User Score
6.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1044 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. Dec 7, 2012
    7
    Assassin's Creed III is a disappointing new instalment in the Assassin's Creed series; though having a good story, it is ruined by bland graphics, not so likeable characters, plenty of bugs and a hit and miss ending. This is one of the weakest instalments, but better than Revelations.
  2. Nov 17, 2012
    8
    Though a little bit slow at the beginning, the game gradually picks up, offering you more freedom of what you can do, and how you do it. There are some flaws in the game, and at times I feel like it is too linear, but the combat is fun, and the story is well executed, though not as good as Ezio's. The Mulitplayer is fine, but could use a little more improvement. Overall, I have no regrets spending $60 dollars on this game. Expand
  3. Jan 5, 2013
    7
    A Complete mixed bag, the series has become Errand-boys Creed. If you like AC Multiplayer, scripted events, tones of side missions, one button combat (I dont) you will like this game. If you expected engaging missions, story, characters and epic battles and assassinations, like the trailers showed, you will not like it. PRESENTATION - 7.5 - The game world is authentic, however the story and characters fall completely flat. The Native dialogue is also horrendous compared to say, Dances with Wolves or even Pocahontas. DESIGN - 6.5 - There is a lot of hand holding in the earlier missions. While the gameworld is big, side quests plenty, they are mostly pointless. You hardly ever need to buy weapons or upgrade because the game is so easy. With more visual and gameplay glitches than ever, this is the most unpolished and linear of the Creed games. GRAPHICS - 8.0 - Water and weather effects stand out here everything else is starting to look dated, cutscenes are not as well produced as ACII or ACIIB. AUDIO - 7.0 - The lack of Jesper Kyd can be felt here, with a soundtrack more reminiscent of Inception. VO is fine, but the native VO is terrible. GAMEPLAY - 7.5 - Dumbed down and unengaging in every way. There doesn't seem to be any AI at all. The highlights by far are the sea battles, very theatric and intense. LASTING APPEAL - 6.5 - Firstly, the multiplayer, aside form the game world seems to be the best developed section of the game. I find this disheartening since AC for me has always been about the campaign. Sadly, this game is a complete bore, without such a good multiplayer, lasting appeal would have been a 4.0. Expand
  4. Jan 10, 2013
    5
    Looking for an Assassin's Creed game? Go somewhere. In previous AC games you had to eavesdrop, sneak and silently Assassinate bad guys. Not anymore just grab a musket and go guns blazing in the field, sneaking happens only a few times, and eagle vision are only used twice. The key word in the title of this game is "Assassin" but you never assassinate anymore. There are of course new characters, but they are so poorly made its sad, you will find yourself liking the bad-guy more. the only thing that saves this game is the naval missions. and that's it, the controls are really basic, "RT+RS forward" and the game plays it self.

    TL;DR? this AC game is so casual it's on the same level as CoD, Angry Birds and FIFA
    Expand
  5. Dec 21, 2012
    3
    This is one of the worst games i have "played". I use that term loosely as its really just a lot of cut scenes stitched together with a little bit of runnning about in between. And the cut scenes are really boring. Graphics are great. Controls don't work very well. As others have said you may fall asleep while playing so sit in a comfy chair! I prefer to be entertained and enjoy the game. This was a massive let down Expand
  6. Feb 7, 2013
    5
    Seriously... I haven't been able to finish this game. It is one of the least entertaining things Ubisoft has spat out lately. Boring, boring, boring... This used to be a sandbox game about stabbing people and climbing interesting buildings. Now it is a game about building villages, chasing pigs, sailing and making some crappy caravans (who the hell created that mechanic??). Cities? Gone. Interesting fight system? Gone. Everything that used to be fun in AC2 and Brotherhood gone. Yeah... The frontier setting looks nice but it gets old pretty quick when every single mission requires you to run to the other end of the map. Not to mention bugs. The one that was VERY annoying for me was that the fighting style didn't change when you switched from tomahawk to dagger. It was hilarious to see Connor HACK his enemies with a dagger in hand. I mean... who the f... let this thing out of QA?

    It is quite disappointing to see Ubisoft fall so hard on it's face on this one. This was supposed to be a crown jewel but it FAILS completely to live to it's hype. All the good things from AC2 were wasted and it is very obvious that a different team did this piece of crap.
    Expand
  7. May 8, 2013
    6
    I really wanted to enjoy this game. But there are very large flaws in it that prevent me from remembering it in a positive light.

    It does have good strengths. Colonial America feels vast and suitably unique and fresh in the usual library of swords and armor adventure games. There's always something to do, always something to take a look at and have fun with. And the cities feel very
    interesting and lifelike. In addition, naval combat was surprisingly fun. It felt brilliantly epic to watch and hear a ship get obliterated by a full broadside from my cannons. And the multiplayer was as unique, involving and fun as it was in previous games.

    But then the big flaws drag everything down. For a start the game is buggy as hell. This would really break the immersion of the places I was in. Sometimes an NPC would just walk between two charcacters during a cinematic. Not cool. Second was that while Haytham is an interesting character to start off as, making me wait for 6 sequences before the game opened up was not good design. Then there was the Desmond storyline, which was just utterly disappointing.The plot twists get increasingly plain stupid, the Abstergo villain turns out to be a gigantic and I never had any more reasons to start giving a damn about the whole storyline. The eventual fate of Desmond indicates Ubisoft didn't either.

    But what really breaks the game is the level design. In every mission it constantly puts secondary objectives, game-over-if-you-are-seen restrictions and boundaries everywhere. There's not even a way to turn off the optional objectives from your screen. And every time you didn't get one of them right the game just loves to remind you of your failure with a big red cross at the end of the mission. This pissed me off to no end because it made me feel as if I was being punished for not playing the game THEIR way. In an open world game, where there are often multiple solutions to a problem, this is just terrible mission design.

    I wanted to like it, but in the end, I didn't feel like it was worth the hype. Not by a long shot.
    Expand
  8. Dec 15, 2012
    6
    Assassin's Creed III really has certain aspects that make it amazing, it is beautiful, the story really draws you in (you'll actually care about your objectives), and it has some really creative ideas. I rented the game even though I had heard some very colorful choices of words about it. I though they were all exaggerating, naturally as I thought the ability to make a disappointing Assassin's Creed game wasn't technologically possible yet. I was wrong, this game is a huge disappointment when compared to it's amazing and ingenious predecessors. The combat wasn't terrible but it was very limiting and confusing because of the LACK of things to do and choose from. Upgrading was a huge part of AC2+ and was one of the best parts of the game, collecting rare and powerful armors/weapons to fill my stores intrigued me. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely still possible to get different weapons and OUTFITS, but it is a pointless waste of time. The game is piss easy if you have a double digit IQ, run from enemies until your health returns enough to slaughter 30-40 enemies with ease. I found only 2 missions challenging me in any way what so ever, the one where you kill Pitcairne and when you are chasing Charles Lee in the final mission. But more then just challenge you, they jumped you, they are missions that will be the breaking point of many players due to the fact the game doesn't prepare you for any sort of difficulty. Not to mention the lack of choice on our part about how to go about the missions. In AC2, you literally got to choose how you did every single mission, there was multiple ways to do them all. But in AC3 you have 1 set mapped course you practically HAVE to take or you'll absolutely fail. The art was beautiful though most of the time, but I found myself cringing at the sudden implementing of playstation 1 graphics at some points, such as when jumping through the window to get the guy planning Washington's assassination it literally looked like something off a playstation 1. This is only one of the many points where it surprises you. It's not a game breaking problem obviously as the beautiful world outside those couple points plenty makes up for it. But I felt it was worth mentioning. There is of course the story which was very very creative in my mind except for Connor himself. Connor came off as EXACTLY what everyone called him, Naive and gullible, and overall blind to the world around him. He quickly switched sides with a few kind/harsh words and was very quick to anger and betray. A single thing out of place and he immediately assumed the worst and never investigated further, and even if the investigating was done for him and handed to him on a silver platter he would still hold hostility towards the person that he had a misunderstanding with. Overall the worst assassin to date, possessing no qualities and a VERY disappointing ending. At first I thought he was going to forgive Charles Lee and make himself look at least a little good. But it is also clear in the story where he got his stupidity from as his father was openly shown betrayal by Charles Lee and still defended him with his life. But other then the unlikable characters, the overall story was okay, the betrayal by Haytham was interesting, considering an assassin traitor was only mentioned one time before in the first game, and NEVER has an assassin betrayed the assassin's for the templars (obviously excluding Lucy as we'll never know her true intentions considering we found out Juno who killed her is now clearly untrustworthy.). The climbing/free running mechanics which were supposed to have been smoother and better controlled, were terrible to say the least, I often found myself running up a wall 5 feet away when chasing someone and taking the slow route when climbing over things (yes I'm aware of pressing A right before you get to an object makes him go over it faster, but the timing needed is crazy if you don't get it JUST right you'll end up jumping into it and making it take EVEN longer. Over all this game is nothing compared to it's predecessors even though it had some awesome new features there were a ton of bad ones introduced as well. Expand
  9. Jul 22, 2013
    0
    The game is horrible. I am so disappointed being a AC1 hardcore fan. I rated AC1 10/10 AC2 9/10 and I am giving AC3 0/10.
    Initially the game felt good. But then I realized that there isn't much to do. Story is boring. Anyway to cut a long story short people that rated 7+ /10 are obviously unfamiliar with AC 1
  10. Dec 3, 2012
    8
    Assassin's Creed III is a thoroughly enjoyable game. I really enjoyed the American Revolution setting and the brand new game engine performs fantastically. The new series assassin, Connor has a very brutal and fast paced combat style utilizing a host of new weapons. A favorite of mine is the rope dart which can wrap around the necks of enemies allowing you to pull them down or even hang them from a tree. This title's world is also far more expansive and gives you more side missions and activities. Players get a Homestead now instead of a castle or fort and like in previous games it develops as the game progresses. The story starts off very slow but picks up with a nice little twist to get you engaged. It's very fun to participate in key events of the American Revolution including events like the Battle of Bunker Hill. Lamentably the story slows down at the end and the ending leaves a little to be desired. Overall this game is fantastic and should definitely be played! Expand
  11. Dec 4, 2012
    2
    I was severely disappointed in this game. The glitches were immense, the AI was ridiculous in never letting me hide. The story was ok...but the ending kind of sucked.
  12. Jan 24, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Is this the worst AC to date? Possibly. If you ignore Relevations then yes. This game is so far from everything that made AC fun that it shouldn't even bear the title. Worse is that it is also the buggiest game in the series.

    Let's start with the positives: The present timeline is finished up, thankful. I always thought Desmond was stupid and I'm so glad it is over. But, of course, they'll likely just keep sending us to the present in future installments anyway. The other thing that was good was the horrible vehicles don't recur.

    Now the bad - Hatham and the first 3 or 4 sequences. They add absolutely nothing to the story and Hatham is almost as bad as Desmond. It would have been enough to assume the lineage was possible and move on.

    Tree running is painful. Forget the fact that (unlike every other AC game) most trees you cannot climb. Basically you're running around looking for a tree to climb (or a convenient rock to run up) so you can tree run. It's funny that you can climb building but a tree branch 5' off the ground cannot be used. Even worse is that once you get to the top the leaves are in the way so you don't know where you can leap from without dying. It also seems they have 2 models for trees to sync with because each time I used the exact same tree climbing. The whole naval thing doesn't make sense. A young man suddenly captaining a ship? That's just stupid. I wish they would stick with the fun parts of AC. That brings us to the RTS aspects they keep stuffing into the game. I don't want to micro-manage supplies, builders and caravans. That is dull but I'm forced to in order to make money to buy stuff I need. Attention Ubisoft - if I want to do resource mgmt I'll go to work. They also added QTEs to this game. Unfortunately the timing is off and it happens way too often. Out in the woods, suddenly attacking by a predator, QTE or die. Boring and lame...

    It is clear the original designers of the game have left the team because this game is all about RTS and FPS concepts. Stealth is all but impossible outside of rural areas. On a roof? Guards pick you off from the ground. Trying to take a fort? Guards keep respawning and have the ability to pick you off no matter where you hide. If I were a real assassin I would go for combat as a last resort. Yet AC keeps adding more and more combat moves rather than stealth components. Even worse is that there are no so many commands that there aren't enough controls so commands are contextual. I long for the days of stealthy AC. Bring back the original devs Ubisoft. The current team misses the point of what made the original games fun.

    The minigames are so unfair they aren't fun but the side quests are at least entertaining. Of course there is some collectibles too but I don't like how you really have to collect everything in order to open up upgrades. The environment and people are dull. I am not at all excited about this poor backdrop for the game. It just doesn't live up to Italy or Jerusalem. It's like they had a small budget so they implemented a minimal set. I hate that this is the final game in the series.

