Assassin's Creed III Review | Dealspwn

Dealspwn: "Bigger often doesn't equal better, that's the moral to be learned here. Assassin's Creed III loses sight of what made the first game and its sequel such attractive propositions, delivering an immense content offering brimming with excess. The 18th century world that Ubisoft have constructed is fantastic, but it's just not that much fun to be in."

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
TheKindRoost2661d ago

Plenty of reading to be done but a very thorough and detailed review. Seems like a missed opportunity from ubi.

Xof2661d ago

True, but it's such a solid game that had it come from any other developer no one would bother airing any complaints.

I mean, hell, would Dragon's Dogma have been so-well praised if it had been made by Blizzard?

WeskerChildReborned2660d ago

So far i'm loving the game, i'm having fun alone just hunting animals.

Nimblest-Assassin2660d ago (Edited 2660d ago )

Even though I don't agree with the score... I think he brings up a few good points

AC3 trys a lot of new things, but the execution for some of them is not there.

Where as AC2 feels like a build up from 1, AC3 feels like AC1.. in the sense that it has good ideas, but not all of them are implemented well

There is a lot of content... but I think ubi should look and scale it down a bit, and provide an overall strong game, rather than a game thats strong in some areas... although weaker than others

However... AC3 is still probably the best game I have played all year followed by borderlands... still need to play hitman

I think Ubi needs to take a break from the yearly releases and prioritize what the games need to do

Xof2660d ago

@Nimblest-Assassin: actually, my thoughts mirror yours but I've come to the opposite conclusion.

There's so much content in AC3, but you're right, it's not implemented well. Doing incremental improvements in yearly titles (as they did with ACB) would allow them to focus solely on refining the content.

I think the reason why AC3 didn't live up to its potential is that too much time and effort was spent simply building the new engine. It's a great new engine, and now that it's built, they should focus solely on adding content.

Just like how Brotherhood re-used 90% of the assets from AC2 to deliver a fantastic experience, refining and in many ways defining the Anvil game experience, I think they have the opportunity to do the same with AC3.

That's the thing about these yearly iterations that cuts both ways: there's not enough time to do any major changes, but there's plenty of time to polish all of the little elements to perfection.


And I think we can all agree, some polish is exactly what AC3 needs.

Jinkies2661d ago (Edited 2661d ago )

I just hated how patriotic it's becomes sicking if you play on it too long.

I thought it was about Templars vs's more like Americans vs the British and how Americans were the good guys...basicaly saints as the game potrays them even though historicly they were as bad as each other. Ubisoft were such liars with their PR statments.


LOL are you serious

It would of made more sense for the Americans to be the templars because if you've actually read past codex pages in the AC games you'll know the founding fathers, especialy George Washington were templars...but AC3 makes it so George is a good guy untill the DLC. Instead of making Haytham, Charlies Lee group good guys they should of made the founding fathers the templar group instead but I think they backed out because they knew FOX news for example would have a field day on it.

If the Templars were mostly American then they could of done it so the war started because the British, mostly controled by the Assasins behind closed doors were trying to liberate American from Templar a bigger version of what you do with your Brotherhood in AC Brotherhood/Revelations were you send them to liberate cities around europe.

It would of nicely tied into the story where since the British lost, thats how the templars became more powerful in America...because they won, how they became corperate giants like Abstergo and how the assassins over time got wiped out leaving only a handfull left....but no they chickened out and tried to change what they had already writen in past AC games.

Besides...Ubisoft said no sides would be potrayed as evil, you wouldn't get involved in the war, you wouldn't pick a side etc and they lied...about all of that.

lashes2ashes2661d ago

I don't know what game you were playing. The animus database and the character Shaun bring up a lot how two faced the founding fathers were preaching freedoms and owning slaves at the same time. From a history point of view it makes way more sense for the Templars to be British and not America. The British were trying to close there fist on the colony's and the Templars main goal has always been complete control.

DragonKnight2661d ago

I think what Jinkies means is that, gameplay wise, the Americans were the good guys and the British were the bad guys. Sure, you can read up and hear about how bad both sides were, but who do you kill more of?

Jinkies2661d ago (Edited 2661d ago )

"gameplay wise, the Americans were the good guys and the British were the bad guys"

So true

The fort convert the British forts into American ones

The redcoats are shown as being pure evil and twisted...I did a homestead mission where they randomly attacked this black couple, injured them, killed their farm animals, wrecked their home and ruined their crops for nothing. They don't show the Americans do anything like this

As I've said above instead of following through with the past story and by making the founding fathers the templar group they decided to make it a British group instead using Connors father Haytham who was a MUCH better character then Connor. Haytham should of been the one to help you against the founding fathers not be a templar himself. I mean don't you see the twisted change behind Charles Lee in the game, as a loyal, devoted man to a cruel, twited prick especialy when he held young Connor against that tree and burnt his native home...I mean WTF

I'm half way through and I've been helping the Americans and been killing wave after wave of redcoats.

