User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 613 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 39 out of 613

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. Nov 25, 2010
    The problem with these AAA game titles is that once you've written the script, hired a cast of voice actors, created the cutscenes, hired a few historians for historical accuracy, consulted with art experts, brought in period costume experts, scored and recorded the soundtrack, green screened all the motion capture stuff etc, etc,etc... there doesn't seem to be much time or money left to devote to the actual gameplay.

    So what we are left with is the world of 15th century Rome, brought to lush life populated with interesting characters and so on - but with laughable gameplay, mostly consisting of triggering a mission, walking to the indicator on the map, find the target and hit x to kill him. Preferably where no one can see the act, but this game is so easy this time round that even if 20 guards attack you afterwards, it is no problem to fight them off.

    Of course, there's also the treadmill aspects always thrown into these games, combing the map for flags and treasures, a rooftop beat-the-clock race or two. Doing all these tasks is pleasurable enough in the context of the sandbox world, and can certainly be addictive as players are driven to achieve 100% completion on everything, but it's an addictive similar to playing Minesweeper, you don't need to think - you're on a treadmill. If you took out the sandbox world, and just chained the missions together, the game would be a laughing stock, there is no depth to the game mechanics/AI at all. Old games like Thief, Thief II, Hidden and Dangerous 2, were not as pretty, but they were hard, involved strategy and skill, and ultimately were much more satisfying. The same all style/no substance phenomenon has plagued Hollywood blockbuster movies for years now. When so much money is at stake - game publishing companies are traded on the stock exchange and CEO's interviewed in the Wall Street Journal - you don't want to take risks and experiment, you shoot straight for the lowest common denominator. It's unfortunate that the same thing is happening to the game industry, but with the budgets involved (the first two Assassin's Creeds brought in over $1 billion at retail, and AAA game budgets are in the 10s of millions) it's probably inevitable.
  2. Feb 9, 2011
    adds nothing new, boring go here-kill x-repeat quests, story and characterisation is shockingly poor, especially the ending. please, please, please, please, PLEASE - do yourself a favour and skip this one, or if you just have to get that free-run-jump-off-building-stab-guy feeling, just go back and play II, its not like you will notice the difference
  3. Feb 3, 2012
    I played this series I don't like Illuminati based Games, whether it's right out there or Subliminally being brainwashed. I will for one not fall Vitim to the Illuminati and there Feeble attempts at Mindcontrol. I rate this game what it Deserves a Big Fat 0
  4. Dec 9, 2012
    This is the worst entry in the series. The changes is dull and the whole game feels unnecessary. The story feels empty and Rome was a boring city, and the game is shorter.

    They added kick into combat, that's good, but then they remove strong attacks (hold square) and replacing it with throwing away your sword, so frustrating because then you loose your sword and can't equip it unless
    you find it on the ground.

    The thieves guild/missions was unnecessary, the assassin recruiting was unnecessary, buy/build buildings was way unnecessary, the Fox missions was unnecessary, the multiplayer was unnecessary/dull,.. And this game has a focus on horses, but what do they do? they remove the Gallop feature so you couldn't run/flee from the guards if you would like to.

    ,... Ac: Revelations was a much better game
  5. Dec 29, 2010
    Unless you enjoy jumping through pretty hoops for hours on end, don't waste you time and money on this game. Assassin's Creed (number one) was a special game because the skills involved were all new: assassination, climbing, jumping, balancing, etc. Assassin's Creed 3 is worn thin. We've seen all the flash before. What we need is new skills to be able to do. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Like most games that make it big, this game has decided to stick with the original gameplay, and add cinematics, graphics and voices to make up for it. What we're left with is a bad game and a good movie. I found myself getting fed up with the nonsense and just wanting to see the cutscenes. That's not a game, that's a movie. A game is about controlling a character. In AC:B, the gameplay is hindering, not freeing. You know how much fun it was to climb over everything before to be able to accomplish the objective however you could? Well, how about being forced to run hundreds of slightly different climbing mazes? Wait...wait...we'll throw in confusing twists so it's maddeningly frustrating. One example: every synchronization tower now has a slightly different (just enough to trick you) climbing maze. Sounds like fun, right? The game abounds with the same frustrating cinematic angles during gameplay the routinely obstruct your view of the action. The original bugs, like jumping at slightly off the correct angle sometimes not being corrected (and killing you) is not fixed but compensated for with multiple save points during climbs and missions. This helps because one of the ways the designers have found to make all this a little more fun is not telling you a catch before you start a new mission (which kills you, of course). For example: Mission: Follow the gondola. Surprise: Touch it and die. Mission: Chase some guy (again). Catch: There are guards everywhere, and if you don't follow a certain exact path -that you can only find out through trial and dying over and over- it's impossible to win. It's turns out to be so ironic. The thing that made AC so good in the beginning, ie opening up a huge range of motion to allow maximum freedom and control, is now used to restrict your freedom in the game by making the entire game following a precise series of hoops to jump through. Of course it still has good graphics and movie production values which is why I didn't give it a zero. But even with the gorgeous scenery and weird video-game jerky-motion sex scene in the beginning, this is a huge waste of money and time. Expand
  6. Feb 14, 2013
    I can't comprehend why this game has so many positive review. It's without a doubt the worst in the Assassin's Creed franchise. It hardly feels like a new game. It feels like a New Game for Assassin's Creed II, which includes infuriating enemies and impossible time limits. Not to mention that Rome is the worst Assassin's Creed local I've played. Either the buildings were poorly designed so my character basically ends up hanging around not climbing, or they deliberately put up areas where you can't climb at all. I can't tell you how many times I've needed to get to a location, that I could see on my map was no more than a few meters away, but because the cliffs are not climbable, I had to take a 5 minute detour around the damn thing. Seriously, if you're going to extend the play time by making it mandatory to walk around the map, you're doing it wrong! Also, the horses suck in this game. Only time you can gallop are a couple of levels outside the city. Anytime you're in Rome, you're only allowed to trot, which seems slower than running around the damn map yourself. Assassin's Creed II was a great game. And Assassin's Creed III is an amazing game. But Brotherhood just FEELS like it was slapped together within a matter of months. Honestly, my favorite part of Brotherhood was the end credits, knowing that I would never again have to endure this horrible piece of I can't recommend to game to anyone. Expand

Universal acclaim - based on 59 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 57 out of 59
  2. Negative: 0 out of 59
  1. Jul 8, 2011
    Recommended to fans of the franchise and also to newcomers. While the single player campaign is entertaining and offers a lot of content, the multiplayer mode is only average. It's a nice goodie, nothing more. The atmosphere, the localization and the videos are pretty well done, which let the player forget time and play hours.
  2. Feb 25, 2011
    Assasssin's Creed: Brotherhood has great atmosphere, beautiful visuals, and overall excellent craftsmanship… Just don't expect anything new beyond the multiplayer.
  3. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is a more than a worthy addition to the series canon. The similar setting of renaissance Italy will trick folks into assuming this is a half-arsed expansion, but honestly, this feels like Assassin's Creed 2.99. Don't be fooled by Brotherhood's cunningly familiar disguise. Mark it as a fresh target, pounce and take it down. [January 2011 p66]