User Score
6.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1154 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 28, 2014
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This game is honestly not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Sure half the game is a tutorial, sure Connor is a little bland as a character. But the upsides of this game includes; The amazing music, the amazing graphics, the tight gameplay(If at times a bit glitchy). The only things that really pissed me off during the game is that half the time you played as either a young Connor, or Haythem. Don't get my wrong, those parts were okay, but then again a grown up Connor is on the cover, not Haythem, nor a little Connor. From my count, it takes at least 3 hours to even see the games actual protagonist. But other than that. This game is fine, you should get it, now that its like, $20 dollars at Gamestop. Expand
  2. Aug 18, 2014
    8
    Assassin's Creed 3 explores many of colonial America's greatest historical moments. But like previous games in the series, what makes it special, is that it digs deeper than simple recreation. It explores themes that resonate outside of the historical context. As Connor, the Native American star of the game, you hear the convincing words of the many assumed represent the wrong side of morality and must wonder, are the concepts of good and bad so absolute after all. Connor's dilemma is one of the past. In the present day series constant Desmond Miles plays his own role in history. His portions are even more flushed out than before, allowing him to exercise his assassin skills. The game draws parallel between his story and Connor's, and by the end forces you to consider an unpleasant truth about the nature of humanity. It takes time to reach that conclusion or indeed to see Assassin's Creed 3 at its best. The opening hours are unexpectedly slow. You discover that this is a different kind of Assassin's Creed. It's no less joyous once the stops are pooled out, but the game takes it's time to establish tone and back-story before it lets you loose. But, put an overall context, you will grow to appreciate that the game took it's time to establish its characters and to drop an early narrative surprise. Just what is different in Assassin's Creed 3? Well the parkour has changed for starters. The control scheme is simpler but allows Connor to bound from tree to tree just as brilliantly as he can scale walls and leap across roofs. It takes some time to get accustomed to the rhythm of tree jumping, which can be rather unpredictable. There are those slow moments to slow you down. You might not be positioned quite right or you can accidently leap into a leaf pile below. But when things come together it's a joy to soar through the forest canopy. You'll do some such sweeping around you're homestead. The homestead is about building. Building a village, building a future and building relationships. By performing related missions, you befriend crafts people, gatherers and more. All of whom might find a place on the homestead. In turn, they can craft items that you sell via caravan for profit. Meanwhile you watch you're passive land grow into a village of its own. The homestead focused facets are optional yet worth investigating. Out in the frontier, you can supplement you're store house by trapping or attacking wild animals and skinning them. There is rarely a pressing reason to go hunting but there's something enjoyably bizarre about perching on a tree branch and then assassinating a bunny rabbit from above. Hunting is more of a toy for tinkering with, then a fully developed mechanic unless, you grow deeply invested in the homestead's economy. The cities of Boston and New York are home to most of the action. Even outside of story missions there's plenty to do in the cities. Almost all of it wonderful. Ben Franklin's missing Almanac pages float in the skies giving you a reason to take the rooftops and prance about. Liberation missions have you rescuing town folks from British soldiers, among other tasks. Frontiersman tell tall tales and you follow their leads towards UFO's and Sasquatch. Such exploits put you in direct contact with guards and soldiers and combat has been tweaked. You counter by pressing the proper button when the indicator appears over an enemy's head and you no longer have to manage the lock-on mechanic. Battles are fluid and bloody, as Connor chops, slashes and summersaults about. Though as always, you can accuse combat of being especially difficult. There are chances to go stealthy too and Connor crouches automatically in tall grass and can even press against corners and peak around. There are some stealth inconsistencies though as well as some parkour troubles, especially when climbing cliffs. But the inconsistencies run deeper than these little inconveniences. There are minor glitches like animals running places against rocks. Bigger ones too like a creature clipping into a wall so you can't finish the mission. There's an error of sloppiness here that was kept a minimum in previous installments. Assassin's Creed 3's ambition offsets these issues to a great degree however. The expanses are vast and the atmosphere is palpable. In place of the golden aura of previous games is a more muted look in keeping with its muddy trails and rust combs. The presentation shines when Connor goes to sea as well. Side missions have you getting behind the helm of a ship and facing the tumultuous ocean. Sailing is fun and often tense and the visual details are marvelous. Capturing the controlled chaos of an eager crew hard at work. In the most exciting battles, ship positioning is key to success and you sometimes get to even get to board the ships you ram and battle with their crews. It's great stuff. The multiplayer first introduced in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood makes a return and with it the rising tensions and brutal release of assassinating other players while simultaneously avoiding the watchful eyes of your opponents. There are a number of modes which to exercise your skill but in most cases, the goal is to blend into the crowds and avoid your assassins even as you seek your own target. There's great satisfaction in pulling off a silent kill, though last satisfaction in perusing the game's progression system. You can purchase new skills and perks using in-game currency or you can use real money to do it. Given the huge array of gameplay and cosmetic upgrades it comes across as an uncomfortable cash grab. This scrappy sequel isn't content to rely on past accolades. It takes narrative chances, thematically meshing the past and the present so that each story is stronger for it. More importantly Assassin's Creed 3 embraces the adventurous spirit of American colonists and their quest for independence. Expand
  3. Dec 1, 2012
    7
    The single player part of the game is the best of all the AC series, the graphics are good even if sometimes the video clips are choppy, the storyline is very interesting, i say best part of the all, but lack in the open world part of the game, yes hunting is fun but limited to just few animals and only one hunting quest, attacking the rare convoys, and try to do a few tricks but get soon pretty boring once you finish the storyline, there's just not enough to do once you're out of the 2 cities. but the very bad side of the game is the multiplayer part: same as in the previous games, only different maps and characters but the sad part is that previously you were able to gain points by fighting and personalize your characters while now fighting points are useless until you are willing to pay real money to get some other coins that you can use to get some gears or perks, very disappointed by the multiplayer game, greatly reduced my score. Expand
  4. Dec 20, 2012
    7
    Even though I haven't had good luck with the Assassin's Creed series, I succumbed to the hype and bought this game. First of all, its an interesting historical novel with a science fiction twist, and a touch of the DaVinci code (references to the Knights Templar). If you're a history buff, you'll appreciate the short background notes with their combination of historical accuracy and dramatic license. I read a few of the notes as I played the game and there was some funny sarcastic remarks sprinkled throughout. Secondly, the graphics were outstanding, even though the intentional fading in/out got a little old. Also, my XPS-8100 with Intel 5 processor and GT-220 card seemed to handle the complex graphics quite well. However, this game becomes annoyingly frustrating at times. In my limited view, the gameplay is too complex. For example, you need three keyboard entries to fire a musket or shoot an arrow. Additionally, moving your character around is difficult at times when you are trying to run away and the character shifts into melee anytime it gets close to the opposition. Still, this game was fun, and I felt a sense of accomplishment when I finally finished it after 30+ hours of playing time. Expand
  5. May 29, 2013
    7
    Assassin's Creed III is pretty addictive and has nice graphics & sound but it's really buggy (much more than Assassin's Creed II). Those are annoying bugs where you sometimes can't take down the wanted poster, can't reach a treasure box because it's buried in the ground or you can go through closed gates. Not to speak of your horse getting stuck between trees. The graphics engine doesn't seem to be well optimized for AMD CPUs/GPUs. I have an FX-6300@4,5GHz and a Radeon HD 6870@985Mhz and sometimes frames per second drop to 25 FPS on full 1080p HD without any obvious reason i.e. at places where there is not much detail or in cities even on lowest quality settings. The game is sponsored by Nvidia so this might explain it. The sea battles are really a highlight of the game and could be even a stand alone game but they are not very well integrated in the story and overall gameplay. Overall I think the open world could be a bit more deep with more things to do, more houses to enter, more NPCs to talk to. More in the direction of a real RPG game. Expand
  6. Dec 3, 2012
    7
    Good gameplay, interesting new mechanics, boring storyline and characters, ending will make you go "...wat" and horrible menus for PC. Not as good as AC2.
  7. Jan 28, 2013
    7
    Another solid game in the Assassin's creed franchise, I am not sure why it has been getting a bunch of negative reviews but I could understand people being frustrated with it. The combat is very fluid and easy to get the hang of. The park-our style of running, jumping and climbing is also very fluid, more so in this game than the previous ones. The graphics are very good, though I do miss the roman architecture of the previous games. The storyline is overall pretty good but can have some dull stretches. My main issue with the game is just how slow it moves, you can play for 6 plus hours and still not have unlocked a good chunk of side missions. There is a ton of stuff to do in the game but it can get overbearing. The ship combat part was not needed imo, the fun in the game comes from its combat mechanics and this just takes away from it. I liked the character you first play as but I had a hard time liking the main character (Connor). I never really got a good feel for him or his motives. You can tell just by playing it that they put a bunch of time into this game but you really need to be in it for the long haul, it is long drawn out. Sometimes AC3 feels more like a chore than the fun I had in AC brotherhood but it is a solid game. Expand
  8. Feb 28, 2013
    7
    So Assassin's Creed 3 was praised by so many peeps and I just never saw the big fuse about it. So was it as amazing as everyone said it was going to be? In some ways yes but overall no. Now not saying its bad, its a decent but but im just going to explain why im giving it this score. So first talking about the pros about his game. Action and cutscences feel so cinematic. The game looks great with it been best graphics in any Assassin's Creed game. Combat has improved alot even tho it can be annoying at times. Good story and the Navel Ship Battles... best thing about this game! I mean it was an amazing engine for the ship combat and the engine beats alot of pirate engines and I hope Ubisoft make a game like that. Now the cons. Well first the character you play as Connor is just dull and boring compared to Ezio and even Altair even had a little more more charactor then Connor. Lots of stuff to do, but no real reward to them like other games in the series( well maybe a bit more then the first game) Ending was awful and should have given you an option at the end. The new engine makes the game too easy, I mean I want the old engine when you bought armor to take more hits and buy better weapons. Now you still can buy weapons but you can complete this game without buying a weapon(stupid if you ask me). So its got many pros and cons, but the pros just make it a decent game. So overall a decent game. Assassins's Creed 3 7.3/10 Expand
  9. Nov 26, 2012
    7
    It's a very good game. But not so good as an Assassin's Creed :/
    It's different, the others opus were more "RPG"... here the story is our primary quest.
    And there is no explanations about the game except principal storyline (yeah, 6 sequences of tutorial)
  10. Dec 9, 2012
    7
    Sure, the third AC is mostly overhyped and overpraised, especially on the big videogame portals, but it's definitely NOT a dud. The animus-part story is miles better, more complex and more layered than the rather dull wanderings of Altair or the cheesy, cartoonish escapades of Ezio. Yes, Desmond is a stupid character but I rather like the outside-animus sci-fi story, although the brief Desmond gameplay stuff itself is just terrible. It's almost if instead of putting some real effort in making the Desmond parts better Ubi bosses said: "Folks don't like Desmond so let's make his part as short and simple as is necessary for the overall story." Another improvements over the previous installments - minigames are finally fun, especially the naval battles, which are fantastic, and the hunting, which is very acceptable. And almost all the side characters are very likeable and well dubbed (especially Haytham). Oh and I also LOVE the way this game handles difficulty - the basic campaign is so easy a 5 year old could cakewalk it while watching cartoons but most optional objectives can be VERY difficult. So you CAN finish the game in under 20 hours (10 if you skip the cinematics) but if you like some extra challenge, you can grow old and crazy trying to do the 100% sync.
    *********
    Now to the not so good things about AC3. The graphics is a mixed bag. The cities are great, as usual, and the naval part is simply phenomenal. But although the Frontier has it's shining moments, it's marred by really bad textures, pop-ups and overall inescapable feeling that the game has been made primarily for 8 years old console hardware. It just shows. Even the first Crysis is still miles ahead when it comes to forest environments. Of course Ubi is not to blame here - Microsoft and Sony are.
    *********
    And now for the cons. First and foremost - Connor. Everything that's been said about him is true. He is humouress, dull, moody, annoying and interacts with NPCs like a computer trying to pass the Turing test. It's also disappointing you can't go parkouring over the rooftops anymore because the streets are too wide and there are guards on every second roof. But the biggest disappointment is the way the whole game is put together. As I said, the main story itself is fun and interesting, but the gameplay is...well, almost boring. It's usually about walking from point A to point B and watching a cutscene. And, if you're lucky, the game let's you press a button in a critical moment. More often than not if feels like an interactive movie than an actual game. And for the side missions and optional activities the exact opposite is true. Improving your homestead, hunting, crafting, trading - all of it is quite fun but completely pointless and useless. Yes you can skin animals and craft weapons and sell your produce but what for? There's almost no difference between the available weapons, you'll massacre a redcoat regiment with the basic sword just as easily as with the ultimate endgame model. There's also NO gameplay difference between the available outfits, except they look different. So even though you can spend countless hours collecting feathers and improving your homestead and whatnot all you get is a stupid T-shirt, basically. Furthermore you can't actually buy anything useful for the money you make from craftin and trading, maybe except a map of chests containing - more money. "But you can do all these things just for the enjoyment of seeing your homestead grow and prosper or for the fun of the hunt," I hear some of you objecting. But for me, in an action adventure game like this, all these side activities just feel pointless. I enjoy building my town economy in Settlers or SimCity or Colonization as much as the other guy but those games are ABOUT building and trading. AC3 is about crushing the Templars and how does crafting barrels and skinning rabbits help you with that?
    *******
    So the verdict - AC3 definitely feels epic and expensive. It exudes the money and expertise and astounding artistic talent that went into making it. But it also feels like the fantastically talented team of writers, artists, architects, historians and programmers was steered by a very poor lead designer. Despite all of that, it's still a towering achievement in the vast sea of stupidity, shallowness, cheesiness and desperate run-of-the-millness that's the current AAA videogame market.
    Expand
  11. Dec 9, 2012
    7
    Terrible consolitis. A mash up of all the game mechanics from previous AC games, makes the journey a confusing chore - disappointing because the story is very exciting... albeit with a rather flaccid ending.
  12. Dec 1, 2012
    7
    AC3 is a good and solid game, but doesn't feel quite right in the series. I felt that the game relied too much on "chase this guy and kill him" or "fight these 20 guys to kill this one guy" instead of actually using your head and sneaking in and assassinating somebody. Several of your assassination missions you actually have to sneak in past tons of guards, where if you get discovered it's an instant lose condition, and then, once you close on your target it goes to cutscene where you are discovered and have to fight all those guards anyway. The graphics were good, but I can't say the same for the new facial animation tech Ubisoft has been bragging about. It just wasn't that good, and even in cutscenes characters mouths were often not synched with the audio. The cities are small and the buildings are too spaced out to make rooftop jumping (a staple of the series and part of why the series is so much fun) not practical in most cases. I actually barely used to rooftops at all, as it was often faster and easier to use the streets. The hunting mechanic was ok, but nothing I felt like spending a lot of time with. The crafting mechanic was pointless except for the pouch upgrades and special weapons, and those are not even really necessary. The UI for the crafting was awful, annoying to navigate, and you couldn't craft more than one of any particular item at a time, which was ok for some items, but annoying for items you use a lot like glass bottles, sewing threads, etc, but since there is never a point in the game where you HAVE to craft anything, and the rewards are so insignificant there's really no reason to craft anything, the bad crafting doesn't really take away from the gameplay itself. Same goes for the trading. Sending trade convoys takes a long time, they often come under attack in the middle of the very large frontier far enough away from any fast travel points that there is no way you can get there in time to save the convoy, and even if it makes it you don't really make enough money off it to make it worth the hassle. One thing I missed that AC2, Brotherhood, and Revelations did very well was the platforming "dungeons", those were a lot of fun and really gave you a chance to play with the free-running aspect of the game. These are almost completely absent in AC3, and the few platforming missions there are are not very good and don't keep you on the edge of your seat like in previous games. Also, the game is glitchy. Daily while I was playing it killed my computer, locked it up so not even a "ctrl-alt-del" worked and I had to to a hard shut down. Luckily the game usually autosaves often enough that you start back close to where it died. Now, I spent a lot of time complaining, now I'll tell of the good parts. The wilderness is large, think the Kingdom from the first AC game and double it. The tree climbing mechanic is fun, especially in swampier areas. Too bad more of the game doesn't take place in the frontier, because you have a lot more stealth options in the trees than you do in colonial towns. I REALLY enjoyed the naval battles. I would buy a DLC that just had a lot more of the naval warfare missions. The waves look amazing, the battles are epic, and it's just a lot of fun. The Desmond storyline gets a lot more play than any other AC game, and wraps up nicely. The way they did the Desmond missions in this game makes me want even more for them to make a modern-day AC game. I like the combat a lot, and enjoyed the big battles, I just wish it would let me stealth-kill my big targets more often. It's an AC game, it plays like an AC game, expect nothing more. One last thing, Connor is a good character, though he is a bit bland. He's supposed to be bland though, an Iroquois warrior is not going to be as flashy or flamboyant as an Italian nobleman like Ezio. I liked Connor, though I actually thought his father Haytham would be a better main character. A little more Ezio-like flair and attitude. All in all, I really enjoyed the game though some aspects were frustrating. I recommend this if you are a fan of the series, but not if you are looking for anything really new and exciting, as all of the new things were annoying except for the naval combat. Expand
  13. Aug 30, 2013
    7
    When i played just 5 hours of this game i gave it a 9. I made a terrible mistake, this game is not that good. It has indeed a good story, and the Naval missions are the Jewel of the Crown. But the game is broken, the parkour elements are Broken, the Battles are way too simple, different weapons means nothing in this game. The best thing of the game, the naval missions, are so few in the story mode, that you can count in one hand's fingers. I am relieved that Blackflag's focus is on Piracy, i really hope they learn from their mistakes, Assassin's Creed is an awesome franchise. Expand
  14. Nov 23, 2012
    7
    Assassins Creed 3 is more the odd man out.. It adds alot of unique gameplay elements that would be great if it all worked out properly. But the end its a shaky but great game thats worth a shot if your an Assassin Creed fan. [Keep in mind I am reviewing with the current update 1.01 - some things maybe fixed if your reading it later down the line]


