Assassin's Creed

[huttj509]

So, with 4 coming out soon, I was thinking I want to play it.

But before I play that one I wanna do 2 and 3.

And that means I need to finish 1.

I'm interested in the story of 1, I love the idea of 1. But MAN the gameplay gets so repetitive in 1!

It's like my Dwarf Bread: "Well, I could play some AC 1" *suddenly thinks of 100 other things I'd rather do, like vacuum the apartment, or play Orphen for PS2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphen:_Scion_of_Sorcery) no, not that, never that, not again.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Skipping Brotherhood and Revelations? Heresy! Sacrilege! God is holding the lightning bolt!

[Dumbledore lives]

Skipping Brotherhood and Revelations? Heresy! Sacrilege! God is holding the lightning bolt!

Brotherhood improves the combat mechanics significantly and has a story that still has some relevancy with 2 but ultimately feels a little bit tired. Revelations adds a bad tower defense. I would personally not recommend Revelations as that was when the series really started to show the difficulty in limited development time, something continued in three and four to some extent but most prevalent in Revelations.

[Jlerpy]

I found them all enjoyable, but 2 was a massive improvement over 1.

[MLai]

So, with 4 coming out soon, I was thinking I want to play it.
But before I play that one I wanna do 2 and 3.
And that means I need to finish 1.
I'm interested in the story of 1, I love the idea of 1. But MAN the gameplay gets so repetitive in 1!
LMFAO, that's my exact problem. AC 1, 2, and ACB sit in my Steam library... uninstalled.
I had played AC1 on my roommate's PS3 for a while, got thru a few missions... and stopped. I don't remember hating it or anything, I even have good memories of some emergent cinematic gameplay moments; I just dropped it for a while and never picked it back up.
And every time I play Batman AA, I tell myself "Man, I want to play AC too... I should play AC too! I really want to play as a *worshipful patriot* shivving European occupiers!" (Yes I know that's not what the game is about, but I can pretend.)
The idea is so politically incorrect I friggin' love it. Yet I can't bring myself to install the game!

*Term substitution.

[huttj509]

I found them all enjoyable, but 2 was a massive improvement over 1.

Oh, I'm aware. I just don't want to jump into 2 without having finished the story of 1.

Actually, I can probably blitz the story stuff instead of being completionist in all the side stuff and not have as many issues with tedium.

[Morithias]

Oh, I'm aware. I just don't want to jump into 2 without having finished the story of 1.

Actually, I can probably blitz the story stuff instead of being completionist in all the side stuff and not have as many issues with tedium.

Why not just watch a let's play if all you want is the story?

[Jlerpy]

Oh, I'm aware. I just don't want to jump into 2 without having finished the story of 1.

Actually, I can probably blitz the story stuff instead of being completionist in all the side stuff and not have as many issues with tedium.

I'd recommend it, if you're finding it that grating. I went around and did all the little side bits that involved saving people from goons and so on, as that powers up your ... whatever (Harmony? Connection? Synchronisation?), but didn't bother with feathers and flags and things, as they don't do anything.

[AdmiralCheez]

I started the series at 2, and later went back to play 1, and honestly, I really didn't feel like I missed anything. They do a pretty lengthy recap at the start of 2, so you get the basic idea. They're also pretty good with context clues, so the occasional references to the first game can be picked up easily enough.

[Jlerpy]

I started the series at 2, and later went back to play 1, and honestly, I really didn't feel like I missed anything. They do a pretty lengthy recap at the start of 2, so you get the basic idea. They're also pretty good with context clues, so the occasional references to the first game can be picked up easily enough.

That's a good point. It seemed like a good sum-up to me, but I wasn't sure how clear things would be to someone who hadn't played through the first.

[Driderman]

Currently enjoying the heck out of Black Flag on my Xbox 360, and I have to say that I've never really felt I've missed out on anything particularly important even though I've actually only completed AC2. The story is actually cliché enough that you can easily fill out any blanks with some blanket conspiratorial assumptions.

[Cristo Meyers]

Currently enjoying the heck out of Black Flag on my Xbox 360, and I have to say that I've never really felt I've missed out on anything particularly important even though I've actually only completed AC2. The story is actually cliché enough that you can easily fill out any blanks with some blanket conspiratorial assumptions.

I just finished Black Flag last night, and I have to say I think it's the best Assassin's Creed so far bar none.

I have to agree that if the original isn't doing much for you, then you can skip it with little consequence. It sets the stage, but like others have said 2 is a much better game and does a pretty good review of what's going on.

[Zevox]

I actually just recently started playing 2 for the first time. I played the first one a year ago, but it didn't make me much of a fan of the series - just enough promise that I wanted to try the rest, not enough to make it a priority. So I've been sitting on the Ezio Trilogy and 3 for a while now.

I'm not at all far in - just past the second assassination - but so far, I can't say I see the improvements it supposedly made on the first. Just seems like the same thing but with a protagonist who has more character to him. But again, I'm not far, so we'll see.

I will say that the random switching between Italian and English that the voice acting does is annoying, though. I know it's Italy, but I don't think having the language sprinkled in does anything to help the setting or whatever they're trying to do with it, it just makes me wish they'd pick one language and stick to it, so either I need to watch the subtitles closely or I don't.

[Thrudd]

I actually just recently started playing 2 for the first time. I played the first one a year ago, but it didn't make me much of a fan of the series - just enough promise that I wanted to try the rest, not enough to make it a priority. So I've been sitting on the Ezio Trilogy and 3 for a while now.

I'm not at all far in - just past the second assassination - but so far, I can't say I see the improvements it supposedly made on the first. Just seems like the same thing but with a protagonist who has more character to him. But again, I'm not far, so we'll see.

I will say that the random switching between Italian and English that the voice acting does is annoying, though. I know it's Italy, but I don't think having the language sprinkled in does anything to help the setting or whatever they're trying to do with it, it just makes me wish they'd pick one language and stick to it, so either I need to watch the subtitles closely or I don't.

really? I Love the Italian in the Ezio games. I crack up when guards and random people insult you in Italian "hey stronzo!"
Actually the renaissance setting and the detailed Italian cities and architecture is why I picked up these games in the first place. I started with 2, then Brotherhood, skipped Revelations because people said it didn't really add anything, and then played through 3. It was cool that the "Borgias" TV show started on Showtime around the time I was playing Brotherhood.

I grew up in New England, so I also wanted to see what they did with colonial Boston and New York and the wilderness in AC 3. I got a kick out of it, climbing along the granite cliffs and hunting in the woods. All it needed was some thicker patches of mountain laurel, and I could have thought they modelled by back yard, black bear cave and all. :smallbiggrin:

I am looking forward to Black Flag, though I am still working on "The Last of Us" before I get around to buying it.

[LordShotGun]

I have never played an assassin's creed game before but I am playing black flag right now and really enjoying it. The chase sequences can be annoying if Edward decides he needs to jump into EVERY FRIGGIN HAY STACK HE PASSES but otherwise, the sailing is excellent, the stealth is simple but fun, combat is fast and furious but still feels like you are in control.

Only problem I have so far is that I am about 4 hours into the game and things are only just now starting to open up, map and upgrade wise. Yet oddly assassination missions are available right away in the first starting town even before you get your hidden blade.

I like how everything is pretty damn expensive as well since it really makes you think and strive for your upgrades.

[MLai]

AC games in the series seem to come out extremely fast, 1 after the other. Either the game devs in that studio are all robots who don't need sleep/food, or they're taking advantage of each previous game's engine and new features...

Given that AC: America had naval battle in it, I'm assuming that AC: Pirate builds and improves on that feature and that's how it came out so fast?

My question is, how much sailing/pirating is in the new game? Is it AC with pirating tacked on, or "AC + awesome pirate mode" that you would have had to buy a pirate ship game to get?

[GloatingSwine]

From what I hear it's basically an awesome pirate game which occasionally annoys you by pretending to be Assassin's Creed.

[Choyrt]

My wife and I are seriously enjoying AssCreed 4, and it improves on everything on part 3. I would advise skipping 3, however. It is honestly an aimless game, a boring main character, and a worthless crafting/loot system. The naval combat is amazing, though, and it is even better in AssCreed 4.

You MUST play Assassin's Creed 2, Brotherhood, and Revelations. Ezio is far too good a character to skip out on.

[Jlerpy]

The crafting stuff really was a disappointment in 3. And the trading business. By the time it was unlocked, I already had more money than I could use. :(

[Choyrt]

The saddest thing is, with part 3, you had an AMAZING father/son dynamic that was only half explored. THAT should have been the whole game!

[Jlerpy]

The saddest thing is, with part 3, you had an AMAZING father/son dynamic that was only half explored. THAT should have been the whole game!


I don't know about the whole game, but it was definitely underdeveloped and the plot could have used a lot of tightening.

[Zevox]

I've made a good bit more progress in AC2 - probably midway into the game or so now. Done several more assassinations, and just reached the first point where you get dumped back into the modern-times end of things. I can see where they added a fair few things since the first one now... but honestly, none are changing my opinion of the series.

Most just feel like pointless filler - money, buying improvements to your weapons and armor, renovating your uncle's city, etc. Some of the actual new abilities are ill-explained (I still have no idea how to control when I do a double-takedown with my double hidden blades, for instance), others I seem to have no reason to use (poison, dodging), others I so rarely have reason to use that they may as well not be there (hiring groups of people, doing things to decrease your notoriety).

My main hope, that combat difficulty would increase, does seem to have happened, but only slightly. Enemies being able to counter and me needing to block those counters is a nice addition, and those brute-type enemies that I can't counter actually feel a little threatening, unlike everything else. And maybe I'm wrong, but enemies seem more aggressive than in the first one. But I can still win every fight with little to no difficulty, because enemy attacks are telegraphed to hell, they never attack more than one at a time, and countering kicks everyone's ass except the brutes.

The actual assassinations are still at least satisfying to pull off, and the story missions leading up to them no longer being cookie-cutter side-quests is nice, but other than that, I still can't say I have any real praise for the gameplay.

