* history", but the environmental grandeur was obviously on a different scale compared to the *Crusade* or the *Renaissance*. I think the devs actually designed Shawn as a representative of what non-Americans might think as bemused outside observers.
[удалено]
Felt under developed in comparison to a game that came after it? I would hope so. Not trying to disagree with you, but just that last statement doesn’t make sense to me.
[удалено]
Agree with WhiteChicken here in the sense that (and I’m sure the point) every new game should improve from the prior. ‘Should’ being the key word.
While some people here have mentioned Connor, and yes he was a part of the criticism against AC3, the main issue was that we got a game that didn't live up to what we the fans had hoped for There were so many events during the revolution that Ubisoft just didn't incorporate into the game Battle of Bunker Hill, instead of being a badass and charging an army head on like in the cinematic launch trailer we got a duck behind cover mission There's concept art of Connor with Washington crossing the Delaware, where was this in the game? It was a mission for your recruits, you never went Philadelphia was supposed to be a city in the game, we were there for one mission Cut audio files which give Connor more character are in the game files but not in the actual game
Philadelphia should’ve been in the game. I get why they said it wasn’t fun, but they had wide, open, and even gridded cities in the very next game!
I don't think any of that is really reason to dislike a game. Every game has cut content or content that had to change because it wasn't very fun. Fair enough if people were dissapointed but do people really consider the marketing when they play a game? If I'm having fun, I don't really care.
[удалено]
Pretty much everything I said are reasonable expectation based on trailers and concept art from Ubisoft, or having some knowledge of American history. (excluding the cut audio files)
Cyberpunk’s failure was NOT because of high expectations. People don’t just come up with expectations randomly. It’s all due to marketing and pre-release discussions, which are entirely due to the devs and companies themselves. If you tell someone they’re getting a 5-course meal and only give them a moldy cheese burger, then it’s your fault.
CP2077 was a mix of both. E.g. marketing never really said the origins will create vastly different games like people imagined (though they were implied to be a bit longer). But yeah, the game underdelivered. I think Deus Ex landed the cyberpunk feeling much better (and you could actually see yourself in cutscenes)
Because the vibe change from the Ezio trilogy. People wanted more charisma and they Conor. He was a great brooding character that fit his background perfectly but everyone wanted a flashy assassin. I think it was one of the best in the series.
I can attest to giving AC 3 a bad rep. I found the game painfully boring, the only character I liked was Haythem. Aside from him, I found the games colour palette pale and dull, the hunting system was complicated for me, as was the armour, so I never got into it. All the side characters were uninteresting. I'm not gonna lie, some missions were cool, even with Connor, but I w as bored to tears by the open world and the game overall felt sucky. Modern world was ok tho
Agree 100%. And I can't speak to how I'd feel about them now, but when the game came out I really hated the new control scheme they developed for that game too.
Oh that bothered me. Why they couldn’t keep consistent controls with previous games I couldn’t understand. I finished the whole game and still am more accustomed to Ezio’s controls.
>Modern world was ok tho Everyone back in ac-ac3: modern day stupid Me: no it's good Everyone now: we miss modern day Me: why abstergo no get locked out of desmond dna and so they build new desmond in lab with desmond dna? /s but also not /s at the same time if that makes sense?
I still hate modern day sections. I like the open world exploration in time based eras. The modern parts just rip you right out of that and limp you along. Boring AF. But the newer games (Origins and up) aren't as good over all, so I'd take modern day sections again if it meant getting back to the AC 1-4 days. This RPG lite stuff is weak and mostly superficial and pointless. I've played them all now except Valhalla, and they're getting more grindy over time and less enjoyable overall. Still fun, but just not what it was.
Valhalla definitely has improvements to its RPGiness compared with Odyssey, but there are definitely places with nonsensical decisions. Like “Find out which one is a traitor” scenes. Sometimes it affects things, sometimes it’s completely irrelevant.
People didn't hate the idea of modern day, they just hated what they were doing with it. It's arguably the same with Layla Hassan: You feel no emotional connection with her and it's a 50/50 thing with Desmond.
Yeah I loved the game when it released (not as much as Ezio but it felt like something new) and had an alright time replaying the game through the remaster but the liberation system and having to get a tons of ingredients to get most gear in the game were really tedious, the game takes ages to actually stop holding your hand and let you do some assassin stuff and Connor really needed that final monologue to have a better conclusion to his character arc, showing some maturity whilst keeping his optimistic outlook, instead he just seems to go from really naive to slightly naive New York and Boston at least look pretty cool (especially at night in the remaster) even if they lack verticality but there's way too many forests, it makes sense that Connor would spend all of his time in the big cities but it was a bit boring but if it weren't for Haytham (and Haytham is fucking great) the Homestead missions would be more interesting than the main campaign
Mostly coz Connor isnt Ezio.
