Why did people like AC3?

[MoHatesMondays]

Assassins Creed 3 was and still is the most lacking Assassin’s Creed game I’ve ever played. But, i hear some people say that it’s the best in the series. I’ve played the entire Ezio Trilogy, 3, Black Flag, Unity, Odyssey, and all of the portable ones, and i can honestly say that I’ve had the least enjoyable time playing 3. The character is absolutely boring. He has little to no emotion the entire time and the only line i can remember him saying is “WHeRes ChaRLES lEe”. The environment that AC3 was set in was also stale, like a dry cheerio. The first time i played it was on my ♥♥♥♥♥♥ laptop that ran off intel hd graphics. I thought the game looked bad because of my bad computer. But then i recently decided to revisit the game on my Ryzen 1200 + 1050ti setup, and it still looked stale. As for the story and gameplay? The gameplay would’ve been nice if it didn’t have such a stupid, in-the-way story to back it down. AC3 had one of the better combat systems but that doesn’t save it. Please feel free to share your thoughts, and a reminder that most of this is opinionated and i am open to criticism.

[SpaceyMatt]

People like different things sometimes?

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Why did anyone like any AC aside from the first one is a mystery lol

[AbedsBrother]

Frontier simulator.

So IMMERSIVE.

[Goose]

I loved the first 2, 3 was okay but I only played through it once, black flag was amazing. The ones after that were mediocre, I lost interest when I played garbage unity, I hear the new ones are good but I don't really know if I should bother at this point, it looks like they pushed stealth to the side & it's just God of War 2.0 now.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Miss Ann Thrope:

Originally posted by DRUNK_CANADIAN:

Why did anyone like any AC aside from the first one is a mystery lol

The first one was the worst of them all. Terrible game.

I remember getting it when it released. There wasn't any other game like it at the time, it was totally awesome. But in comparison to 2 & brotherhood it was bare bones

[Arvaos]

Originally posted by Emperors Champion:

Originally posted by Miss Ann Thrope:

The first one was the worst of them all. Terrible game.

I remember getting it when it released. There wasn't any other game like it at the time, it was totally awesome. But in comparison to 2 & brotherhood it was bare bones

I would say the first one had the most realism, similar to Unity. It had originality as a historical Splinter Cell but you are right, it was bare compared to II.

I don't consider the new games to be original Assassin's Creed games because they lost the original identity of the games and created a hybrid of other popular roleplaying or adventure games.

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Originally posted by David:

Originally posted by DRUNK_CANADIAN:

Why did anyone like any AC aside from the first one is a mystery lol

Ezio was more likeable than Altair

I mean the first one was a basic game.....but like most things starting off...they don't know its going to be a super big hit....well especially with the twist

[-Шasтe|Мanageмenт-]

I really like the 'style' and the setting, since I'm somewhat a 16th-18th century enthusiast, also I think it's the most immersive game I ever played, everything is so detailed .. the cities, villages, little objects, npcs, cold atmosphere, sound, layouts, etc, it's just exactly like what I imagined.. even AC4 n Rogue couldn't bring that kind of details again on land/settlements.

AC3+Unity are the only games that I could spend hours, only to walk around sightseeing the cities and appreciate every detail in it. Cities like Novigrad n Beuclair of Witcher 3 were less immersive than those 2 AC titles imo.

[DarkStarClassic]

Asheron's Call 3 was never made. Turbine is dead anyway.

[iLuvKoRn]

Originally posted by Mo Hates Mondays:

The first time i played it was on my ♥♥♥♥♥♥ laptop that ran off intel hd graphics.

>intel

[Midnight Sky ✨🌙✨]

I didn't like AC3 when I first played it, but then I replayed it some years later and can appreciate it more. I'm gonna throw out a bunch of thoughts in 3, not all necessarily responding to the OP.

Firstly, with Connor, I feel like he needed someone to play off of. He's pretty dull for most of the game, but when he's working with Haytham, Connor is genuinely entertaining. So the game needed someone for Connor to have that kind of banter with. Apart from that, Connor has something else that intrigued me. He had complete faith in what Achilles told him about the Templars and a deep hatred for Charles Lee, and while he acted like he was willing to listen to others, if what they said didn't fit with his world view then he rejected it without giving it any thought. It was intriguing to me, seeing this mentality Connor had cost him everything he tried to protect in the first place. So I don't like Connor as a character, but I like his story.

