Assassin's Creed III Follow

All I'm saying is that the outfits better serve as actual camouflage this time.


Also that British soldier was playing his musket wrong.

I suppose a lot of treetop to treetop, like in the trailer.

Honestly, with all the other possible time periods, I feel like revolutionary America isn't really the best pick.

Now, Victorian England? Holy ****, I would play the **** out of that.

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 8:13pm by IDrownFish

Know what I can't believe? That they passed on the French Revolution. Seriously, wtf Ubisoft? If anything lends itself to the past AC games, it's that. Complete redesign of the balance of power between the Three Estates, showing the move of the Templars from the Religious and Nobility to the Bourgeois? Rise of Bonaparte, and spread of the French Empire? The Madness of Robespierre and Saint-Just?

Amazing landmarks like the Louvre and Versailles?

I mean, c'mon...

I can only hope that they intend to make that the sequel. I will also be seriously disappointed if Adams and Hamilton are not Templars in this one.

Hell, I would have even chosen the British invasion of India over the American Revolution...

Actually, I'm amazed they chose the Revolution and not the fall of the Articles of Confederation. America was way more interesting during the Constitutional Convention...

I actually like the pick. It's entirely different from the last few games, which have indeed grown stale (bought Revelations two weeks ago, I haven't really been so excited about it. I actually put it down after two 1 hour sessions).

I'm curious as to how the game will work out, I doubt they'll throw away all of the platforming that made it so great. As for the population density, I don't think that matters too much. It's not like they're the ones making AC what it is. I'd agree if we were talking about pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now. ACII was a massive improvement over AC, I'll just assume ACIII improves some more.

I had been expecting French Revolution as well.

But I'm actually rather pleased with the pick. They wore out their welcome by making those two sequels to ACII (both of which I skipped). I was getting rather sour about the direction of the series.

A change of pace was needed, and I think a dramatic setting change helps quite a bit. I really like that they seem to be taking a lot of cues from Red Dead Redemption. If they can bring in RDR's great sense of outdoor environments, I think there'll be potential for ACIII to really impress.

I've only one complaint, and that's that they really should have made the Assassin garb look more "of the time". Dude sticks out like a sore thumb in that getup.

I'm still playing ACR, but I've enjoyed them all. I know it seems like a ripoff with Ubisoft tacking on these games, but there are tons of gameplay hours in all of them so I feel I got value for my money.

Throwing knives made that mission stupidly easy, best as I recall.

Not that I'm discrediting your ennui with stealth or anything, but AC doesn't have too much of it, unless you really try for it. After getting through every boss' cutscene, you're pretty much free to bum rush at them and make it a big brawl. It's actually one of the game's major faults, IMO.

The original had all of those things.

The largest difference between the two games was in mission variety.


Well, that and swimming.

I haven't played any of them yet but I own a couple. Maybe I'll start with AC once I finish my current game. Should I play mouse/kb or am I better off plugging in my controller?

I know some are designed more to one end than the other. Batman: AA/AC, for example seems to be made for controllers despite having the KB/mouse option (vs every FPS where you'll get mocked and killed for trying to play controller on a PC). Didn't know if AC was the same.

Edited, Mar 6th 2012 11:44am by Jophiel

I don't agree. It had them in the barest form possible. Altair's character barely developed (and it was limited to like 3-5 conversations), there was one real antagonist for most of the game, and like 2 other random characters that would needle you every so often. That's about it. I can only think of one other character (Malak) that developed at all.

There was just the main plot line. Go to a city, investigate the Templar, assassinate him, return, repeat. Those characters were never important outside of that mission, and you rarely heard about them again after the fact. They weren't even plot arcs, not really, it was just who Altair happened to be assassinating.

I enjoyed the game in general, but the story was very bare-bones.

In AC2, they added a bunch of characters that actually developed over time (in both Ezio's time and in Desmond's). It wasn't just about assassinating a target, it was as much about Ezio finding his place in the world. And half the time it was less about being told what to do, and more about him doing it for his own reasons. You stopped to help other groups, and you carried on your own investigations where you saw fit. This isn't just mission variety, it's a significant deviation in the plot line from the previous game. In ACB, there are actually sub-plots and additional arcs. The whole game is about combating the Templars established in Rome, but the player can help other groups if they wish, they can explore other plot lines in the form of <whatsername> from the last game, you deal with intrigue and such within the Assassin group, and deal with the dynamics of the leaders. Etc.

First game's entire plot can be summed up in a linear list of bullet-points. You never need to create a branch in the tree, or stop to explain underlying events. That's not the case in AC2/B.

My point isn't the he didn't change, it's that the game failed to make a real story out of it. Those conversations with the old guy, and a few with Malak, contain all of Altair's character development until you approach the end of the game. It's extremely limited, and gives it a really odd, stuttering nature. He doesn't develop smoothly, over time. If the premise of the game is that I'm experiencing this person's life through genetic memory, I shouldn't be only experiencing that change in bursts in between the major missions. Everything should be developing the character, influencing them.

AC2 and Brotherhood did that very well. Assassin's Creed 1 didn't do that at all.

I didn't mind the repetition as much as other people did, and I legitimately enjoyed the game. I always thoroughly investigated my targets. But that's the real weakness, imo.

Does Altair go from being a stuck up *** to a more reverent and honorable assassin? Yes. But the character development is such that it's easily shown via a single line of storyboards, and that's what I take issue with.

Luckily, I got AC (the first) for free so I suppose if it's balls, I'll just play long enough to get the jist of it and move on.