Overall a really strange experience playing AC3. They kept one upping themselves and the gameplay to the point where the whole thing seemed to have become a parody of itself. While the original game had you wearing long white robes that blended in quite well with the indigenous population and especially the travelling monks, the later games become completely absurd with the outfits.
AC: Revelations truly goes to new heights with it's purple, full platemail armor that Ezio hops about in, especially given his old age. As you mentioned, while somewhat repetitive in nature, the first game executed perfectly the feeling of stalking your prey and then striking when you wanted and how you wanted. There were hardly any moments where Altair is disposing of 15 guards in the middle of the city as you were an assassin and not Jerusalem-Rambo.
Everyone moans how the first game was such crap and how Brotherhood is the high point but I still believe the first game is the best and most "pure" Assassins Creed experience you can get. Everything after that is just a cosmic circus that keeps slowly imploding in on itself. The combat has never not been dumb in AC, it's just been dumb in different ways. I think the combat in AC3 is probably the 'best' in its own right, because it actually has layers of depth beyond just Counter Everybody, but it's still not a good fit for AC.
And it's still a piece of piss once you get a handle on how to deal with each enemy type. I agree that the emphasis should be put back on assassinating dudes rather than cutting a path through whole armies, but that requires open combat to be made much more challenging, not even easier than it is already.
You should be able to take on enemies tops, with any more than that being difficult enough to compel you to find another way to your target or to flee if you're being chased. The whole freerunning bit has always been underused because it's always been so easy to just stand your ground until everybody is dead.
The mission in AC3 where you ice William Johnson the negotiator guy is pretty slick if you try to do it without triggering open combat, there just aren't enough moments like that. Seems like in AC3, heavy weapons are best. You just need damage more than anything else. In the original game, different kinds of weapons had different characteristics beyond speed and damage, and man, I loved both the dagger and the hidden blade in combat.
So quick, so great for counters. I agree that AC1 felt the purest, which I guess makes sense considering it was the original concept fort he franchise. I also feel like in some strange ways, AC3 feels less polished, which really shouldn't be the case but somehow it manages to, at least to me. OG Assassin's Creed was wayyyyy more than counter everyone, it's just what most people did. I think you could also disarm. In AC3, it IS just counter everybody, the difference being once you get one kill, the rest are automatic if they are near by.
Otherwise, you're just countering, and occasionally hitting "A" in a counter instead of mashing "X" to do a normal counter. Also, sometimes counters just don't happen. Dodging is just countering when a certain attack is coming your way, it is just a counter without a damage opportunity. Grappling doesn't really seem to exist, unless I've forgotten it.
You can break guards, but it's just press button to execute. You can't really assassinate in combat, even with a smoke bomb. I will say the assassination stuff is at it's best, with whistling and corner kills and that sweet walking assassination, running assassinations, etc. On paper, it seems more interesting in combat, but in execution, I found that AC1 was way more interesting if you actually used all of the mechanics they give you.
Most people chose just to do the countering. Plus, I hate the enemy behavior and how numerous they are, so even with exactly the same quality of combat, it would still be less fun to fight over all. I liked that in the original, the combat was super streamlined and simple if you wanted to just get out of it really easily, because it wasn't supposed to be a hack and slash, it was supposed to be a kinda stealthy game, so if you were fighting with guards, you should be doing so just long enough to disengage, and it should be fast and fluid.
It didn't need to be super complex, but it was actually fairly interesting. I felt the same way about the original Darksiders combat, which had a lot of cool moves but not really man true "combos" so you could just make up your own.
It felt dynamic as a result, rather than just you reacting to the color on the screen. If an enemy attacked, you could counter. Or you could side step and then do a power attack. Or you could run off while he was winding up. My biggest issue is it just takes too much freakin' time.
Combat is so slow in AC3 compared to the first game, where everything was tight and quick. Just look at the counter window. In AC3, it's fucking massive. Depending on the weapon you used in AC1, it was much smaller, and with certain weapons it was pretty tiny. But you got a lot more out of those counters.