    Story: [6]
    The story has quite a few
    twists into the plot, and a few good moments. Yet in the end it doesn't pack the punch of the first 3. Game World: [6]
    Now saddest part of Assassin's Creed 3 is the game world. The problem with era they are recreating is majority of the buildings during that era looked pretty much alike. So now you end up facing a very repetitive world also. Going to eagle view points essentially requires the same method each and every time Unlike Constantinople where quite a few eagle points posed various challenges to get to. Now there is a very tiny variation in all of them But they did add quite a few unique methods of traveling through houses and sliding through low lying obstacles. Yet it once you get into the game you will soon notice how very few those opportunities their are. Also how majority of the time it doesn't seem to work when you need it to. Gameplay: [9]
    Now gameplay has not really shifted from the core principles of Assassin creed. The same style attack block counter is still there. As well as a few added weapon styles. The fighting as smooth as ever and quite a bit more interactive. They made achievement and special item hunting fundamentally a lot easier. Though their are still some secret treasures hidden away that are not revealed. Also they have quite a few varied side missions.

    So what exactly changed? Gone are the ways of the mercenaries brother girls and roaming groups of camouflage. Though the last one is sort o replaced with wagons of hay that move around the map. But to be fair people rarely used them anyway. You also do not have your assortment of grenades though you do get smoke bomb still and trip mine. Also your throwing knives and cross bow is replaced with a rope dart and bow and arrow. Personally most of the changes are quite well done. Also there are no more "tutorial mini levels. The tutorials are stream lined in some part into the game.
    Now the sad part is, only some of what you need to do is explained. For example one optional mission was ';Throw the Red coats into the water" - now it doesn't tell you how to do that. So if you never played an Assassin's Creed game before, your basically screwed. If you did, your also possibly screwed. You cannot simply make them fall inside. You must use the push evade to do so, which the game fails to tell you so. This is just one of many things it doesn't wish to explain.

    Now a lot of "filler" missions are available. Some are quite fun, some make you want to rip your hair out. The new lock picking mechanic they introduced is one of those hair ripping moments to button ashing. Randomly twist and turn then button mash and repeat. They should have followed the skyrim or splinter cell model of lock picking. As for the board games, they are probably the best board games I have played that came packaged with a game. Classical games played during the era, that are really get you thinking. Which I personally applaud was a great addition to add. The biggest and probably the best feature they added was Naval Battles. The naval battles are truely phenominal. Infact its better then most naval battle games. You have control of your sails, movements and gun fire. It really makes you feel like a captain on the open seas.

    City creation is one interesting feature added to the game. Where you get to manage your own little town and recruit a cast of characters to help you craft various items Now you can't decide who you want to choose, but each one does have a back story involved, with various relations with each other. Yet at this point it becomes a bit to obvious its just a port and not made for PC. As the crafting and trading menu's force you to go a very round about way to choose your items. So they didn't bother creating a more PC friendly UI. But its decent enough to get it to work.

    Another interesting feature is hunting. You can track and hunt various animals for various parts. These parts can later be used to craft various items to be sold. Though surprisingly enough the value of the pelts are not related to the difficulty in catching it. Sound: [8]
    The music and environmental sound was top notch. The voice acting was a mix, some of the voices were done phenomenally. The others feel as if the person was just woken up in the middle of the night and told to read the lines. Final Synopsis.
    Assassin's Creed III adds a lot of great elements to the genre. Yet the game feels incomplete and rushed.If your an Assassin's Creed fan, you will more then likely enjoy it. If your just starting, this may not be the place to do so.
    Expand
  15. Nov 28, 2012
    7
    Great gameplay, I do love naval combat. Not linear mission, confusing for beginner. Not last, What happening with the desmond face?and connor face from youngster to adult is not the same! hahaha
  16. May 30, 2013
    7
    homestead missions are tedious, you have to do the homestead missions in a spesific sequence. the item crafting it's good but send convoys to trade them it's crap.
  17. Jan 6, 2013
    7
    When you open the Assassin's Creed III main menu for the first time, and you had played the whole series, wou will see an enormous difference, but when you open the single player history mode, you can see that Ubisoft made a real copy of all the others games. You can see innovations, of course, but you can't see a huge innovation. It's cool that Connor can climb trees, but it isn't that cool. Same thing when he takes two weapons at the same time, but the good work that you've made with a single hidden blade on the first Assassin's Creed is good enough. But one thing you'll miss is the character. Connor isn't a charismatic guy like Ezio or disciplined like Altaïr. He's so easy to forget that you won't even remember his name after finish that game. I'll say that Assassin's Creed III is one of the best games made by Ubisoft, but almost all of the fans of the Assassin's Creed series are disappointed after buy that game. Expand
  18. Jan 10, 2013
    7
    Grande flop della casa canadese Ubisoft .Rispetto ai suoi predecessori (Assassin's creed 2 e Assassin's creed brotherhood) non tiene il videogiocatore incollato allo schermo, se non per i primi 5 capitoli.Grafica davvero pregevole , come d'altronde il sonoro ,ma questi sono elementi relativamente importanti dato che il gioco è monotono e privo di innovazione.
  19. Jan 16, 2013
    7
    Speaking in great franchises, Assassin's Creed is one of the biggest of them. As the end of an trilogy. It was expected to an fan-double-tastic ending which actually didn't happened. The campaign is very good worked with good characters but not so much worked. If you play the game you'll notice that the protagonist is not so good as Ezio or Altair, but if you think, is really very hard to introduce a new main character to an game like that. Due to the new engine, Assassin's Creed is in one of the best graphics in 2012, the controls kept the same scheme, but a kind of "so boring" you know? In this game climbing is so easy, making no difficult in the game, it's just press a button and go forward. The combat is kind of simple, using only counter-attacks to kill up to 87438975 enemies at time. These and other characteristics that makes us all miss the controls and difficulty of AC2. But still a very good game that worth your money. Expand
  20. Jan 27, 2013
    7
    I cant decide between 7 or 8, but overall a very good game. It has a huge open world and free runnning in this game is WAY better than the its previous. It has more bad than good but its good is good enough. It is very challenging and unique in every way. The missions sometimes feel repetitive and kind of a chore. The cinematics are WAY too much but nicely made. The boat missions are tiring and pretty much a waste of all the fun you will have with the game. The game super exciting at some parts and will leave you with memories. Connor's gameplay is probably the most balanced and best I've played. Hunting is fun and Desmonds missions are a thriller too. The game does seem a little overblown and inconsistint but if you minus the chores in this game, its GREAT! Expand
  21. Jan 22, 2013
    7
    The graphics are beautiful, the game play is also very good, but this game has too much tutorials: you just start playing at all when you are in the half of the game. I didn't like the new character, and also I didn't like the main story.
  22. Jan 26, 2013
    7
    This is a good AS but it lack on what the other games have, the world is big and enjoyable to walk and free run around, but it the story that ruins it yes it good but not the best so far it one of the game you must play but i recommend playing past AS before this one.
  23. Feb 18, 2013
    7
    It's wasn't that a great game, as AC II, which I waited for.Maybe it's interesting to see how some American cities looked like in this game, but for example I didn't feel that awesome atmosphere like in AC II Venice city, or like in AC Brotherhood's Rome city, I missed something in AC III. And ok in very many games action's going in America, and even it's reminded me a bit of Mafia II, so it wasn't that "wow, what amazing game" or something like that.