As for the story, we'll see. Ezio is a better character than Altair, no doubt, and with a supporting cast that is actually noticeable, unlike anyone in the first game. But it's too early for me to say more than that.

[Jlerpy]

I liked the ability to invest in rebuilding Montereggioni. In addition to the money (and it could add up fast!), it felt like I was helping my community.
The paintings, I could have totally done without though.

[Brother Oni]

Some of the actual new abilities are ill-explained (I still have no idea how to control when I do a double-takedown with my double hidden blades, for instance),

That's proximity triggered. If you're within range of two valid targets (ie they must both be unaware of your presence, they must be fairly close together, etc) when you hit the assassinate button, you get both of them. The mechanic is cleaned up a bit in Brotherhood.



others I seem to have no reason to use (poison, dodging), others I so rarely have reason to use that they may as well not be there (hiring groups of people, doing things to decrease your notoriety).

I admit, most of those are alternate options to achieve your goal which is nice to have. Some missions force you to use these abilities though, particulaly hiring people.

High notoriety can be an issue if you're trying to do something that requires you not to be detected or in combat (starting certain missions, pickpocketing someone in a mission, etc).



As for the story, we'll see. Ezio is a better character than Altair, no doubt, and with a supporting cast that is actually noticeable, unlike anyone in the first game. But it's too early for me to say more than that.

I fully agree that the supporting cast is more memorable (have you seen the Lineage short series?), but definitely stick with the game as the story is very good.

[Goosefeather]

2 and Brotherhood are both excellent, and I fully recommend playing both. Revelations is a little samey gameplaywise, but I really enjoy the closure it brings in terms of storyline.

3 was a bit of a disappointment, I felt. The main character was incredibly dull - especially after Ezio was so fantastic - and the game takes a little too long to fully get going. The setting was also underwhelming - after Jerusalem, Damascus, Rome, Constantinople, Venice and Florence in their primes, the half-built cities of Boston and New York didn't really do it for me. The father side of the father-son dynamic is, however, excellent and almost single-handedly makes it worth getting the game. Think Tarquin vs Elan, if Elan were a bland, charmless, sour stick-in-the-mud and Tarquin were still a magnificent, suave, thoroughly-enjoyable bastard.

[BRC]

I remember being very, very dissapointed by 3.

The plot was largely incoherent, big moments like Connor's first meeting with Washington or his father did not seem to happen.

Connor in new york: I need to speak to General Washington.
Story: Nope
Connor: Okay, I just saved Washington's life, where is he?
Story: Oh, he's in Philadelphia, even though he was here a second ago.
Connor: Okay, I'm there now. Can I talk to him?
Story: No, he's back in new york.
Connor: I'm here.
Washington: Connor! My friend who I know and have already met somehow.

Same with Haytham. At some point Connor and Haytham meet, fully aware of their relationship to each other.

Connor himself was sloppily written. They could have gone for an angry revenge seeker, or a wide-eyed idealist who got caught up in the Revolution's talk of freedom. They could have gone with a devoted member of the Assassins, or a proud Mohawk seeking to protect his tribe above all else.

Instead we get some bizzare combination of the above. He hates the Templars, then he works with them to benefit the Revolution, then he wants to protect his tribe above all else but keeps working with Washington after he sends troops to destroy them.
The result was kind of a generic scowly protagonist without much in the way of personality. As much as I love the idea of tying the game's narrative to historical events, it really did not work, since it meant that Connor would occasionally just spend a few years waiting around for the next historically significant event to occur.
Plus, for all their talk of "Large-scale battles", we saw two, one of which was basically a mini-game. They basically just checked off the American Revolution Buzzword list
Boston Massacre: Check
Tea Party: Check
Midnight Ride: Check
Lexington and Concord: Check
Bunker Hill: Check
Valley Forge: Check

Like with Connor's personality, they didn't really commit to telling either the story of Connor OR the story of the Revolution.

Plus, the homestead idea was interesting, but was marred by arbitrary bottlenecks. Most of the good items you could get from it required the Tailor or the Blacksmith, both of whom you could not get until late in the game. So really you were just moving imaginary items around in order to get money you had no real use for.

Also, the Assasin's Creed series has, mechanically speaking, gradually moved away from stealth towards counter-based action, with the addition of the Chain Kill as the final nail in the coffin.

The combat mechanics were such that you could usually defeat really any number of enemies, so stealth sections became "Stealth until you get tired of that, then kill everybody"
Or "Stealth because getting revealed is an instant-lose condition".


I'm torn on ACIV. The mechanics look sound and I love the setting, but the story sounds stupid. All I have gotten from the marketing is "Edward Kenway is a Pirate who wants to be the best Pirate and Yarr Har Pirates".

It sounds like fun, but I want somthing a little more from my assassin's creed games than GTA on the High Seas.

[Logic]

2 and Brotherhood are both excellent, and I fully recommend playing both. Revelations is a little samey gameplaywise, but I really enjoy the closure it brings in terms of storyline.

I have yet to get to Revelations, but I want to know one thing. Please answer Yes or No only.
Seriously, big Brotherhood Spoiler Warning.Will the reason(s) for Lucy's death be explained? Did I perhaps miss something important at the end of Brotherhood?

[Brother Oni]

I have yet to get to Revelations, but I want to know one thing. Please answer Yes or No only.
Seriously, big Brotherhood Spoiler Warning.Will the reason(s) for Lucy's death be explained? Did I perhaps miss something important at the end of Brotherhood?

Yes.

Juno explains it somewhat cryptically at the end of Brotherhood, but it's explicitly spelled out in the Revelations The Lost Archive DLC. I suggest watching a Let's Play if you don't want to buy it.

[Jahkaivah]

The first Assassin's Creed was the best one.

Yes there were problems with it, problems that any self-respecting developer should be embarrassed to admit they had a hand in, and yes the sequels addressed some of the more obvious of those problems, like not having enough content and too much tedious crap.

But the first game also understood the core gameplay of "sneak, stab, run" best, emphasis of the "run" part. First game understood that the moments after you killed your target and had to run back to the bureau with the entire city after you was should be treated as the highlights of the game.

The later games lost this by taking out the city bell mechanic which meant guards forgot about you a lot easier, and failing to reinforce these moments with proper "s*** got real" music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pQxYurf4pc). For all the improvements that AC2 made it needs to be emphasised that it ruined what were best parts of the original game and the series has just drifted further and further away from that.

[Zevox]

The first Assassin's Creed was the best one.

Yes there were problems with it, problems that any self-respecting developer should be embarrassed to admit they had a hand in, and yes the sequels addressed some of the more obvious of those problems, like not having enough content and too much tedious crap.

But the first game also understood the core gameplay of "sneak, stab, run" best, emphasis of the "run" part. First game understood that the moments after you killed your target and had to run back to the bureau with the entire city after you was should be treated as the highlights of the game.

The later games lost this by taking out the city bell mechanic which meant guards forgot about you a lot easier, and failing to reinforce these moments with proper "s*** got real" music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pQxYurf4pc). For all the improvements that AC2 made it needs to be emphasised that it ruined what were best parts of the original game and the series has just drifted further and further away from that.
I don't know about you, but I find it's awfully hard to feel like you're running to safety with the whole city after you in either AC 1 or 2, because I have absolutely no reason to run. I can just kill anyone that tries to stop me, because the combat is so easy. The only reason I've ever had to run from a fight has been to save time.

[MLai]

It sounds like fun, but I want somthing a little more from my assassin's creed games than GTA on the High Seas.
LOL, this is our moment of irreconcilable ideological rift where I can only respond with "I'm sorry wut?"
"GTA on the high seas" needs to be made. If AC4 is it, I'll put it on my Steam wishlist.

I don't know about you, but I find it's awfully hard to feel like you're running to safety with the whole city after you in either AC 1 or 2, because I have absolutely no reason to run. I can just kill anyone that tries to stop me, because the combat is so easy. The only reason I've ever had to run from a fight has been to save time.
To enjoy some games, you have to roleplay a little.
I fled on the rooftops from pursuers just because it was so damned cinematic. I also felt it being tactically more sound (in and out-universe) to make a stand far from the scene of the crime, and after the pursuers have straggled themselves into ones and twos rather than an entire mob bearing down on me.

[Zevox]

High notoriety can be an issue if you're trying to do something that requires you not to be detected or in combat (starting certain missions, pickpocketing someone in a mission, etc).
I've yet to encounter a story mission besides the one that introduced the mechanic where it matters. And I'm not doing the random side-missions.


(have you seen the Lineage short series?)
I have no idea what that is, so I'm going to guess not.


To enjoy some games, you have to roleplay a little.
I fled on the rooftops from pursuers just because it was so damned cinematic. I also felt it being tactically more sound (in and out-universe) to make a stand far from the scene of the crime, and after the pursuers have straggled themselves into ones and twos rather than an entire mob bearing down on me.
Yeah, I'm not going to pretend that the game's guards are threatening if the game fails to make them so. If the designers want me to be running from pursuers, they need to give me a reason to do so. If that's what they've been aiming for, they've failed completely.

[MLai]

Yeah, I'm not going to pretend that the game's guards are threatening if the game fails to make them so. If the designers want me to be running from pursuers, they need to give me a reason to do so. If that's what they've been aiming for, they've failed completely.
Since I have the PC version of the games, I'm wondering if there are mods which make the guards do massively more damage or attack more often, so that you're forced to adapt rather than bulldoze through missions.

[Jlerpy]

The first Assassin's Creed was the best one.

Yes there were problems with it, problems that any self-respecting developer should be embarrassed to admit they had a hand in, and yes the sequels addressed some of the more obvious of those problems, like not having enough content and too much tedious crap.

But the first game also understood the core gameplay of "sneak, stab, run" best, emphasis of the "run" part. First game understood that the moments after you killed your target and had to run back to the bureau with the entire city after you was should be treated as the highlights of the game.

The later games lost this by taking out the city bell mechanic which meant guards forgot about you a lot easier, and failing to reinforce these moments with proper "s*** got real" music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pQxYurf4pc). For all the improvements that AC2 made it needs to be emphasised that it ruined what were best parts of the original game and the series has just drifted further and further away from that.

