Assassin’s Creed 3 review – struggling to break the shackles of the old world OPM

OPM: Since its debut in 2007, Assassin’s Creed has deservedly earned itself a reputation as one of the most accomplished series in modern gaming, delivering moments of exhilaration and grandeur year after year. In addition to providing a new setting (the American Revolution) and hero (Connor Kenway), this latest instalment was supposed to be the biggest step forward for the franchise – and the open world genre in general – since it began. Well… it’s not.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Blastoise1943d ago

Gotta admit I thought this game would be getting 9's and 10's across the board

MostJadedGamer1943d ago (Edited 1943d ago )

The game has got a TON of 7's so far. Go check the 360, and PS3 reviews on Metacritic.

I am on Sequence 4, and the game has been absolute putrid garbage so far. Apparantly the real game starts in sequence 5.

Lets hope so because I cannt take any more hours of this mind numbling pointless crap. I would have to give a 2.5 so far. Having to force myself to keep playing in hopes it gets better

HebrewHammer1943d ago

I'm with you there. The first 5 hours of the game is nothing more than a glorified, redundant tutorial.

badz1491943d ago

but I'll use 1 of my 2 bubble to bubble you up for the word "putrid"! that was funny!

MostJadedGamer1943d ago

"I'm not a fan of AC either
but I'll use 1 of my 2 bubble to bubble you up for the word "putrid"! that was funny!"

Thanks. Its really frustrating only having 2 bubbles. Wish I could get back up to 4 or 5 bubbles.

badz1491942d ago

I got hammered to 2 bubbles by simply answering the Sony haters and bamm I was down to 2! the mods here are putrid too! lol

Mykky1942d ago

Wow. I actually think the first hours was storytelling at it's finest. The only problem I had with the previous AC games were that they were repetetive and although they had a good story they told in a uninteresting way. Both these things were now fixed and to me this is one of the best games this generation.
I'm only on sequence 4 though so a lot can change.

I have always liked slow beginnings, it always makes the story and the characters much more real. Just like how Zelda and Kingdom Hearts boots up with slow beginnings but end up in full epicness.

(Gave you a bubble, I really don't like this bubble system)

grailly1942d ago (Edited 1942d ago )

wow mykky(Edit: got your name wrong). "story-telling at it's finest"? I mean, it's really cool that they tried to change it up, and I hope bigger productions go that way, but it just wasn't handled well. If you played RDR you would know how slow beginnings should be done. All I was thinking about in the 4 first sequences was how awesomely well done RDR was.

Also, despite the slow beginning, they should have introduced the tree climbing way earlier than the 3 hour mark, it's really fun!

Mykky1942d ago

I totally get what you are saying as RDR is the most giving gaming experience I have had in years. I keep coming back to it.

I can see how the start was too slow for many, I guess I just was in a very good mood when I played it. Or maybe my AC fanboy hype shield repelled how the game really were. I still liked it though.

I made it to the tree climbing yesterday and it was a lot of fun so I agree with u there. It might have been better if they shortened Connor's father sequences though now that I think about it.

Nimblest-Assassin1942d ago

The thing I noticed with the lower scores (btw, out of the 50 reviews, only 7 are between 7-8)

Is that people feel the game takes way to long to allow you to explore at your own pace

The first 5 sequences are basically tutorials, as the first 3 teach the basics, and the two as connor (sequence 4 is very short) teaches you about the new features.

I actually enjoyed the slower beginning, as I feel they have more narrative pay off, and trust me the game hits high gear once you start sequence 6.

I can understand why some people may not like it, but putrid garbage and a 2.5? Seriously?

Thats way to harsh

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1942d ago
urwifeminder1943d ago

I never understoood why its popular but hey thats the industry.

Xof1943d ago

You can't understand why it's so popular? Please tell me your not that dense. It literally appeals to every demographic.

first1NFANTRY1943d ago

lol apparently not. the patriotism in your comment is not showing at all *rolls eyes*

Canary1943d ago

@first1NFANTRY: please don't use words you don't understand. It's confusing.

@urwifeminder: Xof is right, you should be able to understand why they're popular. I mean, sure, it's fine if you don't like them, but not to understand why others do? That's just... really, kind of... pathetic.

In a nutshell:

The historical setting and level design appeals to history buffs.

The Templar stuff appeals to conspiracy buffs.

The modern-day element appeals to science fiction fans.