    Now the bugs. There are lots of them on even the latest patch. 1) Around and in forts guards respawn almost immediately. Once I killed a guard turned around the other way and turned back and the guard had respawned next to his own dead body. In forts it is a blood bath such that your best bet is to just run to the goals as fast as you can.
    2) Enemies are really, really sensitive. On several occasions a guard with their back to me and me in a tree behind them was suddenly picked off even though I wasn't even moving.
    3) Minigames - The players seem to look too far ahead such that winning is luck more than skill.
    4) QTEs are timed too short. Basically if you don't mash the button when it appears you'll lose. If you lose you'll generally lose a lot of health. Given that predators attack such that you cannot get away, if you lose twice you might as well reload. There are also way too many of them (although that isn't a bug).
    5) In combat you cannot get out because when you switch out of combat mode you'll likely get hit which puts you back into combat mode.
    6) In some cases if you're in combat mode but run away it thinks you're still in combat (even after minutes) and won't allow you to do certain things like air assassinate animals.
    7) On a couple of occasions an assassination target was partially clipped into the scenery making them impossible to assassinate.
    8) Bears and cougars go into an infinite escape loop if a gun goes off. Once I watch a group of bears run in circles for 5 minutes after a gun went off. They ignore everything and everyone. Another time a cougar did the same thing near a guard and the guard just kept walking by them as though they didn't exist.
    Expand
  13. Dec 30, 2012
    8
    Assassins Creed delivers in a way that Call of Duty cannot. Open world opportunities, stealth action, a Single Player mode worth playing, a cinematic theme, and incredible gameplay.
  14. Nov 29, 2012
    4
    The game is boring and annoying, two very very big problems. The gameplay has improved, making combat more fresh and movement more fluid and natural, unlike the stiff movement of previous installments, NAVAL BATTLES are absolutely BRILLIANT, fun, exhilarating, and very fresh, but that's all that's good. Exploration becomes a chore, as building climbing no longer has the awe it possessed in earlier titles, tree climbing is not interesting enough to fill the gap found in the lack of buildings, lock picking is absolutely TERRIBLE, tunnel exploration is tedious, dark and very annoying horse riding is slow and flat, not allowing for much maneuverability. Hunting is something different, but ultimately players just won't commit themselves to much hunting. Now on to story, extremely disappointed. Flat story, nothing new, nothing emotional, bad and boring characters, the only likable character is the villain, haytham. Connor is boring, too serious, lacks the charm Ezio had, lacked the bad-assery of Altair, and lacks the conviction and intelligence of Haytham. Achillies is annoying, discouraging and lacks purpose. DESMOND. His story ends STUPIDLY AND PLAIN ANNOYINGLY, IT'S SO STUPID I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT. Ultimately, AC3 tries to be fresh and introduces many new and interesting things, but many fail and the terrible story just brings this game down to a very bad score. Expand
  15. Nov 7, 2012
    8
    I have loved the Assassin's Creed series since the very beginning for 2 reasons: 1 - The fun and addicting parkour and assassinations. 2 - The astounding degree of detail put into realizing these worlds. From the Crusades to Renaissance Italy, and now Colonial America. AC3 follows the series' tradition of beautifully designed worlds with NY and Boston built to invoke an atmosphere that really sucks you into the game, while the gorgeous Frontier is the icing on the cake. The cities are a little dull to look at, lacking the beauty of Florence, Rome, or Constantinople, but it fits since these were in fact ugly cities at the time. The gameplay is relatively unchanged save for the combat which employs a Batman-esk combat system requiring timed counters and attacks. It's nice to see the formula changed, but once you figure out the the counter-disarm combo, it's gg no re; the enemies are still not very bright, however they show signs of improvement. The story is split between Desmond in the modern day and Connor in Revolutionary America. Desmond's story is just as dull as before, but does it's job of providing a framework for the series, although the way it ends is so absurd and dumb that it makes me sad this game came from Canada (I'm Canadian if you can't tell :P). Connor on the other hand shows more promise, offering a much more intriguing look at the war from the prospect of an outsider. My personal gripe with it is that it didn't do enough. I expected a game that truly portrayed the desperate struggle of the Native American people at the hands of the British and the Americans thereafter. While the game shows some promise of that, it was not enough for my liking. Apart from that, it accurately displays the Founding Fathers as they were; basically a bunch of fed up white men who preached freedom and offered none in return to those who weren't white. The story is interesting, but by the end it falls apart failing to deliver the climactic triumph, or any triumph really, of the hero, his enemies almost seeming more worthy than himself by that time. The game has a lot of side stuff to do, but the only really good one is the naval missions, which are for me the best part of the game. The weather engine is so beautiful that waves drastically alter the flow of combat and force you to make split-second decisions in the heat of battle in order to survive, demonstrating the true ferocity of war at sea in a way that I personally have never experienced (and I love naval games). The multiplayer for me is hardly worth mentioning; if you've played Brotherhood or Revelations, you've played this: a brilliant concept with loads of potential let down by poor balance resulting from skills gained at higher levels and randomness deciding most games. AC3 is definetly worth your time, but don't expect it to break any new ground, simply stand high atop ground the series has already claimed...kinda like what the Americans did to the Native Americans ;P Expand
  16. Nov 9, 2012
    7
    Good performance by Ubisoft, but was not worth all the hype it received. The game is very fun, but eventually, some missions get boring and the game is full of glitches and bugs. The game starts off slow, but gets good overtime, but has a near-impossible last mission. Still a buy in the AC series.
  17. Nov 11, 2012
    6
    If I were to rank the games in order I would put assassins creed 2 at the top, brotherhood second, assassins creed 1 third, this game 4th, and revelations 5th. The game could be summarized as mediocre. Setting: The main story contains large detailed maps, but the problem is that it doesn't have any large buildings to climb like in assassins creed 2 and brotherhood or even revelations, not only that the game doesn't have that beautiful setting like Venice, I really loved Venice in assassins creed 2, it's a very colorful place, plenty of fun things in the game. Puzzles. Assassins creed 2 had tons of puzzles and they revealed pieces of a truth that was really fun. Every time I completed one i looked at what I've gathered to add more to this truth story, more importantly the puzzles had history to them and conspiracy theories, it actually gets pretty creepy. Brotherhood did the same but not to the same extent. So far I have not found anything like this, but I'm guessing they didn't do it...

    Story: It's ok, Gameplay: not as many personal assassinations. I find myself in a lot of missions where you have to run in and kill all the guards like a wild man, no stealth at all. I like putting in multiple objectives though. There are a lot of bugs, I sometimes find my character spazzing out and just standing still and taking hits. The health system is lousy, it's basically assassins creed 1, no potions, regenerate health. The combat system is probably the worst of all the games, and here is why, you have the occasional QUICK **** TIME EVENTS. I just finished resident evil 6 and at this point i never want to touch QTE AGAIN. But lo and behold this game had to put that in the game. It's not as many as RE6 but seriously, why the hell did they do this? Why does the world think QTE = gameplay??? Seriously the combat could be interpreted as QTE. Wolf attacks you, game prompts O, you hit O, then prompts square. It feels like god of war like QTE, but the thing about god of war is that you aren't forced to do QTE, that's only if you choose to grab. Side missions: There are plenty of those, so that's good.

    Some of the bugs ive seen: People talking without moving their mouths in a cutscene, guard who wont die, my character spazzing out. One of the three will happen every hour.

    There was this one part where you have to be an eagle and follow another fire eagle... here we witness something I like to call "Crazy Camera Mode." You get to this one point where you hit the mountains and a white light comes and next thing you know you see winter trees right in front of you. It's **** how the camera works here. Graphics are fine, nothing new though

    Overall it gets a 6/10. It has a lot of problems but nothing makes it unplayable.
    Expand
  18. Nov 13, 2012
    8
    Great game, not as good as 2 or brotherhood, but still really good game, they got rid of the tower defence crap (thank god), and added in navel battles (which are great fun!). I would definately recommend playing this game.
  19. Aug 10, 2013
    8
    I've played through all the Assassin's Creed games and I own each one of them on my shelf. So let me just say that Assassin's Creed III got an awful lot of hype, and that's about a 55/45 divide in fault between Ubisoft and the internet. I'm not making excuses for the game, but any gamer knows that to hype a game almost always (except in rare cases like Skyrim) adds up to it letting people down.

    Assassin's Creed III both does and doesn't do that. I have a little objectivity here because I actually started playing the AC series with III, then went back and played the others. Now, if you're comparing this to past AC games, it falls a little short, half because of hype, and half because of the actual game. The free-running system has been simplified to a point where I found it a little more boring than Brotherhood or Revelations, but that can be debated, and Boston/New York aren't nearly as fun to run around in as past cities (though the Frontier is definitely a success in that regard). What can't be debated is the glitches. I've hit no game-breaking ones like others, but there are a plethora of them and they really do detract from the game, which I think is mostly in part for this game having a very short development cycle with the new engine, and its a real pain. The combat system gets old and its rather predictable, since there are four types of enemies and you learn how to beat them in just a few minutes. The underground sucks, and is a drag to explore.

    On the other hand, I can't speak higher of the storyline. Connor is a step into a new character design from Ubisoft where he is a vehicle to convey hurt, and unshaken conviction to his cause due to that hurt. He keeps his goal set: to ensure liberty for his people and for all, however he keeps questioning whether or not the side he's on is best for that. Many say that he's not likeable, and that's partially true, but he's not supposed to be likeable like Ezio was; he's supposed to be sympathy-worthy and a man you can root for. He's a vehicle to convey the story, the motive and the moral. And Connor's story is more compelling than ANY of the past Assassin's Creeds. I won't spoil it, but I have to give Ubisoft credit for making a very, very strong character.

    The game is also stunningly beautiful. Its graphic leap from Revelations is far further than any of the past games in this series, with the amazing sites in the Frontier offering incredible vistages and Connor's home base looking more astounding than Masyaf, Ezio's hideout or any others. Naval combat, a new direction for this series, is a huge hit. It's simple, fun, doesn't get old even after a while, and offers you a great way to waste time. The soundtrack is brilliant, stunning and is only rivalled by Revelations' in this series.

    In conclusion, if you go in expecting this game to blow you away after playing the previous games, you will be disappointed. Some of the mechanics lack, some completely fail, and a few have been improved. But if you have some objectivity and focus on its strengths in story and characters and the emotional investment it puts in its player, you will enjoy it immensely.
    Expand
  20. Dec 30, 2012
    6
    What is Assassin's Creed 3's core mechanic? Is it stealth? No, because if one enemy spots you, all enemies are instantly aware of your position somehow. Even though there's an indicator for how much an enemy can see you, and it's plenty fun to sneak up behind an enemy, sometimes my character would do something stupid because I didn't press the buttons contextually enough for the games liking, and most of the missions don't involve stealth but when they do it's controller- snappingly obtuse. Is it hack and slash combat? Maybe, because there are plenty enemies in one vicinity at once and jumping in there taking them all out Arkham-style is really fun, but the game wants you to be unnoticed, you know, with the big inconspicuous hood and all, so killing everyone that looks at you funny isn't the optimal solution. Is it the naval missions? No, they're awesome in their own right and I love them, but they only appear in two of the story missions. Well done! You've done a story mission! Now you have the pleasure of being able to do something absolutely **** tedious. So no, AC3 has no core mechanic and remains an unfocused and buggy game throughout. The sidequests are dull too, with the hunting not being rewarded with anything but being pretty cool despite that. Let's just take a look back to Assassin's Creed 1, where it's core mechanic was Assassinating, hence the title. It was repetitive and you spent too much time faffing about, but at least it was a game about assassinating with just a set of tools and a target so you can find your own way to take out the enemy, whatever way you would like too. Over the years, the series has added so many more useless gimmicks that the series has become completely unfocused. I guess I should give credit where credit is due, the combat system being fast, fun and intuitive, the graphics are incredible, the aforementioned naval missions are extremely engaging and I really loved them, the new Assassin's Armour is the best one yet, the overall historical accuracy being, well, historically accurate, the writing is excellent, even though the story is conveluted and barely connected to the original Assassin's Creed story-line, the menu's are really well designed, the free-running is the best I've seen in a game, even though it does get a bit too contextual at times, and it's a fresh departure from the series that takes away the scrambled **** from the previous games. However, the scrambled eggs it took away from the previous games that made them less intuitive and focused, it completely dropped the assassinating bit, so this just becomes an unfocused generic action game, whereas its predecessors were quite original at the time and remained fun whilst also being a bit too easy. This one suffers from being a bit too easy as well, I died most of the time because Connor did something stupid. For an open world sandbox game, this needs to be less contextual, because it gets on my nerves when I cant climb up a wall unless the contextual 'Climb up the wall' button shows up. This was a problem with the previous games as well, I just want to be able to run freely without needing to press the correct button at the correct time. As an Englishman, I felt uncomfortable killng my own men, but I just got used to it over time. See, this is also a problem about the game, its set in a war that's only interesting to American Patriots and to no one else. Connor brutalising Englishman because he's not wearing the same colour as them makes Connor look like the biggest monster of them all, especially when you can't exactly demonize people sodding off later on because they couldn't be bothered any more, or maybe I'm just biased. The French renaissance would of been a much more interesting setting, because in 1775 America, there aren't any big buildings to go free running on and the whole running part is a lot less fun. But at the same time in France there are heads being chopped off, the peasants vs. the Aristocracy, there's a much more believable side you can take without being gung-ho American patriot or gung-ho French patriot. Civil wars are much more interesting, oh, what about the American civil war? Where enough time has gone by for there to be cool buildings to jump around on, war is becoming industrialised, and it's the brutal slave-owning savages of the south vs. the freedom fighting civilised north, and there's a war on so there's plenty of killing for your liking, and hey, they could of had mid-19th century Connor bump fists with Lincoln. Sure, the north outnumbered the south 2:1 but it's better than the boring old redcoats. This game is overall a pretty mixed bag, and if you do consider playing it, don't go in with your expectations too high, like I did. If you go into it with the knowledge that it's an average game, you'll come out feeling satisfied. Expand
  21. Feb 9, 2013
    5
    After huge disapointment AC3 was for me, I've started to read user reviews. All the professional gaming media were so hyped and enchanted by amount of game content that they forgot that all that matters is gameplay. AC is full of great animation, cinematic and collectibles but 70% of the game is walking from cutscene to cutscene and pressing x!! Third installment in the series could have been a revolution but it took a huge step backward and lost most of it's unique identity. Assassinations? You have to wait over 6 hours for first. Free running? Useless, because of the limited architecture and long gaps between buildings. Open world and it's distractors? Present but the game doesn't encourage you to leave main path.