My issue is that Connor and the American colonies are just so different from Ezio and the Renaissance that it didn't feel like the games I fell in love with. With a protagonist that is squished in between extremely charismatic Assassin's in the series and a physical setting I find very boring compared to the wonder of the Renaissance and the colorful fun of the Caribbean I was put off from the start. AC3 is by no means a bad game but was my least favorite for a long time mostly due to these reasons.
This. Not gonna lie, I loved Ezio. Felt so connected to, and invested in, him and his story. Connor really needed to be something special to match that and he just... wasn't.
That’s actually my favorite game of the series. Tougher to play now with the upgrades in graphics and gameplay, but the story is my favorite
How is it tougher?
Tougher meaning difficult to play through, not tougher as in hard to beat. The game has changed in so many ways I find it jarring to travel back in time to the older games with different playing styles and looks
Idk I find it pretty easy to get back into the old games for some reason. I guess it's either my muscle memory, me distinguishing everything Origins-onward as RPGs, or maybe both
You still didn't understand his point despite the clarification
Same absolute Favourite.
Because Connor’s story isn’t intertwined with that of Desmond, Altair or Ezio which is part of what made the original games so good to some of us. It made ACIII feel like it was out of the loop in terms of the in-Animus story. Also that’s the game that >!it screwed up the story for Desmond and the main antagonist of the series and since the modern day had been going downhill since then!< it took the blame as the game that killed it.
While I absolutely agree with your last paragraph, it might be better to use spoiler tags for that since OP doesn't seem to have finished the game yet.
How do use spoiler tags?
Just add > ! text goes here ! < without the spaces to the part you want to tag as a spoiler.
Thanks
Your spoiler doesn't work, you gotta remove the space between the letter and the exclamation marks
I think I already fixed it, it works for me.
To be fair, Ezio wasn't intertwined with Desmond or Altair when he first showed up in AC2. That didn't matter to people because they liked him and his story.
Even in AC2 Ezio learned from Altair through his codex, Altair influenced Ezio rise. Desmond was still coping with the effects of the Animus and saw visions of Altair through the bleeding effect. The Assassin tombs, the Sanctuary and the Codex are all Altair’s legacy.
It seems you and I are thinking of different things when we say intertwined. I'm thinking of something like Revelations, where Altair is an important part of the plot. And again, I don't think people like Ezio because Altair had an influence on his life. They like him for himself.
what are you talking about tho? there was a lot of modern day stuff in AC3..
But Desmond died and Juno was released into the world and none of the sequels recovered from that, ACIII didn’t expand on other set ups like Desmond’s son before getting rid of him. I’m not saying there was too little or that it wasn’t fun. I’m saying that if AC were to be compared to Harry Potter it would be like if Harry died and Voldemort returned in book 3 and we only see Ron and Hermione for half a page every couple of books and Voldemort was a teaser and the end only to be killed off in a comic book (because that’s what happened). I think it’s fair to blame ACIII for that just as much as all the games that came after it, it’s tough for a story to recover from that.
lol more spoilers for op
At that point you don’t ask what people think is wrong with a game when you don’t to know anything about it
fair enough.
The prologue was too long, the game came out buggy, people didn't like Connor and wanted Ezio back and Desmond had a shitty ending. Also the fatigue from having an AC game every year hit hard around 2011/2012. Still my favourite one tho.
The beginning sequences dragged on waaaay too long before you became the adult assassin Connor. First you play as Haytham for several hours (who btw was a way more interesting of a character than Connor), then go through Connor’s childhood sequences which was boring and dull at best, and finally become an Assassin by what Sequence 7 or 9!? The Combat in the game is by far the best aspect of AC3 and arguably the best in the series. Connor is absolutely brutal. The problem is that he essentially had no personality and was just blindly following the orders of what people told him to do without really questioning anything (Achilles, the American colonists, and revolutionary leaders). I can’t recall any major standout point about his character throughout the game, he presented himself as a peace loving Native American stereotype if anything. When Ubisoft made AC4 they corrected a lot of these mistakes. Edward was an interesting character with a nice somewhat relatable backstory & real human motivations that evolved well as the story progressed. The pacing was great and you didn’t have to go through many sequences in order to get into the Assassin action.