I just found those tedious after the first one. In the first one, it felt fitting, as you're a novice and this gives you a strong chance to see the consequences of acting harshly and overtly.
But then they're unavoidable every time after that? No, that' bad design. There are missions where tere's no reason for there to be an alert, yet sti ll every guard's after me.
They're good as an "oh, sh**!" moment when you've overplayed your hand and got caught, but as a mandatory part of the mission structure, they were terrible and I was happy to see them gone.

GTA on the high seas sounds like exactly like something I'd enjoy.

[Brother Oni]

I have no idea what that is, so I'm going to guess not.

It was a free three part prologue movie following Ezio's father, Giovanni, on his Assassin duties prior to the events of AC2.

I quite enjoyed it and the combat choreography is surprisingly good for something like this. Lots of blood and they don't hold back on the brutality, but since you're playing AC in the first place, I don't think you're bothered by that in the first place. :smalltongue:

The whole thing has officially been put together into a 35 minute short film: link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcE8xJkK6t4).

[Jahkaivah]

I don't know about you, but I find it's awfully hard to feel like you're running to safety with the whole city after you in either AC 1 or 2, because I have absolutely no reason to run. I can just kill anyone that tries to stop me, because the combat is so easy. The only reason I've ever had to run from a fight has been to save time.

But of course, making a game about running from your enemy and failing to make said enemy a threat remotely worth running from, or for that matter failing to make running from them an even remotely challenging task was one of the embarrassing problems I was talking about.

I'm saying that Assassin's Creed was the closest the series got to an ideal Assassin's Creed game, not that the game in itself was ideal.

[Talderas]

The single most important feature added in AC2 is the ability to swim.

[Divayth Fyr]

The later games lost this by taking out the city bell mechanic which meant guards forgot about you a lot easier, and failing to reinforce these moments with proper "s*** got real" music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pQxYurf4pc).
I'd say this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg) fits the AC guard chases much, much better ;)

[Jahkaivah]

I'd say this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg) fits the AC guard chases much, much better ;)

"It's going to be yakety sax isn't it?"

"Yyyep" :smallbiggrin:

[Divayth Fyr]

"It's going to be yakety sax isn't it?"

"Yyyep" :smallbiggrin:
It's a classic after all. And it definately fits what the chases are like in AC ;)

[Zevox]

Huh. So, does AC2/AC Ezio Trilogy (either the game in general or the PS3 version in particular) have a reputation for having some problems? Because today I had the game freeze on me twice, for no apparent reason. And somehow the music was still playing as normal despite everything else being frozen. :smallconfused:


It was a free three part prologue movie following Ezio's father, Giovanni, on his Assassin duties prior to the events of AC2.

I quite enjoyed it and the combat choreography is surprisingly good for something like this. Lots of blood and they don't hold back on the brutality, but since you're playing AC in the first place, I don't think you're bothered by that in the first place. :smalltongue:

The whole thing has officially been put together into a 35 minute short film: link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcE8xJkK6t4).
Huh, okay. Might check that out later. Though I'm not sold on the series' story being all that good as yet, honestly.


But of course, making a game about running from your enemy and failing to make said enemy a threat remotely worth running from, or for that matter failing to make running from them an even remotely challenging task was one of the embarrassing problems I was talking about.

I'm saying that Assassin's Creed was the closest the series got to an ideal Assassin's Creed game, not that the game in itself was ideal.
Okay... guess I just don't see how AC1 was any closer to that than AC2 (can't speak to the rest yet).


The single most important feature added in AC2 is the ability to swim.
Yeah, I must admit, the fact that I was genuinely surprised that I didn't die the first time I accidentally jumped in some water says something.

[Jlerpy]

Huh. So, does AC2/AC Ezio Trilogy (either the game in general or the PS3 version in particular) have a reputation for having some problems? Because today I had the game freeze on me twice, for no apparent reason. And somehow the music was still playing as normal despite everything else being frozen. :smallconfused:

I think I did have it freeze on me a couple of times. But that was only a couple of times throughout my whole playthrough.

[Brother Oni]

Huh. So, does AC2/AC Ezio Trilogy (either the game in general or the PS3 version in particular) have a reputation for having some problems? Because today I had the game freeze on me twice, for no apparent reason. And somehow the music was still playing as normal despite everything else being frozen. :smallconfused:

On release (360 version), there was a game breaking bug in Brotherhood (if you used one of those quick travel tunnels too early, you'd auto desync for being in an illegal area) and an annoying one in Revelations where a surface was not marked as climable in the 'tutorial' section, thus it took some inventive climbing to get proceed through the game.

Other than that, I only had one or two lockups during each game (40hrs-ish per game) and I never lost that much time, maybe 20 minutes at most (the Brotherhood glitch aside which required me to restart the game entirely).

Since I'm primarily a PC player, I find that level of stability acceptable, although your tolerance may vary.



Huh, okay. Might check that out later. Though I'm not sold on the series' story being all that good as yet, honestly.

If you're expecting something as involved as say Heavy Rain or as deep as the Game of Thrones RPG, then you're not going to get it here.

You will get (in my opinion), a very well done story for a video game that spans years of a character's life as he searches for vengeance.

[GloatingSwine]

Revs will freeze if you fail a mediterranean defence and it tries to have one of the assassins assigned to a city die.

[Zevox]

On release (360 version), there was a game breaking bug in Brotherhood (if you used one of those quick travel tunnels too early, you'd auto desync for being in an illegal area) and an annoying one in Revelations where a surface was not marked as climable in the 'tutorial' section, thus it took some inventive climbing to get proceed through the game.

Other than that, I only had one or two lockups during each game (40hrs-ish per game) and I never lost that much time, maybe 20 minutes at most (the Brotherhood glitch aside which required me to restart the game entirely).

Since I'm primarily a PC player, I find that level of stability acceptable, although your tolerance may vary.
Yeah, as a console gamer, I'm not accustomed to games freezing on me. It's a pretty worrying thing when it happens, because it makes me wonder if the problem is with my console, since games just don't normally do that.


If you're expecting something as involved as say Heavy Rain or as deep as the Game of Thrones RPG, then you're not going to get it here.

You will get (in my opinion), a very well done story for a video game that spans years of a character's life as he searches for vengeance.
I haven't played those games, so I can't comment on the comparison. I guess my main problem here is that the whole new-world-order style conspiracy plot doesn't really do much for me. Ezio himself is likeable enough, and a simple revenge story could be nice, but at the end of the day I know it's not going to be about that, but going to connect back to the overarching thread they introduced through Desmond and that thing from the end of AC1. If it were just a story about Ezio getting revenge on those who killed his family, I might honestly enjoy it more.

[MLai]

If it were just a story about Ezio getting revenge on those who killed his family, I might honestly enjoy it more.
+1. That whole virtual reality crap subplot, and the entire "Assassins vs Templars" generic anime subplot, really semi-ruins this franchise for me.

I'd have been much happier if the franchise was just straight-up about the epic exploits of certain notable characters in the fiction's history.

[GolemsVoice]

I haven't played those games, so I can't comment on the comparison. I guess my main problem here is that the whole new-world-order style conspiracy plot doesn't really do much for me. Ezio himself is likeable enough, and a simple revenge story could be nice, but at the end of the day I know it's not going to be about that, but going to connect back to the overarching thread they introduced through Desmond and that thing from the end of AC1. If it were just a story about Ezio getting revenge on those who killed his family, I might honestly enjoy it more.

I think the NWO-plot is actually quite cool, as it gives them a chance to relive history while changing it at the same time. I don't care one bit for everything that happens outside of the animus, though. Your team is cool, and I guess Desmond is an ok guy, but I just don't care that much about what they do.

[MLai]

I don't care one bit for everything that happens outside of the animus, though. Your team is cool, and I guess Desmond is an ok guy, but I just don't care that much about what they do.
Oh lord... you mean that modern-times Desmond guy continues past the first game? We have to keep sticking with him through 2-4?? I hate that guy.

I'm living the life of a badass power-fantasy assassin roaming thru fabled cities, and then suddenly they drop me into this helpless idiot who I could beat up IRL. Define irritating.

[Jlerpy]

Oh lord... you mean that modern-times Desmond guy continues past the first game? We have to keep sticking with him through 2-4?? I hate that guy.

I'm living the life of a badass power-fantasy assassin roaming thru fabled cities, and then suddenly they drop me into this helpless idiot who I could beat up IRL. Define irritating.

Yeah, he stops being helpless, but he's still a central part of the framing story. He's awkward to work with, I think, because people clearly didn't enjoy his part in the first game (where he is rather a whiny nobody, it's true), but, while he improves a lot, has yet to be developed enough to wholly escape that original impression, because people want to get back to Ezio. It's not a bad framing story, but it's not as well done as the sub-stories, so it's a drag when you get reminded of it.

[GolemsVoice]

I think in the third game he takes up about 2-3 hours, depending on how much you interact with your team, and maybe another 3 hours maximumif you count his missions which involve actual climbing and beating up people, which I was actually looking forward to, they're well done and advance the story.

[Driderman]

Oh lord... you mean that modern-times Desmond guy continues past the first game? We have to keep sticking with him through 2-4?? I hate that guy.

I'm living the life of a badass power-fantasy assassin roaming thru fabled cities, and then suddenly they drop me into this helpless idiot who I could beat up IRL. Define irritating.

His role is pretty minor in Assassin's Creed 3 and in Assassin's Creed 4 you hardly see him at all except for a short scene in which you're told that he's dead although I suspect he may reappear as some sort of "ghost in the animus"
And yeah, Desmond is both bland and annoying, although I have to say I felt he got better near the (current) end of the series.

[BRC]

Desmond sections are only good because you get to talk to Shawn and Rebecca
But mainly Shawn.

[Zevox]

I think the NWO-plot is actually quite cool, as it gives them a chance to relive history while changing it at the same time.
They don't need an excuse for that, though. It's fiction, you don't need to invent a history-spanning NWO-style conspiracy to justify your assassin killing someone that wasn't killed historically.