The story itself is a perfect blend of western-style historical fiction, DaVinci Code-style conspiracy fiction, with the basic structure of a JRPG and the trappings of an AAA western game of the highest caliber.

And then there's the gameplay:

The exploration element appeals to everyone who isn't dead inside.

The combat appeals to both gamers who like action and violence, as well as those who prefer more deliberative, stealth gameplay.

Not to mention the wealth of sidequests and mini-games.

And, of course, technically it's one of the most impressive games ever made, with incredible art design, voice acting and animation.

If you can't understand the appeal of these games, you can't understand the appeal of ANY game.

Irishguy951942d ago

Casual gamers like them. THey are extremely easy and repetitive - Thus Casual gamers

Brian1rr1943d ago

Keep playing Call of Duty boy

-Gespenst-1943d ago

I'm gonna post this here, because I think it's relevant. I already posted it on another review which was an 8.5. (hence the quote)

"Assassin's Creed III builds strongly on the series but fails to take a giant leap of faith into any real new territory"

It's weird. A lot of people complain about high ratings like 8.5 / 10 merely because they're not 9 or 10 / 10. And I think that's partly to do with a game's expectations, like with how some games you just feel are going to be perfect scorers in advance of their release.

But when I read reviews like this, it makes me wonder how much journalists contribute to that understanding of and 8.5 as somehow sub-par.

The phrasing of the quote above is interesting. The game apparently "fails" to do something quite significant; to deliver on a certain promise. Now, it's hard to see how an 8.5 scoring game can really be said to "fail" on any level; "fail" seems too strong a word for the score it's receiving. Perhaps "falls slightly short" would be more apt.

This leads me to my point, how much of our understanding of high scores like 7.5s through 8.5s as somehow "bad" or signifying "failure", can be ascribed to journalists' phrasing?

We read lots of reviews, and how many of the 7.5s and 8.5s make use of inappropriately depreciative words like "fail."? Is it possible that the reason we think these scores are somehow bad has to do with trends in reviews and the language they use? Often that language doesn't reflect the objectively high score a game is given.

It seems like we've imagined some sort of big gulf of quality between an 8.5 and a 9, which is absurd. It's like the higher the score, the more hyperbolic and excitable a review becomes, it doesn't use critical restraint, and so you get a wide gulf between the associations built into each score. I.e. 8.5/10 = "good, but it fails on some levels" and 9/10 = "OMG BEST GAME EVER FFFUUUUU" and 10/10 "This is the greatest game ever made no other game can or will even come close, I can die now having played this."

And so I think this also effects our expectations and anticipations for a game. With these ideas sort of engrained in our heads, any game that was super hyped and receives an 8.5 / 10 is accompanied by a vague disappointment. Because the hype has made use of all the language of a 9/10 game.

TheDivine1942d ago

Seems like Uncharted 3 vs 2. 2 was such a massive leap (for AC and Uncharted) that 3 felt like more of the same or minor improvements. Both are prob (i say prob as i havent tried AC3 yet) about on par with 2 or better but people expected another WOW HOLY SH** that blows their minds and defys expectations. Im sure its still good. Im personally super pumped to try it but i got burned out. The yearly releases hurt the franchise for me as its more of the same. It does take that to make a blockbuster these days (COD, AC, BF/MOH exc). It builds constant hype and keeps people in the franchise. I personally prefer a big leap like Gears 3, Uncharted 2, RE4, exc. I think this wouldve gotten near perfect scores if Brotherhood and Revelations didnt release in between.

TemplarDante1943d ago

7s and 8s to the gamers before this gen was respectable. After sites and magazines started handing out 9s and 10s like candy, anything that didnt get a perfect/non perfect score is ... suspicious, given the fact its a AAA release.

colonel1791943d ago

Yeah I agree!. When I bought my PS3 back in 2006, I only had Resistance, so I started buying PS2 games, because I never had one. I read reviews to know more or less which games were good. I ended up buying a lot of games with 7s and 8s that turned out great. The reviews also were more informative than now. They used to inform about the gameplay, story, music, etc. Now it's just "this game is better on this platform", " this game has more pixels than this one", "this game doesn't run at 60 fps" etc.

first1NFANTRY1943d ago

Review sounds about right. I and my mate have been playing the early release copy for two days now and some of the bugs we've encountered are really annoying.

I hope the patch fixes all issues. I hate unpolished games. That is why i stay away from most multiplats.

Show all comments (26)