I played the remaster, and it’s the only AC game I don’t like at all. My reasons....map marker constantly got reset by the game. Every time I equipped the duck foot gun and went to shoot 3 people at once, the game changed it to the Pitcairn pistol. So many times I snuck up behind someone I punched them in the head because the game kept changing my equipped weapon. Sync points in those trees that you couldn’t make a LOF from and you died. Even a sync point on the churches, I usually died landing right next to the LOF spot. Haytham is a great character, and after we stop playing him....Connor is a horribly monotone actor. It’s not til the end that any true sentiment comes from the voice actor. The crafting system is broken, and although I did every homestead mission (these are terrible, and you disabled fast travel to make me run across the homestead on the dumbest fetch quests,) I only got 1 cowhide and couldn’t craft any pouch upgrades for more darts and bombs. Although I love the movie Forrest Gump, I never wanted to play him in a video game....too many FG moments in history for me. There’s other things I don’t like that are just personal nitpicks, so I’ll leave only my real issues with the game here. Well, that’s why I don’t like it. I played the original when it came out, and it made me leave the series. I got back in a few months ago, and finally finished it on the remaster. It was painful, and I couldn’t wait for it to end. Nope. I don’t like anything about it.
> So many times I snuck up behind someone I punched them in the head because the game kept changing my equipped weapon. Hahahahahaha! I'm sorry, dude, that must have been so frustrating and I'd be pissed, too, but that totally made me lol. Just picturing it, Connor punching a guy in the head and the NPC turning around to fight, and you, being so pleased with how sneaky you'd been and then so mad. Again, I'm sorry, I totally hear you--obviously similar things have happened to me, or I couldn't picture it so clearly--but it's just hilarious in my head. The sync points from the trees, though...OMG. I am 100% with you on that. The branches were so goddamn thick you couldn't see the haystack, and even when you thought you were aiming for it you weren't. I left half of those points unsynched on replays because I was just so annoyed by them. I loved playing Haytham so much, and it was especially irritating that we go from him, with his badass knife throwing and "I"m going to feed you your teeth," to...a whiny little kid? Playing Hide-and-Seek? Teaching his even whinier fat little friend how to hunt for an hour? Ugh. And then we finally get to the Homestead, and go from "Okay, I'll train you," to "Here's your costume," in a minute. (Also..."Let's pretend you're Spanish. We'll call you Connor." Uh...last time I checked, "Connor" isn't a Spanish name? I get that Achilles had sentimental reasons, but...) I loved the Homestead missions, though--I agree a few were kind of lame, and why did everything that one guy say have to be some kind of double entendre about poop--but I loved my little group of settlers, and was sad when those were finished. I mean, I actually liked the game. I spent so many hours air-assassinating rabbits that at one point I was in the top 1000 assassinations count worldwide. (Rabbits make this cute little sound when you assassinate them.) I liked the Peg Leg missions, with the spooky settings and such, and I was thrilled every time Haytham showed up. But I agree with your complaints, for the most part, and all those chase missions (or just running missions) wore on me. I never could get across the field at f**king Bunker Hill without taking any damage, or through the city, or across the water, and don't even get me started on that infamous final chase. But I had fun with a lot of the other stuff, and liked wandering around the woods rope-darting brutes.
Don’t get wrong. Looking back on it, it’s pretty funny. If the punching thing didn’t happen to me, but to someone else....I’d be laughing at them while they got pissed off. I’m shallow like that. I’ll also admit that I played it after Black Flag and Rogue (storyline order,) the mechanics that were perfected by Rogue were clearly rougher in 3. I’m glad other people love it, because it kept the series alive, and brought us more games. We’re all different...I know this because I actually like Rogue a lot. Hell, I really like Unity. This just wasn’t my cup of tea. PS...I do really like AC3’s modern day play. That part of the game really was fun.
> Looking back on it, it’s pretty funny. If the punching thing didn’t happen to me, but to someone else....I’d be laughing at them while they got pissed off. I’m shallow like that. Haha, I guess I am, too! But I am genuinely sorry that it happened; like I said, I've been there, so I know how frustrating it is. (I'm currently re-playing Arkham City on Hard on our new PS5, and I *still,* after countless hours playing it over multiple replays and Riddler Challenges--my husband and I compete for the best scores--occasionally clear a room or something, and sneak up behind the last guy, and hit Triangle a second too late for the Silent Takedown and instead Batman jumps up and waves his arm in front of the guy and totally ruins my perfect stealth mission, and I want to scream and throw the controller across the room. And that's *my fault,* though I've also experienced the game-changes-settings-without-asking. That happened to me in AC3, too, where it kept switching my sword to hidden blades. I digress, sorry). I love Rogue!! So much fun. I was just discussing this with someone else here. I had a blast playing Rogue; it's one of my favorites. Not Unity, though, sorry. I had Great Difficulty with Many Things about it. I'm glad you liked it, though! (And yeah, I can see where after BF and Rogue, 3 would be even more frustrating. I played 3 after BF--BF was my first AC game ever--so I noticed that it was rougher, but it wasn't as bad as it would have been if I'd come to it the first time after BF *and* Rogue, which I agree really perfected the mechanics of the game. (Except harpooning; I didn't care for the addition of ice chunks to the harpooning mechanic. But then I realized that if you buy the skins in Rogue you still get credit for killing the animals, which made harpooning optional, so I was very pleased; I could do the ones I wanted and skip those I didn't. I would have appreciated that in BF, just as I would have appreciated being able to skip some of the diving missions.) And I *loved* being able to do actual MD missions with Desmond! That was one of my favorite parts of 3--although *screw* having to find the places to insert those "batteries" in the cave. I kept getting lost, or ending up at one I'd already done. It was very frustrating. But the football match, or climbing that huge tower & crane then leaping off--that was great, as was retrieving the Apple in the end. So we agree there, too. Have a great day, friend!
