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.

[xTheDon]

My friend was really into the historical time period and battles featured in the game but I didn't care for it personally.

[MoHatesMondays]

Publicado originalmente por Play Legacy of Kain:

Publicado originalmente por Mo Hates Mondays:

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

>intel

fam it's good i use amd now

[Arvaos]

Publicado originalmente por xTheDon B>Navi/Vox15 holo skins:

My friend was really into the historical time period and battles featured in the game but I didn't care for it personally.

If he likes the battles, tell him to check out Turn: Washington's Spies.

[talemore]

Publicado originalmente por CalistriX:

Publicado originalmente por 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.

Explained a lot now why everything look like it's made out of extra thick clay.

[TheRandomGuy]

Assassin's Creed 3 had a nice setting in Colonial America. The story was OK, not that great. Gameplay was your standard Rooftop Parkour Simulator, but this time with Frontier areas, you also had hunting animals too, with Bows. You could run on Trees, do Ship Missions, stuff like that. It was also the final game for Desmond's Storyline in the franchise as well, unless you count Edward Kenway being related to him in 4.

Basically AC3 was kind of a stepping stone, mechanically, for Assassin's Creed 4. 3 Introduced ship gameplay, had a variation between urban and wild, "frontier' environments. 4 Elaborated on the Ship Gameplay, overhauling it, had much more of the Urban and Wild environments, and was overall pretty much better at everything 3 had, with the exception of the Assassin's Brotherhood mechanic, I loved calling Assassin's to do stuff in Brotherhood and AC3. I missed that in 4.

I will say this though, Connor had nothing on Edward and Ezio.

[🅷🅴🆇🅴🅽]

All the story aside ...


AC3 was the first AC which had a brutal fighting system. Sure, Ezio had a similar gameplay, but holy hell ... the gurgling, blood, stabbing, slashing, neck breaking ... Connor didn't screw around.

[Holding These Alligators Down]

I didn't like Assassins Creed 3.
The main character is a whiny ♥♥♥♥♥ and it was buggy as hell (I played it years ago it might have been patched since then).
The naval battles were cool but that's about it.

[Arnie Rimsy BSc.SSc.]

Publicado originalmente por Mo Hates Mondays:

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.

I agree with the setting/period being interesting as its only pro.
I tried to play it and it just felt bad.
I played until Brotherhood and just quit after about 1/3 of that game.
I don't think anything beats the first or second one in terms of story AND quality.
Also coming from a guy who got all 221 diamond briefcases in Far Cry 2... screw getting Petruccios feathers, what a joke.

[Arnie Rimsy BSc.SSc.]

Publicado originalmente por Miss Ann Thrope:

Assassin's Creed Rogue was a far better alternative to Assassin's Creed 3. It was also set in America during the 1700's, but had better gameplay mechanics and a far more likeable main character.

What one is the one where you are a Caribbean prisoner? I got it free on PS+ last year. It was very short, quite glitchy and in general very lame. I played about 10 hours of that one and it was bad and I quit. I know it is set in the same time as the Black flag game.

Edit: Freedom Cry? Anyway, that was only just worse than AC3 for me

[Arvaos]

Publicado originalmente por Miss Ann Thrope:

Assassin's Creed Rogue was a far better alternative to Assassin's Creed 3. It was also set in America during the 1700's, but had better gameplay mechanics and a far more likeable main character.

It was shadowed by Unity.

[tmwfte]

AC 3 was probably my least favourite of that arc.

The original was kind of a proof of concept. While decent, it still had that feel of being an outgrowth from Prince of Persia and working out some of the bugs. The modern day parts were at least interesting for this one. Way too many collectibles, I found.

The Ezio trilogy was a hell of a lot better. It seemed to refine what the original was going for, had a more interesting character, and seemed to have a better focus for its narrative. Even the really weird Desmond sequences in Revelations. It seemed to have a perfect balance between the assassin story and still investigating old locations/tombs that remind of Prince of Persia and the puzzle platforming. Granted, navigation without a controller could be a ♥♥♥♥♥, leaping into the abyss constantly, but it was mostly well done. Even the RTS mini-games and side activities were fun.

AC3 seemed to remove most of that. Most of the platforming really seemed to be replaced with the naval battles. While fun, it could be really clunky. I liked the Haytham portion of the game, and it was an all right story overall, but it felt like the most "simplified" of the original format Assassin's Creed games. And the Desmond story was ridiculous. Its simplicity and easy accessibility might be the reason why it's fondly remembered as "best", but I think AC4 trumps that.

Liberation was all right as a side diversion, and served as a nice bridge into the further Abstergo story going forward. The "real" events bit was a nice touch, but not really repeated further down.

AC4: Black Flag seemed to do everything from AC3, but better. Better naval navigation, better story, more interesting characters. The Abstergo side of the story I thought was also more interesting. Simpler than the Desmond arc, and you could largely ignore it if you hated the modern day stuff.

Freedom Cry wasn't bad, but seemed a lot less than Liberation (probably since one was a standalone game and the other was just standalone DLC).

AC Rogue closed out the Kenway saga and basically followed the same formula as AC4. I really quite liked the gangs aspect of this game, and was happy when a variation of it was revisited later. This was really the last one of the second stage, but still feeling "classic" Assassin Creed's. I think if it wasn't treated as a stop gap for old consoles, it would have had a better reaction. It doesn't suffer from the same bloat that you can feel from other entries in the series.

AC Unity & Syndicate were a step forward. A lot of the gameplay mechanics were still the same, but narrative approach, style, and substance changed considerably. There's almost an MMO feel to both of them in how they deliver quests, and they embrace more of the standard open world game presentation when it comes to side activities and storytelling. You can see some of the RPG elements that would show up later begin to form in these two games. Also, the modern day elements became almost skippable being largely relegated to cutscenes. Unity also seemed to suffer from way too much game. Open world collectible fatigue would set in. I like both of them, particularly in terms of their attention to detail and the storytelling in Syndicate, but Unity's disastrous launch pretty much killed this format.

AC Origins & Odyssey I really, really love. But they're different games. They still "feel" like Assassin's Creed because of the story, items, and such, but the mechanics are different. It's more of a soft reboot than a continuation of the stealth/platformer origins of the franchise. They're also packed with content, but it never feels like the "too much" of some of the earlier entries. I think in the future, both will be well-regarded, but for long time fans, I can see the reaction to them being similar to what happened with Prince of Persia. The old Assassin's Creed is gone.

And so...round about back to your question, AC3 may be regarded as many people's favourite because it was arguably the pivot point, the perfect storm between the old format platformer and the new format naval battle. It's arguably the most accessible of the games. And, keep in mind, that it had a huge marketing push. I feel like everyone and their brother practically owns the game.