That isn't good game design, especially if you're trying to encourage people to get in, kill the target and get out without getting into a street brawl with the whole city watch.
I agree that you 'should' have only been fighting long enough to make a break for it, but the game made no attempt to encourage or necessitate that.
There was really no incentive to play AC1 'well' at all, which was also why nobody paid any attention whatsoever to the rewards they were getting from the optional prep missions things like guard patrol maps, which you would never need because guards are a joke , which in turn made those seem completely pointless too.
Unfortunately that lack of incentive to play 'well' as in, like an assassin has remained an issue throughout the entire series.
I can't say that I noticed the combat in AC3 being particularly slow. It's slightly more complex than 1 in terms of mechanics you NEED to know , but once you know what you're doing you will still tear through groups efficiently and without taking a scratch. I don't think any of the combat systems lend themselves to what AC should be. I'd agree that AC1 is still a better game overall than AC3 though, for a lot of reasons. I still think AC2 has the worst combat. It felt mad inconsistent until u learned to counter grab weapons off enemies did I feel like I'm a badass for timing right, like in the first AC.
But then again, AC combat was never too skill based. Ohhh, my experience with the first game was exact opposite. Perhaps I was just too dumb to play the game back then, but I became infuriated with the game near the end because it just became constant battles for me. I would kill a large group of guys, bodies would litter the streets.
Another guard would stumble upon one of the bodies, call for help. I killed that group, more bodies on the ground, more guards showed up. Running away just resulted in a long, frustrating experience, and I'd end up all the way on the opposite side of the map by the time I finally escaped.
Having to fight a million dudes does suck, and it's a problem that I think has persisted throughout the series, but it was alleviated somewhat through chain killing and items such as smoke bombs. I think the whole notoriety system is just super unfun to begin with and I'd wish they would get rid of it or completely overhaul it again. But as for the combat itself, I like it a lot in 3. Every enemy type has an easy strategy to quickly kill them, it's just a matter of discovering that, then applying it.
And even if you don't want to bother with doing the correct type of counter on an enemy, you can just shoot them once or twice and they're down. There are so many different kill and counter kill animations that I never saw 'cause I pretty much only used the tomahawk and guns.
The crappy inventory system doesn't help seriously, why get rid of the wheel from 2? I guess to sell a Wii U feature? I personally love when games don't make anything a necessity or even encouraged. Isn't that what we all complain about in games, they are too guided, too focused? User Info: Morbioso. The last mission in the story is challenging, getting the extra objectives that is.
User Info: TheEmpsChamp. They keep making things "smoother," which to me is just making things boring. For me, It's gotten to the point where sometimes it's not much different than watching a movie. This is a great series and there's nothing else like it. I'm glad so many people are getting into it and finding it accessible and enjoyable, but why can't they make some of these improvements optional?
If you enjoy watching things unfold and find dangerous or frustrating segments unpleasant, then you could choose the simplified free running and fighting. If you like working to find a way up a building or having to carefully line up jumps, then you could opt for more control and heavier consequences for screwing up.
Is it really hard to do that? Seriously, that wasn't meant to be rhetorical. Does anybody know? Like why can't you choose harder combat and get less warning for attacks, or no warning at all?
Shorter windows to act, that kind of thing? It gives you a sense of accomplishment and progress in the gameplay! I feel insulted. They took all need for skill out of the combat. You can literally hit the same two buttons in a row to insta-kill every enemy in the game without trying. Having to carefully think to plot out paths up and across strange elaborate structures was part of the challenge of the gameplay.
Now you can just hold the stupid autopilot and run at random stuff until you automatically latch on and begin climbing a auto-finding the path. You're so uninvolved with the game when you're climbing now that you can pretty much watch YouTube videos while playing AC3 and be just as successful I watch a lot of Game Grumps instead of paying attention to AC3.
A game's job should be to grab and KEEP your interest, not to just be something you're doing while being ammused and preoccupied elsewhere. It's like they've taken steps backwards ever since Brotherhood. And is it just me or has the system where you can use different items in fights stabbing a dude, then grabbing him and shooting another gone?