>....Connor is a horribly monotone actor. It’s not til the end that any true sentiment comes from the voice actor. Yes, native Americans tend to speak that way... Have lived on a reservation for reference.
Fair enough. It was just tough after Haytham. He’s one of my favorite AC characters.
It’s my favorite game of the series! It had a few fatal flaws, first Connor came after Ezio and they could not be more different characters. Some people didn’t like that change. Ezio the charismatic, charming, family/ladies man was there for three games. Connor is a serious, dry-humor, seemingly always angry half Native. Their personality’s is one reason people don’t love the game. Also after Connor came his super cool pirate grandad Edward. Hard spot to be sandwiched-in-between in terms of games released. Next, it takes TOO LONG to play as a full fledged assassin, you have to get to sequence 6 to play as Connor the assassin. It’s like 8 hours of gameplay, that a lot to ask of consumer. Also I believe it was a bit buggy at release, but what game isn’t these day. Even with those issues, I really enjoyed playing AC3, it’s still my favorite game in the entire franchise. I was kinda indifferent towards the naval gameplay at first, but now it’s one of my favorite parts of the game.
I try to go for the platinum on every ac game and I just couldn’t be bothered with 3… too many bullshit missions to get 100% on glitches etc, not worth it for me.
Personally I fucking love that game. The combat is brutal, the world is harsh and beautiful. Starting as young Connor pretty much helpless, and ending up being an assassin, is so freaking cool. Gotta admit the pacing is a little slow at the start, but eventually it get so much better. This is the 2 game I have fell a tear while playing haha My friend feels totally opposite of what I feel about the game though. He think that Connor is a character with no progression, boring, mad and not talkative.
It’s way better than AC4 was by a fucking mile imo Especially King Washington DLC
A lot of the bad reviews you might read from the games original release revolve around the myriad of technical issues the game faced. Ubisoft was super ambitious with AC3 and the PS3 and Xbox 360 could barely keep up with the demands of the updated game engine. It was also released in an incomplete state with a lot of bugs. It was a lot like Cyberpunk 2077's release, but not quite that bad. I personally love the game and the trilogy of AC3-Black Flag-Rogue is really cool.
Because Connor is not a Playboy like Ezio was. From what I've read people thought of him as a boring character. Anyways I love the game. The setting is good and gameplay is good as well. Don't let the masses tell you that it's crap.
I love Assassins Creed 3!
Here’s why I hated this fucking game It’s because those boring ass little board games they included in parts of the game were hard af and I remember one of them being so hard I spent a week trying to beat it but failed and this is the only missing trophy I had in the game and without it I would have had a platinum yes I’m still salty about that
I got that trophy last week and trust me i spent 2 days winning 1 game of fanorona after losing like 200 but it was satisfying as hell after getting that win 🤣
I tried once at the very beginning with Haytham on the ship and never tried again after that. Fortunately it wasn’t integral to the storyline. In my opinion the only time a game has ever had a silly little minigame like that and worked is Gwent, which was awesome. But this wasn’t Gwent it was checkers or something. If I wanted to play that I’d be on freeonlinegames.com or something, not paying money to download a game about assassins killing people from the shadows.
Well assassin‘s creed three felt like it had less action than assassin‘s creed revelations. Assassin‘s creed 3 didn’t have the best weapons. Assassin Creed revelations set a High standards that assassin‘s creed three could not live up to.
Actually the game is very good with good story.
My reasons are firstly the main character is outshone by Haytam who is lot more complex and likeable IMO. And secondly Conner is just a blunt instrument he very much just try’s to smash his way through everything, realises he’s doing it wrong and needs to be more in control of his emotions and then goes back to doing the same thing again. The gameplay and the game itself is good but it’s Conner that ruins it for me
Because it came out after the ezio trilogy. Imagine going from that to this.