    Graphic's effects are really nice in this game. History line can't match to AC's II history line, it wasn't intriguing to me at all, like AC II history line.

    If to sum up AC III lost that amazing AC's game soul.
    Expand
  24. May 26, 2013
    7
    Being new to the assassins creed series, I did not find myself lost or missing out by entering during the third installment. This game featured some of the most epic scenes I have experienced in a game. Alot of the battles, especially involving ships, were on a caliber I had never seen before. The combat always kept me interested and entertained, and the world was worthy of exploration. The ability to traverse obstacles and buildings in a "parkour" fashion never gets old and is entertaining enough to make you want to play in its own.
    My largest complaint about the game is that the game has a subtle feeling throughout that it had been rushed. This is most obvious with the "Homestead" which felt like it was building up to something good, but in the end was unrewarding and seemed half-implemented. Its the feeling that I know I could have had a lot more from the game the entire time I was playing it that soured the experience.
    Also, multiplayer is fantastic and made the game worth the price. The mechanics of their pvp are extremely intuitive and are something you will never have played before. The multiplayer of Assassin's Creed deserves more attention and credit than I have seen it get. Good stuff.
    Added: This rating is purely for the base game. The DLC are horrible and extremely overpriced. Dont bother with them.
    Expand
  25. Jun 13, 2014
    7
    this port is unoptimized for the pc with constant fps drops. storytelling is good but is highly linearized .the world is less open ended than the previous game. the plus side of the game is its naval combat .
  26. Mar 26, 2013
    7
    Assassin's creed 3 is a third person stealth/action game set around New York and Boston during the american Revolutionary war.You play as Connor, a native american assassin. The first thing I have to say about this game is that it looks pretty amazing and is presented really well (in most parts). The graphics look amazing in this game, it's a substantial improvement over the previous titles. The animations are also stellar. However though the occasional lag, glitch and flat texture prevent this from being perfect. The story is okay although it isn't quite as good as Assassin's Creed 2. The introduction dragged on for way too long. They did this to give Connor a believable and interesting background but in the end that just fell apart since the character connor wasn't at all that good. He was nowhere near as good as ezio or altair. The only side of connor I ever saw was the butthurt side of him, which quickly grew stale. Most of the other characters weren't at all interesting and weren't fleshed out enough. The missions were also incredibly linear and didn't provide much choice. The story also wasn't long enough for my liking. Plus after every sequence (around 2 hours) the game interrupted with desmond along with a mission I wasn't interested in. It really broke the atmosphere of the game. The ending for Desmond was also sudden and confusing. Although the story overall was decent. Just no enough to match the standard of the previous games. The combat is incredibly easy after a couple of hours you'll get the hang of it. The only enemy that you can't kill with ease in AC3 in the jager. You could kill entire platoons with ease. However though ranking up combos and killing enemies is funand satisfying. The combat is much more streamlined than the previous games. There is a good feature though. Naval missions. You get to engage in naval warfare across the atlantic Although the battle do tend to get repetitive. The platforming in the game has gotten borderline useless since it is much easier to just run as the crow flies. Stealth has also become useless since just killing them outright is much simpler and quicker. Plus after the game there is practically nothing to do except collect collectibles and to tedious missions. The only interesting thing to do is the naval warfare missions.Plus in this game you are going to spend a LOT of time running. The loading screens are also a bit long. The multiplayer is also pretty good. You engage in team deathmatches against opponents. It rewards you for stealth kills. Overall the multiplayer is pretty good. Overall Assassin's creed is a good packages, although there are better games out there. Expand
  27. Mar 28, 2013
    7
    Assassin’s Creed III once again makes you assume the role Desmond fighting against the Templar’s by using the memory of his ancestors. This time you live the memory of Connor, a Native American who finds his village in trouble and will do anything he can to guarantee his villages safety, growing up in the woodlands your skills at hunting and foraging are powerful and will aid you on your path to becoming a powerful assassin.
    The PC version of this game is graphically beautiful especially when there is snow to run around. This game includes graphical settings that allow the users to change the environment, textures and anti-aliasing. These settings allow you to optimise your game to work freely without any lag or disturbances within the game.
    The combat is very similar to the other Assassin’s Creed games in that you can either go full on attacking countering every move or take to the roofs and remove your target from a distance while standing in the shadows. The combat feels freer than the last few games with more abilities and options open to the player but does get tedious after a while. Sometime into the game Connor will start to recruit assassins into the brotherhood that he can control, upgrade or send on missions similar to Assassin’s Creed Revelations however they have different abilities and options.
    This time round your assassin has two main weapons, a brotherhood styled tomahawk and a customised hidden blade that can be detached to be used as a dagger. There are many more weapons throughout the game including darts, swords, spears and guns that can be collected from fallen enemies however the only way to maintain that weapon would be to buy it from one of the many market stores scattered throughout the game. A sort of economy in the game, AC3 has introduced a homestead for the first time, here Connor can invite people into his homestead to increase the amount of products or money he can acquire, for example you can invite some lumberjacks that will grow and harvest trees that you can buy off them and send them to market to gain a profit, this is the new economy that Ubisoft have added to Assassins Creed and I think its brilliant although it can take while to start with you can eventually be rolling in the money.
    Another new thing to the game are boats and ships, now in Revelations you could use a boat to travel across the river but in this you can sail a ship across the seas, just like the homestead you can upgrade your ship, more cannons, men, armour. This game includes sea battles with you matching up with ships firing multiple cannons at each other. Unfortunately sailing the ships isn’t free-roam style, you have to be doing a mission that requires Connor to use them, and something that I hope they change in future games.
    This game is very enjoyable and a slight change from the earlier games however the games replay ability would be once or twice in my opinion with the first time just going through following the story and getting entwined with the characters and the second time trying to 100% it, collecting all the items and finishing all the side quests. I will give Assassin’s Creed III a score of 7 out of 10.
    Expand
  28. Jun 14, 2013
    7
    Assassin's Creed 3 is not an excellent game, it's not great, but it is nonetheless good. In comparison to previous entries this one tries much harder in the implementation of new visuals and mechanics. The fighting system is super fun and much more interesting than other AC's; the naval battles are definitely a plus, and the environments, especially The Frontier, are quite detailed. Ubisoft's interests in portraying accurately the setting and historical background is notable and it's something that deserves respect.
    Where the game falls short, however, is the narrative. Having played through previous titles one expects AC3 to bring a very compelling and satisfying wrap-up to a chapter, but sadly AC3 delivers a rather underwhelming conclusion. Not to mention that the protagonist, Connor, is not the most likeable assassin of the series.
    With all this said, AC3 is not the best of the series, but it's up there. Its conclusion is not what you may have expected, but overall, the game is breathtaking as well as it is fun to play. Ubisoft really needs to go back to the narrative of previous titles in order to bring back that immersive storytelling this series are known for.
    Expand
  29. Jun 19, 2013
    7
    I agree with what other people have said that this game is not as good as the other Assassin's Creed games in the series. The game is mostly fun to play but has many frustrating moments filled with bugs. I have loved all the Assassin's Creed games but this one felt really sloppy at times. I played this game about 6 months after it had been released but it still has a lot of bugs in it which I can't believe they haven't fixed by now. Some of the bugs involve quest triggers not working which means you have to repeat the game from the last checkpoint to get around the bug. All the bugs and frustrations stop this game from getting a really high score. Expand
  30. Jun 30, 2013
    7
    The game itself is fine, fun, enjoyable, lots of stuff to do, nice graphics, redesigned gameplay,etc. The biggest problem with this game is this game suffers of bad optimization and porting. The PC version of this game has an incredible amount of issues: bad performances, glitches everywhere, missions that cannot be completed because of bugs, crashes, the patches have improved the experience a bit, but not that much. To sum up, this game is not bad at all, but the port is awful. Expand
  31. Jul 1, 2013
    7
    I liked this game, but i feel like it could've gone so much farther. Like Connor would've been this nice, down to earth character if only they developed him more. I almost felt like the developers just plugged him into the mix and tried to see if the players would like him. Personally, I did. I just wish they did more with him like they did Ezio. I'm also not the biggest fan of the sailing around, so I'm not exactly thrilled for Assassin's Creed 4. Expand
  32. Aug 26, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. so assassin creed 3 is a game based of the assassin creed franshise that is amazing so i just want to start with the gameplay its kinda hard but the more you progress through the game you figure out a great way how to doge and stuff i trust me once you know how to do that you be invinceable and now ubisoft also added naval combat that is bad-ass but enough about the gameplay onto the story its leaves of the ending of assassin creed revaltion that i wont spoil but you Desmond miles the main protaginest of the story is forced into the animus that lets him revisit the lives of his ancestor and trying to save the world dyeing from a sunray yea and in this game your revisiting colinal times yae you get to see george washington Bajemen Frankilin and your ancestor Connor Kenway but his persinalty is not very likeable and the ending is just like the worse ending ever not having a freaking choice but lets look at the envirement of course you can visit boston and new york and the frontier and every place have great texture and with the new engine anvil they able to pull off tree free running that is great and everything looks beautiful but the ending was very bad for assassin creed fans the ending was a major let down and relay big cliff hanger Expand
  33. Apr 10, 2014
    7
    While the combat is okay and the story in the simulation is fairly interesting, the game just gets fairly difficult at times. I haven't played much of other Assassin's Creed Games, but the animal block mini games are an easy way to get killed if there's more than two or three of them. However, the naval combat is definitely my favorite part of the game, but it's ruined when I'm pulled out for no reason to listen to some boring story. If there was more Naval missions and less out of simulation story the score would've been higher. Expand
  34. Apr 17, 2014
    7
    I played AC1,2, AC brotherhood and revelation in sequence without any other game in between. After 3 hours when i started playing AC 3 , i felt like somethings is missing. After finishing the game i felt like why is this story so **** and why the **** i have to play that naive "connor"??? Where are my Assassins brothers??
    But to be fair, the game mechanics and controls are improved.
    Graphics are ok and the most beautiful things is, you can skip ingame cutscenes now. Expand
  35. Dec 28, 2012
    6
    'I didn't know Zynga made themed boxed sets?' Having been a tragic fanboy of this series since way back at instalment #1, I found myself at a loss as to how to feel about this game. Even from the outset. YES they changed my beloved control setup, and YES the new animus interface is less intuitive than before. But then I wonder how many people would be whining about the lack of innovation in the new title if everything had stayed the same in that regard. I don't think the writing is the problem, because from the outset I LOVED Haytham, and I found myself drawn in to Connor. He may be a bit of a blank slate, but I don't think he is an especially WOODEN one. No. What bugs me about this game didn't really hit me until just before: it's all the mini-games. Granted AC#1 had an exceptionally simple set-up, (triply so if you played it on a console), and the AC2 trilogy addressed this by adding additional things to do, a few mini-games, and some interesting one-time mechanics in the odd side-quest or story mission. I started to get wary of all the extra padding though in Revelations with the new territory mechanic, and the tower-defense game, but THANKFULLY they weren't necessary to the completion of the game. There was still enough assassination to get you through the game without having to worry about it. AC3 though. The mini games aren't mini games anymore. It's as though someone's taken all the content of SPORE and made us play all the stages simultaneously. In Brotherhood or Revelations I could send recruits out on a mission and so long as there were enough of them with enough skill, they would succeed. In AC3 if I send a wagon to market and it gets attacked I have to track it down and defend it or lose the shipment. What happens if I'd rather just stab people than play farmville? Then there's the Naval part of the game. Bloody brilliant, but I need LOTS of money to upgrade that boat of mine which means lots of grinding away at babysitting caravans doesn't it? I could always try my luck at gambling but the use of games common to the era means I can LEARN the rules but they will take a longer time to master well enough to consistently beat the AI and make it viable. So the problem has become one of time... and I don't have time to play Assassin's Creed: Farmville the way it wants to be played. To completion, grinding away my life behind a keyboard playing an imaginary man's dead ancestor. Even with all the extra mechanics the game was fine (I actually loved the new mechanic for opening fast-travel spots), fine that is right up until I had a house and harbour to get up to spec. Then the game slows right down becoming instead of a quest for vengeance, it's a quest to be the richest man in colonial america, in what I can ONLY assume is some ridiculous attempt to pad out an ALREADY long game. I'm assuming at least. The previous titles were all certainly long enough without farmville attached. Imagine if Bioware had decided to pad out ANY of the Mass Effect titles by forcing you to engage in a spotlight stealing mini-game (and I use the prefix MINI loosely in this context) between story missions just so you can survive the next one. The game is simply too complex, and not in any good way. The story is lost under acres of clutter and would be much better served by some simplicity. It's telling that the more complex these games have gotten, the less I have replayed them. I played the first Assassin's creed to death waiting for number 2, and it wasn't levelling up my reputation with the thieves guild or having a guild den in every major port on the Mediterranean that did THAT, it was the context-dependent combat and the flawless execution of a mission that kept me coming back. NOT wanting to see how many wagons full of lumber I could get running back and forth to market (okay maybe there were SOME flags involved...). Expand
  36. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    AC3 is a game that starts out well - you get introduced to a really great character, the storyline progression feels natural and there's some overall sense of direction. Some hours into the game though the "real" protagonist (Connor) is introduced and from that point onwards the game gets progressively worse. Connor is a boring bloke without any kind of personality or purpose. The plot - even the one in the Animus - is bonkers as well with almost every other story mission being a historical event shoehorned in to make Connor play some completely nonsensical part in it.