I think for the next assassins Creed they should just start over. Take a few years off. How many people are legitimately going "Oh man yes I can't wait for another Assassins Creed next year" I might be wrong, but almost every persons opinions I've read seems like they wouldn't mind if the franchise took a year or two off to get its shit together.
If the gameplay was worse, yet the story was up there, I would have played and enjoyed so much more of it. I honestly think we're all just tired of the franchise. Assassin's Creed was pretty much my favourite series to come out this generation and I loved it and thought I couldn't get enough.
I went as far as to do everything I could in each game. Then they officially annualized it and I thought Revelations was terrible. But I still had high hopes for AC3 to make everything better.
Objectively I think AC3 did a lot of cool stuff, had some great mechanics, story, etc. But unfortunately my heart just wasn't in it.
I beat the game and I enjoyed some story beats, but I was definitely forcing myself to do so and I certainly did not do all the side stuff. I'm just tired of the series now. They need to either change it completely or I need more of a year break from Assassin's Creed.
I don't think it matters how much they improve on the formula at this point, it needs to change. And it really saddens me that I don't love the series like I used to. I don't think ACIII, Revelations or any of them have been bad, but they've failed to improve much while continually becoming more scattered in focus. What was once a series that surprised and delighted me is now a known quantity that I still enjoy, but don't think about much once it's over.
Its a freaking disjointed mess, with no clear design priorities, and a dull sci-fi jesus aka Hero's journey story. Yet, the most important reason: its just boring , I keep wondering: When is this gonna get fun, or good, or at least any interesting at all?.. Also those menus.. Because ya know Game's fine more or less, it's not as good as Brotherhood but the multiplayer tweaks make that side of things excellent. If nothing else it certainly feels like a new AC game whereas the last few were just iterations on AC2 even if one was an excellent such iteration.
What other game can you be brutalized and massacred in ancient board games? I agree with this. I honestly have a blast with AC3 running around the wilderness, but I think the story and the mechanics have become too much and very unfocused. It seems the development teams are just trying to throw too much into the game, instead of making it a game about stabbing dudes. It's not a horrible experience. I honestly think if people think this game is legit awful, they need to have their head examined.
Personally I haven't really enjoyed the series since everything after AC2. The assassinations just feel less and less important and satisfying with each new game, and that's what I play the game for in the first place.
They've added too much "variety" and diluted what I really enjoyed when I played AC2. Sorry Duder, You wrote too much. I stand by what I said to my friend after beating the game. Ubisoft kept telling people it was OK to jump into AC3 without having played the previous games. That is simply not true. AC3 was the anti ME3. Whereas ME3 was really disappointing at time to long time fans.
AC3 was a love letter to anyone who has played all the games and thoroughly enjoyed them. If you hadn't played the previous games it was one of the most monotonous games of the year, the pacing was a mess. I am truly baffled at how a game could be so brilliantly paced at parts of it but than be so horribly paced for the rest of it.
If you had played the previous games it was fucking awesome as hell at times. It was clearly made for people who invested a ton into the series regardless of how I feel about its ending. I believe a factor is that the game loop hits "fail states" too easily and forces a brutal restart.
You do something slightly wrong in some scenarios you get loud warnings about synchronization failure and sometimes it just boots you out and for you to do again instead of offering partial sync. Chavtheworld said:. First post nails it.
Not much in this game actually works. Movement is clunky and the controls aren't as responsive as you need in some sections. Invisible walls are everywhere, like in tree-running sections or on top of buildings. Bugs and glitches occur at a regular pace anyone else do a leap of faith and end up being shot into the sky? Happened to me about a dozen times.
White loading screens that never load the next section, resulting in a console lock. Enemies immediately attack you while you're incognito, even if you're not in a restricted area or near a large group of them. Some fail in the middle of completing a task without the fail parameters even being met ie "Don't touch the ground" in a tree running section immediately failing halfway through What IS impressive about AC3 are the naval combat sections, which makes you wonder if two separate teams developed this game.