I don't care one bit for everything that happens outside of the animus, though. Your team is cool, and I guess Desmond is an ok guy, but I just don't care that much about what they do.
Pretty much agreed. That whole part really only matters in relation to the whole NWO-Conspiracy, which as I mentioned doesn't really do anything for me. I guess they're probably also setting up Desmond to be the main character a game completely set in modern times at some point, but honestly, until the series gets to that point, I really don't care.

[Brother Oni]

Yeah, as a console gamer, I'm not accustomed to games freezing on me. It's a pretty worrying thing when it happens, because it makes me wonder if the problem is with my console, since games just don't normally do that.

Unfortunately, the more powerful consoles become, the more like a PC they become, with all the attendant issues. The decreased QA/QC time doesn't help thus more and more bugs get through the system, which is exacerbated by the expectation/ability to patch out issues post release which isn't helpful if you don't have your console connected to the internet.



If it were just a story about Ezio getting revenge on those who killed his family, I might honestly enjoy it more.

While I didn't mind the framing provided by Desmond, I think your version of focusing just on Ezio would have made for a better story.

[GolemsVoice]

They don't need an excuse for that, though. It's fiction, you don't need to invent a history-spanning NWO-style conspiracy to justify your assassin killing someone that wasn't killed historically.


I'm just a sucker for conspiracy theories, is all. Finding out that history went the way it went because THEY meant for it to go that way and the covered up the evidence is pretty fun.


I agree however that it's a pretty convoluted way to get someone to play as an ancient assassin, and the series could well function without it. Or rather, they could keep the Templars/Assassins plot including the whole present day conspiracy, but not frame it via the animus. It could even be a big surprise when you play the modern-day descendant in Assassin's Creed XXIII

[MLai]

If they wanted to go with the NWO over-arc, I'm okay with that. Just get rid of Desmond and the stupid VR angle.

Starting with AC1, you'd just straight-up play the ancient assassin caught in secret power plays between 2 factions. Then in AC2 trilogy, you play a less-ancient assassin caught in the continuing secret power plays that started in AC1. That's compelling enough for me.

[Jlerpy]

Shawn is pretty entertaining.

I seem to recall some discussion somewhere about hints that Desmond's stuff is ALSO not the present and that you're REALLY even further in the future, looking back, but I can't recall where.

I do wonder what initially inspired the idea of the Animus/Desmond stuff, as opposed to just being an awesome historical assassin.

[Zevox]

If they wanted to go with the NWO over-arc, I'm okay with that. Just get rid of Desmond and the stupid VR angle.

Starting with AC1, you'd just straight-up play the ancient assassin caught in secret power plays between 2 factions. Then in AC2 trilogy, you play a less-ancient assassin caught in the continuing secret power plays that started in AC1. That's compelling enough for me.
Eh, I agree that would be an improvement, but I'd still personally rather just not have the NWO conspiracy thing altogether. Just a personal taste thing I guess, but those kind of stories just don't work for me.

[Zevox]

So, I just finished AC2. Well, that was weird.
So, now we're tossing in... aliens? Some hyper-advanced forerunner civilization? And the sun is apparently going to threaten to destroy the earth, because pseudo-science babble? Sheesh, as if the NWO conspiracy plot wasn't stretching things enough for me.

You know, I wouldn't mind if the series was just openly sci-fi or something, but given the premise of the series (and the way 99% of both the first and second games are presented and played) is basically playing an assassin in different historical periods, I can't help but feel that all the rest of this stuff really doesn't belong. Like it was actually written by a separate writer than the entire rest of each game.
So, yeah, there's that. Overall... well, it's an improvement on the first, certainly. The story missions no longer involving cookie-cutter side-quests is an important one, the combat mechanics were slightly improved, the cast and story were better, and one of the side-quests was even actually worth my time (the Assassins' Tombs). It's just... not as improved as I'd have liked. In any area.

Still, I've already got everything up through 3, so I may as well keep going and see if it does get better enough for me. Though a friend of mine has warned me that Brotherhood is the most boring of the series, and it's up next, so I can't say I'm going into that one with high hopes.

[Brother Oni]

So, yeah, there's that. Overall... well, it's an improvement on the first, certainly. The story missions no longer involving cookie-cutter side-quests is an important one, the combat mechanics were slightly improved, the cast and story were better, and one of the side-quests was even actually worth my time (the Assassins' Tombs). It's just... not as improved as I'd have liked. In any area.

Your expectations may be set somewhat high - AC2 came out 4 years ago, which is a long time in computing terms.

That said, you don't think getting into a fist fight with the Pope doesn't rate up there as one of biggest "I'm doing WHAT now?" story moments? :smallbiggrin:



Still, I've already got everything up through 3, so I may as well keep going and see if it does get better enough for me. Though a friend of mine has warned me that Brotherhood is the most boring of the series, and it's up next, so I can't say I'm going into that one with high hopes.

Odd, Brotherhood is what convinced me to buy a 360 and I enjoyed every minute of it. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Logic]

*SNIP*
The meta-plot is a little weird, I'll give you that.

Of the three in the series I have played, Brotherhood has been my favorite. I have also been told that the DLC is worth the money, but I haven't tried it just yet.

[GolemsVoice]

That said, you don't think getting into a fist fight with the Pope doesn't rate up there as one of biggest "I'm doing WHAT now?" story moments?

Yes. Going mano a mano with the pope in full ornate was glorious.

[Zevox]

Your expectations may be set somewhat high - AC2 came out 4 years ago, which is a long time in computing terms.
I assure you, technological limitations have nothing to do with my opinion of Assassin's Creed. Much older games have had better combat mechanics, and technology doesn't limit the writing in any way.


That said, you don't think getting into a fist fight with the Pope doesn't rate up there as one of biggest "I'm doing WHAT now?" story moments? :smallbiggrin:
Taken out of context, you'd think so. After having the character built up from the start and being aware that he became Pope for a while though, it doesn't come across that way when playing it. Just as a tad odd that Ezio discarded his weapons at that point.

[Zevox]

Alright, I've played a couple of hours of Brotherhood. And I can see where my friend is coming from. Doesn't feel like I've done much of anything - after a good intro with Ezio (I'm actually rather impressed that they actually picked back up exactly where 2 ended, props for that) it cuts to a long, boring bit with Desmond, then when you get back to Ezio you mostly spend that time following Machiavelli around Rome, doing little or nothing in the meantime.

I'm quite worried by what I've seen so far in general, honestly. It seems like they've cranked up the emphasis on the parts that I felt were pointless filler in 2 - basically everything you do with money - to the detriment of, you know, the assassination stuff that I thought was supposed to be the focus of the series. The only assassination I've done so far was of some random murderer. Granted he had it coming, but he was small-time, and I knew of his existence for all of one minute before I killed him, in the easiest assassination ever. Didn't even have anything to say in his death sequence. Seriously lacks the oomph of any other assassination in the series so far.

Yeah, instead it seems like they've added more stuff that puts a focus on taking control of the city and running it, like those towers I'm supposed to torch, and how basically every building needs to be renovated in order to be opened up. And if I'm not mistaken, they've traded having several oversized cities that the game takes place in for one extremely oversized one - hence the new fast travel system. Which also requires renovations before it works. Ugh.

Edit: Oh, right, and there's that new killstreak mechanic. Just what the series needed, something that makes the combat even easier...

Yeah, definitely not feeling this one so far. Depending on how it goes from here, I might even just want to read a plot synopsis and skip to Revelations.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, there is the "Brotherhood" in the title. Kinda implies more focus on the assassins and their allies as an organization.

The Desmond plot is pretty much universally reviled, so no arguments there.

[Thrudd]

Maybe you're not far enough in, but the recreation of rennaissance Rome is beautiful. I love Brotherhood. It does start slow, they take away all your toys and it takes a while to get them back again. But it has great side missions, some of the cult of Romulus were fun, the DaVinci missions were fun, too (except the stupid flying one, that one is so annoying to me, I can never get 100% on it.). As for money and rebuilding stuff, most of it isn't required. You could ignore 90% of that stuff and get through the story just fine. You don't even have to destroy all the Borgia towers if you don't want to ( you will need to do at least a few of them as story elements). If you don't, it will make some of the missions harder and you'll have fewer places to stock up on supplies. But you could blast through the story pretty quickly ignoring all of the side stuff, I did the first time I played. I went back and played through again, going for 100% synch. I never seem to get really bored with it, getting 100% on some of the missions is actually a challenge. Brotherhood was also the first game to introduce an online multiplayer mode, which was fun.

[Brother Oni]

Taken out of context, you'd think so. After having the character built up from the start and being aware that he became Pope for a while though, it doesn't come across that way when playing it. Just as a tad odd that Ezio discarded his weapons at that point.

I'd say take a step back and enjoy the scenary and events, but it seems to me that you're just ploughing through the games than actually enjoying them.

Ezio had been pursuing Rodrigo for 23 years by that point. You really think he would be satisfied with finishing the fight in a couple seconds with his weapons?


Yeah, definitely not feeling this one so far. Depending on how it goes from here, I might even just want to read a plot synopsis and skip to Revelations.

Given how much you appear to be enjoying the series, I'd say skip playing altogether and read plot synopses for everything.

The combat only gets easier, which appears to be one of your major gripes, so rather than suffer through I'd say cut to the chase.

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, definitely not feeling this one so far. Depending on how it goes from here, I might even just want to read a plot synopsis and skip to Revelations.

If you didn't like AssBros you won't like AssRevs, because it's basically more of the same.

[Brother Oni]

If you didn't like AssBros you won't like AssRevs, because it's basically more of the same.

I agree with this sentiment and this is from somebody who likes the franchise.

I'm sure I've seen 'AssBros' on the top shelf of some specialist shop somewhere...

[GolemsVoice]

Yeah, you can mostly skip Revelations (although I somewhat enjoyed the background on Desmond). III is aces, though. I heard IV is even better.

[Zevox]

I'd say take a step back and enjoy the scenary and events, but it seems to me that you're just ploughing through the games than actually enjoying them.
Perhaps it seems that way because I am skipping most of the side-quests, due to not being interested in them. Though even then I did all of the Assassin's Tombs, since that one caught my attention as having good stage design and a worthy reward waiting at the end.

