Podcasts - Assassin's Creed 3 - Audio Review

Set against the backdrop of the American Revolution in the late 18th century, Assassin's Creed III introduces a new hero, Ratohnhaké:ton, of Native American and English heritage.

Tags:  the loading bar, korey, videogame, podcast, spill, spill.com, assassin's creed 3

• 
  

  December 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM, said ...

  Anyone want to play AC3 online? Add me on PSN: Vampcoffee

• November 13, 2012 at 8:05 PM, said ...

  @Macarze yeah I did too. He wasnt supposed to be another Ezio. He was to be his own person.

  
  
• 
  

  November 13, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Macarze said ...

  I found Conner to be the most interesting assassin in the franchise, he's a no nonsense kicking ass hero.

• November 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, MavenCree said ...

  2012: The Year of the Game Ending Ball-Drop

  
  
• 
  

  November 12, 2012 at 1:54 AM, said ...

  Personally I love the game however that ending was total bullshit. I liked Connor a lot actually.

• November 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM, said ...

  What I never got about these games is why do they make it take place at the same time in the present and the past. We only really give a shit about the Past of Assassins, and when we go t the present it just feels boring and a waste of time.

  
  
• 
  

  November 11, 2012 at 10:56 PM, said ...

  BAH HUMBUG!

• November 11, 2012 at 5:59 PM, James said ...

  To be honest, this game might have had  a worse 'Fuck you' ending that Mass Effect 3 did. I literally couldn't believe how it ended, they might as well have had a big middle finger slowly scroll up the screen...

  
  
• 
  

  November 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Paradox said ...

  Jesus Christ I forgot all about the ending until you guys mentioned it.  Jesus Christ!

• November 10, 2012 at 4:10 PM, said ...

  I think what also coincides with the numerous amount of glitches is the entirely large open world. This game is three times the size of Rome and cities in AC2 also in Revelations. You guys are kinda right that Connor was kinda of boring compared to Ezio,but I think it was more so to do with his age. Connor was to be a young brash and headstrong Native American unlike the always trying to get into girls pants Ezio lol. That's the difference I saw, Ezio came from a different kinda culture that was more involved with mannerisms that were gentlemen like; whereas Connor was more headstrong and was more serious about his mission.

  
  
• 
  

  November 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM, said ...

  For myself, I enjoy AC especially because the story develops during the missions in such a way that the linearity is necessitated. Judge the game on it's merits and its drawbacks, not on what you've ASSUMED it should be like, and hoped for how it'd been designed.  AC has always been a scripted scenario based game with an open world exploration model. Similar (but better) than Mafia II. I much, much prefer being guided down a story. The mechanics are perfect and sophisticated, and I love the mission design. I'm also not the only one.

• November 10, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Sidney Desmangles said ...

  I've just beaten Assassin's Creed 3 and man that ending was Amazing! No im kidding, the ending was such a massive LET DOWN wow (and mind you i played all of them) really poorly thought out way to end a FIVE game story.Sigh* makes me wish i didn't invest so much money into buying these games..

  
  
• 
  

  November 10, 2012 at 5:12 AM, said ...

  Man, you guys totally sap me of any desire to play this game I was really excited for and then slap it with a "full price"? I feel like a mistreated housewife.

• November 10, 2012 at 2:40 AM, said ...

  The more I think about it, the more underwhelming this game felt, especially during the "historical missions." All of Professor Jeff's and Fungusmonkey's criticisms are true and valid. I regret buying this game at full price, $60.

  Look, if you're in the same boat as me, Goozex this shit while it's still hot. 1000 points bitches! That's essentially $50. And you know, finish the game first, but do it quick before supply and demand fluctuates the price.

  Let's not forgot to mention that the creative director who did the first two installments of AC 1 & 2 had already left when Ubisoft decided to do Brotherhood and Revelations (annual installments), so by the fifth installment, AC 3 had its third creative director.

  
  
• 
  

  November 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM, said ...

  Skip this game and wait for Hitman. This franchise started to die when Revelations came out.

• November 09, 2012 at 8:41 PM, said ...

  I heard Ubisoft is going to re-release the game and patch up a lot of the glitches that people had a problem with. Because there are a lot I had when playing this game at least I rented off Netflix before I bought it though.

  
  
• 
  

  November 09, 2012 at 7:16 PM, said ...

  Thanks for being the first review (that I've heard) that actually looks at the many flaws this game has. BTW. you can kill pigs. You just have to aim.

• November 09, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Kevin J Baird said ...

  Had there been gorillas...  Game of the year.

  
  
• 
  

  November 09, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Fungusmonkey said ...