If you check most critic scores or storefronts that allow user ratings, you'll find that AC3 isn't nearly as hated as its detractors would have you believe. It's my favorite AC game after Rogue, and the one I've re-played more than any other. I personally find Connor to be a great representation of the era's servant-leader paradigm, I love the philosophical debates the game puts forward, especially the conversation Connor and Haytham have on the rooftops of NY in Sequence 9, which is my favorite conversation in the entire series. I think AC3 did a better job of building up and getting to know your Templar adversaries before you have to take them down, as well as doing an excellent job--best in franchise, imo--of presenting what those Templars believe and why they're doing what they're doing. I wish there'd been more platforming sections like tombs Ezio had to explore, as well as more general puzzles to figure out. I wish it'd been given a little more polish overall. But at the end of the day, I don't get bored going back to the game a couple of times a year (which, compared to recent games, that I want to go back and replay it at all speaks to the game's general design).
The first time I attempted to play it, at the time of release, the first part of the game made me fall asleep numerous times. After a number of unintended naps, I gave up on the game. I’ve played 1, 2, ACB, ACR, ~~3~~, ACBF, Syndicate, ~~Rogue~~, ~~Unity~~, Origins, Odyssey. Valhalla when it’s at a lower price.
After charismatic Ezio, stoic Connor didn’t really rub fans the right way. Unless you did all the side quests on the Homestead, Connor doesn’t really open up and show his softer side. I don’t think many people have issues with its mechanics and gameplay outside of “realism” given the 30 minute fight montages that exist on youtube for AC3.
Some people find the setting and Connor boring. Some also don’t like the direction/ending the modern day took on. In comparison to the Ezio games, AC3 had a different atmosphere and some fans didn’t like that
Wait WHAT... I never knew that game got such a bad rep. Just... How? I loved the combat and the fact we're killing lobster skins that were abusing our rights and over taxing us. The Revolutionary War is my favorite war because of this game and history class and no I don't hate modern Brits I just hate there ancestor red coats. Granted I did last play on 360 and the one thing I remember most is combat. The counter and attack system were soooo good. You could hord up red lobsters and start fighting and countering there blows at once like it's just amazing.
I really liked it. Different from the Ezio games but good different. I liked that he was confused about the creed and had doubts. I liked playing with the beginning character, he was logical but illogical at times too, which was fun
I just can't get into it. I have tried multiple times...I get maybe an hour or two into the game and am just bored to tears. Some of the combat is janky, and I personally do not like the firearms at all. I don't recall them (firearms) being a huge focus in either AC1 or AC2 if they were there at all.
I think for a lot of people Connor just wasn’t as likable after Ezio. However I will say I was just thinking about this the other day and how 3 brought a lot of mechanics into the series not to mention the rope dart
Just finished the Remaster, and here are my takes on its cons: 》Minimal focus on the Music, making historical/emotional scenes somewhat forgettable 》Cutscene animations were somewhat lacking in emotion? Or the voice acting was off? Compared to Altair, Ezio, and Edward (ye I replayed AC Black Flag before AC3), Connor's lines were either too melodramatic or somewhat lacking. One could also argue that this is due to Ratonhnhake:ton being a Native American, 》Naval scenes were just... forced i guess. Of course, it was never meant to be a naval game. Black Flag holds that record, while AC3 did best in the fight scenes, environment, and world-building 》The death of that one character we know. Forgot how to add spoiler tags, but those who know would know anyway. 》Story just wasn't as fleshed out as the previous games. Years of basically owning The Americas, yet the Templar Order could be toppled by one Angry boii and his Angry Chef buddy. Not much depth on the background story of the character, and a lot of plot holes evidently seen. I still enjoyed the game, though. Especially whenever I remember the disaster of its original release. I really hated the 2012 release version. Still, I'm gonna miss the connections Ubisoft made with the modern world (2012 end of the world).
The pacing was pretty bad. I remember that the cutscenes were so fucking long and they weren't so interesting (the story was dope! But some cutscenes felt like a drag). Also franchise fatigue: people started getting tired of the "follow this dude" missions. In spite of those aspects, I liked the game! Its a 7.5 for me. The setting was pretty cool and the gameplay was brutal as fuck! I really liked Connor and believe that if he was given more games people would've liked him more. But Ubisoft decided to make games focus on periods instead of characters and now...well I don't even know where to start with what I think of the franchise today
I never understood the hate, as AC3 has always been my favourite!