But I should clarify, if it's coming across that way to you: I do enjoy the games, or at least what I see as the core of them. Specifically, the assassination missions and the build-up to them. Sneaking into a place, eliminating guards quietly, and then finishing the target is quite enjoyable. If I haven't said enough about this for it to be apparent, it's probably because I just don't have much more to say about it. I simply don't know what else to say about something that I think is just "good enough," if you will, so instead I talk about the things that I think are holding it back from being very good.

In that sense, for instance, I'd say that I think Assassin's Creed 2 had the kind of structure I want from the series down. The story missions were very focused on the assassinations and the build-up to them, showing you most of your targets at least once before you actually went out to kill them, and having you do things to set up the eventual kill mission. Side-quests and optional content existed, but were nothing more than that, and were easily ignored. The pacing was solid, and the things that I felt were problems were mainly the combat mechanics, the meta-plot intruding on Ezio's revenge story, and a couple of other writing and mechanics quibbles. Not enough to make me not enjoy the bulk of what I played, but enough to keep me from having a lot of praise for it.

In contrast, it feels to me like Brotherhood is spending main story missions introducing much of the optional content, and only secondarily getting around to handling the main antagonists. I've gone further into the game today, and the one main story mission that has kept me from giving up on the game at this point is the rescue of Catarina, which was actually very good - though it would have been better had I actually gotten to assassinate someone, but eh, like I've said, buildup is good too. The problem is that it comes in the middle of establishing allies that were already your allies in the previous game anyway, and learning to use a very shallow mechanic involving recruiting and training of new assassins, none of which was very interesting.

Oh, but I should mention while I'm on the subject, one good thing that was introduced in the midst of all that? Ezio and Claudia's strife. It's nice to see Claudia taking a more active role in this one after being stuck as a bookkeeper in 2, and it really makes a lot of sense that she resents Ezio always being off hunting the Templars while she was stuck doing that, and his initial incredulity when she offered to take over running the brothel. Good character writing that.


Ezio had been pursuing Rodrigo for 23 years by that point. You really think he would be satisfied with finishing the fight in a couple seconds with his weapons?
Not in a couple of seconds sure, but he definitely seemed intent on using his weapons for something when he got the jump on him not a few minutes before.


Given how much you appear to be enjoying the series, I'd say skip playing altogether and read plot synopses for everything.
I covered part of what I'd say to this above, but I think I should add that if I were just going to give up on the series altogether, I wouldn't bother reading plot synopses. It's pretty safe to say at this point that I'm not playing these games for the stories. The reason I'd read one if I skip any one game is just so I'm not lost when playing the next if it references or assumes knowledge of something I missed.


The combat only gets easier, which appears to be one of your major gripes, so rather than suffer through I'd say cut to the chase.
That is disheartening to hear, I must say. Because yeah, the combat is what I'd consider the most fundamental mechanical flaw with the games, and is at the top of my wish-list for changes to the series.


Maybe you're not far enough in, but the recreation of rennaissance Rome is beautiful.
If you like that sort of thing, more power to you. I'm really not the sort of person who just enjoys the scenery in a game though, especially not in ones going for realistic visuals like this.


But it has great side missions, some of the cult of Romulus were fun, the DaVinci missions were fun, too (except the stupid flying one, that one is so annoying to me, I can never get 100% on it.).
Eh. I've only done one of the Cult of Romulus missions besides the automatic one, and it honestly made me not want to do the rest. It just involved running through a set of catacombs until I found a room the cult was supposed to be in... three times, because the first two turned out to be empty, which was annoying. And then a short, easy-as-always fight with the guys at the end. I know they're how you get the new best armor, but if they're all anything like that one, they don't hold a candle to the Assassin's Tombs of 2. Oh, and I really don't like how there's been no explanation for who the cult is or why they're fighting me - as far as the game has showed me so far they're just random guys wearing wolf pelts and living in tunnels, which doesn't make for an interesting enemy.

The DaVinci missions I've only just unlocked, but the first one was good, I'll agree. Could've done without the turret sequence at the end though.

[Triaxx]

I still haven't finished AC2. I got stuck with the stupid boat kill at the end of the game and I can't get through it. I try again every couple weeks. Everytime I get caught. I successfully killed the guy once, and then failed because I'd been spotted. Umm... yeah, so?

[Zevox]

I still haven't finished AC2. I got stuck with the stupid boat kill at the end of the game and I can't get through it. I try again every couple weeks. Everytime I get caught. I successfully killed the guy once, and then failed because I'd been spotted. Umm... yeah, so?
The one during that sequence where you need to take out 9 guys being controlled by the Apple? That's a good one. How I did it:

Start by getting to the bench at the end of the dock, and sit there until the guard on the dock goes around behind the boat. Get into the water and swim over to the dock behind him, and ledge-kill him. Then, jump onto the back of the boat, and climb up to ledge-takedown the guards patrolling the two sides of the rear of the boat. Climb along the side facing away from the docks and ledge-takedown the other patrolling guard there when he's as close to the back as he gets - you'll just barely be out of sight of the other nearby guard. You cannot do this to his counterpart on the shore-side of the boat, because the guard near him will see you if you try, but he'll be the only patroller left at this point, so just time your actions afterward to when he's facing away from you and you'll be fine. Finish by returning to the back, walking up to the two guards by the steering wheel and double-killing them. From there I hightailed it back to the back of the boat one last time to make sure that last patroller didn't see me, then came back up when the patroller turned away, got on the ledge above the target, and took him down.

[LordShotGun]

Black Flag spoilers, but basically I thought the game ran out of time to be produced near the end and NOTHING is solved.


So you kill just about every major character, join the assassins and get a letter. Turns out it is from you daughter and your wife is dead. Cut to you sailing somewhere and the credits are rolling. Then it shows baby son Templar from assassins creed 3 watching a play in the same opera house that number 3 started in. Some really major skipping/action behind the scenes happening here since the out of animus character you are using is still in the ubisoft company doing research.

Anyway, black flag was fun and a good time and the Edward Kenway character was well developed and characterized but outside the animus? I bet you could completely skip black flag and not miss a single thing pertaining to the "modern" plot.

[Zevox]

So, I just finished Brotherhood. Suffice to say, my opinion of it did not improve. But because of the few good parts and how they were spaced out (the rescue of Catarina, the Leonardo missions, the Barracks story portion) by the time I was ready to give up I was so far in that I figured I may as well finish it. I have more specific complaints about later portions that I could make, but I probably said more than enough earlier anyway.

Still, having talked with my friend who warned me about Brotherhood in advance, I find he agrees with most of my criticisms of it, and he's assuring me that Revelations and 3 get much better, so I will still try those. I won't have as much patience with Revelations if I find it having the same problems as Brotherhood, though.

[BRC]

If you don't like Brotherhood you won't like the rest of the series. They never really improve things beyond Brotherhood (Though I have not played Black Flag), and some of Brotherhood's Worst sins (Like the Chain-Killing) get doubled-down on.

[GolemsVoice]

As I said, if you disliked Brotherhood, Revelations will do nothing for you. Do try III, though.

[LordShotGun]

If you don't like Brotherhood you won't like the rest of the series. They never really improve things beyond Brotherhood (Though I have not played Black Flag), and some of Brotherhood's Worst sins (Like the Chain-Killing) get doubled-down on.

Black flag got rid of chain kills but did nothing about counter kills. So the best tactic in a fight is to simple stand in the middle of a bunch of people and wait for a helpful icon to pop over the head of whomever is attacking. This made the land based missions rather dull. I can only think of a single mission that was vaguely interesting and that was because all you had to do was follow a drunk around, which was hilarious.


Nah, black flag had AMAZING ship combat, average land based combat and decent story except for the fact that later on in the story they REALLY abuse the "theatrical time skips" (telling us things happened instead of showing us) to get things done.

[Brother Oni]

Nah, black flag had AMAZING ship combat, average land based combat and decent story except for the fact that later on in the story they REALLY abuse the "theatrical time skips" (telling us things happened instead of showing us) to get things done.

Can I ask whether the naval combat is equal to or better than the naval combat in AC3?

[sana]

Black flag got rid of chain kills but did nothing about counter kills. So the best tactic in a fight is to simple stand in the middle of a bunch of people and wait for a helpful icon to pop over the head of whomever is attacking. This made the land based missions rather dull. I can only think of a single mission that was vaguely interesting and that was because all you had to do was follow a drunk around, which was hilarious.



Eh you can still chain-kill, actually one of the abstergo challenges is a chain-kill of 3.


Can I ask whether the naval combat is equal to or better than the naval combat in AC3?
Way better, more options, more possible tactics.

[GolemsVoice]

That being said, I LOVED the naval combat in AC III

[LordShotGun]

Eh you can still chain-kill, actually one of the abstergo challenges is a chain-kill of 3.


Hmm, I completely missed that possibility. Didn't matter much though. Never needed it with counter kills.


Can I ask whether the naval combat is equal to or better than the naval combat in AC3?

Having never played AC3 I cannot say. What I can say, is that even with a mostly max upgraded jackdaw (Armor and weapons except max level heavy shot) the legendary ships KICKED MY ASS. Even the easiest (the heavy armored mortar ship HMS Prince) took me a few trys until I figured out that repeatedly ramming it +chainshotting it's aft (rear) keep it from shooting mortars.

As someone who enjoys a difficult yet fair challenge (aka dark souls), the legendary ships are very much the highlight of the game for me.

[Zevox]

So, I just finished Revelations. As you might guess based on the fact that I finished it, I felt it was much better than Brotherhood. Still started off kind of rocky, feeling the need to force in introductions to the assassin recruitment and management mechanics, plus that new tower defense mini-game, but once the main plot got going, it was substantially more enjoyable. You had an actual well-defined goal and everything you did furthered it, and the design of the missions was actually damn good. The actual missions to retrieve the keys were some of the best in the series so far, I'd say. And it was kind of nice seeing what happened to Altair after the ending of AC1, too.

My only big complaints are that almost none of the missions were actually assassinations, and that the final mission was kind of dull and gimmicky.