    I'm afraid there hasn't been an AC game with a good story since AC2. That one had character, interesting locations, a good plot. This one not so much. I'd say if you can get it cheaply it's worth a try but don't expect too much from it.
    Expand
  37. Jan 28, 2013
    6
    Huge dissapointment. Unskippable credits just rolled. These days its either nuke or ufo. Here is the latter. Some great promises from previous installments have been broken. The mysterious story of ancients turned out to be silly and shallow - some answers are best if not told. So the series is over now, completely exhausted and dried out of essentials that made first Assassins Creed establish its name. Every another game in the series was loosing its ground piece by piece, until this quite pathetic conclusion. What about game critics reviews? Game of the year awards? Did we really played the same game, or they got some bonuses together with reviewers copies?
    Maybe its just me, did you guys who live in USA enjoy this somehow more than me?
    Graphics: great. Sound: great. Story: promising at first, but completely failed in the end. Game mechanics: fights are way too easy though animations are impressive, STEALTH IS WITH NO PROPER TOOLS, eagle vision is completely useless, horses are unnecessary, leap of faith is sour becouse Connor cannot see where the spot is. Side missions: too many, not worth your time, you get nothing apart from silly dresses and minor improvements. Some whole branches of side missions should be eliminated by quality dept. (letters, deliveries, crafting, trading) these are trivial and pointless. Testers let through serious bugs, it seems that they were only able to test until New York, where glitches festival starts. Strong points: naval missions.
    Conclusion: for me its just one of these games that make easy money for the publisher. Consists of too many elements that can not make consistent picture. "Shitload of side missions in your face player". Epic finale of the series is not there. No more please. Play first AC and make real reboot, becouse you lost direction. Not the complete failure but still huge dissapointment.
    Expand
  38. Dec 3, 2013
    6
    As Assassin's Creed fan I expected more. This is a huge downgrade from previous games. Extremely buggy and unpolished, even after multiple patches. Combat is streamlined and way too easy. One of the good things is that AC 3 looks stunning, both the combat and landscape.
    The new protagonist is dull and unlikable. The story inside the animus is mediocre but the story outside is extremely
    dumb and lacking. The gameplay has been dumbed down and is worse than Revelations, less smooth. I love the American setting, it's realistic and immersive but cities were not designed well, stealth is frustrating and navigating through cities quickly is a chore more often than not.
    It has many mini-games but most aren't interesting at all except maybe naval combat which was pretty damn good.
    Overall it's a huge let down and it gets only 6/10.
    Expand
  39. Dec 13, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It is far from downright awful, but still lacking something the previous instalments had. On a good rig, graphics look really good. The art is amazing (ships, houses, the whole atmosphere). I think the game is a bit too long for its own good. Trade system is quite forgettable: after a while you've bought everything and It becomes useless. Same goes for crafting. Most of the items you create are meant for trade, so it's all back to square one. There are some bugs here and there: most of them are quite annoying (items not working, losing your whole stock of tools at the beginning of each new sequence). What bothers me most is the drastic change in gameplay. Stealth isn't the best option anymore and once you've been spotted, the best way out is to kill everyone around. Indeed, the AI will chase you on very long distances and the number of places where you can hide has been significantly lowered, to the point that you can't hide on roofs anymore (which makes ground the best option when fleeing...) The beginning of the story was enjoyable, but it drags at the end. The ending is laughable, as bad as it gets: compared to that, mass effect 3's ending was a true diamond... Weapons are unbalanced, most of them are not even worth buying. You don't even see any real difference between them. Armor is gone. The whole sense of progression has been kind of raped. Secondary objectives to reach 100% synchronization add a bit of difficulty but don't reward you for completing them. Just like the other episodes, there's no replayability value, but that was expected. I'm not too much of a multiplayer type of gamer, so I haven't quite tested that yet: so far it looks like brotherhood's and revelation's multiplayer with a few new features.

    - All in all -

    Pros: graphics, naval warfare, part of the story, animations.
    Cons: modified gameplay, unbalanced items, bland side quests, lack of freedom in most missions, ending.
    Expand
  40. Jan 18, 2013
    6
    Amazing graphics but cutscene after cutscene after cutscene after cutscene just destroyed what should have been a great game. Have played and enjoyed all the series but I am forcing myself to carry on to the end of this one. Less then half way there and I don't think I can take another guess what! ya a cutscene. What a pity.
  41. Feb 18, 2013
    6
    BAIT AND SWITCH. I was under the impression that I would be playing a badass Indian assassin bent on killing the English. 3 out of the 12 chapters you play as the Indian assassin's English father. It is ridiculous watching an Englishmen jump from roof top to roof top. The combat is clunky and repetitive. There are two prologues and the training is horrendous. But the world itself is really really beautiful and the music is awesome. If you have the horsepower in your rig and a great soundcard you can really loose yourself in the game. Don't buy for over $20 or you will be disappointed. Expand
  42. Jan 27, 2013
    6
    A game that just doesn't stand up to the hype. Assassin's Creed 3 is slow to start up and drags its tail throughout the rest of the game. The music is highly unremarkable, notably so during segments between missions, where you are supposed to look for the bits and bobbles scattered around (feathers and viewpoints, mostly) as no music plays at all. The dead silence dulls the game and gives it a very tedious feel. Connor is incredibly bland as a character. His motives are very unclear, and his lack of characterization might as well place him as a silent protagonist. A definite step down from the wonderful Ezio (in 2 and Brotherhood).
    The only thing that really saves AC3 is its attention to detail, as it has thousands of location-specific animations and beautiful scenery (as long as you aren't in the underground tunnels, where quite a bit of pixelization and color messups reside).
    Would not recommend. If you want the best game in the series, play Assassin's Creed 2.
    Expand
  43. Feb 16, 2013
    6
    This is a pretty good game. It has some insane quality smoother and much more improved physics with more detailed combat than previous games. The game has a very cinematic feel to it, but the inconsistency is confusing along with the very slow progression.
  44. Nov 24, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. After watching the trailers for this game, it looked incredibly promising. However, Assassin's Creed 3 has many fatal flaws that let it down.
    Although there have been some excellent changes regarding graphics and animations, making combat and free running look so fluid and epic, there actually aren't that many opportunities for a fight during the missions. In fact, the game often wants to restrict you with 'optional objectives' like staying out of open combat and limiting the amount of people you kill. This is extremely immersion breaking and unsatisfying. The stealth missions are also very linear and of you make one mistake then you're instantly desynchronised. However, there are a few awesome bits, which are inconsistent, leading you to a let down of an assassination target.
    The frontier is also a completely new addition to Assassin's Creed 3. It's a lush landscape, with loads of opportunities to climb and hunt animals. Other than that, it's really quite empty.
    Having played every Assassin's Creed game, I've always found the Desmond/Abstergo storyline intriguing and a nice break from delving back through history. Now, they're an even bigger break from playing as Connor. Climbing up a skyscraper, sneaking through a stadium, fighting your way through Abstergo - it's fun and high octane stuff. I can safely say that the Connor storyline is boring, partly because of how many times cutscenes interrupt the gameplay. The whole 'revenge' thing is cliché and I don't think Connor even understands why he is an Assassin, as opposed to Altair and Ezio. The multiplayer is fun, yet quite similar to that of Revelations.
    In conclusion, this game had a lot of potential to deliver a consistently entertaining and awesome experience, but it sadly fails at it with an uninteresting storyline, frustrating linear sequences and boring open world gameplay (ironic, I know).
    Expand
  45. Dec 24, 2012
    6
    Since 2007 I've been following and loyal to the Assassin's Creed series from the release of the first game. I watched the games grow and expand to the triple AAA franchise it is today. When I heard about the Assassins Creed 3 upcoming release, I was really excited. I've watched the E3 game play videos countless times and pre-ordered since day one. However when October 31st came around and my copy of the game came in, I thought that AC3 would definitely win 2012 game of the year, but turned out to be a disappointment. The game has a great introduction and brings the player up to speed about the Assassin and Templar conflict and how Desmonds trying to save the world. You get in the animus and play the tutorial and try out the games many new features and your probably thinking to yourself "wow this is a great game, look at all those new features ubisoft implemented to this new installment!" However once you're done with that the game goes downhill from there. The Pacing is god awful. I understand that you need to set the charters and setting, but the game literally takes you about 4 hours until you can start playing this so called "open-world" game. Speaking of open world, the games so called AnvilNext game engine that claims they can run over 100 NPCS and can" render seamless worlds of nearly infinite possibility, transporting you deep inside America before it was 'America.' From vivid, natural landscapes, to accurate portrayals of life during The American Revolution" is a **** lie. The game is so glitchy it makes Skyrim look like its glitch free, running on 60 FPS. Heres an example. I'm in Boston, one of the main settings in the game and I'm trying to run up a building. the game suffers from so many slowdowns it just doesn't make it enjoyable. To much pop in with NPCS and buildings a whole just ruin the experience. The story is mediocre and not as absorbing as Assassin's Creed II . Conner as a character is satisfactory and is just too serious. Fortunately, the graphics are great, but like I said before, the glitches will turn you off. However the Frontier is great with the new tree climbing and mountain scaling parkour. I find the Frontier the only setting in the game where glitches wont appear as often. All in all this game totally doesn't deserve a 10 nor does it deserve and 0 or a 1. I give this game a 6, soley for Ubisoft's somewhat effort to avoid repetition from previous games and make a jump from the over saturated franchise that it is today. Assassin's Creed III is sloppy, unpolished and rushed product that had so much potential. Expand
  46. Oct 22, 2013
    6
    Ok, so, first of all, this was one of the most expected games in 2012. Everyone expected incredible graphics, amazing storyline, fighting mechanics, and other worth-buying innovations. They achieved the graphics, because they are incredible. The fighting mechanics are good too. The storyline- Mehh.
    I didn't enjoyed a lot playing it. I mean, it's not that I hate it or nothing, but, I guess
    it wasn't something out of this world. I give it a 6. Expand
  47. Dec 7, 2012
    6
    I love the Assassin's Creed series, but this game was like a huge kick in the balls for me. I was extremely excited when I heard they were (finally) moving Assassin's Creed to America but I expected much more. After doing absolutely nothing to improve the game from Brotherhood to Revelations they decided to keep everything they did before except smaller buildings and a larger free-roam map. The thing that really pissed me off was the crappiest intro known to man. If you want to know exactly how to make people not want to play your game. Make the intro on a boat while teaching them to do everything they learn by playing the game anyways. Hats off to the creators of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Hats back on (and a few boo's) to the creators of Assassin's Creed 3. Expand
  48. Dec 4, 2012
    6
    This game left me with the mixed feelings. From one side we've got gorgeous, detailed word, with thoroughly made "living" characters, extraordinary level of animation (for protagonist and NPC alike), high standards of visual image. From the other side we got awful game: lame arcade gameplay, linear level design for missions, zero replayability. One thing I keep thinking while playing, that developers had so many ideas for this game - they never had time to fully complete ANY. The game also very NOT-friendly for users. There is almost no in-game tutorial, text tutorial in "animus database" is almost useless. Sometimes I've needed much more time to understand what developers want from me to complete a mission, rather than fulfilling a task itself. Worst interface (PC version) I've seen for years - another major thing, that spoiled my experience. Expand
  49. Dec 10, 2012
    6
    Pros -Great atmosphere and history -Amazing and humorous detail in the database -Fun combat -Incredible Naval Battles Cons -BORINGLY SLOW beginning of the game, spend 4+ hours as a different character and the boy version of Connor doing stupid fetch quests -Crap game economy, can go throughout the game without buying a thing -Heavy reliance on cutscenes, most of which are slow -Terrible replacement of building running with tree running, no longer fun to run atop of rooftops, because guards spot and kill you instantly
    -Relatively Bad U.I
    -TERRIBLE gun/throwing weapon controls