All the templars so far have been British...despite them saying they would be on both sides.

All the convoys you attack are British

You basicaly help George Washington push back the British and help the Americans despite them saying you wouldn't get involved in the war.

I could go on...if your American you won't see any faults with it but any where else, especialy someone who actualy read the codex pages from the past AC games, it just dosen't make sense story wise.

Obviously I'll get disagrees because you Americans just think to yourself at the end of the day "Hey least we wernt made to look like the bad guys, thats all I care about". If the shoe was on the other foot there would be a sh*t storm

DragonKnight2660d ago

@Jinkies: I'm Canadian, just saying. Lol. Anyway, I found it perplexing that AC3 completely invalidates both the codex pages, and Subject 16's puzzles. It's HEAVILY implied in the codex pages that Washington was a Templar and used a Piece of Eden to win the Revolutionary War, but Ubisoft chose to negate that. I've even heard of a rumour that Ubisoft are planning a DLC pack that makes Washington the bad guy, but that's just terrible. Connor should have been neutral at the very least, neither aiding nor hindering either the British or the Patriots unless either side got in the way of him taking out the Templars.

Haytham is definitely a superior character to Connor in every respect, and certainly better than Ezio in my opinion. But I can't stand Ezio, never could. Mario would have made the better protagonist for AC2.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2660d ago
NoTheMama2661d ago

Fair score. Ive had AC3 since launch & have yet to finish it. Its just not grabbing me

Nimblest-Assassin2660d ago

I have 40+ hours in... different people I guess

IcyEyes2661d ago

Looks like people are always bored and complain everything ... bad for them.

rpd1232661d ago (Edited 2661d ago )

I honestly don't think this is a 6. At the very least it is an 8. And how is Haytham more interesting than Connor? He's a cookie cutter Englishman. Connor defies the status of Native Americans at the time. He's idealistic and hopeful and sees the best in everyone. That makes the decisions he makes interesting and suspenseful because there's clearly a lot of moral ambiguity during that time, or for an Assassin in general.

iamnsuperman2661d ago (Edited 2661d ago )

Conner is also voiced by an awful voice actor. Conner could have been better if the voice actor did a good job. His words felt wooden and he had no emotion to them. I didn't like Conner as a person. He seems to live in this fantasy world where everyone can be good and doesn't have any ideas beyond protecting his tribes land but then is naive to blindly follow others in their cause because they might help him later. He isn't a character I can related to nor sympathise with. He seems quite unintelligent and childish despite this for some reason everyone else thinks he can do intelligent things. I found him annoying every time he spoke

rpd1232661d ago (Edited 2661d ago )

So was Altair, and he had even less character and personality going for him. He had no characterization, his voice actor sounded so generic, and there was absolutely no way to relate to him. Why is that okay for Altair but not Connor?

iamnsuperman2661d ago (Edited 2661d ago )

@rpd123 I never said it was ok for Altair. Altair comes off a bit more grown up and mature but yes he has no personality. Ubi got a lot wrong with the first AC and that is evident in AC2 (look at the difference between those games). It almost like the main character has now taken a step backwards from AC2/B/R. Also Altair wasn't annoying he just didn't have a personality

DragonKnight2661d ago

Wow do you guys have no clue about Altair at all. Altair was purposely stoic. He was a no nonsense Assassin who had to watch his Assassin parents killed in a siege on Masayaf and then watch a guy kill himself in front of Altair (still a boy) for betraying Altair's father. Altair starts off as arrogant and impulsive, but develops really well over the course of AC1. I don't know what game you guys were playing, but it certainly wasn't any AC game I've ever played.

Haytham is a lot more interesting than Connor for sure. A lot more experience makes for a better character. Connor is just an idealist, and actually he reminds of a cliche anime protagonist.

M1chl2661d ago

In my opinion Haytham is definitely more interesting than Connor. Besides, that Connors VA suck, Haytham is not a tool like Connor. I enjoyed playing Haytham much more...

Jinkies2661d ago

...and yet they made him the bad guy <sigh>

They should of made him redeem himself half way through

Stretch2661d ago

Awesome. Somebody gave this a lower score than me.

Show all comments (23)