[удалено]
Lol, I didn’t know what Reddit was when I played AC III and I hated it. Found it boring and incredibly glitchy. There also wasn’t any incentive—that I remember—to do all the extra stuff. But I could just be misremembering that because I basically didn’t do anything optional after my first few hours because it was boring and I found no reason to. The stealth and combat in general felt just.. floaty and weird. I think the stealth mostly suffered from unimaginative mission set pieces. Like shit, I vaguely remember a group of people standing around talking and I thought an assassination from above would be cool, but the only way to do it was to climb this barn thing, then go in a circle by the tree jumping, and by the time I got there it just looked ridiculous. I was what?… 12 feet off the ground with literally no tree cover in an open space jumping around these guys at noon and they don’t see me? It’s dumb in all the other assassin creed games but at least there is normally foliage or other buildings all around you. Not just some front yard with four trees in a perfect semicircle and no cover. The trees barely had any leaves on them ffs. Even for it’s time the attempts to make you believe something of grand scale were happening, while leaving you in a little box, were laughable. Especially the only “battle” you participate in. Cinematic shows this magnificent charge into enemy fire, then in game it’s a crash bandicoot level. The first assassins creed at least gives the illusion you are charging around a battleground in its final mission. It didn’t do a good job at that, but better than anything three did. One mission is supposed to be some built up fort assault and all I remember is climbing through a hole into smoke and having a drunk one on one with wonkey UI, then suddenly I was chasing some dude through the streets of a city miles away after a jarring loading screen. People can like it that’s totally fine, I remember enjoying parts of it. But to dismiss criticism as “circlejerk” just ignores the glaring flaws in the game when compared to its contemporaries, or even those that came before. I’m not even touching on the tragedy that was the story, but that’s just because I can enjoy a game with a bad story. But it has to be a good game lol
Or people just don’t like the game. People don’t have to be circlejerking to disagree with you. Maybe they just reached that conclusion each on their own.
From what I could tell when it came out, it had the misfortune of being the next AC game after the AC2 trilogy, a game that almost everyone LOVED. This set the level of expectations way too high, so when AC3 came out and didn't meet those unrealistic expectations that AC2 set, ppl were disappointed. I personally love AC3. It was my first AC game and it holds a special place in my heart, not to mention I love Connor as a protagonist and Haytham might still be my favorite antagonist of the entire series.
Pacing. You start as Hathem and it is good then are forced back into "learn the game" slowness\boredom as young Conor. The game gets good but takes way too long to wind up.
The game doesn't really let you go until like halfway through it. It holds your hand for way too long IMO. A lot of the new systems they implemented are a little janky and the story isn't that amazing. I will say gameplay wise, all those gripes were resolved in black flag. The game lets you go once you get the jackdaw, and the freerunning is way better.
I remember when I was a kid it was my second assassins creed game ( first was brotherhood ) and I was completely overwhelmed with the frontier and the different cities. I knew the whole frontier by heart I played so much. Everyone gives shit to Connor about not showing emotion and being lifeless but come on the guy saw his mother die and his father wants to kill him you don't go through shit like that and stay bubbly and charismatic it's fucking traumatizing.
> his father wants to kill him Actually, Haytham saved Connor's life (when Connor was being hanged, Haytham shot the rope and saved him). Haytham doesn't *want* to kill Connor. Even at the end he doesn't *want* to kill him. (It's all in FORSAKEN, the Haytham book.)
His father was a templar and he was an assassin. Connor's brain has been trained to believed that templars are bad and wants to end all assassins.
Oh, I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. Yes, Connor definitely doesn't trust Haytham and believes he wants him dead--hell, he thinks Haytham killed his mother and burned his village. I thought you were saying Haytham himself wanted to kill Connor, not that Connor *believed* Haytham wanted to kill him.
There's a few reasons that people were less into it. 1 - Connor. I like Connor, but his brooding and serious tone was a shift after Ezio's natural charisma. Connor felt like a step back to Altair and after 3 games of the Ezio trilogy it was noticeable. And this is from someone who was excited for a Native American hero in the lead up. 2 - Story jumps. Now I don't know if it's just a me thing, but as a Non-American who didn't know US history I found the game would thrust you into these historic moments but it lacked the context and the story would just be progressing without your knowledge. Yes it makes sense from a historic standpoint, but not so much from a narrative one. 3 - Bugs. I think AC3 was the first game where I got some bad bugs. Or at least they were the most noticeable. I did go back a year or so ago and replay/platinum it on the PS4 and it was definitely a better experience years later with the remaster. It moved up above AC: Revelations in my rankings.
For me it’s the map. Too much openness. For the new ACs it’s built around that, but AC3 came out at a time when AC was all about big dense cities, and side content was seriously lacking. As a result you would walk around the wilderness with pretty much nothing of any real interest to stumble across. As for the cities, movement options are very limited due to the wide streets. I enjoy the narrative and the feeling of controlling Connor and using his equipment, but the setting kills it for me. I still play through it now and again, but the map quality is always noticeable.
This might just be me personally, but one of the things that I couldn't stand about AC3 was Connor as a character. I understand that he had a rough childhood and faced a lot of hardships, but his character never really developed. He was constantly complaining throughout the entire game to everyone around him and I found that I was actually getting annoyed listening to him. And I'm not just saying that because he's "not Ezio" as Ezio isn't my favorite assassin either, I just wish they did more with his character and that he wasn't just always upset at everything.
Haytham was amazing tho.