Immensely disappointing for me as a big AC fan. You're correct, it's not the worst thing in the world. But as a follow-up from the Ezio trilogy? Not a solid entry. Character pop in on draw distance constantly.. Boring tasks to do along side the story.. I don't know why they did this to the game it could have been awesome! They pushed the consoles to far and didn't give them self's enough time to correct major issues on the console versions..
Xbox version i played. AC just needs to have the fat trimmed. Cut all the extra crap and make the good parts better. Traversal, fighting, building a "brotherhood. The Naval stuff was good too. AC3 squanders most of that by making it pointless. Majority of the ship stuff is side missions.
I never started recruiting assassins until I had already beaten the game. The frontier was barely utilized thus making a lot of the mechanics with tree climbing a waste of hard, good work. Charles Lee was also so damn good. And he is was wasted.
The scenes he is in where he gets pissed off are captivating. They did a great job with his facial animations. But he is in the game so little and you have so little reason to be angry with him to want to get your revenge. Your mother is killed because he ordered an attack on your village or something Nicely written. I would say all of those problems exist in two onwards as well.
But AC3 just manages to make everything worse. The story of Connor I liked waaaayy more than Ezio, the setting was also interesting if not for boring architecture. I don't hate AC3, and honestly, liked it more than 2. I think the game hard crashing to desktop within 3 minutes of launching allows me to think what the fuck I like about this bag of shit.
I haven't been into the AC series at all. Back when it released along side Mass Effect one I choose the latter and never looked back. A friend eventually let me borrow AC, I played it for a few hours but ultimately gave up because I found the game too boring. Still, I was hyped for the new IP from Ubisoft feeling it had major potential and it wasn't hard keeping an eye on the series due to its phenomenal sales numbers.
I skipped basically the entire series tried out brotherhood, but the controls I hated. Truth is I didn't give it much a chance. I'm only hours in and I'm afraid I'm regretting the purchase I've had more glitches then my first hours of skyrim, which is not fine but I'll play through them if the game is good enough. The menu system is WAY too cluttered, though I do like the little history lessons they provide on locations and people. But the controls to this game are just awful, well, imo.
Combat is terrible, I hate it. I don't understand how people give it a pass, how it wasn't overhauled and rectified But if the game's story is worth it I'll play through glitches and bad gameplay, listening to GB's GOTY's bombcast has made me very skeptical Here's to hoping AC3's unique setting justifies the purchase.
I have a feeling, though, that I won't ever finish this mess of a game. OfficeGamer : lmao, simply fantastic piece. Don't spend one or two hours of any game in this series and expect to know what you're talking about. Having completed all said games, my humble opinion is they tried to do just a bit too much. But the majority of the game worked and the story was told rather well. The final scene with Connor and Charles Lee totally paid off.
The battleship mission were flawless if and rewarding. The only thing I didn't really care for was the economy and building the group of assassins. In the end I just had the one. I couldn't get around to how to find others.
As for the economy I felt that it would've been better to just earn money based on how far you delved into the homestead messions. You shouldn't have had to buy stuff, create convoys, etc, just for a few bucks. AC2, Brotherhood, and Revelations did the economy perfectly and they should've stuck to that. In the end, it was only good for building up money to improve your ship anyway. This game was my GOTY regardless. Despite the flaws there was much love put into it and I can't wait for the next installment.
The Desmond parts of the game were terrible. Abstergo and the Templars can't stop 4 people from globetrotting the world and getting everything they need to stop the world from being scorched?
Desmond just walks into Abstergo's HQ and starts murdering dudes? It all felt rushed and half-way finished.
The prologue was done fairly well and had a pretty awesome twist. And the first few hours of Connor's story was fun to watch. Watching the lead up the revolution was pretty interesting since that's something we all took classes about in the US, at least. Playing it was another story.
Too many stealth sequences, too many chase missions and too many eavesdropping parts. The second half of the game is a rushed mess that squanders any interesting plot points and characters that deserved more exploration. The side stuff in AC3 felt like filler with no payoff.
0コメント