    Overall, this game is average despite impressive list of features and content.
    Expand
  22. Dec 2, 2012
    4
    I already wrote a lengthy review for this game, but metacritic deleted it. Allow me to summarize this game with one word: tedious. And now I'm typing a few more characters.
  23. Nov 11, 2012
    5
    Running around the frontier and hunting is pretty fun as is fighting massive amounts of enemies at one time. The graphics are incredible. The story itself is quite boring, and after a while I found myself not even caring. All the collectibles are more rewarding to find than in any of the other past games. One bad thing is the tomahawk you start with is extremely powerful, so there really is no need to upgrade your weapons at all like the past games. I always enjoy the Assassin's creed games regardless because I enjoy just running around and climbing. This is probably the second to worst in the series, right ahead of Brotherhood. If you are a fan of the series, just ignore the nay-sayers and get it, but don't expect too much or you will be let down. Expand
  24. Nov 23, 2012
    8
    There is no denying Ubisoft tries to deliver new things to their fans and strive to be ambitious. However here what hold AC3 back from the previous 4 games is the ending. It is rushed, anticlimatic and unfulfilling. I really wanted to love this game, but it is just too underwhelming to really become memorized.
  25. Nov 25, 2012
    7
    The combat in this game flows so well, it almost feels like a cinematic. That said, it's about as difficult as watching a cinematic. All would be forgiven if the plot were as awesome as the previous titles. It's not.
  26. Nov 11, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Once more Ubisoft gives us a good quality game in Assassin's Creed III. Pros: The visuals are beautiful, the combat has more challenge, the story and characters are very interesting, the voice acting is solid; the naval missions, though frustrating at times, are a very welcomed addition, and the soundtrack is top notch as always (despite Jesper Kyd not composing it). Cons: As many have stated, there are a million bugs (muskets floating in the air, Connor freezing while running in the frontier, mouths not moving while characters speak, etc.); the optional objectives instead of a challenge they feel like the developers are forcing you to do things in a specific way, which is ironic for a game that speaks about the importance of freedom, side missions are over-complicated at times and pointless (chasing pigs in a farm? really?), the economy system is not as organic as in the previous games. I really appreciate developers wanting to add variety, but if it has no major repercussions in the plot, then there's not much of a point in it. But most of all, the reason I'm giving AC3 a 7 and not a 9 is the ending. Oh my god! It seems written by Damon Lindelof (the "genius" behind Lost and Prometheus), which means a huge build-up that leads to an event with no payoff and only more build-up for things to come instead. I expected to see an actual conclusion to Desmond's story as the developers promised, not the writers leaving things opened. One thing is to create suspense around a story and another is just extending it to the point of making the player / viewer not to care anymore because of how frustrating it became to expect something epic and not coming. Along with Batman: Arkham City and The Dark Knight Rises, AC3 has the most disappointing ending I've ever seen. Expand
  27. Nov 25, 2012
    8
    Free-running through the trees in the forest is great, hackng redcoats with a tomahawk is satisfying, and the story keeps you engaged from the beginning. I had a lot of fun playing through this game. This is a fun game, if you have been thinking about getting it I would go ahead and pick it up.
  28. Dec 6, 2012
    6
    I can't even progress into the game and from what i have played from a rental so far it isn't living up to the previous installments. Popular video games seem to all being going the duirection of an interactive cinematic. Anyways, why i can't progress I am assuming is a glitch. Suppose to shoot these TNT barrels but when it is time to do the simple instructions which lock you into the mode with no way to back out the hand cannon decides to just vanish from your arsenal with no way to fire with any buttons or confangled puzzle solving. Restarting didn't even seem to fix it. Maybe I am missing this complicated procedure in a seemingly washed out monkey finger game. Expand
  29. Jan 16, 2013
    8
    This is one of two retail games I looked forward to through out 2012, and the only one I got and played at launch. The story holds your interest up until the end where it slowed to a dull and or aggravating finish both inside the animus and outside it. While the final acts may be really slow, the acts leading up to it are very well made. The new fighting control feels fresh and requires more thought than previous Creed entries to survive. 100%ing this game is tedious. Having to travel to every bar, shop, several side missions yourself is just annoying.

    As or the multiplayer it held my interest long enough to get all the achievements but that is about it really. Wolfpack is fun but it gets boring quickly like any other horde mode.
    Expand
  30. Mar 3, 2013
    8
    Admito que AC III evoluiu bastante se comparado com AC Revelations, porém seus personagens não são tão memoráveis quanto os demais. O jogo não possui um vilão principal ou com maior destaque, e isso também vale para os secundários. Connor um personagem forte e habilidoso, mas sua personalidade fraca comparada seus antecessores. Os problemas de comandos são frequentes e irritantes, embora a jogabilidade tenha melhorado. Expand
  31. Mar 22, 2014
    7
    An utter disappointment in not just the Assassins Creed franchise, but pretty much to video games in general. The time setting and location, while it felt fresh, was laid back by an uninteresting protagonist and an underwhelming story.
  32. Jan 15, 2013
    6
    I really expected this game to be a lot better than it was, and not in the over hype way, but in the sense that it looked like a solid game and fundamentally it was going to build off of it's predecessors in an exciting setting. Welp, it turns out that in building on it's predecessors it managed to throw every possible pointless side mission into the game without regards for how it fit in. This is really raw analogy but it felt as though someone dipped their game making paintbrush into a bucket of game idea paint, and just splattered it on a canvas. That may sound like a gross exaggeration but if you look at everything besides the story line it really does feel that way. You literally have to do none of the side missions and for the most part the game does a terrible job of informing you on the various systems mechanics. There is crafting and trading, sailing, liberation, hunting, guilds, postal missions, view points, gambling, and a bunch of other stuff, that if you ignored it would make little to no difference on your game it seems. I hate to knock this game because it really did have some cool moments but there were a lot of other points where I was just banging my head and asking "why!?". I'm happy that I finished the game but I really felt like it was a push for me to take interest in this one, especially after having played 2, brotherhood, and revelations within a 3 week period. I think a lot of the time I felt overwhelmed and not in the good exploratory sense, but in the sense that completing this game (story plus extras), just seemed like a task that I had no interest in taking on. To contextualize, in past games I never collected the feathers, but I always bought everything I could and upgraded everything and completed all the side missions. In this game it felt like there was too much that I just felt like the incentive did not exist for me continue playing past the story. It is a shame because I thought this one would surprise me but unfortunately it was a huge let down. Expand
  33. Nov 8, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First off, let me just say, there are spoilers, minor, but still. Now, I really thought this game was the best game that was ever created graphically. The scenery of the game was purely beautiful. The graphics were basically flawless! I hesitated playing when I picked it up on the day it was released. The story was really slow and boring. Playing as Haythem was new because he was a Templar, It was the first time in the franchise you could play as a Templar. It also sparked a plot twist, and that was, one of Desmond's ancestor's weren't an assassin. Later on, the story was making little sense because if he was a Templar why was he doing all the good an assassin does? It made little sense, but other than that and a few other glitches, I enjoyed the game. The ending was very stupid too. There will be an Assassins Creed 4, I just don't get how it'll get done. But, if you're on the fence of buying this game, make sure you've played the 4 others first before playing this one. But if you have played all the others, and you're wondering if you should get this, I suggest you should. Really great game, with TONS of stuff to do and a HUGE map to travel after you've beaten the main story mode. Expand
  34. Jan 31, 2014
    9
    Another great installment. You have a vast a array of weapons the multiplayer is still awesome. Fans will love this game...............................
  35. Mar 4, 2013
    6
    I really wanted to like this game, I spent all of 2012 waiting for this game after Revelations. But boy was I in for a letdown from day 1. The first third of the story is basically a glorified cinematic and offers little for character development. Once the story finally starts to pick up I still was waiting for more to happen and by the end I was extremely underwhelmed. The thing that made the past games so great was the character development. I really felt like I cared for Ezio but I do not feel that here. Connor is unlikeable and stubborn and this broke the game more than the numerous glitches that I encountered. I had really high hopes and GOTY thoughts but it proved to be nothing more than that. Expand
  36. 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
  37. Dec 28, 2012
    8
    Before I go further, I just wanna say this game isn't an 8. It's just not a 9. It's more like an 8.5, or an 8.7 but for the sake of people who are on the fence, it'll be an 8. But enough of that: Assassin's Creed 3, in the series, is the best. It isn't the most improved from it's predecessors like AC2 was. But it's still the best game out of all of them. Story wise, it's fantastic...for the most part. I remember vividly dropping my controller and letting out a cry of "holy **** during the story of Connor. As for the story of Desmond....it's ambiguous. It's great right up until the end where you feel almost Mass Effect-ed. It's just kind of a let down. Graphically, the game is superb, beautiful, and there's nothing else to say. The voice acting is good and the characters seem believable, and I just love Connor. Gameplay wise you'll feel like a bad ass cutting through tons of enemies, pulling off the perfect assassinations (since anything less is often, and sometimes annoyingly so, penalized), and destroying enemy ships. Multiplayer is nothing new, which means it's fun, though the addition of wolf pack is addicting and entertaining. On the whole it's a fantastic game: but it's not perfect. Glitches from phasing into trees, floating above branches, and graphical hiccups mar the performance. Very few times do i reset, and the updates help fix this, but with a game so good it's hard not to feel let down by this. Additionally, the story is great only after it gets started. The beginning drags on forever, the missions can be frustrating and by the time things picked up i felt almost tired. But once i got over that i could see AC3 for what it truly was and is: a fantastic game let down by a smaller issues. It may not have built a skyscraper on the ground of Revelations/Brotherhood like AC2 did on top of the original, but AC3 lives up to its expectations, gives you a huge open world to play in, and will provide endless (and i hardly exaggerate, i still play it for fun!) hours of entertainment. Expand
  38. Nov 5, 2012
    8
    Mixed emotions on this one. But Assassins Creed III still has that "6 hours feels like 1 hour" feeling.

    Being an Assassins Creed fan since AC:1, I've loved every single game mainly for the main character and their development through the game. Connor didn't really have the same effect on me from the opening scenes as quick as Ezio and Altair did - yet he has start to grow on me as the
    game progressed.