    Overall, AC3 is a huge letdown in the AC series, and a disappointment to the stealth genre
    Expand
  50. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Not sure if actually the worst or the best of the series. Maybe not the worst, AC1 was (because it feels like a test, for example comparing Portal 1 with 2). It was fun and different from the previous games, but I was missing something, maybe because it doesn't play in Italy and the annoying language. The atmosphere was pretty cool though. After I completed the second level on the ocean, heard the music and saw the title, I thought it's gonna be an awesome adventure, but I got dissappointed. Why in the hell would you wanna be Haytham for 4 Sequences (If that's right)? Considering the game won't have any DLC's with story for Connor, the last 8 sequences are not really much for a completely new assassin. They kinda overdid the beginning and made it much longer than it should've be. Some may be good with it, but they should've worked with a more advanced story when it really begins, not to mention the missions are kinda dull, the ending for desmond was literally the "end of the world". I'm not disappointed nor excited about the game. I think I'll leave it with a 6. Expand
  51. Dec 25, 2012
    6
    The game was lots of fun to play, but still falls short of it's predecessor, AC2, despite turning things around a bit from the downward spiral that was Brotherhood and Revelations. While it removes the poorly instated novelties that seemed there for only for the sake of novelty, it's not the game I wish it was. The overhaul of the combat mechanics was refreshing, and the open world movement seems more fluid now, but the team cannot seem to build controls that are fully functional with a keyboard mouse interface. The mouse-look movement was sporadic and inconsistent, and the lack of customization, and keys that are used for more than one function are consistent with a poorly ported console title.

    The story was garbage, and obviously pandering to a patriotic U.S. market. It could have been a beautiful tragedy of the day the Assassins started to lose their fight, moving them to where they are today. Instead it is drivel about one man almost single handedly building the new world and killing elk.
    Expand
  52. Dec 28, 2012
    6
    Ubisoft's 'Assassin's Creed III' marks the end of a saga of heroism, bloodshed and absolute epicness. However, the game has left a sour taste in my mouth as the change in controls, layout and overall experience has shaken me. I found it difficult to combat my enemies without being punched in the face everytime i countered or blocked which would decrease my health. I also found that the bugs and glitches of previous games had not yet been fixed such as the cape dissappearing into the horse your riding, or being blocked by invisible walls or just the occassional **** up in controls leading you to a 500ft plunge off a church building. The game's story is really interesting with the tale of colonized America and a native taking the role of an assassin to hunt his father and restore equality to America. The historical relevance and gameplay makes the experience feel real and interesting, however it is bogged down by repeditive cutscenes and small amount of gameplay. The maps are too large leading to confusion and more bugs and the shops are not plentiful. There is very little customization and the game fails to make you feel individual as a master assassin by not allowing this. Overall though, the game delivers a playable and mildly enjoyable campaign which im sure i will, no doubt, sit on my couch, play it through once missing all the challenges because I can't be stuffed and then recycle it for store credit at my nearest JB-HI FI. Expand
  53. Jan 3, 2013
    6
    As a hardcore Assassin's Creed fan, this game was a huge disappointment compared to the others. The story-line in this game is alright, and the naval combat is quite good, however many things from the other Assassin's Creed games have been dumbed down, or completely taken out. This game almost felt completely different compared to the others.
  54. Feb 5, 2013
    6
    Besides Brotherhood on the PSP, this was my first Assassin's Creed game. My friends who owned it on Xbox a month earlier continually talked about it. Hopeful for its success, I decided to pick a copy up. The game itself is gorgeous and fairly large (in comparison to my Brotherhood experience). However by the end of the game, I was beginning to hate Desmond, Connor, and Washington. Their personalities got on me and I felt like it wasn't even worth it to progress through the story. Also, the story itself is extremely short, as I completed it and all the homestead missions in 21 hours, not even in a rush. Overall, this would be a good rent due to its extremely short plot, but definitely left me with an experience to remember. Expand
  55. Mar 2, 2014
    6
    Almost a great game. But there are more than a couple of things in the game which prevent it from being as good as it should. The premise was always going to be sound. AC2 was an amazing game but AC3 does not build on it strongly enough and adds tedium and irritation to the gameplay by trying to do too much superficially. Colonial America doesn't seem as vibrant or immersive or real as AC2's Renaissance Europe. unfortunately, AC3 adds a lot of newer features to the game play which sometimes makes playing it tedious. the wandering around in the undergrounds beneath the cities just to find the fast travel points can be so frustratingly tedious it's more fun watching paint dry (at least then you can inhale the fumes ...) . The AI detection system is also sometimes wonky but more often than not, the detection rate can be frustrating (and sometimes it seems the guards also attack for no real reason even when you are no where near a restricted zone). The story-line and narrative isn't wholly terrible but it's not great either (at least no where near AC2). Unlike AC2 which gives a sense of character progression (without really engaging any RPG-like schemes - eg. ungrading armor/weapons, there isn't really a sense of character progression this time around). the crafting/economy/trading concept was interesting but mostly superficial. ultimately, it's sad that the most engaging gameplay (for me at least) in this installation of the Assassin's Creed franchise were the naval/sea battles. Expand
  56. Apr 14, 2013
    6
    I love the story, the characters, the world they have created of the colonies is wonderful... But it appears they have bitten off more than they can chew at ubisoft. The game play is mediocre at best, and buggy at worst. I usually aim to get completion of these games, but I found myself just barreling through to get the story, and then uninstalling once it was complete. The fact of the matter is the bugs over ride the fun in the game and just make much of it a chore to complete. It feels as though this game could have used another 6 months in development just getting the issues worked out. Sad.
    I want to love it, but its just so...... meh.
    I can only hope ubisoft reworks their game play mechanics for the next version.
    Expand
  57. Apr 25, 2013
    6
    This game could be a 9/10 instead my best rating for it is6 and that's because i am a fan of AC games.
    I liked the story and the graphic but these issues with lag in Boston or AI being retarded ruined it for me.
  58. May 31, 2013
    6
    In development for many years, it is apparent that the team put in much effort into the game. The scenery in the game is gorgeous, the voice acting is amazing and the animations are fantastic. However, by putting so much into the game, it starts to sink under because of its own weight. The tutorial/intro was hitting upwards of 2 to 3 hours before it ended. An over-all arching goal doesn't even come up until this time either. One could say that this 3 hour mark of absolutely nothing happening is because of narrative pacing and storytelling, but the story is just another one of good vs. evil. After a long-while of running around doing jobs for people I realized just how boring the game got. After the atrociously long intro, the game devolves into, killing a high value target, killing some random people or killing people from your ship. This quickly turns monotonous and anti-fun. Now however, the game is fairly cheap, and it would give you an extreme amount of game time; if repetitive not game time, for your money Expand
  59. Jan 23, 2014
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Assassins Creed III is a game I haven't been longing to play. The first and second game in the franchise took me by storm and fulfilled my gaming experience. This game however is a complete different story!

    Story wise this game is awesome and still stands by the Assassins Creed genre of History and Religion mixed with a little Fiction. However the game play itself is terrible terrible terrible. I even bought the game almost 2 years after release and still it's buggy as freaking hell, I dare say even worse than Fallout: New Vegas. Glitch after glitch and bug after bug. Some examples are the out of sync lip sync, cuts in the cut scenes where a lot of the dialog is lost, people vanishing in to thin air and appearing from nowhere, rag doll effect on corpses that fly away or twitch and spaz out, random people doing "acrobatics" in the middle of the street (actually worth seeing since it made me laugh out loud) and the annoying minor glitches that ruin some missions completely and just makes you so mad that you want to shove a blade in some random settler, witch is of course not possible.

    The thing that bugs me the most is a minor thing. The person you play as can't walk up stair in a normal manner. It just looks weird as hell. If I'd try it I would fall on my ass.

    Still the good things are that everything is beautiful, the landscape, graphics and the story but that can't help the terrible game play.
    Expand
  60. Jul 5, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Eu esperava muito mais desse Assassin's, o trailer dele foi extremamente bem feito, porque o jogo na minha opinião foi um fracasso. História ruim, o Connor, que era o principal não era um bom assassino, ele era burro e esquentado, coisa que um assassino não deve ser, ele era habilidoso só. Mas enfim, minha nota essa pela decepção mesmo, eu esperava muito mais. Expand
  61. Nov 16, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Unfortunately, this is the first Assassin's Creed game that I wasn't fully enjoying the whole time and frankly, found many passages to be boring and annoying. First of all, Haytham Kenway was an AWESOME character. Cunning, intelligent, sophisticated. Switching to that angry kid in the middle of the game was very disappointing. The story didn't make much sense to me either. Let me explain. Ezio, for example, had a motive, the people he was after killed his family. This douchebag? He just goes around killing templars that are actually doing GOOD things and haven't done anything that much wrong, helping people that are manipulating him and are the same, if not worse, than the Templars he's after. Killing his own father tops that all off. Sure, I get it, Connor is an assassin and they are Templars. But is he really that dumb that he can't see the relativity of the situation? He's helping people with certain interests kill people with different interests, but all he seems to see is "good" and "bad", not even trying to think about what he's doing and what a ridiculous little pawn he is. The idiocy of Connor really ruined the game for me.

    Lets sum this up, a beautiful living world, fun combat, countless hours of gameplay.... all ruined by having to play as a complete fool who kills random people that he shouldn't care about and doesn't even know why. I'm still giving this game a solid 6, because it did bring some innovation to the already amazing AC franchise gameplay wise (naval combat, for example), but Connor and the story were an enormous let down (and the boring linear missions).
    Expand
  62. Nov 24, 2013
    6
    Expected a lot more from Ubisoft, in particular this one, since its the latest installment after Ezio's trilogy. The graphics won't put you down since they are above par, however the story and gameplay will. The mechanics are worth mentioning. Not too bad, but, could have been a lot better.
  63. Feb 13, 2014
    6
    The game is not bad but it's not optimized well and there are lots of bugs and stuff. Otherwise the game is fun, it has an interesting story and a lot things to do like hunting, selling stuff, crafting.
    It's not bad but if there were no bugs it would be best.
  64. Sep 2, 2014
    6
    AC III is the weakest title in the series, the story is ok, but not really involving like the one in AC III.
    Connor is not exactly the best protagonist, he is a little empty and not very convincing, but it's a great game, nice graphics, good soundtrack.
    this is the first time i played an assassin's creed game and run to beat the game, without doing any side missions.
    AC III is a good
    title but is dull and lazy, ubisoft have to do better than that to keep the franchise growing Expand
  65. Dec 22, 2012
    5
    This game started out so promising. I really enjoyed the storytelling in the beginning of the game. I think that Haythum is a much better character and a much better actor. Then middle of the game flounders along and never seems to gain any traction. The ending is terrible.