Still, I will say that AC2 better represents what I want out of the series than Revelations, with the focus on the assassination missions and with far fewer unnecessary distractions, so I probably still like it better. But Revelations would come in second among the series that I've played so far I think.


If you don't like Brotherhood you won't like the rest of the series. They never really improve things beyond Brotherhood (Though I have not played Black Flag), and some of Brotherhood's Worst sins (Like the Chain-Killing) get doubled-down on.
Honestly, I'm not finding myself so bothered by chain-killing anymore. Don't get me wrong, ideally I'd like to see the series' combat overhauled so that it wasn't so brain-dead and easy. But as long as it's going to be, I guess there may as well be a mechanic that lets me end fights with small numbers of enemies extremely quickly, since the result is forgone conclusion.

[Jlerpy]

I really liked the way that the end of Revelations was a big "WTF?!" for both Ezio and Desmond, for opposite reasons.

[Zevox]

So, I've started up AC3.

The first thing that sticks out to me so far is the various control and interface changes. Pretty overwhelming at first honestly, particularly with the change from hold L1 to block and L1+square to counter to hold circle to block or press it to counter. I'm so used to holding L1 constantly in a fight and just hitting square to counter that I still do it reflexively, and get hit for it. But it is a good change I suppose, since it means I can't both block and counter at the same time, so if I mistime a counter, I definitely get hit. Of course, counter timing still seems extremely lenient, so when I'm not accidentally using the old controls that really doesn't happen, but it's at least a step in the right direction, if a very small one.

Other changes I tend not to be as fond of though. The UI no longer telling me when I'm able to do an assassination move is very annoying, for instance, and the movement controls seem looser and more prone to sending me off jumping in directions I didn't want to go. The weapon select now being its own screen instead of an overlay is something I wish they hadn't done, too. Lock-on being automatic is going to take some getting used to, but at least I don't have to use manual aiming for ranged weapons, like I initially thought when I first tried to use lock-on like the previous games and had that pop up instead. I do like that fast walk and nudging people were linked, and fast walk was made separate from pick-pocketing, however.

Outside of that, I think that the intro sequence is dragging on too long, personally. First there's the already rather extended one with Haytham, then another with Connor, which I'm still in the middle of several hours into the game. I already wish the thing would've just skipped one of the two entirely and given me a brief summary of important information from it instead.

[Brother Oni]

I already wish the thing would've just skipped one of the two entirely and given me a brief summary of important information from it instead.

I keep on forgetting you're not really into the whole history aspect of the games and Benjamin Franklin's treatise on the merits of taking an older woman as a lover probably didn't elicit much of an reaction out of you.

[GloatingSwine]

He's kind of right in that. I've been playing AC3 as well, and the first five sequences are basically all tutorial.


It doesn't help that their masterplan for making people care about Desmond was, well, making Connor even less interesting...

[Zevox]

I keep on forgetting you're not really into the whole history aspect of the games and Benjamin Franklin's treatise on the merits of taking an older woman as a lover probably didn't elicit much of an reaction out of you.
:smallconfused: Um, is this a joke I'm not getting? Or was that actually a thing in the game, and I didn't see it for some reason?

[BRC]

:smallconfused: Um, is this a joke I'm not getting? Or was that actually a thing in the game, and I didn't see it for some reason?
That's an actual thing in history, I would be surprised if it was NOT somewhere in the game, but I can't say I saw it.

[Zevox]

It doesn't help that their masterplan for making people care about Desmond was, well, making Connor even less interesting...
I'm not ready to pass judgment on him just yet, but he's definitely not standing out the way Ezio did, that's for sure.

Anyway, I think I finally finished the intro portion. And got immediately dumped into a Desmond portion :smallsigh: . At least he was doing something this time I guess. Briefly.

But yeah, something I can definitely say I'm not liking about this one: the wilderness regions. Oh god. I know the series is supposed to be all "open-world" and all that, and I really don't like that, but I've found it tolerable in the rest of the series so far. Partially because the setting has always been a city, and never so large or so lacking in fast travel options that I felt it was taking too long to get anywhere. But in the Frontier or even the Homestead in 3? Ugh, it's simply awful. So much empty space that takes forever to traverse, even with a horse. And for what? The ability to hunt some deer and rabbits? Blech, what a waste of time.

On the up side, from the little I've seen of it so far, I can see why people like the sailing. I kinda wish the camera was zoomed out further, but the controls seem nicely responsive, the fighting surprisingly manageable and well-paced, and at least for that tutorial segment the wind wasn't much of an issue. I look forward to more of that.

[mythmonster2]

:smallconfused: Um, is this a joke I'm not getting? Or was that actually a thing in the game, and I didn't see it for some reason?

Yeah, there's one part as Haytham where you can talk to Ben Franklin and he'll mention what was said. Twas rather amusing.

[Science Officer]

I recently finished ACII (the only one in the series I've played), and my take on it has been... a little different?

I too found the combat mostly un-fulfilling. Stealth a little less so, but seeing as it was so easy to get health back with medicine and lose notoriety, stealth never really mattered unless it was mandatory. Platforming was kind of fun, but controls were frustrating and it didn't pose much more of a challenge than the combat did.

I found Ezio's story un-interesting, and Ezio himself rather un-likeable. I just couldn't care about his mission, or understand why he was compelled to assassinate his targets (after the first few). The cut-scenes were just really bad at telling the story. Codex Pages were more interesting. I did like building up the Villa, and decoding the clues hidden on buildings. As well, the whole historical aspect and background details were great.

Strangely, the parts I found most dramatically compelling were those involving Desmond. Everything in the Animus just seemed... un-important? It was just a simulation, so there were no dramatic stakes. Can't change history, and if you fail you'd just have to take a break and try again. Desmond/the player knows things Ezio doesn't about the Assassins and Templars, so that makes some of the discoveries less interesting. Obviously they're both part of a video game, but the Animus sections somehow felt less "real" and lacked any urgency. I really wanted to get back to Desmond to see what was happening, the Templars were supposed to be arriving *any minute*.

Punching the pope was... probably the lowest point in the game. The silliest thing, with Machiavelli the Assassin being the second. But the ending with Minerva was highly interesting, and getting to fight against the Templars as Desmond felt more like a culminating moment for the game than vatican smackdown.

[Zevox]

Yeah, there's one part as Haytham where you can talk to Ben Franklin and he'll mention what was said. Twas rather amusing.
Ah, that would explain why I never saw it. I haven't spoken to Ben Franklin since he asked me to find his almanac pages. Never have found a full set, so I've never had a reason to seek him out again.

Re: Sciene Officer - Wow, that is pretty much the opposite of my take on it, sans the matter of the combat. Don't know how we could get any further apart on that one.

[MLai]

Ah, that would explain why I never saw it. I haven't spoken to Ben Franklin since he asked me to find his almanac pages. Never have found a full set, so I've never had a reason to seek him out again.
I knew you'd hate AC3. I would have told you to skip 3 and go straight to Black Flag, but I didn't know you'd blaze thru the games so fast.

Re: Sciene Officer - Wow, that is pretty much the opposite of my take on it, sans the matter of the combat. Don't know how we could get any further apart on that one.
I think the answer to that is simple, i.e. one of the biggest failings of the entire franchise -- the Animus. It feels pointless for ppl who want to roleplay as a historical assassin, and yet it ruins the urgency of the historical parts for ppl who don't want to ignore it.

[Zevox]

I knew you'd hate AC3. I would have told you to skip 3 and go straight to Black Flag, but I didn't know you'd blaze thru the games so fast.
Oh, I certainly wouldn't say I hate the game. If nothing else from what I've seen of it I'm going to say it's a safe bet I'll like it more than Brotherhood when all is said and done - I'm not considering dumping it at this point. I definitely think that the opening was poorly paced and took too long getting to the point where Connor was actually an assassin, and so far the main missions aren't standing out as being as good as 2 or Revelations' were, but I am enjoying parts of it. And hell, it looks like the naval missions may actually be side-quests that I like enough to do entirely, which I've so far only done with the Assassins' Tombs in 2 and the Leonardo missions in Brotherhood.

Something else I should praise is that they've actually managed to make me hesitant to get in big fights. Not out of fear of losing for the most part, but because of a combination of a few things. One, the new notoriety system, which seems to raise faster than before, and caps out at "enemies recognize you instantly and attack on sight." Two, the fact that there are soldiers friggin' everywhere in town, which combined with the former means fighting a ludicrous number of people if your notoriety gets too high, which will if nothing else take a lot of time. Three, the fact that everyone has guns, and sometimes they even remember to use them, which actually is a threat.

The fact that enemies on rooftops now come in twos and threes makes dealing with them stealthily so I can move that way unharassed harder now, too.

As for Black Flag, well, that's actually the one AC game I don't have, and I'm still undecided on what to do about it. Mainly, whether I should get it for my PS3, or wait until I get a PS4 and get that presumably-superior version. Secondarily, whether I'll want to pick it up right after finishing 3, or if I'll prefer to move on to something else for a while at that point even if I opt for the PS3 version, since I've been playing so much of the series the past couple of weeks.

[mythmonster2]

I'm going to chip in and say that, while the real-world sections of the games may not have been the most exciting, they were what made me stay with the series. Literally, the only reason I got Black Flag is because I wanted to see where the real-world segments would go. I was honestly confused when I found out many people hated it, because I loved finding out about the overarching plot and learning the entire story, not just that of four people throughout the world and time.

[Cristo Meyers]

I'm going to chip in and say that, while the real-world sections of the games may not have been the most exciting, they were what made me stay with the series. Literally, the only reason I got Black Flag is because I wanted to see where the real-world segments would go. I was honestly confused when I found out many people hated it, because I loved finding out about the overarching plot and learning the entire story, not just that of four people throughout the world and time.

While I didn't really care for them in the Ezio trilogy or 3, I agree about the ones in 4. I liked seeing the state of things in the setting and finding all the bits and pieces. Puzzled me to that people apparently hated it. But then, it is pretty slow-paced compared to Grand Theft Auto: Caribbean.

Plus, hearing that guy mispronounce Connor's Mohawk name was hilarious.