    The game play is different. It doesn't seem to have the same structure as the previous instalments had, but the new mechanics do have their strong points. The free run mechanic in tree tops for example. When Ubisoft said that would be a new feature - my first thought was "that's gonna wreck my brain" but I have to admit they've got it quite right. All be it quite frustrating at times when climbing vertically, but running through forests flows seamlessly and quickly. You can't help but feel like a bad ass when running through trees quicker than what you would through the streets of Boston. The combat. Although it seems quite similar to the last games, with the chain kill system still in place, I couldn't help but feel like the countering system can sometimes be a bit sloppy. Some bugs have crept up during the game too - but the game is only one week old so that really is an unfair statement. Also the lack of thorough "how to's" at the start of the game did make me sympathise for newbies to the Assassins Creed world - and myself for some of the new mechanics when rushing through the game. The sailing. The sea missions have really surprised me. The game play is clean, simplistic (once you get the hang of it) and really makes you feel like a bad ass. This one however did have a tutorial beforehand, which did fill me with a bit more confidence before setting out. The game offers several different separate side missions based on the open seas. Great fun, and a definite bad ass feeling.

    The graphics. Outstanding. If you've played Assassins Creed Revelations not long before AC:III then hopefully you can fully appreciate the step up in graphics. They're most appreciated from a high synchronization viewpoint in the frontier or from the helm of your ship while sailing the Atlantic. They're crisp, clean and the motions of Connor/Desmond make the game feel a lot more real and physical. A new mechanic they've introduced as well is Weather Change. Never before done in the other instalments, you see the game and the landscapes in all four season. It gives the game a whole new feel, and the maps largely differ depending on which season you play on. The graphics further boost this experience, with foot prints, tracking and wildlife really giving a realistic environment.

    The sound. It can glitch at occasion. I play with the subtitles on, and at times the words will be appearing but neither characters will be saying anything. This again is only a week old game, and I can't pick on that too much. The wildlife sounds while hunting, which itself again is a brand new and very effective feature, greatly improves the experience while exploring the frontier. The war and gunfire sounds again support the different environments explored during the American Revolution.

    Multiplayer is the only thing I haven't touched yet, but from what I've heard - it does what it says on the tin and more from previous multiplayer instalments.

    On a whole - I do enjoy this game and I've only played a weeks worth of the game before all the bug patches etc but it really has answered the fans calls. The game play - although I feel has suffered in terms of Combat - has greatly increased and offers many new mechanics to play around with while watching Connor grow. Connor isn't the most exciting character (As of yet anyway) but he does host the game well and creates a great story to play through with his ethnic background. One thing I can say - the reason why it couldn't score 10/10 was I can't help but feel it's a bit short and feels a little rushed. The story could consist of a bit more, although the side missions to span on for quite some time (disregarding the Desmond storyline which itself answers many questions left unanswered SPOILERS) but still could've had more. Amazing new game play and mechanics additions. Great graphic step-up. Few small tweaks are there and do a lot of good. More than you could ask for for the Hardcore Assassin. New character could be better but does his job. Could be longer. More of a tutorial is needed. Bugs - which will be fixed. Keep up the good work Ubisoft! Still got one committed fan right here!
    Expand
  39. Nov 5, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Assassin's Creed 3 is probably one of the best Assassin's Creed to date. I'm just going to start with the Pros. I. LOVE the combat system. It is so refined from the previous games. Animations are superb from running and jumping along roof tops, to killing 20 redcoats in a matter of seconds with its amazing chain kill sequences. Its overall appearance is sexy. Some graphical glitches like texture pop ins are present but barley noticeable. Story is excellent and Connor is more of a bad ass than Ezio. Might I add the Captain Kidd missions are very fun as well! The Multiplayer is the same but it is better than revelations. It shouldn't be the MAIN reson to get the game. Now the Cons. Although the climbing looks fantastic it feels like a step back. I would find myself running away from guards and when I would turn a corner, I would randomly run up a wall and then die. It happened to me so many times that I would want to tear my face off. Another con is that (WARNING SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!) you don't get to play as Connor until about the 5th Sequence. That's almost half of the damn game. I felt as if during those 5 sequences the game was taken from me. I wanted to play as Connor really bad because the person you play as in the beginning kind of sucked. He was very plain and he was very unrelatable. I felt bored for the most part. But as soon as I played as Connor it felt as I just bit into the juiciest part of the steak. God it felt good to finally play as a bad ass. If you're a fan of brutal combat, compelling story and...well learning about history, give Assassin's Creed 3 a try. But if you want fast paced I would recommend something else because the beginning will have you drooling with boredom. Overall it isn't the best game, but its on my list of my top 5 favorite games with a solid #3 spot. Expand
  40. Nov 6, 2012
    7
    The Assassin's Creed game I was looking forward to. Incredibly fluid combat and movement, beautiful graphics, and finally an arching (rather than holding pattern) story. The storytelling in this game is also fantastic, as Ubisoft really made an effort to 'show' rather than 'tell' events, and avoid cut scenes as much as possible. As someone who didn't particularly like Brotherhood or Revelations, seeing AC3 take the best elements of those games, and refining and improving them was great. Very little (aside from the board game mini-games) is wasted in this game, and even the parts of the game that you do for the sake of doing them, such as collectibles and naval battles, are still fun. While the ending is very abrupt, AC3 is a solid candidate for Game of the Year in my book. Expand
  41. Jan 22, 2013
    1
    Peero que final es ese par una trilogia?¿ en serio?¿ y se han cargado toda la historia desde el AC2, ya q no tiene ensito avisar para salvar la tierra, si luego no haay solucion
  42. Nov 15, 2012
    8
    The story is boring at times and has a very slow start. Also, the shadows look odd on character's faces and trees during cutscenes. Besides that, there is a lot of content and value in this game.
  43. Nov 16, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Je l'ai trouvé super car il y a de super graphisme. Une très bonne qualité de manipulation de Cornnor et Etam. Le mode en ligne n'est pas beaucoup améliorer par contre c'est pour sa que je mes 9/10 Expand
  44. Nov 18, 2012
    7
    Pros- Navel battles are **** awesome So much details and Thematic Period Environments Extensive and Fully Featured Multiplayer Modes Great Cinematics and well Voice Acting Cons- The **** Blinding White Loading Screens pissed me off All Major Set Piece Battles are Disappointing and its not like the trailers Pointless Side Activities seriously they are just pointless Terrible Ending to Desmond Storyline FUUUUCCCCKK SAKES
    Rooftop gameplay diminished GRRRRRRRRRRR
    but overall this game was good i give it a 7/10
    Expand
  45. Nov 21, 2012
    8
    It might not be the revolution we were expecting but it's pretty damn good. The game is brought down by it's numerous technical issues, but the sheer amount of things to do, the story and the fun combat make it a great addition to the series.

    As for the ending, it was disappointing but it i not as bad as people say. Overall, I think it is the best Assassin's Creed game, with AC2 coming
    very close. Expand
  46. Nov 21, 2012
    8
    Being a huge Creed fan, I felt compelled to review it. The combat and economics are a step backward, but at the same time, many things such as travel have been streamlined. The naval missions were a nice addition to the formula. This is by no means a bad game. I enjoyed it very much. That being said, if you are a master/fan of Brotherhood and Revelations, there is a little bit of a relearning curve. Lastly, for the first time, I found Desmond's non Animus story to be more involving than that of the Assassin you control. Expand
  47. Nov 25, 2012
    6
    Terrible story, very bad voice acting, pathetic cut scenes BUT a very well designed open world, many side nice missions and challenges and a LOT to do.
  48. Nov 25, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Although a great game overall, I do have a few issues with the game. Nothing that really breaks it, as most of my complaints spawn from optional aspects of the game.
    I did enjoy much of the story, including Desmond's, surprisingly, as he has managed to bore me as much as possible, serving as an annoyance that took me out of the action. This time around, you get to play a handful of brief, linear, but interesting story driven missions, that serve to conclude his plot very nicely. However, as is common with all Assassin's Creed games, a curveball is thrown at the last second and leaves us with yet another cliffhanger. (You didn't honestly think Ubisoft would quit such a successful, iconic franchise here, do you?)
    Back in the time of revolutionary America is where you'll spend most of your adventure. I will try to avoid spoilers here, but the intro character you play as for a good 3 hours before you jump into Connor's shoes can be a bit boring, up until you get to the very last mission where you play as him.
    Once you step into Connor's shoes, things tend to be a bit linear for a few hours before you finally get to explore the world around you, which is really where the game shines. The characters he meets are pretty interesting, and the founding fathers are portrayed accurately, as opposed to some ungodly saints who could do not wrong as they uplifted humanity's destined holy land from the tyrannical oppression of the British-the game confronts issues where America's revolution was flawed, and hypocritical, generally had a pretty neutral view of the revolution.
    However, none of this really makes the plot less boring. It is an interesting piece of history, but not in an Assassin's Creed kind of way. The problem with moving forward through history is that things shift to more speeches and political maneuvering rather than stabbing people and bludgeoning each other with maces. While the stabbing that you do get to do is fun when you do it, it seems kind of repressed, like being an assassin is no longer the main focus of the game. Even though this is unarguably better than the first assassin's creed, the first one was undeniably about stabbing people, but as the series goes on, more and more optional crap is shoved in our faces that at times I forgot it wasn't called Artisan's Creed. You do tedious side missions on the homestead so you can craft items to sell. You then use this money to buy expensive upgrades for a ship, to do side missions, to open up trade routes to sell more things. It all seems a bit like a facebook game, and the game really doesn't need that. Luckily, all of this is optional, and it really doesn't matter if you don't do this, because your skills are as good as they'll ever be. Even though you don't become an assassin as Connor until about a third of the way through the game, it seems like the only change between him being just some random native american to being a full fledged trained assassin is that he put on some bathrobes with a hood on it. When you were Ezio or Altair in the first few games, you actually felt you were becoming a better assassin as you progressed, getting better and better equipment to aid you, but your abilities are pretty much unchanged from start to finish.
    Some of the story missions can seem pretty linear, especially the chase sequences. This goes especially for perfectionists who want that "perfect sync" option. I miss the structure of Creed I and II, where the game gave you a target, and you, the player, had to logically think about how you wanted to carry out the mission, methodically planning how to pick off your target. But in this installment, the game gives you a very clear path to your target, almost like the game is telling you, "Yes, you can have fun anyway you want, but wouldn't you rather have fun my way? I'll give you a prize you'll probably never use if you play the game exactly the way I want you to!"
    Despite my criticisms, this is a genuinely good game. Like I said, if you want to ignore all the optional missions and objectives, there's nothing to force you to do that. The new game engine is very impressive, and the giant battles you get to take part in are impressive because of it, namely the battle of bunker hill, which I replay almost every time I fire up the game. Some of the chase sequences can be rigid, but overall nothing should stop you from picking up this game; the combat is fun, Desmond's story is wrapped up, the visuals are great, and tree running is just as fun as you would think it is, and then some.
    Expand
  49. Nov 28, 2012
    7
    I think this is the best AC developed to date. The story line was very good, it felt like a movie where you had to play to watch more. The only complaint i have with this title is the many glitches throughout the game. The horse gets stuck, characters dont follow script, you can pickpocket anyone without getting cought. Also the enemies are way to easy to kill, literally i can take on twenty groups of redcoats and never die. Even with these problems the game is still worth adding to your collection, you will enjoy it. Expand
  50. Dec 24, 2012
    7
    (Out of 10)
    Game play: 95
    Dialog: 84
    Campaign: 82
    Pacing: 79
    Graphics: 95
    Free roam: 99
    Multi player: 92
    Plot: 80
    Amaze me meter: 76
    Overall: 86
    In Assassins creed standards i was extremely disappointed by this game, but by the normal games this is a solid game. Three saving graces: Graphics, Multi player(surprisingly) and free roam. Liked the game but it still felt like a letdown
  51. Nov 30, 2012
    6
    They managed to take Assassin's Creed and limit the fun parts of gameplay and focus almost exclusively on the story. To put it simply, this game feels like a (boring) movie that makes you do all the leg work. You're probably not playing this game to tie down the rigging on a ship or needlessly escort characters to multiple houses (with no action in between) for a 20 minute mission--but that's what you'll get. This game was a pretty big disappointment. It takes about an hour and a half just to get to the beginning of the real gameplay (where they show "ASSASSIN's CREED) on the screen. Even at the point, you have to start over with another character and do some mundane tasks like playing hide and seek with kids--this is where the game should've started. Expand
  52. Apr 25, 2013
    4
    Disappointment of the year.

    You need to have a level of expectation to get disappointed, so I'm not saying AC3 is terrible...it's just.. very disappointing. I had high hopes for this third installment. Ubisoft had shown a lot of improvement going from 1 to 2 and then to Brotherhood. I didn't get Revelations because I had my fix and was looking forward to a proper sequel. And so there it
    came.