    All the side missions, crafting, trading, and such do very little to enhance the game. Worse yet you have to
    finish or nearly finish the game before you can really see that stuff to the end. What's the point? Once the story is over I'm done. I'm not going to hang out in the frontier and craft sewing thread and buttons... Pretty disappointing. I thought Revelations was the series low but now I think AC3 has out done it. Expand
  66. CBZ
    Nov 24, 2012
    5
    Big fan of the series, I have played and replayed all the AC games. I have to say I am VERY DISAPPOINTED with this game so far. To be fair, I have to say that I'm at the beginning of the story but there are already so many things that bother me that take all the fun away and playing feels like a chore. The boat trip to arrive to america is so irrelevant, I just cant understand why they included it__1__ The mechanics have changed to worse, the controls have been simplified (probably to make it easier for a controller). Basically everything you need to do is done with the "E" key. __2__ there are cutscenes everywhere, and take all the immersion away. At this rate, on the next AC game you will have a cutscene every time you take out the sword.__3__ Boston (i havent seen NY but I imagine it will be similar) has wide streets and its almost impossible to reach your destination climbing and jumping through the city's roofs. Basically the developers took AC's essence and wiped they butts with it.__3__Graphics are on par with previous releases, good enough.__4__I cant say much about the Multiplayer since there are not enough players to even start a game. Expand
  67. Nov 27, 2012
    5
    What could have been the best game of the year became one of the biggest disappointments I have had to play, however not everything is gray. However, there are so much talk about that i don't know where to start.

    I think I'll start with the general history and development.
    The game starts off really slow and boring with a tutorial about 4 hours teaching you basic things you probably
    already know. All that to reach the '' Memory 5'' starts to catch up. However it will still be yawn-worthy until you reach '' Memory 8''.

    The unfortunate thing is that this game ends with the same level of mediocrity as Mass Effect 3, but even worse with a final doubly pathetic, confusing and completely incoherent generating more questions than clarifying them.
    I think the ending was really bad, it seems as if the writers of this game were all in a hurry and let they let their imagination run wild, and this unforgivable disaster emerged. Another problem, they barely talk about Lucy in this game, despite working for the templars. I think what happened to her, deserved a better explanation.
    Connor is not a bad character but not be quite interesting as it was Ezio and Altair. I think Haytham Kenway should have been the main character of this game instead of Connor.

    The game is full of glitches and technical errors, some very basic and others unforgettable, the weapon menu interface does not work very well and you have to constantly re-equip what you want to use because it switches to other weapons by itself, the map is bugged and it will usually change the position you marked in the map.
    Climb a tree to make the eagle eye can be deadly because climbing is easy but once you want to go down Connor sometimes fails when trying to grab onto the branches causing the fall and died instantly.
    The horses get stuck in the ground at times, riding a horse through the woods can be very frustrating because the controls do not respond at all well.
    Also, people and horses sometimes disappear in front of you for no reason
    Sometimes trying to escape from the guards in a town can be difficult because Connor tries climbs the first thing that crosses instead of running.
    Muskets sometimes do not work or can't be grabbed. The music leaves much to be desired, the lack of Jesper Kyd is just remarkable in this release.

    The only thing that amazes is the visuals and graphic, it looks beautiful but this is not enough.
    The naval battles are entertaining, same with hunting animals, but only for a while.

    The Multiplayer was interesting until they decided to add micro-transactions, so you will always be at a disadvantage if you don't spend real money in ''Erudito Coins''. An absolute disgrace that totally kills the competivity in this game.

    This is a big shame. I am a fan of AC since its first release and it was always one of my favorite franchises but this installment damaged its name and reputation forever
    Never have I felt such sadness and anger at the same time since Mass Effect 3. And to think I spent $ 80 dollars for this.

    The hype has claimed another victim. I wish I could go back in time and prevent myself from spending this big amount of money in this mess.

    I could go on all day because there are so many more problems that i haven't mentioned.
    Not to mention that in this game i feel like an errand boy instead of an assassin.
    Like someone said in one of these reviews, this should called ''Errand's Boy Creed'' instead of ''Assassin's Creed''.
    Expand
  68. Aug 15, 2013
    5
    This game bloody sucks, worst Assassin's Creed game and just bloody poor design overall.. The save system as with all the other is crap. In most of the missions you have to complete EVERYTHING, including the bonus synchronization tasks, in one go...in other words if you mess up just once you have to start the mission from the very beginning no matter how close you were to completing it, THAT BLOWS. This game is also segmented more than the others, you keep getting cut back and forth between free roam and cut scene a lot which makes the flow disjointed and jerky. Also, the geometry and collision detection sucks as you will find yourself constantly getting stuck on the ground, or even things you're supposed to be able to climb. Horses get stuck in corners A LOT. Lots of random new game mechanics pop up at times too making gameplay feel inconsistent, things like quicktime events that all use different mechanics and that crap. As for sound and visuals and story this has all the Assassin Creed trappings except for the mechanics and gameplay..they suck. Mission save points suck, we need manual save, and the whole game interface, that animus layout interface sucks, it has ALWAYS sucked. Also, this game doesn't give you a clear idea of what you're supposed to do. Sometime you have NO idea what is supposed to be done. Other times they flash directions in the middle of the event as it's happening but it's too fast to read them so what to do when can be very confusing at times. This is a piss poor mess of bad gameplay, interface, clarity, saving. If it doesn't have to do with the visual appearance, sound, or story then it sucks. Expand
  69. Nov 24, 2012
    5
    The good: Exceptional game design and game mechanics. Far better than the repetitive drawl of previous AC games. The RPG and open world elements are fantastic and the character animations and facial expressions are very professional and well executed. From the 30 minute credit sequence at the end, you can tell that a lot went into this game.

    The Bad: Story. The AC series suffers from
    the same issues with plot that Mass Effect had. It was too ambitious for it's own good and the creative team could not handle how large the universe became after 5 games, novels, tie-in short films (AC: Embers) and others. (Begin spoilers) There are a number of plot holes that are difficult to ignore. The brotherhood is global right? Where are they when Desmond's story is being told? If he's so important why is he helped by only 3 people? Ont he same note, Achilles "let the brotherhood decay". Where were the international assassins that could help rebuild it? It seems like the brotherhood is poorly organized and has not central base of operations. This is the only explanation.

    What do the Templars want with the pieces of Eden if they just want the world to end? They should just find a bunker , hoard the power sources and let it happens. Their motives are a unclear as the Assassins. Finally, the ending was as disappointing and confusing as Mass Effect's. Desmond just dies and Juno drops a quick line that signals a potential sequel. That's it.

    I really wish I could give this game a positive rating, but the plot was butchered due to overly ambitious writers.
    Expand
  70. Jan 5, 2013
    5
    As an AC fan this one has turned out as a disappointment. Worst enemy AI hands down: Whether it's having an enemy go into full alert mode while I'm still down the road approaching from behind or having them give up chasing me the moment I run behind a tree 2 feet away, the enemy AI is terrible/buggy, and really hurts the immersion factor of the game. Story cuts all over the place:
    It's seems it was more important to the creators to stick Connor into every significant moment from 18th century American history and then cram them all into a game, rather than have a cohesive well developed story. The pace is terrible and motives or rationalisations of the characters are quite poor. Unfortunate that this was the conclusion to Desmond's story.

    Undeveloped game elements:
    First AC game where I couldn't stand completing all the side objectives. At certain points in the game you'll click into your map only to find it littered with confusing icons, that, if you had never played an AC game before, you'd have no idea what was going on. Having owned and played every AC game myself, I was still confused. The assassination side missions and delivery missions are so trivial and pointless, their only purpose seems to purpose is to get you to run across the map a couple of times. Less would have been so much more in this case. Why put all these side elements into the game at all if they're just going to be trivial and pointless - just leave them out!

    So many bugs...
    Want to weapon steal a sword in combat, only to find that you can't put it down and this ugly sword is attached to you for the rest of the game? Ever been surrounded by 5 enemies only to find your gun has randomly disappeared completely? Enjoy seeing dying enemies bizarrely squashed flat and then sucked into the vacuum of space? This game does that and so much more...

    Ultimately, this game is aesthetically looks great. The artistic design is spot on Connor's movement throughout the world is slick. Unfortunately everything else seems rushed, sloppy or underdeveloped and unpolished. It is these elements that are omnipresent with the game that ultimately kills what should have been the most innovative AC to date. Terribly Unfortunate.
    Expand
  71. Dec 1, 2012
    5
    I have been eagerly waiting for this game for a year. But it seems that the game hasn't lived up to the roaring expectations. It's just another installment in the series which went wrong since Revelations. The same story as Revelations - side missions are boring and dull, nothing much to do and the story is kind of dull. And yes, one thing I found peculiar was ''WHERE THE HELL ARE THE SHOPS?". No, seriously, where were they. Also WANTED POSTERS were almost nil. And another depressing thing is the time spent in the frontier which is boring.
    The graphics are beautiful and the characters are well designed. The voice overs look extraordinary and the scenic beauty are worth a while.
    But the missions are mundane and there is nothing to do while you roam except hunting and looting the cargo.
    Please UBISOFT, have you forgotten what made Assassin's Creed a great franchise?
    Expand
  72. May 24, 2014
    5
    Assassin's Creed 3 is a pretty disappointing game. I find that the game lacks focus and places too much emphasis on pointless side missions, which are often tedious and without any depth or background story to them. I'm also beginning to get tired of seeing games implement collectible quests, as if developers think they're a good substitute for proper side missions (they're not).

    Not
    only has mission design been degraded, but so has the interface. Whether you're playing on KB and mouse or controller, navigating the menus is nothing short of tedious. It seems the devs have decided that flashy menus are more important than functionality. Having to navigate more sub-menus upon more sub-menus is not quick and easy. Neither is slowly scrolling through the weapon wheel in the middle of combat. Why they decided to change all this is beyond me.

    Environments are also very disappointing. I understand that devs have to abide by the generally boring architecture of 1770's America, but I've never explored an Assassin's creed city as empty, dull and full of nothing as Boston and New York (which are virtually the same). The frontier is no better. Sure it's large, but that only serves to make travelling from one point to another more boring and tedious than readng Shakespeare. I could go on about the game's flaws, but there'd be too many to list. At least the game has fairly decent visuals and a nice soundtrack, so there's that.
    Expand
  73. Nov 24, 2012
    5
    I dont know what happened. Did they just dumbed down one of the most popular franchises of all time? I am a huge AC nut. I've played all of the AC titles including the NDS AND smartphone games, and have played through AC1 3 times, AC2 4 times and AC:Brotherhood 3 times. I love the franchise, despite what felt was becoming more of a CoD-scheme of release since AC2: one game/year with the same engine and pretty much the same mechanics. When they announced that AC3 was coming and this time with an enhanced engine and different gameplay mechanics I was pumped. How wrong I was. Firstly, the technical issues. I played the PC version, a version which has been heralded as a 'well-made port' from the console version. WHAT A LOAD OF BS. My PC, which runs Crysis 2 on high with decent framerates and all the AC games on 60fps+, cannot even run AC3 properly, with fps dropping below 20fps. I tried lowering the resolution to a dismal 800 x 600. No change to the fps. I tweaked the ini file and my driver settings (which have been updated to the latest version, thank you very much). Still the same. For review purposes, I gave up on the PC version and played the 360 version. And guess what? This is NOT AC anymore. There are so many technical glitches and bugs that it just felt like a joke at times. The emphasis on the frontier woods and smaller 'cities' means less roofs to stalk and less exploration. They basically just dumbed down the a critical element of the franchise (CITIES) and encouraged players to explore the repetitive, derivative wilderness to kill animals. Dont get me wrong. There are still a lot of things and missions to do in the cities but overall, its a huge step down from previous games. The combat...my God, why WHY did they have to change the combat mechanics???!!! It was perfect and exhilarating before - AC1: it was too easy, AC2: they improved it, made it awesome, AC:Brotherhood: Even more refining, now brilliant, and finally, AC: Revelation: they perfected it. In AC3, the combat just felt so unfluid and felt so disjointed at times that it wasn't as fun as previous times. The controls are different too and shooting is such a pain in the ass that you'll be using the tomahawk and Assassin blade in 99% of cases. The naval combat is cool and is praised by critics as a strong point but its basically more of a visual fest than actual side game. We've all done it before in previous AC games using carts and war machines instead of ships. Its the same fair and at times its linear as hell. Visually, its good. But seriously, this is the SAME ENGINE as the previous AC titles despite Ubisoft promoting it as a revolutionary new engine. It looks the same as AC2 but with more intricate texturing and dynamic shadows. Thats pretty much it. Just like how IW market CoD sequels as having enhanced engines, for AC3, its basically the same visual fair as the previous titles so dont expect anytime too fancy. Overall, whether you like AC3 depends on you: If you're a big AC nut like me, you'll notice the changes & glitches, cut yourself and curse Ubisoft for it all but still play the crap out of it anyway. At its core, AC3 remains moderately true to its mechanics with a decent plot and ends Desmond's tale. Oh yea thats right, the ending. Its almost as bad as Mass Effect 3's ending so all I can say is...prepare yourself. As for those who haven't played AC titles or only played them sparingly, you'll definitely love this game. The PC version is definitely the superior version with highly noticeable graphical enhancements as well as patches for the niggles that the console version had been experiences. Ultimately, if you do have a console, pick AC3 up for that as the PC version is, despite its bells and whistles, a very VERY poorly optimized console port that I wont continue to play until Ubisoft releases a patch to fix the issue. Seriously guys, even the PC version of Dark Souls, a game that basically spits PC gamers in the face with a lack of graphical options, had better optimization. In the end, AC3 felt like a rushed job with poor design decisions that would polarize gamers and will leave fans of the franchise disappointed. The endin Expand
  74. Mar 21, 2013
    5
    this game is really really bad dont buy it papapapapapapapapapapapappapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapappapapapapapapapapapapapapapapappapapapapapa
  75. Apr 5, 2014
    5
    What the hell was Ubisoft thinking when they made this game? Every game in the series thus far has been enjoyable despite their flaws, and if you were given an objective, you were usually given the means to actually do that objective. It seems that in this one, they've decided to completely forgo giving you ANY of the slightest conveniences for getting a 100% synch, MAYBE adding in a distant haystack or something during missions that require stealth. I don't think they quite understood that difficulty also has to be fun. It seems like they'd rather have you constantly replay the same mission with poorly-placed checkpoints until you simply go insane and destroy your computer.