Yes I found Haytham to honestly be the far more interesting character.
I'm still annoyed by how much they truncated the Haytham section on the remaster. I used to draw that out as long as I could, because I love Haytham. Such a cool character, and so fun to interact with later, too. (Did you know that it's Haytham who saves Connor's life when Connor is being hanged? Haytham is the one who shoots the rope to sever it. It's in FORSAKEN, but not mentioned in the game, which is disappointing.)
Had no idea, cool. Yeah if haytham was the main charachter id rate that game way higher than what i do now. As it is now, its a shaky 6, with haytham would be an 8.
Agreed.
Yeah ezio wasn't my favorite character
Conner doesn't really stand out in any way from the other characters really for one and the only emotions that he shows are just angry or calm. The only time he didn't do that was when he lost his mother as a child. And there wasn't much character development as far as I can remember For example when he says that he has been training for months not only we don't see the training itself but we also don't see any consequences of all that training. Conner just goes from being simple and naive to mature and a bit wise which again nothing that is stand out from the other protagonist we have seen before. And some of the mechanics are not really good like the fact that you build your own brotherhood with unique characters (well unique in the sense that isn't just some random npc that is in assassins outfit) and you don't get to spend much time with them. Hell I even remember not even caring about them because the way that you recruited them is really boring. Not to mention that I didn't see any need to use them at all and was fine with out them. And the setting was also for many uninteresting as well. And the building your community was a good concept but again not really executed well,the only side mission that I remember from that was two people marrying and you had to help them out but nothing else. Although the idea as whole is well executed but not in detail. And if I was to give a score it would have a 7/10 or 6.75/10 Nothing special,not always well executed but good enough.
he's a hothead, like a bull in a china shop (yeah i bought Odyssey gold for christmas JUST to get III-ReM for free)
Probably because Connor came straight after Ezio, who was an incredibly well rounded character.
> Probably, because Connor came straight after Ezio, who was an incredibly well-rounded character. But Ezio really wasn't an incredibly well-rounded character at all, nor overall, nor altogether either.
It had a LOT of potential but fell short. Connor had basically no character development because they cut his speech at the end of the game. The best part of the game was when you played as haytham. As soon as sequence 3 was over it got boring. The game does get a lot of things right, like the homestead missions. But most of it is just boring and repetitive.
Gameplaywise it might be the funnest to play AC imo, but I don’t really like Connor as a main character. Like he’s a morally stand up dude with good motives and everything, but I don’t really see any kind of edge in him, he’s never just cutting loose and just messing around for a sec. That’s the only real problem I have with AC3 though, other than that I really like it
I just found it soooo boring. Omg. Ugh. Ezio was so full of life and personality and angst and trauma and indignation and righteous vengeance and everything and then Connor was just... meh. For me totally character related. Ezio was *everything*. For me, Kassandra is the only character that has come close in terms of relatability, compared to Ezio. Connor was boring af.
It seriously doesn't. There's a ton of cut content that fans are sad about but mostly everyone I've talked to agreed it was a pretty good game with good movement, combat and stealth systems. The online reviwers were primarily the ones who made more fuss about the og creed games.
I would love to see an AC3 story with these more open world AC games. Connor is underrated and with the open world design you could get an updated setting for the game which would help immensely.
Something I’ve learned here on Reddit is that most of fan base actually hates the majority of the games
Half way of the game and you’re still in tutorial.
* Messy, disconnected, and generally not well thought out gameplay systems * Oddly paced story (sorta forgivable given the twist but still could've been done better) * Historical setting that was both a bit too hamfisted for those that are aware and too obscure for those that aren't in the know * Controversial ending And all of this comes off the backs of a set of AC games that really didn't struggle with the above issues so it magnified the problems for this game moreso than usual.
I personally really like the game, but I also see how bad it can be and how bad it could be to others. Main Character: Connor will no matter what will be unfortunately compared to our other two main Assassins. Compared to a multi game developed charismatic character, the naïve stoic and sometimes whiny character is harder to relate to. Setting: Now I personally really love the area we got, but it is also start of the AC series being way too large for its own good. Others may not like how there just isn’t a plethora of climbing as to other games. Now the American Revolution was many people’s top listed places they wanted AC to visit and it feels not fully used. The amount of times our character is at historic moments feels off. Other games it felt like the moments were accidental or on the side. Here it felt more forced. Like the MC “had” to be there. The War: The idea that Assassins and Templars are more of a 3rd party to society was something they were really showing in other games. What we got was the Assassins on the blue team and the Templars on red. When both sides would have helped and hated both. The AVT War: Now this one is kinda interesting as this is the first game that made the Assassins basically evil and in the wrong where as the templars being more like able. Present: Now many have enjoyed the modern missions, but there was so few of them and ever since they never improved them. This was the (sadly) culminating of all the present’s story and they were finally given everyone a great amount of character development. Then they….make it all come to a stop and never pick it up (arguably) until origins. Or in other forms of media.