    I love the setting. Interesting time period and location after Renaissance Italy. But from booting it up to finishing it has been a slog and a letdown in almost every other regard. The much taunted graphics? I'm not impressed. It looks like Ubisoft wanted to get a head start on next gen development and then had to cram it onto old consoles that couldn't quite run it. It looks really advanced with pretty lighting and highly detailed characters, but the cutbacks to get bearable performance are noticeable. Very aggressive LOD pops all over the scenery, and anti-aliasing is pretty much absent. This isn't accounted for in the artwork which often uses high frequency details that exaggerate the aliasing and often look downright buggy when viewed from anywhere but up close. This all makes the presentation incredibly rough in spite of all the bells and whistles. The shadows are low res and constantly flickering, making parts look buggy even if they aren't. I would much rather have less bells and whistles in return for a bit more spit and polish. So nobody noticed that from certain angles you can view right through Desmond because there is a huge gaping hole in his character model where his backpack is supposed to meet his sweatshirt? A backpack that has a cool dynamic effect when he moves, which also makes his sweatshirt pop through it. There are constant issues like these, and they distract because they look careless. For all the glaring cutbacks, performance can still be terrible and the frame rate can slow down at the weirdest moments.

    The sound is better. Orchestral score...check. Decent voice acting...check. The lip syncing and facial animation is pretty good and a step ahead of most games. But the series still loves to have it's characters have long winded conversations that aren't that interesting. The script is decent, but it's not a Rockstar game. It lacks punch and some of the historical characters lack weight, coming of more like unfunny caricatures. Overall, the game still thinks it's smarter than it actually is in it's overarching plot and message.

    All of this would forgivable, if the gameplay was good. But it isn't, let's start with the basics: controls, because they dictate the way a game feels. Controls were never the series' strong-point. Your character always had a tendencies to stick to the wrong wall or get stuck on scenery, but the later installments improved on this. AC3 takes a few steps back. The controls are simplified, which is good, but prepare to battle the controls more than you do the enemies in this game. The simplified controls make them easier to take down than ever. Connor can easily take on entire fort full of redcoats without losing too much health (which'll generously regenerate once you step out of combat). But movement is a lot looser, glitchy and unreliable. The walking animation is pretty stupid too, Connor always walks like a bouncer with his arms stretched wide, it looks weird especially going up and down stairs. The horse feels slow and clunky even when going full speed and trekking across the various maps (the game frequently asks this of you) is often a chore. The crappy controls make the stealth parts much harder than they should be, because from a gameplay point of view, there's no challenge there. Simple sneaking and tail the dude who stops to check around at regular intervals. Better hide behind the conveniently placed shack over there!

    There is 'a lot' to do in the game. The map quickly fills up with icons. Sadly, most of these represent repetitive and simple tasks: simple pick ups and drop offs and at best a minor skirmish. It's a kind of false variety. The sea missions are fun, if only because it's something new and fresh. They feel like a different game and they are because they were developed by a different team and only added, not really integrated into the game. There just happens to be a drunk pirate that lives on the estate of your Assassin contact who doesn't want anybody (including you) on his estate. Makes sense, no?

    That brings me to the most annoying part. The fractured nature of the gameplay. You're constantly being taken in and out of cutscenes, loading screens, in and out of the animus, different characters... The game handles this very inelegantly and as glitchy as the rest. It looks messy. Some times it feels like you're walking from cutscene to cutscene. The weather and time of day may change completely, your character may wear different clothes.

    All in all.. it's initially impressive but ultimately such a hollow experience and a giant letdown.
    4
    Expand
  53. Dec 2, 2012
    5
    AC III it's a bad story, a bad character and many bugs, many many bugs. Is this a Beta ? This game is a shame for every fan. The end of the Desmond story arc is just confused. Lame. Boring. But with superb graphics... well... not enough to make a good game.
  54. Dec 2, 2012
    7
    I pre-ordered this game with high expectations. Being on the "AC wagon" since the first I greatly enjoyed the games and the trailers led me to believe this I would enjoy this as well and I did, sort of. The major changes that come with any new addition, characters, setting, game play features are all here with some being exceptional e.g. the 1700 setting of America is great with the cities being believable in size and scope, the graphics are good but are riddled with multiple annoying bugs. The game play is good but the oversimplification of things proves to create a whole suite of difficulties rather than fix anything. The freerunning now needs one button but is easier to screw up, the combat is again easier than ever with the only difficulty coming when you have to use X to attack Y because Z wont work, crafting is never really explained because its not essential so there is no need to really get the best weapons because the starter stuff does ok and the whole recruit thing is done so you have to liberate places to get more but i got by with only two and hardly used them. And there is the story which is a mixed bag because it starts interesting and flops for a few hours and starts to really pick up at the end for it to just fizzle out again. This combined with the inconsistently fun missions and "full sync" achievements it proves that more isn't better. The good is everything else we expect from A.C. and the inclusions of naval battles, weather effects, logical use of firearms, e.t.c. I'll wrap this up with I liked the game and I'm a real lover of AC games but this didn't amaze me like the jump to ACII instead if you're on the fence about this, yeah you'll probably already have it if you love AC but if not this wouldn't really make you go wow as its not the best inclusion in this series and kind of confusing. By itself it doesn't really rank up with other great games out there that delivered what was promised.

    7.0 Good
    +All the good of AC +Good new inclusions +Bang for your buck

    -Oversimplification of things
    -Story falls flat at times
    -Inconsistent mission fun level
    -Missed opportunity
    Expand
  55. Mar 17, 2013
    8
    Graphics:9//Gameplay:6//Plot:7//Soundtracks:10
    ------------7.8 good---------
    i am a big fan of AC series,unfortuanatelly this one is not that good.
    the graphics are good ,but so many glitches ,sometimes you have to restart the mission because of that,the secondary objectives are weird and technically hard or impossible to do ,and while you are on the mean mission you will not notice
    that they added a new secondary objective and new parameters,so you will accidantly fail full sync,riding the horse is very bad and mostly glitchey,the building and the history surroundings are not beautiful as in AC2 or AC1,although the woods and hunting is good
    the plot is boring(except for Desmond) ,the battleship is amazing ,but i expected to have more ,not only three missions .alamance: wtf,all i wanted is one ,but i finished the game with 0 ,they are impossible to touch,this is the first time i have this in AC games.also you will walk a lot to get to the mission and you often get lost in the woods,fast travelling is stupid and cannot deliver you to another cities,you have to walk and get 3 loading screens and then walk again!!!!wtf.
    it sill a good game,but it is the begining of the end for AC series imo.
    Expand
  56. Dec 6, 2012
    8
    Игра Assassin's Creed III значительно отличается от предыдущих частей серии. Добавилось множество мелочей. Но к большому сожалению, игра немного кривовата. Сюжетные миссии сделаны на скорую руку. Больше всего меня порадовали задания на корабле и разные собирательства перьев, сундуков. Вообщем новый Assassin's Creed хорош, но не идеален. Expand
  57. Dec 8, 2012
    7
    An enjoyable experience but with a few frustrations. I couldn't help but feel the entire frontier area, and the Red-Dead-esque hunting mechanics really tacked on and unnecessary. More time could have went in to creating more scalable areas, as the tree climbing elements of the frontier areas fall incredibly short.

    The setting, i.e Revolutionary America, is interesting to me as somebody
    from a British audience, and I don't think there is another game out there where you can hang Tories, but I feel as if there could have been a far better choice of setting this time round. Revolutionary France would have been just as interesting, and provided a much wider variety of interesting architecture to scale and explore. As it is, 1770's America doesn't offer a great deal by way of climbing.

    As per usual, the meta-story set in the present is hackneyed and uninteresting, though the main plot allows this to stand up on its own. The dynamic between Connor and his son is interesting, though rather reminiscent of Star Wars.

    Combat mechanics are alright, but just 'alright'. As with previous titles I still don't feel incentivised to use many of the varying weapons.

    Visuals are stunning, but frame-rates noticeably drop on the ageing 360. The Opera House scene at the very beginning of the game demonstrates this, as does the Manor and Desmond areas. It seems more like poor optimisation (or even an intentional effect?) but is quite frustrating.
    Expand
  58. Dec 19, 2012
    2
    I hate to say it, but I was so let down by this end to the "trilogy". Let me start with what was good: 1. American revolutionary war era was an engaging timeline. 2. More modern-day levels and plot. 3. Good early plot twist and good exploration of father/son relationships. The BAD list is much longer. 1. Run claimed to be improved but wasn't. 2. TOO MUCH WASTED TRAVEL TIME. 3. Where's the hiding spots? Not on the map! 4. Rewards for side quests uncompelling. 5. Main character (Conner) unlikable. 6. SUPER BAD ENDING! Was so disappointed I returned the game. Wow, Ubisoft, wow. Expand
  59. May 17, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. (1.) Connor is boring. Ubisoft handled this native american stuff with "too much" respect, therefore connor had no sense of humour and no self irony. b-o-r-i-n-g.
    (2.) Very poor ending in the present. I was playing AC since the beginning, and built up Desmond as i played. The result was a catastrophy.
    (3.) Music is much worse than before. Not very bad, but there was nothing remarkable. Lorne is a good composer, so i do not see how could he do that. His tracks in ACR were mush mush better.
    (4.) Poor side missions. In the previous episodes all side quests had an own story. You protected a scared courtesan or got a letter from Lorenzo Medici. Every assassination mission had it's all detail eg. a guarded target, a target in the crowd etc. In AC3's assassination missions players had to kill 5 completely faceless character without any story background. All targets were alone, and should be killed in the same way. The world was beautiful and very large, but you could do nothing interesting there.
    (5.) Optional objectives should provide a full game experience with challenge, and should not make players s_ck.
    (6.) Useless map: From the first episode it was a trivial rule, that synchronizing all viewpoints reveals the map completely. It was very disappointing that you noticed that you have missed many missions AFTER the end of the game. Did you know that there was Thieves guild in AC3? Or assassination missions in the frontier? Here we are.
    (7.)It is a very good thing to make money in a game, if you know, that you can buy something really valuable from it. In AC3 there was no armor at all, and the best weapon was about 10% better than the worst one. That's not enough to make players earn money. The rewards were often useless (after riding all across the frontier and killing a bear, you got a scarf texture on the wall. Collecting all feathers gives you your original outfit Captain kidd's treasure is an almost invisible ring that is ridiculous.)
    (8.) It was a great idea, that all MP characters had their own story, but it was much better interpreted in ACR or in ACB.
    (9.) It would have been nice if characters (like Aveline) has appeared in the game.
    (10.) Low quality riddles. ACB riddles were awesome, they were solvable, yet it was fun to play them. And there were at least 12 riddle types. The reward was good (a video or a message), and most of them revealed some info about templars in the present or in the past. In AC3 a four year old kid can solve these puzzles. All the three of them.
    (11.) Jumping puzzles: Many of AC fans were fans of Prince of persia. Jumping puzzles were one of the most enjoyable parts of the games. In AC3 they were good, the levels were beautiful but they were too short.
    (12.) An assassin doesn't need bombs, ultimate rope darts or bazookas. It's far enough, if he can use the environment with more options than the enemy. It's true, that Connor could climb trees while his enemies could not, but he could not just jump of them, becaust there were very few well positioned haystacks. And the same problem was in the cities.
    13. How does he know?.. It's very confusing if you don't know if your character knows something or not. A character evolves as his knowledge grows. And the player should be there when it happens. Unfortunately we could not see when Connor has been informed about Haytham, nor when Charles Lee became "evil".
    14. There were tons of bugs. I can bet there was no manual testing at all on consoles, they just ran their automated unit tests and were happy that they are green.

    +1.Awful product design. Players had to buy Freedom edition for more than 100 dollars just because i wanted the "exclusive" extra digital content even if they were not interested in Connor's statue. And they had to buy season pass for 40 dollars which contained those extra missions, they had already bought. That's not exclusive, that's pathetic. Ubisoft makes s_ck it's best customers, shame on them.
    Expand
  60. Dec 21, 2012
    6
    If you're a fan of the previous Assassin's Creed games, you will most certainly enjoy this and get your money's worth, as it is more of the same. However, the end product feels very rushed and unpolished. It is full of graphical and gameplay glitches, and at times frustrating, hacky level design that will pull you out of the experience. There is little attention to detail. I would hesitate to even call it a triple A title by today's standards.