The gameplay was alright. They finally fixed the counter-kill culture that the Ezio games suffered from and doing away with medkits was a good idea, but it resulted in the game feeling like a button masher. The Ezio games' "marionette" controls had untapped potential, they just needed to nerf counters and make the gameplay harder to force you to use all your options. Instead, they threw all that out the window to make Arkham Asylum. 3's combat feels stripped down to me compared to what came before. There's still things to play around with in 3, but because the game is still so easy, there's no reason to do anything other than button mash and occasionally press X or circle. AA at least had the scoring system to incentivize using Batman's gadgets.

Then there's the recruits, the initial barrage you could do in Brotherhood/Revelations was nerfed into being completely worthless. Their other functions, at least from what I recall, sucked in general. I only think they're good for back up in a fight. Though I suppose making the recruits actual characters was neat.

The Frontier feels empty, which is impressive as it has quite a bit to do in it. Regardless, I laugh whenever someone calls it the worst area in an Assassin's Creed game. Don't 👏 complain 👏 about 👏 the 👏 frontier 👏 until 👏 you 👏 sneak 👏 through 👏 the 👏 kingdom. As for the rest of the enviroments in 3, Boston and New York really don't make for fun platforming playgrounds. This is partly due to the fact that 3 was where I'd argue was the point where platforming in AC mechanically went downhill. AC was never that deep in this regard, but there was some reward to understanding what Ezio could and couldn't do. You could kick off walls in an attempt to skip certain platforming sections (which 3 admittedly still had), you could hold circle mid-jump to grab ledges you otherwise would have missed, there are more nuances like being able to manually jump which you could use for things like grabbing things above you. It's hard to really appreciate what the Ezio games had without playing the VR missions in Brotherhood going for gold.

The story of AC3 itself, Ubisoft worked hard on making the modern crew likeable and I'd say that work payed off. The banter feels more playful than it did in 2 and the whole thing isn't just "lol just take breaks from the animus" like in the previous games. Getting all that First Civ lore was great as well. I only wish the ending actually gave people the chance to choose their ending rather than teasing you with it and having Desmond choose for you. I already touched on how I like Connor's story. Connor being specifically native actually adds to the plot and gives the game a chance to show America's founding father's in a less than favorable light. 3 also has some of my favorite Templars.

The multiplayer was- lol rip, you can't buy the PC original anymore and the remaster doesn't have multiplayer.

[gugnihr]

I have only played AC1 and AC2 (I plauyed AC 2 only because of Tuscany otherwise I wouldn't have bothered), I haven't tried AC3 and I'm really amazed... can a game more lacking than AC1 exist???
(AC2 was a lot better than what I expected, still not enough for me and the whole animus thing ruins everything good for me but still much better than the 1st one)

[Xautos]

AC3 has a dark moody atmosphere contrasting against the struggles of the British settlers before the tea tax the king demanded. You had french and Indian influences as well from time to time, but mostly it was about the struggle of staying alive in a largely untamed, unexplored area with the templars attempting to manipulate events like they were responsible for driving the wedge between the settlers and the crown back home.

Then you had Conner, driven, always serious to a fault but he had time for people, allies and enemies alike with just as much dedication to both. He adapts and changes according to his surroundings. While not as interesting as Ezio, Alexios or Kassandra; Connor is the underdog, the dark horse, the one man assassin army against the absurdly powerful Templars, strangers in a strange land..

Then you had the homesteaders, allies outside that with Sam Adams and his group. All of it lead by this young Red Indian-Anglo man. Connor's story is an interesting one as he is unable to accept that the European settlers are taking more and more land and he went off to do something about that and solve the Templar problem at the same time.

[Γαῖα]

AC3 is much a tale of two parts as on one hand they added and improved what you could do while on the other they gave us a story far too departed from the last with a less than stellar protagonist.
The first time i ever played it back in the day i hated it so much i completely stopped playing any AC games. Years later i bought it as it was cheap and gave it another go. I wouldnt say its a bad game, just that i still dont like it be it a less intensely than before.
The timeline just does not interest me but on the plus side at least desmond gets the boot as any premise he may have had pretty much died after AC2.

[Arvaos]

Originally posted by gugnihr:

I have only played AC1 and AC2 (I plauyed AC 2 only because of Tuscany otherwise I wouldn't have bothered), I haven't tried AC3 and I'm really amazed... can a game more lacking than AC1 exist???
(AC2 was a lot better than what I expected, still not enough for me and the whole animus thing ruins everything good for me but still much better than the 1st one)

I wouldn't recommend the new games if you are looking for classic gameplay as they are more similar to Shadow of War with an Assassin's Creed skin.