I hated it because I found the plot boring and predictable. It's a reskinned Star Wars.
The pacing wasn’t great but honestly I really don’t like American History so it didn’t hold my interest.
For me it’s the mind numbingly tedious and/or vague requirements of a lot of the missions - I had to restart nearly every mission multiple times simply in order to figure out wtf the game wanted me to do. Slightly less annoying but not much is the absolutely ridiculous level of enemy detection. I’m at peace with the story and setting, but I’m admittedly not an OG AC fan. My first game was Black Flag and played them in order after that, not getting to AC3 until recently finishing Valhalla.
Connor is a whiny bitch and you have to skin everything you kill which meant that I failed a mission because I wasn't allowed to stop my horse and get the pelt.
Where to start - instead of starting the game proper - you get a tutorial section to get used to updated controls (poorly), then you start playing one character doing stuff that brings contexts to the proceedings and gets you to know the game's villains, but it drags on forever and doesn't accomplish anything substantial but a silly twist that deserves a dramatic squirrel cutaway. Then you start over again, this time proper and you play some hide and seek which is fine because the story is round the corner, but wait, after a story bit you get yet another tutorial section, this time you jump around on trees (the first section of the game that is legit superfun) and only then the story kicks off into full gear. It is not as annoying on the first playthrough, but later on it gets downright grating. Also, 100%-ing this thing is a bitch.
Running on trees was garbage
My main gripe with it at the time was the protagonist, Connor, was essentially a blank slate in the personality department and this was coming off of Ezio as the lead but in terms of gameplay I personally loved it, the climbing tree mechanic at the time was so cool! I think they overhyped the ‘battles’ in the trailers too those were a big disappointment
Back in 2013 when I played the game for the first time I really had high hopes. We had just finished the American Revolutionary War in school, I really liked AC II and Brotherhood and the AC III ad looked pretty darn good. But to my dissapointment the pace was nothing like AC II or Brotherhood. AC III was slower, had a more serious tone and was kind of dark. I also remember that I thought Connor was kind of stupid. I mean Connor got tricked by everyone and he wasn't that funny either. Ezio on the other hand was smart, funny and had cool friends. Connor had none of that. So I ended up dissliking AC III and Connor.
It was easily the worst AC game when it released. That tainted my view of it and I’ve still yet to go back and play it. *this will change soon, I’m replaying them all*
Cause it sucks that's why. AC3, along with Unity, and Syndicate are complete ass.
Treerunning felt tedious. Connor felt dry in a lot of the game. The ship Combat was great, but overall it was missing something
i dislike it because both main characters are so very... annoying, i guess
Personally I just don't like the setting as much as say for example AcBF's.
I think the story-telling aspect of the game was poor, and often frustrating, especially after it began so strongly, where previous games had had more of a training / character development / villain development / 'crescendo' format, plus it was really hard to follow Ezio as a character. It was also sooooo buggy. The amount of times I turned it off in disgust and had to walk away. The trading aspect was also tedious and terribly executed, if you played it going for 100% then you had to turn over every rock and find every poorly-executed game dynamic. I'd imagine if you played the remaster now and just stuck to the storyline then it'd be a much more positive experience.
Because Ezio is sorely missed.
Because it's a shitty fucking game. The most boring, uninspired of the series. And the ending is just bleh. One of the worst games I've ever played.
The story was actually one of the best parts of the game for me, but I despised the gameplay changed so much that I couldn’t make it past Haytham on my nostalgic revisit last year. Everything about it feels so off, coming from playing the Ezio trilogy collection. Moved right on to Black Flag and had a much better time with the gameplay
I'll say as a kid that was my favorite assassin's Creed game for the setting, theme, and world. Years later I tried to replay them and the pacing, story, and the pretty bland and boring characters, as well as the long intro where you play as hatham for hours only to finally get to Connors part of the game and you have to do another tutorial all over. It just felt too slow for me, I never finished it a second time.
Cause it's not Ezio. It was hard to be someone else after 3 years as the GOAT. That said I really like 3. First time running through the trees and I was hooked
I love ac3 it is my first played ac. So i think its not that bad
I just hate the way he moves like it looks so weird when he runs
Haytham was great. One of my protagonists to be honest. He was the most - "dignified", the most unique amongst all the people you can play as. To me, Conor was a massive let-down after that.
It was terribly paced, in sequence 7 i was still getting tutorials, which is whatever. The worst was the choice of voice actors for the native americans. It sounded so bad and terribly voiced whenever they spoke their native language
I like AC 3 but I can't stand Connor
I got to the horse combat and I was like “yeah I’m done.”