    The story is enjoyable. Everything that takes place within the animus is engrossing and entertaining--however, once again (in my opinion) the Desmond arc is ultimately boring, underwhelming and unfulfilling.
    Expand
  61. Dec 26, 2012
    6
    Not as great as the whole altair and ezio games that came before. Story wise, the prologue was dragged out a bit if you ask me and I hated the ending. But mobility to traverse the world, new hunting system, and missions for the homestead were great.
  62. Dec 27, 2012
    4
    I really love this series so I hate to give such a low score...but this game is just BORING. Boring combat, too many cutscenes..the story is OK at best. There are more guards in the cities than civilians. Fighting them is boring. Don't even get me started on the 100% sync bull. The game is so glitchy and sporadic it makes most of the challenges tedious and unenjoyable. The entire time I was playing hoping it would get better.. finally I rage quit playing Desmond because it was so boring lol. I'm not sure I'll even go back to finish. Expand
  63. Jan 10, 2013
    5
    Assassin's Creed III is a very predictable game, the graphics are really great that
  64. Jan 11, 2013
    7
    I consider myself to be a great fan of Assassin's Creed Series and to be honest, this game is good but not great as the former 2 parts were. It lacks some of the intriguing missions Altair and Ezio had to investigate, it lacks more interaction with historic characters, it lacks epic battles like the ones we were so used to fight with Ezio, and the magical atmosphere on past, present and future is lost. I always felt a deep connection between Desmond Miles and Altair/Ezio, but it's like Connor is from another linage, and it's not 'cause he's american indigenous, I actually believed this condition would be great for developing an interesting storyline that could conclude with the saga satisfyingly, I mean, It is a really rich character full of possibilities among so different cultures, but I only got that from the videogame: "what it could be and it was not". Expand
  65. Jan 12, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Assassin's Creed 3 is an above average game with some strong aspects. Unlike many of the reviews I've read on this game I happen to think the story line is quite good. There has been a lot of criticism over the story as many people believe it does not present a coherent image of the assassin's order or really develop the story line. However I felt that the game producers were aware that the time period they were focusing on was a story in itself and therefore allowed Connor (the assassin you play as) to obviously be the main focus whilst also allowing us the player to really immerse ourselves in the time period we're playing in. I for one loved the spin Ubisoft put on the Boston Massacre and was equally excited at dodging Redcoat bullets at bunker hill!! So in terms of story line I actually quite enjoyed most of it, although I do agree the finale was a bit dry.

    In terms of gameplay the main story line was brilliant. A large variety of missions to accomplish, a good set of sometimes challenging optional challenges and and intuitive control system allowed me to really enjoy the game. I will say that other reviewers aren't wrong when they say parts of the game can be very monotonous and at times aggravating.

    Now I must explain why I gave the game a rating of 7 when it should be a 9 in my personal opinion. The game is absoultely drowning in glitches!! Some of these are, as mentioned, fairly harmless and can be forgiven for the moment of comedy they provide. However some, are so agonisingly annoying that I was on the verge of writing to Ubisoft and having a right old British moan! For me what really pushed me to this point was a certain information gathering mission conducted on the homestead (stupid Encyclopedia). I was determined to get 100% synchronisation on this latest Assassin's Creed so I reluctantly plodded over to the homestead citizens and started to compile information about their amazingly dull lives! Nearing completion I gritted my teeth and got on with it only to be metaphorically kicked in the privates by a stupendously annoying Dr. White who simply refuses to do anything but two tasks in his entire day. I have researched this massively and there have been many problems with this and to reduce the likelihood of bad reviews from fellow players, yes I have been extremely patient with him. Anyway, I apologise for the end of that review turning into a rant but silly Ubisoft! You've ruined the entire game for me by making the worst mission on the game the most glitchy. Argh!

    So yes, 7/10!
    Expand
  66. Jan 13, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Based upon the Fact that this is their 7th game created in the Assassin's Creed run-through, I can't rate it higher than a 1 out of 10. The graphics are incredible. Unfortunately, I care about gameplay and replay ability. This is NOT a game about assassination at all- it's warfare. This game interested me because it's storyline supposedly climaxed on my birthday last year & I'm a fan of the original Assassin's Creed. Unfortunately (again) this game is too heavily sedated with the "need" for "Synchronization"- essentially grading your performance. More over, the grade is determined by how well you can move through a linear path chosen by the developers. [You'll find this out after you go through the painstaking effort of determining your best course of action, only to fail & be re-spawned in an entirely different location than where you were approaching your objective from] After being enslaved as a child and Forced through indoctrination facilities that determined my actual life course- having a video game grade me is absolutely ridiculous. More Importantly, to achieve the awe inspiring 100% synchronization is seemingly impossible. Even during the complete white out of a blizzard, guards will see you if you're not behind an object or in cover- regardless of your distance from them (i'm referring to an extremely problematic mission I encountered inside of a fort). The amount of guards, Never ending- if you should find yourself in open combat, the only thing you can do is impractically leave that portion of the world. As they're Everywhere & infinitely re-spawn to continue attacking you. Yes it's true, you can still run around & tear posters off of walls to "lower your profile"- but seriously? They stop chasing you because you ripped a poster off of the wall of a building? Aside from that, they did take the time to rebuild the fighting system to the degree that you can stand in the same spot & slaughter 1,000's of NPC's across the course of a few hours without dying.
    For the fact that they bragged their game was going into beta testing 9 months before it's release date- it doesn't appear they did anything more than polish the combat system & the 3D graphics capacity as I've fallen through the level once for every hour I've played so far.
    The economic functions are completely redesigned- so money is a LOT tighter in this game than any of it's predecessors, which is a crying shame due to the element that they added involving naval combat & the magnificently high cost of upgrading a ship. Ubisoft dropped the ball on this one, hardcore style. An Epic fail, as you find yourself AGAIN climbing the exact same tree/church/building to hit that viewpoint- despite distances of actually running for 5 to 10 solid minutes to get to the next one as the levels are so large now.
    As for the fast travel, I wish they'd just left it out of the game altogether. As it took me nearly 3 hours to unlock the ability to fast travel through the "Boston Underground" (where it takes about 8 minutes to run through the streets from one side of the city to the other) ON TOP of understanding that there's some sort of secret down there involving solving a puzzle with pieces scattered throughout the ENTIRETY of the underground level- that no on else on the net has even realized is there, because is such a daunting task to just run through it one time.
    Yes it's cool that you now have the ability to hunt & skin animals, unfortunately- unless you plan on spending more time playing this game than sleeping (over 200 hours) there was no point in adding so much to it. As for online multiplayer, buy the game in the store brand new- or be forced to pay out extra money, this requires the same profiteering passport system the last few games have incorporated- so this is yet another game I've rented and don't even get to play online. DLC- Yes, pay more money to acquire more parts to the game or never get all of the achievements (just as they started so many years ago in AC 2)

    It's unfortunate that this game has fallen so far, considering their main plotline (Just in case no one has noticed yet) is actually Historically Significant to the entirety of our species. The Templars=Servants of the Royal Red Dragon Bloodline as The Assassin's=Countless groups that have been stomped into the ground, across the past 5,000 years of civilization after civilization of mankind being internally ripped to pieces & burned to the ground for the purposes of enslaving men for profit & power. With the exception of the sole factor that here in reality, those that still to this day serve the Royal Red Dragon Bloodline practice rituals to cast out light & harmony in the name of ushering in malevolence through slaughter & have been caught doing such. Welcome to reality, where the defining feature of Assassin's Creed is the Creed itself- As in the world we live in, the only people not killing to get ahead are those that don't understand the world at all.
    Expand
  67. Oct 20, 2013
    8
    A game that aims so high its hard not to respect. The emphasis on your targets this time round over the protagonist is certainately different, and mechanics are streamlined, though in some ways the older schemes could have worked better. You do pretty much everything from board games to naval missions to sneaking & hunting. The big problem is that the actual assassinations have gone from openly exploring/ planning an attack to approaching them the game wants you to do so (scripted chases, quicktime events & areas where you get detected from taking any other route than the games expected path). On top of that there is not much focus on the assassinating in a game called Assassins Creed. It feels more like an American Revolution life simulator instead.
    Still, for all the faults its a breath of fresh air into the series, which was getting tired by Revelations, and if you liked the gameplay from the last few games this is one to get.
    Expand
  68. Jan 16, 2013
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I am huge fan of this series BUT yes their is a but the one thing i did not like was that i was not in control of the main character from the off I know that they had you play connors father to establish a back story but i think this could have been shortened or done in another way through letters or flashbacks.But apart form this i really enjoy this game and love the ship battles and side missions the main story is good and i like the way they handeled telling the war of independence in it being british i thought they handeled it fairly and the elements with desmond in are very good if few and far between the ending is not bad and i was happy with the choice they made this is a war after all and people die.To end this review a good game to end the current story on Expand
  69. Jan 19, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I can't believe a game would receive the ratings ACIII did when it was shipped in a fairly un-playable state for most of the launch week. Either the reviewers at the major review sites were completely oblivious to the hundreds of flaws in the game or decided to overlook them in their reviews, both of which are deplorable acts.

    In any case, ACIII was a mixed experience for me. I've been playing the series since the beginning. I don't share the disdain for Altair that other have and I loved Ezio to death as a character. Coming into ACIII, I expected a deviation back from Ezio towards an Altair-like character. I wasn't disappointed when Connor met my expectations. However, the degree at which he did was beyond what I could stomach for a decent character. Unlike both of his predecessors, Connor felt like the most abysmal, under-developed, and dry stereotyped character of the series to date. Connor's voice acting was weak, didn't evoke much emotion in me, and felt like the story was being read during a practice session of reader's theater. Connor's story was so tragically constructed that I went back and played more on Haytham than Connor during my second run-through. To that end, it's sad when your main character doesn't attach to the player in ways the antagonist does. I found that to be the single most damaging flaw in the entire narrative.

    ACIII's missions were like the previous games. I won't complain about them since I like them. I will complain about the fact that it took me 10-15 times to finish some missions on 100% completion simply because the game engine was so flawed that nothing you did would allow the objectives to be completed correctly. And I won't even begin to mention the terrible quality of the final mission simply because I want that sequence erased from my mind.

    ACIII was saved in regards to missions by the ship feature. I admit that I ran through every ship mission as soon as they were unlocked while blaring the "Pirates of the Caribbean" soundtrack. I loved this aspect of the game and hope that Ubisoft iterates on it.

    However, ACIII suffered from what a lot of other "AAA" titles have for the past year: cramming far too much unfinished, unpolished, shoddily-coded features alongside the core game. Tree running was fun for the first five minutes, then I realized you could get everywhere faster if you just didn't do it. Horse riding was never the greatest in the AC series, ACIII ruined it past even being considered a viable feature. Lock picking was painfully boring and repetitive compared to other recent games with the feature. I left the building and trading systems alone on my second run-through as I felt they were a gigantic waste of time and developer energy (and I was right). In all, too many un-finished and un-tested features ruined most of the non-storyline experience for me.

    My last complaint with the game was the end to Desmond. Like him or hate him, Desmond was a central part of the narrative since AC1. He wasn't as a robust character as I would have hoped for, but ACIII brought out a new perspective on him as you learned more about the world around him and experienced his "awakening" as a modern-day assassin. His death was the single most appalling and maddening experience I've seen in a video game and made me shut down my PS3 and refuse to even play the extended content of the game for a week. I still can't forgive Ubisoft for such a sordid ending to the game and to the Desmond character, so much so that I may forgo any sequels out of sheer spite.

    I've loved the AC series, and AC:Revelations set some high expectations for what ACIII would be. I feel Ubisoft trashed those expectations, released a game that was unfit for the market and didn't deserve an "AAA" title classification (not even an "F" classification for the first week).
    Expand
  70. Apr 15, 2013
    8
    Alright, here is my review.

    I've been a fan of AC3 forever, I loved all of them including Revelations. I'll start with the story, Ithe desmond story is a which I doubt anyone cares about, no point talking about it. Now, Connor is a great new character- in fact my favorite out of all the AC assassins, he is very realistic and deep character; I was into his story much more then Ezio.
    I'll admit it, Connor's story is one of my favorite stories in recent memory, albeit with some stedfalls.