    Now that I've finished that little rant, on to more "important" issues with the game, like its ABSURD amount of glitches. It feels like every time Connor actually manages to shimmy and waddle to the place I want him to, I find disappearing people, things stuck in walls, floating objects, etc. It really feels like I'm playing an early beta build or something. It's just not excusable. In addition to all of this, as I've pointed out before, the already somewhat lacking stealth system found in previous games in the series has been even further reduced when you really need it. Coupled with the fact that guards now have sharper vision and alertness than eagles (Except for the times when they don't seem to see ANYTHING, which is rare), this really gets to be a frustrating problem.

    I could go on and on about how utterly flawed the game is, but I'm tired, I'm frustrated, and I'd really like to stop thinking about all of these flaws. So lets look at the positives of this game: It looks breathtakingly beautiful, and it's pretty obvious that a lot of attention to detail was given to visuals. Every environment, every animation, every creature... it all looks very believable. Until, that is, you notice that bear that got stuck in a rock and can't do anything about it but spasm.
    And... well, that's pretty much all I found enjoyable.
    Expand
  76. Mar 24, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This game could be called "how to ruin a good game with cinematics, loadings times, and s***ty controls" !
    The main scenario is full of cinematics, we're starting to get used to it, but AC3 does too much you find the bad guy, short cinematic to show him starting to escape, you chase him for 1 min, short cinematic showing how you catch him and get hurt, you play for 30sec walking straight forward very slowly (you're hurt), short cinematic again.... arghhhh I wanna play not just keep a finger on the move forward button between 2 videos !
    If you add that there is a short (at least with a ssd) loading time between every game sequence and every cinematic.... you'll understand why they've spent some time on making an interactive loading screen, it's because it's the screen you'll remeber the most.
    Add controls where a single button is used for 5 different actions, and a free run mode making it impossible to run withour climbing on everything that comes near you, and you'll rage... a lot.
    It's a shame because the story is quite interesting (except the parts in the present), the maps are full of details and life, graphics are good... it had a good base.
    Expand
  77. Jan 4, 2013
    5
    Game is rather dull and the character is not as charismatic as Ezio. Most of the time you will spend on the ground since there are not many rooftops to run on. The tree climbing is pretty linear compared to buildings... This is probably the most boring AC game I played so far. I uninstalled the game half way and watched the crappy ending on Youtube.
  78. Nov 25, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was so excited for the third installment of the Assassin's Creed franchise, needless to say, I was severely disappointed. Connor is the most bland character, Altair was a jerk at first, selfish ad reckless, Ezio was always a lovable character for me; but Connor is the most selfish, uninteresting ass I have ever played. I hated him. He has almost no story, and what there is is hardly interesting.
    The plot was full of holes, when he joins the brotherhood and talks to Achilles, Achilles tells him "You need to kill all of them, even your father." At no point prior to this did Connor even mention that he was the son of Hathan Kenway. The controls are awful too, the devs seem to have wanted to appeal to the casual gamers far too much and cut out more than half of the controls present in previous AC games. This makes the gameplay, especially the fighting, a constant button mashing, hack'n'slash. No strategy behind "Attack here, this one's guard is down, get him now, block this one" etc. It's just "Left Click Left Click Left Click Left Click".

    The missions as well, a lot of the missions are escort type missions with very little combat in between. The one which most recently made me rage quit the game involved me telling rebels when to shoot at the red coats, but the game strapped me to a horse who had a turn radius of a taxing Boeing 747. It was constantly jumping over fences and causing me to take nearly 4x the amount of time I would have had I been allowed to run on foot.

    All in all, I think you should buy one of the older AC games, far superior. I don't think I'll be buying AC4 if they ever release one.
    Expand
  79. Jan 2, 2013
    5
    I really hope Ubisoft will take note of the feedback this game receives. It would be a big shame if they didn't do a better job on the next one, because this is one the best gaming franchises ever made and, even after almost putting my boot through the PC display plenty of times while cursing in ways I didn't know I could, I still enjoyed it and it's still Assassin's Creed.
    Unfortunately,
    it's a fine example of a hunt for profit by doing an "almost half-assed" job, to quote PC Gamer, by making some bad decisions like releasing it with a LOT of glitches and bugs (which prevent 100% completion!!!), having some totally cryptic and counter-intuitive mission design (as in: knowing what you need to do), and bloating it with extra features that are out of context and sometimes ruin the experience. But then, what else is new. It seems we're living in an age where the big companies are either happy with the initial money they make for some unfinished, crap quality products, or are putting stuff out there knowing that it's unfinished, because people will still buy it, and when the patches start rolling out to make the game what it should have been, people are all like "oh thank you!". And I'm not talking about the studios, we should know better than attacking them: it's a huge industry and it's full of sharks. But I digress.
    Here are my personal opinions:

    PROS: - the naval battles - the underground (although it's very uneventful, it still feels so cool) - the upgraded fighting mechanics
    CONS:
    - setting is boring
    - Connor is boring
    - optional objectives are often hard to read in all the commotion and I couldn't find a way to review them after the pop-up fades, besides restarting the checkpoint all over again
    - optional objectives vary from "accidentally did it" to "lost 2h retrying it 27 times and I want to die now"
    STUPID AND MORONIC (yes, I'm frustrated):
    - chasing those f***ing pages
    - losing control of the camera when enemy ships are spotted often made me crash into rocks/ships/whatever and restart the whole damn thing OR interrupted a shot just when I was about to fire
    Expand
  80. Mar 19, 2013
    5
    I've played every AC, and this is by far the worst AC of them all. The Desmond story is OK, I actually enjoyed playing a bit more as him. However, the Connor story just sucked. Connor is an idiot who keeps making stupid decisions while he actually thinks he's doing it right. The American Civil War looked like an exciting setting, but it failed, a lot. 1/3rd of your time you will be in a forest called Frontier, a depleted forest. I was missing the awesomeness of Florence, Rome, Istanbul, Venice, Acre, etc etc already as soon as I entered this area. I don't want to spoil the story for you, but it ends with a major cliff hanger. All that comes with glitches and bugs, the useal side missions that are boring and repetative and the fact they got rid of some nice weapons and techniques (in both climbing & fighting) from previous AC's. Expand
  81. May 24, 2013
    5
    This isn't really as good as the other ones, because of the main character and the story, but the inovations that they added were good for the most part. Not as good as the otheres but still fun and DAT multiplayer is pretty damn good.
  82. Nov 23, 2012
    5
    if you are not an assassins creed fan boy I think this game want change your mind
    but you have do give credit to the game for the great effort and the big story behind it.
    the graphics are not bad so is the music and the little details are great.
    i think if you liked Previous assassins creed you will enjoy this one the most .
  83. Nov 29, 2012
    5
    I have to give a 5 score to the AC3,if im not a fun of AC series i may give 0.It's terrible,really.I dont know whether the ubi did it for PC or not,see the lockpick system.All the experience gives me the fact that UBI only concerns about the results on console.
  84. Dec 3, 2012
    5
    I couldn't get over the first frontier mission in Lexington. I didn't get to the Connor part, they killed my motivation well before that...I was so bored by the city of Boston...no side quest, no shop, no money, nothing to do outside the story. Where are the RPG elements in AC anymore ? The new fighting engine is simpler, but the weapon switching is a mess. I see this game as a dump down version, for the little kids of 15-16 who never played AC before. But for those who did played AC before, it's just another bad follow up since AC2. They just keep breaking it, further and further. When you dilute your Kool-aid too much, there is a point when it doesn't taste like kool-aid anymore...AC 3 feels just like that. Expand
  85. Dec 11, 2012
    5
    I really don't recommend buying this game full price, maybe buying cheaper, but for $ 60,00, it isn't worth this price. The game is unfinished, they wasted too much time on the engine and graphics, so there wasn't money and time left for adding, you know? Gameplay. The missions are linear, scripted, short, and unchallenging, even Assassins creed I is better than this game and I hated Assassins Creed I. The side activities are pointless, I got bored very quickly when I discovered that most side missions required of me to watch two or more loading screens, walk half the map to just beat a random dude or to do a simple fetch quest to some generic NPC. The game is just a big interactive movie, the story is decent, but is no way as good as assssin's creed II . I really don't understand, why Ubisoft want to turn all their games into interactive movies. Do you like interactive movies? Buy Walking dead instead (the story is way better and its cheaper too). Do you like open world games? Better games for you: Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, Read Dead Redemption. Do you really want to buy an assassins creed game? Buy assassins creed II (it's still a game an not an interactive movie, will not bore you to death with endless cutscenes, the story is way better). Really want to buy this game? Better wait for a steam sale. If you buy this game for $ 60,00, you are just wasting your money and if this game sales are good, I fear for the future of the franchise. Expand
  86. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    Initially I was really enjoying the game... Story and game play start off strong. Fighting is amazing. Graphically the cities of Boston and New York look great but both look very similar which was disappointing. The open country is ok but only makes me yearn for Skyrim. Hunting is a joke PERIOD! Ability to run and jump on branches is so unrealistic and just dumb in my opinion. Not sure why they included Naval missions at all, it seems so out of place for this type of game. Half way through I was getting very tired of the linear missions that forced you with one cut scene after another to do missions a specific way. The Ending was so ridiculously stupid that i say let us never speak of Assassin Creed ever again. Expand
  87. Dec 31, 2012
    5
    The fundamental gameplay is still there for AC3. The addition of sea battles and a ship you can work to upgrade was great. The revolutionary period was an awesome stage for the 3rd AC3 and final in the Desmond storyline. That's about it. Storyline was botched and it is very easy to see where and how corners were cut to push this game out. After playing and honestly enjoying the first 2 offerings from this franchise AC3 failed to match up and had the feeling it was rushed through production. From lots of glitches in fighting, free running and maps to an economy system that was very hard to understand. Then you get to the disappointing and short ending. Its time for us to expect more out of these blockbuster franchise games, it will net a fortune regardless of critic review but the long term prospects of subsequent releases will suffer due to its unpolished nature all in order to save a dollar now. Expand
  88. Jan 1, 2013
    5
    For me, this has been the most anticipated game since Vietcong 2 (which sadly, also bombed) back in 2005. Since the first Assassin's Creed, I have been a huge fan of this series, although (to be fair) slightly let down by Revelations, which in my opinion was way too short, and the first follow-up to let me down somewhat. With the Desmond saga building up to this undeniable climax, where "all will be revealed" and where patience will prove a virtue, making up for time lost from the Revelations story line... Assassin's Creed 3 plain and simply does not deliver.