[Zevox]

Well, the series is marketed as being about playing an assassin in whatever historical period each game happens to be set in. I mean, I didn't play the first game until about one year ago, and before actually playing it I did not know Desmond or the Animus existed. Yeah, despite the series being out for so many years, and despite me hearing at least very basic things about each of the actual assassins, I never heard of that part. So, what I came to the series for was playing an assassin, and what Desmond therefore comes across as to me is the guy who keeps me from doing that by occasionally interrupting the game for a boring sequence where he does little or nothing. Doesn't help that I really don't like anything about the meta-plot, whether it's the Templars' new-world-order stuff or the weird stuff with the precusor civilization. Which further isn't helped by the fact that the vast majority of each game does not deal with that, making it feel all the more out-of-place when it does pop up.

Anyway, on AC3, I have to ask, does anyone else think that some of the things you do in that one get a lot more... questionable than in the earlier games? (Using a spoiler block on this one mostly because the game is fairly recent.)
I mean, one of the story quests has seen me escorting a guy who started inciting violence against any random soldiers he ran across, killing them to protect him, and ending with him graphically burying a cleaver in a soldier's shoulder, leaving said soldier just shocked and asking "why?!"... all because he found out someone robbed his home. He doesn't actually know who, but he blames the redcoats, so violence. And at the end of it all, Connor tells him he did well. Uh, no Connor, he didn't. He kinda just went psycho there.

Similarly, the second treasure map mission, you go to scavenge a shipwreck to find a fragment of Captain Kid's treasure map, and finds someone else has gotten to it first. So you chase him and kill him for it. Even though, as he actually points out during the chase, he's done nothing wrong. Um, yeah, I know you really want that map fragment, but couldn't you at least try negotiating for it, rather than shouting at the guy that he has to give it over as if it already belongs to you, then running him down and killing him for it? Sheesh. :smalleek:

[BRC]

AC3 has a rather scattered view of morality.

Connor comes across as generically angry and determined a lot of the time.

That shipwreck mission is especially egregious. Altair could have done that mission, killing people trying to do literally the exact same thing as him, but Altair was very devoted to his Cause. If he felt that killing these people would aid the Assassins, he would do it without question.

Ezio had enough of the scoundrel in him to say "Yes, the only difference between me and this man is that I'm more badass"

But Connor seems to take on every task like it is a sacred mission. Connor acts like that scrap of map is His by right, and HOW DARE that guy who got there first try to take it!

That's one of my big problems with AC3, I never got a clear feel for Connor's motivations. He's so grim and serious about everything he does, he was more interesting as a kid than as an adult. You get the impression that if you asked him to buy some milk he would treat it like the world depended on it.

He seems to hate the Templars, but he works with them at one point. He seems to hate the British for unspecified reasons, but he will gleefully kill Revolutionaries alongside Redcoats. If he's an enthusiastic revolutionary he never acts like it, but he does jump at George Washington's call.

Ezio was at least somewhat consistent. He wanted Revenge, first on the Pazzis, then on their co-conspirators. Its hardly an original motivation, but at least it explains the things he does.

In Revelations he's mostly just looking for library key pieces and doing some Assassin's style political meddling.

Altiar was following orders like a good little dog until he was betrayed.

Connor's motivations seem to shift in order to bring him around whatever random plot point and/or historical event-with-name-recognition they want, only for him to then spend a few years hanging around the homestead waiting for the next thing people remember about the Revolutionary War to happen.

[Brother Oni]

:smallconfused: Um, is this a joke I'm not getting? Or was that actually a thing in the game, and I didn't see it for some reason?

If you talk to him, he essentially repeats what he wrote in a letter to a friend, rephrased to make it more comprehensible for the average player: Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress (1745) (http://www.bibliomania.com/2/9/77/124/21473/1/frameset.html).

I won't quote it here as it probably breaks board rules on explicit sexuality.




Connor's motivations seem to shift in order to bring him around whatever random plot point and/or historical event-with-name-recognition they want, only for him to then spend a few years hanging around the homestead waiting for the next thing people remember about the Revolutionary War to happen.



While I don't disagree with your assessment, perhaps part of Connor's problem is that he's still very young, so being generically angry with changing motivations is just him growing up and developing his own personality.

For reference, when we see him as ~7 as a child, ~14 as a youth and ~17 when he receives his assassin's robes (life on the frontier must really age you) with the tomahawk being buried in the pillar shortly after.
He's 25 by the time of the final showdown and two years later he finally removes the tomahawk.

In comparison, Ezio was also 17 when he saw his father and brothers hanged and 34 when he fought Rodrigo in the Vatican, so it's unsurprising that he acts more maturely than Connor.


A separate question to the above - I'm not familiar with Native American languages or the various cultures, but the actors and actresses using the language sounded 'flat' or rather unemotional to me.
I'm just wondering was that due to the people portraying them (fluent speakers are few and far between), or it's to do with the nature of the language and their cultural personality to be rather reserved.

[Cristo Meyers]

A separate question to the above - I'm not familiar with Native American languages or the various cultures, but the actors and actresses using the language sounded 'flat' or rather unemotional to me.
I'm just wondering was that due to the people portraying them (fluent speakers are few and far between), or it's to do with the nature of the language and their cultural personality to be rather reserved.

Part of it is probably due to the fact that some of them weren't trained voice actors, they were native Mohawks. So you've got a lack of experience working against them.

I can't speak to any cultural personality, though, I'm as in the dark as you are about Mohawk culture.

[sana]

A separate question to the above - I'm not familiar with Native American languages or the various cultures, but the actors and actresses using the language sounded 'flat' or rather unemotional to me.
I'm just wondering was that due to the people portraying them (fluent speakers are few and far between), or it's to do with the nature of the language and their cultural personality to be rather reserved.

Not quite sure but since the voice actress for Kaniehtí:io (Conner's mom) is Kaniehtíio Horn I don't really think that it was a lack of native speakers.

[Brother Oni]

Not quite sure but since the voice actress for Kaniehtí:io (Conner's mom) is Kaniehtíio Horn I don't really think that it was a lack of native speakers.

Looking up various census figures indicate that the Mohawk language is in danger of becoming extinct (I've seen numbers of 140 to 300, depending on the dialect).

I'm inclined to agree with Cristo Meyers in that that a number of people used to provide voices for secondary characters weren't trained actors and were cast for their fluency in the Mohawk language.

[Cristo Meyers]

I'm inclined to agree with Cristo Meyers in that that a number of people used to provide voices for secondary characters weren't trained actors and were cast for their fluency in the Mohawk language.

Part of me wants to say that the only character that spoke Mohawk in-game that actually wasn't a native speaker was Connor...but I'm very much not confident in that.

[Brother Oni]

Part of me wants to say that the only character that spoke Mohawk in-game that actually wasn't a native speaker was Connor...but I'm very much not confident in that.

After some digging, Connor's VA is Noah Watts, who is of Crow descent.

Some more digging indicates that the Crow language is a Siouan language, while Mohawk is an Iroquoian language, so presumably entirely different roots.

While I can't say that Watts isn't fluent in Mohawk, your supposition may be correct.

[sana]

I just got to see the most epic AC4 bug. It was so freaking hilarious, beautiful and scary at the same time.

http://youtu.be/9pQ_ZozZIio

Looked like that except I had a few of the crew actually drowning in the water before they ascended.

[Zevox]

So, a question: does the "fast travel" system in Boston ever actually work as a fast travel system? Because so far, I get the impression I can travel faster by not using it.


Connor comes across as generically angry and determined a lot of the time.

That shipwreck mission is especially egregious. Altair could have done that mission, killing people trying to do literally the exact same thing as him, but Altair was very devoted to his Cause. If he felt that killing these people would aid the Assassins, he would do it without question.

Ezio had enough of the scoundrel in him to say "Yes, the only difference between me and this man is that I'm more badass"
Altair I agree about. Ezio, not so much - he seems perfectly happy to do things peacefully when he can. Just not when it comes to the people involved with his family's killers. I don't know, maybe very young Ezio would be like that, but I otherwise doubt he'd have been willing to kill someone just over a treasure map.


If he's an enthusiastic revolutionary he never acts like it, but he does jump at George Washington's call.
What I've seen so far gives me the distinct impression that he isn't. He seems rather less than entirely on-board with the Sons of Liberty, and says at one point that they "mistake him for one of their own." I get the impression that he certainly prefers them to the British, but I suspect that's at least in part because the Templars have the reverse preference.

Of course, I'm also still at parts before the war starts or Washington enters the picture.


A separate question to the above - I'm not familiar with Native American languages or the various cultures, but the actors and actresses using the language sounded 'flat' or rather unemotional to me.
:smallconfused: How can you tell?

Although honestly, I'd say that about some of the voice acting in the game just in general. Connor unfortunately being a big one.

[Divayth Fyr]

I just got to see the most epic AC4 bug. It was so freaking hilarious, beautiful and scary at the same time.

http://youtu.be/9pQ_ZozZIio

Looked like that except I had a few of the crew actually drowning in the water before they ascended.
It seems AC IV has some problems (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iIjsRaBAAfs#t=1686) with placing things where they should end up...

[Brother Oni]

So, a question: does the "fast travel" system in Boston ever actually work as a fast travel system? Because so far, I get the impression I can travel faster by not using it.


Depends on where you are from the fast travel destination. You're playing it on a console right? Have you installed the game to the hard disk?



:smallconfused: How can you tell?

Although honestly, I'd say that about some of the voice acting in the game just in general. Connor unfortunately being a big one.

While correct interpretation of emotion in speech requires both context and some understanding of either the language or culture, it isn't that difficult to hear a lack of emotion.

The female village elder for example, recites all her lines in a fairly dull monotone, with comparatively little inflection.

Connor pretty much does the same (except when he's busy being a generically angry teenager), hence why my question on it being a cultural thing.

[BRC]

So, a question: does the "fast travel" system in Boston ever actually work as a fast travel system? Because so far, I get the impression I can travel faster by not using it.