    The gameplay is great, I enjoyed it for fun- it wasn't a challenge whatsoever, but it was still VERY fun. Great game, buy it! 8.5/10
    Expand
  71. Feb 7, 2013
    8
    This was my first Assassin's Creed game and I absolutely loved it. The time period Ubisoft chose couldn't be any better. The colonial times and the American Revolution are my favorite historical periods in U.S history. The new Assassin, Connor, is a very good character with a sad backstory and you will enjoy playing as him throughout the whole game. The combat is very cool, but doesn't feel as smooth compared to a game like Batman Arkham city, however still manages to be easy to fight and fun to kill oncoming British soldiers. The story is something that people will enjoy and it is pretty cool to see historical figures like Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Samuel Adams, etc. From what I heard, in the previous Assassin's Creed games, there are side-missions that you can do and lets say that you failed the objective, you have to keep doing that side-mission until you get it completed. If what I am hearing is correct, Assassin's Creed 3 doesn't force you to complete the side-mission which is nice for a player like me which has a difficult time completing just a side-mission to leave the mission and try something else. Although there are a lot of good things about Assassin's Creed 3, there is a lot of issues. During the campaign, you will find fairly a lot of graphical glitches. Another problem is the battles are kinda disappointing. Instead of fighting an army of British soldiers one by one, you have to help the colonists help fight the British like shooting cannons at them, and running through rocks while British Soldiers shoot at you. Not what I expected. Last is the character Connor is good, but can be very bland sometimes and you really don't know whats going through his mind half of the time. Looking past these flaws, this game is really good and highly suggest you buy this game. Expand
  72. Feb 5, 2013
    8
    Anyone giving this game a "0" just isn't giving this game any credit. There are plenty of other games out there that deserve the hate. AC3 isn't perfect, but I enjoyed it for what it was. There's a wealth of sources that cite that the game can get glitchy, and while that may be true I never experienced that myself, at least nothing mind-boggling. There's plenty of games that get buggy and while it's annoying if it doesn't deter you from finishing the game, it either means the bugs aren't that bad or the gameplay is engaging enough to keep you playing (i.e. Oblivion, Skyrim). In this case for most I think it's the former. I wasn't as big of a fan of the new engine, although it made things interesting enough to work around and see what new features it implemented. Fighting is more stimulating in the older games, but this one still works.

    I read a lot of complaints about the architecture of the old games missing here, but if you knew the premise, what exactly were you expecting? How much in the way of large structures in colonial settlements could there be? The environment in this game is still enormous, and while you're not climbing Renaissance art deco cathedrals (not that 1700 North America would have any) the tree system is interesting, and there's still a ton of climbing to do out in the wilderness. I enjoyed exploring the cities of New York Boston and recognizing some landmarks I've visited in reality. While the US Revolution storyline might not interest people outside of the US (or even in the US), for the purpose of the story it makes the most logical sense seeing as Desmond is American. If it wasn't the Revolution Era it would be the Civil War era. If not that, then perhaps the Spanish-American War era. Point is, it has to end in America.

    I'm not much of a multiplayer fan. I'd much rather have a game to complete on my own, and in instances where I'd want to play a multiplayer game I'd rather play with someone I know. But I gave the multiplayer disc a try with a X-Box Live trial and I actually enjoyed it a lot. The multiplayer environments are large and the amount of different modes to try will keep you interested enough to continue playing. I even considered getting an X-Box Live Gold membership to keep playing, so I suppose that speaks to its' quality.

    I wasn't thrilled with the ending, but playing these games has taught me not to get so excited over it, because none of them (to me) have been particularly satisfying. To each his own, but I think it was inevitable that the ending would come to what it was. However, I seriously and truly doubt that this will be the last Assassins Creed game. The franchise is too profitable for Ubisoft to just end it. We might not ever be playing as Desmond Miles again, but there will be another character that will take over his role in the Animus. Perhaps they're be a series of games where you play from a Templar's ancestral view. They could make a dozen of these games and I would probably play them all as long as they keep the quality at the level they've presented the series with. I rate this at a 8 for gameplay, visuals, expansive environment, fun multiplayer, and challenge in the last installment (for now) of one of my favorite modern day gaming franchises.
    Expand
  73. Aug 29, 2013
    5
    [5.8] As with most of the previous installments, Assassin's Creed never learns from its mistakes. The developers improve one aspect of the game, and forget to maintain another. You would expect a skilled developer such as Ubisoft to be able to perfect a game by fifth installment, especially when its weakest elements are the most important to the game.
  74. Feb 16, 2013
    5
    Many had high expectations for this game. All of that slowly withered away for me after playing as the father of the main character for about 2hrs. Then, when we finally get a taste of Connor, we are basically doing more training missions after we just played for a decent amount of time. The story was still AC esque, this means I didn't enjoy it. Stupid twists and pointless missions weren't all too pleasing. Also, the way they advertised the "big war-like battles" was pointless, as we played through about 3 of them, which weren't even long. Although it was overall displeasing I did enjoy how it added new types of missions, enemies and ways of ASSASINATING people. In the end though the new fighting style really pissed me off as it was totally different then the previous 4 games, also the recruits made no sense to me as well as the homestead, I never used them. Finally, I won't say it, but the ending was horrible Expand
  75. Jun 24, 2013
    7
    This game had a lot of hype surrounding it. It was suppose to reinvent the world of Assassin's Creed as we knew it. Did it succeed? Well, sort of.

    The game is very interesting, don't get me wrong. However, the primary issue here is a lack of centralization. There are so many things to see and do, but none of them are particularly interesting. The main story is bland (especially the
    story surrounding Desmond), the gameplay can be mundane at times, and the game just doesn't feel as tight as the other entries.
    It's a great game, but it does too much with little focus on any specific aspect.

    There are two things that really make this game great:
    1. The sailing segments are awesome, full of intense combat and excellent atmosphere.
    2. The sound-track is amazing, boasting some of the best tunes in the Assassin's Creed franchise.

    Give this game a try; it might just click with you. For me, it just wasn't quite as good as the other entries in the series. It is better than Revelations, though. That's for sure.
    Expand
  76. Feb 26, 2013
    6
    I don't understand why people think this game is so good the main assassin for the first time is really stupid and he complains about everything even though he is supposed to be a assassin and the bugs and glitches i encountered in this game were so frustrating and it took the fun out of the game
  77. lox
    Mar 1, 2013
    5
    One word: disappointing. Assassin's Creed 3 had so much hype surrounding it, me being one of the millions who gave into it. It looked so promising and judging from the trailers it looked like it had the potential to be the best AC game yet, as well as GOTY. But the game has too many flaws in my opinion. Playing as Haytham Kenway was fun for a little while but then for me it got tiresome and I just couldn't wait to finally play as Connor, whom you don't get to play as until several hours into the game. And even when you do finally play as Connor, you realize after a while that his personality is dull as a wooden plank. The combat system in AC3 when compared to previous AC'S is new and innovative, but it eventually gets repetitive rather quickly. Fighting guards eventually turns into a chore rather than a challenge. Also, the game had almost no climax to it. There was almost nothing at all that was relatively exciting enough to get me hooked to the story or the characters. I felt like the naval missions were utterly unnecessary. And to top things off, the ending of the game was unsatisfactory and a little disappointing. The only pros I can say this game has going for it is its voice acting, graphics, and soundtrack. It has memorable music, great voice actors, and is visually impressive(e.g. the wilderness). Overall, this game did not live up to its hype and certainly didn't exceed my expectations. AC3 was over-hyped and under-delivered. Expand
  78. Mar 1, 2013
    9
    The game started off kinda slow, with lots going on but as soon as you get a grasp and get into the world, you will not regret your decision to play this game. The world is very immersive, providing the players with plenty of ways to get around and tons of things to do. As soon as you become Connor and get your robes, you feel as if nothing can touch you. I have put more than 20 hours into this game and the one thing that never gets old is the combat. From using enemies as meat shields from gun fire to performing gruesome stabs with the hand daggers, this game has it all. This game is truly a high mark in gaming and should be played by everyone who wants to see what the future of gaming is going to. Yes there are a lot of bugs in this game, but most of them are small clipping or glitching issues. The flawless free running, assassinations and combat make up for any issue you may see. Expand
  79. Mar 2, 2013
    0
    Yes a "0" for a score. I was very upset that the first sceen that I was in battle (Cornfields at the beginning), the guys carrying the chest were stuck behind an outhouse. They couldn't move, and I couldn't continue the quest. Also, the Autosave thing is annoying and I would prefer to save whenever I want. 3rd, try running through Boston and not accidently climb a building... Impossible...
  80. Mar 22, 2013
    7
    This game counts as my reintroduction into the Creed world. I played the first but not the second so I was really looking forward to getting back to assassinating some guys. The problem I encounter with this game is in order to have fun you have to deal with TONS of load and TONS of cinematics. Don't get me wrong the quality of the cinematics is not in question, and I enjoyed the story. I just wonder if some of this could have been executed in game play or even exposition during some of the loads. All told this is a beautiful game with nuggets of solid fun. Defiantly worth checking out. Expand
  81. Mar 19, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Assassin's Creed 3 will leave you with mixed emotions.

    Pros The graphics and the combat animations are satisfying to say the least. The naval missions are realistic and will leave you wanting more. Cons Glitches are a big part of the experience. What happens at the end of the game doesn't compensate for the amount of time put into it. Too many times you'll feel aggravated or frustrated with the game.
    Expand
  82. Aug 15, 2013
    8
    Another great take in the Assassin's Creed series. It's not perfect by any meas: the voice acting is poor, the characters occasionally feel far from fleshed out and the movement is not always as precise as it should be. However the cinematic quality and the general storyline is well mapped out and putting Connor in the midst of key historical events made for a very engaging experience. One of the few games that made me want to research it's subjects and topics and shows that the medium can be used not just to entertain but (in a loose way) educate without losing gameplay. Expand
  83. Apr 6, 2013
    9
    Ezio was my dude. He is the reson i loved the AC's. AC1 was rather boring. 2 BH and revalations was just wow. We realy got a view and feeling from him. Now on to conner. He is young. Its nice but i think we would need more of him to get that bond. I loved this game aswell as all of them. You know what your getting with this. Nothing new here. We see desmonds story. Sorry but I've never played for him. In the end its a good game. Great story and lots and lots of replay. Just as every AC. Expand
  84. Apr 12, 2013
    2
    good character, good story, amazing gameplay these are the thing AC2 did right and AC3 did wrong Connor is the most bland character in the history of videogaming, hell pacman was a more interesting character. I don't hate the AC series but if this is the track bioware stick to I'm not buying black flag. Oh and thank god I can climb trees wanted that for ages!(Nope!)
  85. Apr 12, 2013
    2
    When I purchased this game I was promised a lot of things. Some of those things being hunting wild animals, a free roaming area, absorbing story, great character, captivating combat system and fresh ideas on an aging gaming series. But, on every single level it failed. First and foremost I'd just like to say if this is your first time getting an Assassins Creed game, don't bother. The story is so complicated that you will not even comprehend the game unless you've played every single other one before hand. You start off with a British assassin guy, who you don't know. Why is he the way he is? I have no idea, so as confusing as it is, you play on regardless. But the next thing you know you're in Boston, and this is where things start to get rubbish but don't worry, that's only 20 minutes in. Every mission is the same, go here, listen to this guy, go here, talk to this person, fight a few people, next mission. That's about the gist of it all.

    Never have I played a game with such clumsy, level design. I had to replay missions over and over and over again to stop it from glitching or something very peculiar happening and ruining all my progress on that level, throw in poor check point placement and you got yourself hours of wasted time. There's one point in the game early on where you have to release captured people and it took me 4 hours and 20 minutes straight to do a small part, which should of took 10 minutes due to poor level design, poor AI, poor movement and poor button layout. Who ever created the button lay out for this game had it completely wrong. You're thrown in to the game with no idea how to do anything, all it tells you is how to run. Next thing you know you're fighting 20 guys at the same time, getting shot and having no idea what to do. Not to mention you don't actually get to play the game until about 10 hours in, that's right. You have around 10 hours of the game which is considered 'build up' and 'tutorial' according to the game producers. And when it finally does let you free, it's a major disappointment. I've played Assassins Creed 1 and 2 which I enjoyed, so it seemed reasonable for me to get this. But honestly, don't waste your money. The only thing I could credit about this game is the originality I feel when I play it, it's a great idea being set in civil war America and you're an Indian assassin trying to get redemption. But that's all I can credit this game on, by far one of the most poorly produced games I've ever played. It had the raw potential to work, but the designers of the game got it terribly wrong. This, gets a 2 out of 10.
    Expand
  86. Apr 27, 2013
    7
    Assassin's Creed 3 is a game with so much potential to be an amazing game but littered with problems that prevent it from being a great game. While I did finish the game in its entirety, I felt like I wanted to give up on it multiple times throughout my time with it. However, upon completing it I quickly traded it in and haven't looked back.

    While the game doesn't take place in such
    grandiose environments such as ancient Rome and Jerusalem, early America does provide a rather interesting environment for the latest game in the series. Climbing and jumping from tree to tree while you stalk a group of British soldiers and pouncing at the right moment to unless a fury of death by tomahawk was particularly satisfying. I also enjoyed being the counter animations that Connor engages in when attacking multiple enemies and being able to use a single enemy as a human shield while being shot at by a line of muskets. This little details were the highlights of my game experience and kept me wanting to fight every British soldier I could find.