  @Dcumm313 - Oh, I absolutely felt like the fights were much easier in AC3. Previous AC games combat was slowly evolving into something resembling the combat system in Arkham Asylum/City where it becomes a matter of skill, timing, and knowing which enemies you're up against and how best to deal with them while still managing your chain kills. Particularly the timing. You miss a move, you select the wrong person, you don't watch out for someone firing at you... chain over. In AC3, the addition of the slow-mode block removes most of the timing skill and veers more towards a quicktime event. As long as you hit the block when you see the icon, you are given ample time to just sit there, look around, and decide what to do from there. It literally stalls the combat every couple seconds to allow you to leisurely make a decision, rather than focusing on the player's own instinctual timing and skill. They even add a literal quicktime event into the gameplay whenever two of the characters attack at the same time, complete with scripted cutscene.
  
  I guess it comes down to "the flow". In previous entries in the franchise, I feel they did a good job keeping the flow of the combat so that when you take down a large group of guards, you did so because you were on your toes and played well. In AC3, as I pointed out, I was taking out entire forts' worth of guards single-handedly because it's just *that easy* to sit there and press the button when the game tells you to. The constant start/stop of the slow motion got annoying at times because I just wanted to work my way through my opponents quickly and efficiently like an Assassin. To me, it just veered closer to a quicktime event than a combat system. Don't even get me started on the wolves and bear quicktime events. I will always prefer to have more control over my characters actions than less. I know they wanted to "streamline" things (like the freerunning and combat) but I felt they were really starting to refine those aspects in the last couple games, only to have my hands tied to this new system.
  
  Also, I want to agree with Jeff again on the nitpicking thing. One or two things is nitpicking. Once you get into double digits of problems... that's just a list of problems. AC3 had A LOT of little things wrong with it. Thankfully, what was right with it was enough to keep me playing and entertained, but not quite enough to put it into Full Price for me. Since we're obviously going to be getting another game (ugh... can you say "sequel bait"?) I really hope that they take this new engine, look at the fan's complaints (and believe me, I'm mirroring the sentiments of a large portion of the fanbase), and further refine it for the next game.

• November 09, 2012 at 1:32 PM, said ...

  I'm up to Sequence 6, and once you get to play as Conner, it starts to pick up.  The first three sequences were slow, but I didn't see the twist coming.  There is a lot to do in this game, from just the simple joy of hunting things to collecting pages, or even the sailing missions.  Hanging people is so much fun.

  
  
• 
  

  November 09, 2012 at 1:20 PM, said ...

  Oh, and I played it on the 360. So no Prof, it is not a PS3 exclusive issue.

• November 09, 2012 at 1:18 PM, said ...

  As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying. You aren't just throwing out things you don't like and leaving it at that. You give legitimate logical reasons on why you feel the way you guys do. Wether that is something that someone else finds as a problem or flaw, is completely on them and you feeling the way you do about it, has nothing to do with how much they can enjoy the game.

  I been a fan of the AC series since the first game but that's not going to stop me from recognizing whats wrong with this one either. Skipping the entire storyline issue, there are still plenty of straight up gameplay problems. I encountered almost every single problem any of the bartenders listed, including one where I can no longer access Connor's inventory as an option to sell via the convoy.

  I had several times where Connor would simply stop working in free running or combat. I would be unable to run any further and fail chasing a target (or suddenly have my ass handed to me due to the guards catching up). I would be knee deep in redcoats hacking and slashing away then suddenly Connor would not attack anymore. I would have to re-equip a weapon in order to continue the fight even though I was never disarmed.

  I enjoyed the game and the MP experience but help me, I felt a bit of a challenge to do so. Oh and for anyone who thinks Prof Jeff and the bartenders are nit picking, think of it this way. They list a host of problems spanning almost every segment of the game except ship combat and multiplayer. Storyline, in-game UI, side missions, fast travel, glitches, cutscenes/audio presentation, and a few more I'm sure I'm missing. Thats not nit picking, thats addressing outstanding problems.

  
  
• 
  

  November 09, 2012 at 8:29 AM, said ...

  @Professor Jeff

  Huh. To be honest, in the reviews whenever you talked about calling in the recruits all the time, I thought you were just joking around, but if it's really what you did, well, it's certainly a way of looking at I hadn't thought about. For me they kind of just became opportunistic little ways of switching things up, if I had my hands full climbing and need a guard killed, If I saw a big group of guards and had the recruits all charged up to do their little arrow thing, but most of the time I just sent them on missions or enjoyed looking at them in the Assassin Den as a neat little mechanic of the game, but one I didn't find all that necessary, or feel the urge to use.

  Thank you for answering my post, and so quickly, I know the comment board's filled with a lot of complaints about the game or about the review, so sincerely, thanks for being so professional, and answering my question with so much detail. I had trouble listening to this review, but that's completely on me, for the record, I agree with the final ratings, and whatever difference of opinion we may have concerning some of the details of the game, at least we can agree that Hooooly Shit Ubisoft needs to team up with Sid Meiers and remake Pirates! like they did Xcom, and I don't care how many copies of ACIII I have to buy to support that endeavor.