    Don't get me wrong, it's a gorgeous game... but to be honest, what with all the advances in technology, I'd be slightly bummed if it didn't look better than it's predecessors. However, this doesn't just look better, it's gorgeous. If I didn't know it before, however, I do know it now... no amount of gorgeous graphics can make up for a shell of a game, for that essentially is what this feels like. With Altaïr and Ezio, we were trained to learn how to fight; with Connor, we are informed (through cut scene cinematics) that we have trained; fighting is no less easy prior to training, and where taking on 30 men at once in any of the previous games could be construed as perhaps having a bit of a death wish, in AC3 this is no problem what so ever (even without weapons, and prior to "training"). Fighting has become so easy that there now is little to no incentive (unless the main mission design demands it) to try a stealthy approach.

    When starting the game, you are informed that the Animus software has been upgraded; less jumping "the wrong way at the wrong time", in short just better control. This is either a blatant lie, or proof that Ubisoft never hired gameplay testers for this project. Never touch the jump button, and you'll be fine; touch it, and... well, it's at your own risk. Getting hurt isn't that big of a deal though, because no matter how hurt you get from falling (or fighting), as long as you aren't dead, your health quickly (and yes, we're talking really fast) regenerates to full. Being able to run off the ground, up in the trees is at times really cool. It is, however, at times equally frustrating to find that that one branch that looks like you should be able to stand on it (because you just a second ago stood on an identical one), doesn't think you should be able to stand on it. This is particularly evident in cities, where sometimes you jump into the tree, sometimes you jump through it.

    It's hard to figure out just what peeves me the most about this game. It could be that it's the first game ever that has forced me to get up off my ass, walk over to the 360 and manually restart it because the game had frozen up on me, or it could be that the first time I load into New York and finally get to that part of the game, I loaded up under a bridge, under some dirt, in water, with only one direction (the wrong one, naturally) being open for movement, resulting in desynchronization. It could be that every single "training" mission, introducing me to new skills and game options, has been utterly useless (read: that which you train, is in no way central to the game, and if you don't actively seek out these things, you will not have to do them again), or maybe just that riding a horse is pretty much impossible unless you stay on the road. It could be that those "run through buildings" doors and windows that were advertised as so cool and special, are far and few between, or it could be that the game only ever feels open and free when I'm not doing a mission (entering a village from the wrong direction will not trigger the needed cut-scene and thus the game will not proceed). Maybe it's that the "marker" on the screen is some Animus-styled almost invisible shimmering that you will not see unless you're really really close, or maybe it's that the Desmond part of the game is so skimped on that it feels like it might as well have been left out.

    All in all I think my disappointment with this game all boils down to it being chalk-full of bugs and glitches, the controls feeling wonky and the gameplay very unbalanced. The storyline is far from as engaging as has been the case with the previous editions, the lead character is bland and forgettable, memorable characters are few and there is little cohesion between the Animus world and the real world. A lot was advertised, and little was delivered. With the past four games holding such high quality, naturally there were high expectations... but sadly, very few were met. If you want a linear cinematic that looks great, but don't care too much about playability (or just don't care about your time and money), then by all means, get the game. If you want playability, value your time and money, and ultimately don't want to be let down by the Assassin's Creed series, watch the Desmond and precursor story on YouTube and avoid the get the game.

    AC3 in short: a huge disappointment.
    Expand
  89. Mar 1, 2013
    5
    Assassin's Creed 3 is an experience as you wouldn't expect it... in a bad way. After the game got promoted by gorgeus and amusing missions, you play about only half of the game as the Connor we got to see. Take away the emotional story of Ezio, the way of living by the creed of Altaïr, and replace it with a boring, flat character that just wears the Assassin's outfit as a murderer's license. The best thing is the only thing they did good: the Naval Warfare missions. Being in command of a ship was fun, but the same can't be said for the new combat, hunting and tree running. The combat basically got rid of the iconic hidden blade and replaced it with a tomahawk and a pistol. Combat got even easier, and yet more frustrating because of the awful complexity that was tried to mix in with the simplicity of button mashing. Hunting was fun, but seeing Connor use the same animation time after time to skin an animal, dull quick time events and the uselessnes of the money made it just "a thing to do". Money could be used to buy craftingmaterials, new weapons and costume dyes, but none of those were needed. It was just an addition to kill time, and with the huge forest, the cities and shops seemed unnecessary. That brings us to the last flaw: out of the cities and into the forest. Fun, right? Well no. For the most time treerunning worked, but the stubborn controls often had their own way of navigating through trees and taking the complete opposite path of what you wanted. And since there were barely any roofs to run on like in the previous games, it was either climbing trees like a frustrated monkey of taking the boring roadtour on the ground. For once, Desmond had the best levels. It was fun to play as Desmond, and the levels in the modern day were stunning! Connor's story was basically bad. Was it because Ubisoft focused a bit too much on Ezio, or because the franchise is becoming the newest cashcow? I don't know. Maybe both. It's worth a playthrough, but the characters and new additions, except for the naval warfare missions and Desmond missions, were boring and they didn't leave the emotional mark like the previous games did. Expand
  90. Feb 22, 2013
    5
    After briefly playing other Assassin's Creed games I was feeling really positive towards this title. However after playing through the prologue I encountered a few things that spoiled the whole experience for me. First is a very subjective matter the main protagonist. I am talking about Connor. After playing as Haytham who was cool, well-spoken I got a rather slow-witted and possessing the most obvious motivation hero who is really rather dull. The graphics are good but nothing stunning. The combat system is easy to master and very satisfying. The connection between the Assassins story and the American Revolutionary War is very interesting and not forced-in. The locations look well but moving through them takes too much time and eventually leads to boredom. Naval combat is the feature which I personally found the most innovative and pleasant. It is a pity that many games concerning pirates lack this system. To sum up Assassins Creed 3 is a mediocre game but not a bad one so if you are fan of the series you probably have already bought it but if not then this one is not a must. Expand
  91. Apr 5, 2013
    5
    The game itself is actually pretty good, somewhere in between an 8.0 and 8.5. The problem is the poor optimization for PC’s. It’s not acceptable! I’m using an AMD 965 HD7970 (with newest drivers and game patch 1.04), yet I find my fps dropping to 15 while in Boston and similarly low in other populated/urbanized areas. Sigh
  92. Jul 28, 2013
    5
    I'm seriously impressed by the polish of this game, I'll give it that. The cinematics, voice acting and including real history is impressive. I'm three hours into the game, I'm falling asleep. I'll try to give this game a chance, hopefully it's the slowest start in history of games, I'll put in an hour or so more. If I was someone that has never played this series, I would be impressed. For someones who has played the previous games, it seems like I'm doing the same repetitive quests and tasks I was in the previous game. Such a shame, so much unfulfilled potential Not sure how they can release a forth iteration, I think this series is out of steam. Expand
  93. Nov 10, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was looking for another open world game and decided to give ACIII a try. At first I really enjoyed it. Graphics are OK, it's ported to PC really good, production values are good. The story it pretty linear at first and sort of OK, so I stuck around waiting for the open world part to kick in.

    But the game didn't get better, it got worse. And fast. Why? Because there is nothing really interesting to do. Or challenging for that matter.

    Don't get me wrong the game can be hard. For example if you have to do a sneaking job and retry it until you memorize the movement of every f* guard in the vicinity. Or if you get killed for *some reason* after routinely fighting through countless enemies without a scratch.

    But for the most part it is pretty easy and you walk around doing pointless things. Collecting feathers for whatever reason. Trading beaver pelts to get money you don't really need. Killing beavers and wondering if this or Far Cry 3 has more pointless animal killing. Doing boring side missions. Doing boring main missions.

    Want an example? You obnoxious main character decides to assassinate some evil bloke and tries to find him by annoying everyone around him in some cutscenes. So walking around, cutscene.. Oh the English attack with the evil dude in command.
    Your job: ride around for 10-15 minutes and rouse some militia dudes. Exciting!
    Next: Watch a cutscene of the dudes you just roused (or whoever) get routed.
    Next: Ride to the next town on a timer. Great!
    Next: Watch a cutscene, this time being insulted by an even more annoying dude than you pc.
    Next: Defend some bridge by riding around and giving "fire" commands to some dudes. Wtf?
    Next: Watch cutscene getting explained that the evil dude you never tried to assassinate escaped and is now protected by so many soldiers that you have to.. bla bla bla.

    Why call the game Assassin's Creed anyway?

    I won't even start on side missions, which tend to be rather ludicrous. Like delivering mail. Or fighting ship battles that are usually over in under a minute.

    Once again, it is not really a bad game, it is only boring, repetetive and the story is somewhere between stupid and annoying. Same as you main character.

    *Spoiler*
    Don't get confused by the really cool character you play in the beginning, he just happens to be the plot twist. Might be one of the most disappointing feature in video game history.
    Expand
  94. Jul 24, 2013
    5
    this game was a huge disappointment. it could have been great, but they made it boring and glitchy. seriously, everything is boring. the character, the gampelay, the setting, the story, animations, etc.
  95. Oct 13, 2013
    5
    This game looks good and plays well. It is buggy and has it's own issues... BUT this is the game that will kill the franchise. If you like A.C. then I would think long and hard before buying this. As I said it is a good game... it isn't A.C. as you know it. I found myself not caring about the storyline and, dare I say it... getting bored with it.

    They have taken a winning game and
    shoehorned it into a new game to make more money. what a shame. Expand
  96. Oct 28, 2013
    5
    A boring entry into a typically great series. Connor is mostly unlikeable and the story swings in all directions while Connor moves from obviously bad decision to obviously bad decision. Storyline is predictable and too much time is spent between forest and sea. Gameplay is typical but the environment is poorly developed making the mechanics feel clunky anywhere outside of the city environments. The flash forwards back into the present with Desmond have become terrible, plain and simple. Expand
  97. Dec 10, 2013
    5
    This is the first game I played from the series and it was a huge disappointment. The controls may be OK for console players I guess but on PC I felt just like watching a movie (with a bad plot) rather than playing a game. I hate simplicity at the expense of playability. That said the game graphics and physics are fine and there are few very good ideas. But the game as a whole is too boring for me. Expand
  98. Sep 13, 2014
    5
    I really liked the story but the game was so buggy, glitching and I had already had my fill hunting animals and doing side missions in Far Cry 3 that I didnt even touch anything of those. Game-play had new controls (an improvement to the previous games) but the magic of climbing building and stuff was lost. I was travelling with Fast-Travel whenever I could and by horse in the town cause of the long distances, and nowhere to go from rooftop to rooftop. Expand
  99. Dec 3, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. SPOILER WARNING - This game was "RUSHED". I have absolutely loved every AC game prior to this (with some exception to ACR), and the buginess of the PC version can attest to that even though the PC version was released weeks after the console versions. Questions...why is Valley Forge in the middle of Massachusetts (Go to VF in the frontier then look at your world map)? Why is George Washington portrayed as some weak imbecile? Why did they lead us to believe this would be the last game in the series when they clearly set it up for another trilogy? Ubisoft really dropped the ball on their flagship series. I wouldn't mind waiting until after 12/21/2012 for a better game. Dear AC fans, we are now officially being milked... -___-; Expand
  100. Mar 2, 2013
    4
    Try as I might, I really can not enjoy this game. I don't know if it is the setting (not American, so don't care for the setting); the combat; Connors brilliant sack-of-bricks charisma and personality; or what. I just can not, for the life of me, enjoy the game. I've tried multiple times to play it, and enjoy it... but it is the dullest of the AC games so far. I wish I had bought it on xbox, so at least I could have traded it in and replaced it with something enjoyable. Expand
Metascore
80

Generally favorable reviews - based on 21 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 21
  2. Negative: 1 out of 21
  1. 80
    Assassin’s Creed III proves to be, despite its promises, a rather indecisive game. It comes with so many strong elements, that it could have been the best Assassin’s Creed ever, but it fails to harmonically balance those elements. [January 2013]
  2. Jan 29, 2013
    85
    Assassin's Creed 3 offers a spectacular way to fill in the blanks in your knowledge of the American Revolution - it never holds back on scope, drama or action.
  3. Jan 23, 2013
    84
    What, no French revolution? For Europeans, birth of the United States is not really very interesting time nor environment. And after Ezio (or Haytham Kenway), Connor is bland, irritating protagonist. Game is also full of chores that add very little to the experience. [Jan 2013]