Altair I agree about. Ezio, not so much - he seems perfectly happy to do things peacefully when he can. Just not when it comes to the people involved with his family's killers. I don't know, maybe very young Ezio would be like that, but I otherwise doubt he'd have been willing to kill someone just over a treasure map.


Maybe I'm mixing up Cutscene-ezio and gameplay-ezio. Gameplay-Ezio would kill a guard because walking AROUND that building (Rather than climbing up it) is too much work.
But the same could be said for every AC protagonist.



What I've seen so far gives me the distinct impression that he isn't. He seems rather less than entirely on-board with the Sons of Liberty, and says at one point that they "mistake him for one of their own." I get the impression that he certainly prefers them to the British, but I suspect that's at least in part because the Templars have the reverse preference.

Of course, I'm also still at parts before the war starts or Washington enters the picture.


Thinking about it, this is another gameplay and story segregation thing. In the game Connor is presented as largely apathetic about the revolution, caring mostly about stopping the Templars. This quest seems to put him on the Revolutionary's side again and again, so you could get the impression he's an ardent follower except that nothing about his dialogue, character, or backstory indicates that he cares who runs the colonies so long as it isn't templars.
However in the overworld you exterminate forts full of redcoats, "Liberating" them and handing them over to the Revolutionaries for no real reason.


The Fast Travel system is one of the most poorly implemented ideas I've seen.

Basically, if you spend a lot of time wandering around in dark tunnels (The most boring thing this side of Evesdropping on conversations), you can unlock lots of fast travel points around the city.

It's "waste time playing our game and NOT having fun, so you can play our game LESS later on!"

[Brother Oni]

The Fast Travel system is one of the most poorly implemented ideas I've seen.

Basically, if you spend a lot of time wandering around in dark tunnels (The most boring thing this side of Evesdropping on conversations), you can unlock lots of fast travel points around the city.


Oh THAT Fast Travel system. I completely blanked it out from my memory until you reminded me and now I'm getting horrible flashbacks.

I thought Zevox was on about the overworld fast travel thing to landmarks.

[Cristo Meyers]

Oh THAT Fast Travel system. I completely blanked it out from my memory until you reminded me and now I'm getting horrible flashbacks.


It boggles my mind how they thought that was a good idea. For the one mission, sure, but unlocking each point individually by roaming around dull, drab, and dark tunnels? Come on!

My opinion of 3 is far more favorable than most, but even I won't defend that.

[Hyena]

Playing Black Flag right now, finished second assassination. Feels more like a pirate game then an assassin game - and honestly, I find that annoying. Also, I hate how I accidently assassinate people that I just knocked out with my fists.

[Zevox]

Depends on where you are from the fast travel destination. You're playing it on a console right? Have you installed the game to the hard disk?
I've actually figured out what my problem was there since that post. They changed how you use the fast travel points completely. In Brotherhood and Revelations, you had to physically go to the tunnel entrances, then pick your destination off a list. In AC3, it turns out that you simply click on the fast travel spot's icon on your map. I was still trying to figure out how to make them work by going to the cellar entrances themselves, which just dumps me into the underground maze you need to traverse to unlock the fast travel points, leading me to believe that was supposed to be the fast travel system now. Which of course made no sense.

Have to say, it's kind of a one step forward, one step back thing. I definitely like being able to fast travel from anywhere, but absolutely hate having to navigate that maze to unlock the points. Revelations did that right by not requiring unlocking fast travel points at all, and I'd even take Brotherhood's system of finding each point and paying a token sum to renovate it first over that maze.

For whatever it may matter, I do have the game installed, although only because it was mandatory. PS3 lets the developers make it so if they want, unfortunately.


While correct interpretation of emotion in speech requires both context and some understanding of either the language or culture, it isn't that difficult to hear a lack of emotion.

The female village elder for example, recites all her lines in a fairly dull monotone, with comparatively little inflection.

Connor pretty much does the same (except when he's busy being a generically angry teenager), hence why my question on it being a cultural thing.
Huh. Honestly, I can't pick up on tone at all if I don't have at least a slight understanding of some of the language's words. I really couldn't have told you whether the native voice acting in AC3 was flat or not.



Maybe I'm mixing up Cutscene-ezio and gameplay-ezio. Gameplay-Ezio would kill a guard because walking AROUND that building (Rather than climbing up it) is too much work.
But the same could be said for every AC protagonist.

Yeah, that is definitely a gameplay/story segregation thing. As the player, you'll kill any guard that might actually attack you, which is anyone who happens to be on the rooftops if you use those (and why wouldn't you?). Doesn't mean the character you're playing would do that in-story, though.



Thinking about it, this is another gameplay and story segregation thing. In the game Connor is presented as largely apathetic about the revolution, caring mostly about stopping the Templars. This quest seems to put him on the Revolutionary's side again and again, so you could get the impression he's an ardent follower except that nothing about his dialogue, character, or backstory indicates that he cares who runs the colonies so long as it isn't templars.
However in the overworld you exterminate forts full of redcoats, "Liberating" them and handing them over to the Revolutionaries for no real reason.

Yep, same deal. Circumstances seem to keep giving Connor reason to help the revolutionaries - mostly because their enemies keep turning out to be lead by the Templars he wants to kill - but he's not personally particularly interested in their cause, even if he does sympathize a little. Achilles does seem to be trying to encourage him to help them at the point I've just reached, though, so there's a little of that too.

Liberating forts though, yeah, you pretty much just do that because it's a little fun, and there's some monetary benefits (usually a treasure chest inside, always a tax decrease on convoys, if you're using those). No real reason Connor would in-character, at least that I've seen.

[Jlerpy]

The underground tunnels were really rather tedious, outside of the sections that were part of missions. I'd have been happiest if they introduced them as a mission, then just either had that unlock the whole network, or had you able to find the entrances from the top or bottom.

[Brother Oni]

For whatever it may matter, I do have the game installed, although only because it was mandatory. PS3 lets the developers make it so if they want, unfortunately.

It was just a bit of misunderstanding - I thought you were also including load times, which installing helps to alleviate.



Huh. Honestly, I can't pick up on tone at all if I don't have at least a slight understanding of some of the language's words. I really couldn't have told you whether the native voice acting in AC3 was flat or not.


I think it just depends on what languages you've been exposed to and how regularly.
I've got a fair bit of experience in other languages, so while understanding the tone can be difficult, not hearing one is fairly obvious, like a bad actor in a movie or hearing a native speaker next to a non-native speaker with a strong foreign accent.

[Zevox]

So, I finished AC3. Well, that ending was certainly a thing. Yeah, under other circumstances I'd probably have a lot to say about it, but honestly any hope of making me care about the modern era portion of the story was put on life support at the end of AC2 and died at the end of Brotherhood.
I suppose it's too much to hope that Desmond's apparent death means that the modern era segments will be ditched in subsequent games, though?
Anyway, on the whole, I felt that the game was a mixed bag. Some good missions, some pretty bad (Paul Revere's Ride and the final chase segment stand out as examples of the latter). Lots of changes, some good, some bad, but all too small to make much impact on my opinion of the game relative to the rest of the series. The story had some bad pacing (too slow at the start, too rushed at the end), Connor wasn't a very engaging main character, and like you guys have commented before it mostly just seemed to jump around coming up with excuses for him to present at most of the more famous or memorable moments of the Revolutionary War.
Haytham was by far the best-written character in the game, and I get the feeling that they were trying to use him to portray the Templars as something besides just outright-evil villains. Which, to be fair, they did about as well as possible - though it would've helped if Haytham hadn't been so gung-ho about killing anyone whose usefulness to him was worn out.

The story potential presented by his relationship to Connor was basically squandered though, because of his absence from the game between the end of his segment and pretty near to the end. Which is a shame.
Honestly, I get the feeling that Ubisoft's policy of releasing an AC game every year has been seriously impacting the pacing of the endings of the series ever since Brotherhood. While Brotherhood itself suffered the worst, both Revelations and 3 had pacing issues as their ending approached, and I think this too contributed to the problem I mentioned in the above spoiler. It's like the developers pace things as well as they can until they hit a time crunch and then just throw everything else important into the game in order to release it on schedule.

Anyway though, not a bad one by any means, but it doesn't really do anything to improve my opinion of the series. The sailing portions being as good as I'd heard does give me hope that I'll enjoy 4, though.

Speaking of, I don't think I'll be going out to get that too soon. Better to wait and get it on PS4 when I pick that up, or when it's cheaper if I really decide I want to play it before I get around to getting a PS4.

For what it's worth, my breakdown of the series at this point would be: 2 > Revelations > 3 > 1 > Brotherhood.

[MLai]

For what it's worth, my breakdown of the series at this point would be: 2 > Revelations > 3 > 1 > Brotherhood.
Thanks, this is really helpful for me. It cements my resolve to purchase Revelations during a Steam sale.

[GungHo]

The underground tunnels were really rather tedious, outside of the sections that were part of missions. I'd have been happiest if they introduced them as a mission, then just either had that unlock the whole network, or had you able to find the entrances from the top or bottom.

AC2 had you just locate/unlock the top tunnel. I'd even be okay with a mini-game where you battled for the entrance, had to win the district to use the entrance, had to do a mission for someone, or just had to buy it outright or something. But, wandering around in the AC3 tunnels forever (especially with all the dead ends) and then doing tedious, simplistic puzzles on top of that was just insane. Who on the dev team thought that was fun? Why would you put in such a desperate time sink like that in a game that wasn't an MMO where the only time factor was the assassin missions?

[Logic]

I just started Revelations, and was wondering why Desmond looks like a completely different person now. Even Ezio looks unfamiliar, though I know he is supposed to be much older.

Is this the cost of greater graphics?

[Brother Oni]

I just started Revelations, and was wondering why Desmond looks like a completely different person now. Even Ezio looks unfamiliar, though I know he is supposed to be much older.

Is this the cost of greater graphics?

Desmond, I can't say. Supposedly they recaptured the actor's face for Revelations, but I think they just messed up somewhere:

Ezio is much easier to explain since as you've said he's considerably older: 52 at the start of Revelations, compared to 41 during the siege of Monteriggioni and they forgot to age him throughout Brotherhood (he's 48 by the time he catches up with Cesare).