  Love the reviews otherwise, and thank you again.

• November 09, 2012 at 7:57 AM, said ...

  @Dcumm313

  I'm not going to talk about the story or characters. That's a preference thing and I think there's no 'right' or 'wrong' opinion to have. Connor to me is a dull character who was constantly shown up by everyone else in the game, however that's just one man's opinion.

  As to the combat, I went back and played a little bit of the older games, but not enough to really get into the nitty gritty numbers of this sword, that dagger, etc. What I will say about the combat is this: by Brotherhood it was largely unnecessary.

  When the Assassin henchmen were added into AC: Brotherhood, I started drifting way away from the combat systems altogether. One of the reasons that the changes to the movement and engagement systems in this game bothered me so much was that I couldn't be near combat without getting involved in it automatically. I cannot tell you how much I loved strutting down the street in Brotherhood and Revelations only to whistle a tune and have my ninjas take care of some pesky guards or snooping baddies. Most of the time I would stand and watch with pride as they did their good work and then disappeared into the crowd. Sometimes, a quick poison needle might be necessary to move the program along, but for the most part, they did the fighting, not me.

  That change to the adversarial system was great because by the time I got to Brotherhood, the whole of the AC series combat felt dull and repetitive. I was wonderfully glad to have new options outside from counter, kill, counter, kill, repeat. So with this third game and the way any conflict areas would drag you in regardless of whether you wanted them to or not, I felt like I was being forced back into a mechanic that I had already gone past.

  
  
• 
  

  November 09, 2012 at 7:37 AM, said ...

  @BatOtaku13  Agree completely. The ending was very far from ME3 level, but since it was also far from people's expectation level, they chose to bully it into that category, when really, if you've been following the story, and the themes, which I think were handled spectacularly in this game, much more so than I and II, then ultimately it becomes a very rich, detailed and complex study of character, understanding morality, and the necessity of freedom vs. the worth of freedom. Basically the messages the entire series is built upon.

  I think the ending's problem is that it's pretty loose compared to the rest of the story, and on something of a deeper level, it requires you to have been invested in the series, not just the characters, and not just the stories, but everything. Each Assassin was a part of the ultimate lesson, and if you get too hung up on one of them, or one part of their story, then yea, the ending will even seem like it goes against it's own messages.

  I think Connor, while not my favorite character of the three, (though very close, if I'm being honest) was the best for the story, but because people (and man I hate doing this, I sincerely don't want to alienate the people who played the game and didn't like it, or make them think I'm just trying to use some pretentious excuse, but it's the elephant in the room) weren't really that warm to the new guy they perceived as filling Ezio's shoes, (that fact that the two characters were just about complete juxtapositions of each other not helping), they might have missed what his ultimate contribution to the lesson was, and while it is true, as I said before, each of their parts is required, Connor's may have been the most important, and without the understanding of it to provide context, the kinda brilliance of the ending can be missed. Beyond that, it's an Assassins Creed ending, if nothing else, and maybe you didn't like it, maybe you did, but you certainly can't say it's not an Assassins Creed ending.

  Here's hoping at least one member of the Loading Bar Crew feels the same, because it was sincerely frustrating listening to all their negative points, which I kind of thought were pretty exaggerated, or just arguably wrong. However, this post is already far longer than my usual level of post, so I'll keep that argument to myself, unless anyone should prove interested.

  
  Also though- FungusMonkey, did you really find the combat easier this time around? Because I thought it was way more challenging, one of the things I hated most about Brotherhood and Revelations was that the chain-kill combat made some of the games best mechanics, like escaping from the guards, sneaky assassinations, not too mention just about every guild except maybe the courtesans, totally unnecessary. You could just effortlessly chain kill like 6 Brutes at the beginning of the game with one hidden blade, and even if they did manage to land a hit on you without you just countering, you could just click left on the d-pad, have all your health restored, and continue on like nothing happened. The fact that the combat was so easy in Brotherhood was the reason they had the chain-kill blocking Janissarys in Revelations, the problem with them being they came way too late in the game, and they were also unchainkillable, making the entire mechanic itself useless as well. This game improved that greatly, no more one button counters, no more just healing yourself if you've gotten in over your head in the fight, and while there are many enemies that can block your chain-kill, if you are reflexive enough to block-break them instead of attack, your chain continues. Everything was improved, including the weapons, in the last games all the weapons were about damage which was pointless because, y'know, 1-hit your dead chain-kill. This game they had a variety of new weapons to play with like war clubs, the muskets, the tomahawk of course, and they had variables based on more than damage, like how fast you could hit with them, and how quickly they let you combo. I know I said I was done before, and I realize how much longer this actually is, but please, when you brought up your complaints about the combat, could you please elaborate, because as you can see, that kind of made me rage. If not you, then anybody else on the Loading Bar who thinks they feel the same, and would be interested in answering me.

Post Comment