View Single Post
Old
01-03-2013, 10:04 AM
  #499
ColonialsHockey10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corto View Post
AC3 is full of stupid to be honest.

AC2 was a fantastic game, with just the right mix of historical and out-of-Animus stuff, in a fantastic setting with memorable characters who were properly introduced to the player.
You felt a connection to Ezio and completely understood his actions and what drove him.
The mini-games were short (riddles) and not twitch-based, and the side content was enough to keep you occupied.

AC3?
I'm on Sequence 10 now, and while the game is visually stunning and the physics are amazing (running in knee-deep snow?? freaking awesome), the game itself has been a huge letdown for me.

- Connor is a ****** and I don't even understand why he would do certain things half the time (best thing is neither do the writers... at one point G. Washington asks him why does he want to help him - I couldn't tell either at that point - and Connor's reply is "Does it matter?)
- the setting is simply not as interesting or intriguing as the Borgia Italy (especially Tuscany in AC2, less so Rome in Brotherhood)
- stealth gaming has been reduced to scraps ... it's nowhere near as effective as in AC2, and more often than not you end up just plowing through a sea of Englishmen
- story is just... bland, boring, completely uninteresting... which might have to do with:
- characters not being properly developed... In AC2 you hated Cesare and Rodrigo, while here these historical figures just seemed to be thrown in for the sake of players going "OOooo Paul Revere"...
Has ****** all to do with properly developing the plot, but in the end, all these people are completely forgettable.
- the mini-games?
Who the hell thought it would be fun to put in twitch based crap like fighting wild animals?
Or the boats? What the hell is that? I didn't want to play Pirates of the Carribean...
Checkers, Mill, etc. Crafting and components?

Anyway, as someone who loved AC2 and played it 3 or 4 times...

AC2 felt like a proper game with artistic integrity, thought out and planned as a stealth based action-adventure game with decent combat system.

AC3 feels just the opposite. No stealth, clunky combat with a bazillion things thrown in to make the game bigger - but all these things feel unnecessary and obsolete (crafting, table games, naval combat, etc.).
No, you're totally right.

Spoil:
playing as the ****ing villain for 5 hours reallllly prevents you from growing an attachment




Most of these are just flat out terrible criticisms. The Revolutionary War may not be as interesting to you, but it is to many others. I too prefer Italy, but that doesn't change the fact that this game's setting and world were fantastic.

AC games have always been a little light on the advertised stealth, but it is completely available if you try to do it, along with getting 100 sync. Many of the 100 sync requirements are based completely around stealth.

The naval combat was arguably the best part of the entire game. It was designed fantastically and was a very temporary break from the game if you wanted it to be (Church aside). You didn't have to do the naval side missions.

Yes, Connor was a weak character, and things like reaction fighting (wolves) were unnecessary, but most of your criticisms are very weak.


Last edited by ColonialsHockey10: 01-03-2013 at 10:10 AM.
ColonialsHockey10 is offline   Reply With Quote