    However, this enjoyment was swiftly crushed by the numerous technical glitches I ran into it and severely underdeveloped game elements. One such element, is the hunting aspect that is introduced in the beginning of the game and becomes completely unnecessary and essentially never used again throughout the game. The Homestead missions were also more of a pain to complete rather than an enjoyment. Many of the NPCs are forgettable and I ended up forcing myself to complete this missions for the sake of completion rather than desire. The "trade" system is also underutilized, which allows you to collect crafting materials from the NPCs in the Homestead and use them to create things such as chairs and barrells to sell through a convoy to cities such as Boston and New York. I also couldn't standing the optional objectives in the majority of the missions. Some are understandable such as not being detected when eavesdropping on a conversation. However, others end up completely the destroying the enjoyment of the game such as "not touching anyone" while chasing someone through a street that the game has made more crowded for this particular mission. While these optional objectives aren't necessary to complete the mission, I wanted to complete all of the missions with the highest amount of "sync" which quickly became a fruitless endeavour if I wanted to keep my controller in tact.

    One particular feature of the game stands out above almost the rest of the game entirely, which was the naval battles. The naval battles could be a game in itself and I have not experienced anything like it before playing this game. Although, given the fact that this game should be focused on being an assassin, being the captain of ship shouldn't be the best part.

    I wanted to like Assassin's Creed 3 and it's not a bad game but it doesn't deserve the perfect scores it has received, especially in comparison to earlier entries to the franchise. I'm looking at you Ezio.
    Expand
  87. Rem
    Nov 11, 2013
    7
    I am one of those that truly adored the Assassin's Creed franchise. AC2 was the peak of the series as it showed how you can combine the free running mechanic and still give you an insane amount of freedom. Here in Assassin's Creed 3, that sort of freedom is absent. If you haven't brushed up on your previous games, prepare to get confused as it throws many aspects from previous games into the main story. What bugged me the most is that most of the missions in the game are just plain too restricting and tedious. Eavesdropping missions are certainly not a good way to past the time as I recall replaying one mission eight times because I had to play a very specific way. The game tries to make up for this by introducing a huge amount of side activities. Hunting, crafting, looting, underground, and delivery missions are present, but it just isn't any interesting. A couple positives I do have to mention is the fact that combat is more entertaining than ever. Freerunning is also simpler than ever. However the biggest surprise is the naval combat, which are easily the best parts of the game. Yet with obvious improvements even in the graphical department, there are plenty of technical issues in the game, and they certainly annoyed me. Overall Assassin's Creed 3 gets caught trying to do too much with so little. It is easily the weakest entry in the series and a disappointing sendoff to Desmond Miles, not like his story was compelling anyways. Expand
  88. ERB
    Nov 15, 2013
    10
    Assassin's Creed III may not be as good as Assassin's Creed II but I should admit this game is still awesome.The graphics are beautiful and the world of Assassin's Creed is so huge.There are also many interactions in this game like petting the animals,bribing people and more.The actions in this game is so cool I mean it has cool techniques and assassination moves and more.The game play in this game is fun and some time even funny like where you eavesdrop two people talking and like they spotted you and they want to kill you and if you crouch in the bushes or grasses they won't notice.Even if they are near you.I laughed so hard and I think in there time they believe in man-plants so they thought that you were a man-plant so they ignored you.So I can tell that this game will satisfy you not just the story of this game but all of them.

    This game is great.I love this game.I recommend you to buy this game because it is just great.If you are looking for a fun game to play here it is,Assassin's Creed III is an awesome game so try downloading this game or try buying It.I'm telling you this game is God damn fun.
    Expand
  89. May 17, 2013
    7
    Firstly I would like to say that Assassin's Creed 3 is an enjoyable game. All the elements that made the previous games so much fun are still present, but, in a similar way to Fallout: New Vegas, AC3 doesn't do much to improve upon the previous game other than a new setting. Having said that, this is good news if you loved the previous game in the series and just wanted more of the same once you'd completed it.

    The new, vastly different setting and historical context does give the game a completely different feel and freshens the series. It's cool to experience a very different point in history, especially one that is so much closer to the present day, so much more relevant and set a lot closer to home for many players.

    The new setting means there are lots of trees which you can climb, which might sound novel but it's basically just the same thing as climbing a building, except your in the middle of nowhere with no reason to climb the tree...

    The naval battles are probably the biggest addition to the series (and were basically the only reason I got the game) but really don't feature that heavily in the storyline. I thought that concept would really get milked but as far as I can tell there is only one point in the game when you get to board another ship which was disappointing as it was a really promising area that was a lot of fun.

    The biggest disappointment in this game (and it was a huge disappointment) is the storyline. For most of the story I really had no idea WHY Connor was doing what he was doing, and at many times it seems like he doesn't know either. And to be honest, the game didn't really do anything to make me care. There doesn't seem to be that much of a purpose to him going around assassinating people. Every cut scene tries to add some ambiguity surrounding what's right and wrong, and who the real bad guy is, but just end up confusing everything even more. It's all left very vague. Every twist that the storyline takes just makes it worse and seems to give Connor LESS of a reason to fight. Ultimately, he's only assassinating people because he's the main character in a game called "Assassin's Creed 3".

    And the ending... Don't even get me started on the ending... It's the worst ending of any game series I've ever played. It might be the worst ending to any game series ever. Assassin's Creed (not to mention all of the fans) deserved more. This shouldn't really affect your decision to buy the game because it doesn't affect the gameplay but you will be left disappointed. I myself stared at the screen going "...is that it?..." (it's not very long either) and then sat through what must have been 20-30 minutes of credits to see if I was actually only half way through the game.

    AC3 is a fun game and if you liked the previous games you'll like this one just as much, but this game isn't reinventing the wheel. There's nothing revolutionary here (ironically).
    Expand
  90. Jul 21, 2013
    10
    Fantastic game. Great voice acting, story, gameplay mechanics, immersion, graphics. Everything is top notch. People giving this a negative review/score have no idea what they are talking about. Somebody thought it was cool to start a "AC3 hate bandwagon" and a lot of people decided to jump on. Most of the negatives scores actually have completely wrong information and/or nitpicks that don't hamper the game. People also seem to hate the new protagonist called Connor, for some inexplicable reason. They are obviously stuck in the past with love for Ezio (protagonist from the last THREE games, may I add) that they cant fathom a new hero having a different personality and morals, values, passions. They simply don't understand him. Some people have also been complaining about glitches, even though I only encountered a couple small ones (I.e. floating weapon) throughout the whole game (keep in mind no game is perfect and these are miniscule). All in all, the game left me wanting more of Connor even after I completed the game (which took me 20 hours or so including side missions and collectibles) and I cannot wait to see what Assassins Creed 4 has to offer come October 2013. Expand
  91. May 18, 2013
    2
    Sloppy controls, the game will drive you insane when you try to do the stealth missions, you'll have to do them over and over again only because of the game errors. I do not recommend this game.
  92. Sep 22, 2013
    8
    Assassin's Creed is no doubt my favorite video game franchise, and this game is no exception. Well... mostly no exception. The story for this game is half and half for me. one on side, Conner's story is great. It isn't the best the series has written, but it's still nice. I found it really surprising that Haytham was actually a Templar. I think this was an awesome plot twist, and I think Ubisoft should actually do more with playing as Templars. As for Conner's ending, it's alright. I felt that it ended to abruptly, but it isn't the worst ending; i'll get to that. On the other hand, we have Desmond's story, which is the WORST in the series. Like the other Desmond stories, while it's acted well, it's completely unneeded, and doesn't make sense whatsoever. and what I said about AC's worst ending? Desmond's ending in this game has to be one of the worst endings in video game history. I won't spoil it, but I will say that it reflects how useless Desmond's story really is. Now onto the gameplay. this game adds up a lot more mechanics, but I have one problem with them: the overworld. the overworlds in this game are absolutely HUGE. I find myself constantly fast traveling, and also ignoring side objectives and little extras. Basically, my problem is that the worlds are too big: they break the flow of the game, and make the replayability matter less. heck, I barely touched view points in this game, which I always did in previous games. Though the combat still manages to stay fresh, and much better thanks to additions such as arms and muskets. Something that really surprised me was the graphics in the game. the environments are surprisingly beautiful, and even more so, this game has a surprisingly fast frame rate. I loved this, as it made the control in the game feel much more tweaked and fluent. But by far the best aspect of the game is Multiplayer. Multiplayer is addicting and fun, and the gamemodes, level system, and maps are great. Overall, ACIII is a great addition to the series. Desmond's story may be awful, and the huge worlds may take away from the game, but thanks to Conner's story, improved gameplay, and epic Multiplayer, this is a great game that I recommend you pick up. Expand
  93. Jan 6, 2014
    10
    Previously, I thought this franchise was just another mainstream Call of Duty-esque franchise. Until I realized the historical aspect each game carries. Being the US History buff that I am, I decided to teast this game out...and I loved it. It's so amazing to interact with huge historical figures, travel colonial America, and well, kick some ass. This game also brings in the issues of freedom for all and slavery and questions our own morality of killing. Assasin's Creed 3 is truly a masterpiece. Expand
  94. Jun 7, 2013
    6
    Assassin's creed 3 is not the perfect sequel AC fans have been waiting for, Dose it live up to the hype? No. It has lackluster side missions except the naval missions), a convoluted story overall, and some game play hiccups. What it dos have is some solid voice acting, and fun combat.
  95. Aug 12, 2013
    8
    a well done open world game with very immersive environments and a good not great story although Connor the main character is a little boring, but overall, the game is full of exploration and cool missions.
  96. Aug 5, 2013
    9
    My review on Assassin's creed 3 SINGLE PLAYER: 8.5/10. outstanding story, great twists and turns. HATE connor, for some reason GRAPHICS: 9.75/10. breathtaking. besides a few glitches. simply outstanding SOUND: 8.5/10. great sound design, decent voice acting MULTIPLAYER: 9/10. lots of game modes and maps, very unique approach. do not like that you can buy your way through the unlocks
    GAMEPLAY: 8.5/10. fluid controls, lots of fun mechanics. sadly plagued with quite a few glitches. though.
    FUN FACTOR: 9/10. very fun game, lots of content
    TOTAL: 9/10
    Expand
  97. Sep 15, 2013
    4
    Connor was assassin. His character sucked. The ending was sick but other than that, all of the characters sucked except for Charlie. Haymitch and everyone was awful.
  98. Aug 21, 2013
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Assassins Creed III was a extremely smooth and featured easy controls. There was always something to do in AC3 even after you've completed the main story. Desmond's story is still weak and confusing and gives you little to keep you interested. Meanwhile, Conner's story was always interesting and showed extreme depth. The way the game started introducing you to a bunch of characters, that you will eventually kill, was a very nice touch that gave the story even more depth. The introduction of the Aquilla was done perfectly. Controls were easy. It will be interesting to see if you will be able to explore the world via ship in future AC. Expand
  99. Aug 10, 2013
    10
    This was my first AC game and i loved it to bits. It's huge, great graphics, lots to see, lots to do, lots of reliability, i just had so much fun with it. I've played through it twice so far and will deffo play through again sometime. My only problem with it was the story line was weak in places and i didn't like the modern day sections and the whole animus thing.
  100. Jan 25, 2014
    0
    I'm Sorry Ubisoft, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, This takes everything Assassin's Creed stood for and Sh*t all over it - getting rid of ezio was the biggest mistake they ever made, now that i've screamed enought i'll start by pointing out the mistakes-
    1. Poor introduction I have never waited that long to properly start a game, it would of fared better if the main character was Haytham,
    2.
    Poor intergration into history after helping George washington win a war you laugh at the absurditity of it all.
    3. Boring character personality, ezio was by far the best of the series. but connors voice was offputing, and he had no interest in meeting new people and that made me not want to meet anyone.
    4. What about everyone who dousn't life in america, I life in australia and therefore do not show much interest in the american colonial war .
    5.Horrible gameplay, Ubisoft who's BRIGHT IDEA was it to CHANGE THE GAME CONTROLS HMM? fighting feels slow and obese, in previous games you would easily press X,X,and then counter by just holdin the RT. now they need a slow motion moment just so you can get your finger back round the X button.
    6. Who else's idea was it to make the loading screen , BLINDING WHITE, i played this game at night and everytime ahhhh punta elgato!. Maybe this is a Ubisoft plot to secretly rid the world of vision.
    7.Desmond is as boring as ever, as you are pulled into a sh*ttier game, his missions aren't exhilerating or exciting they are just plain desmond but the best part was seing his father punch him right in the face.
    8. And probably the worst part of the game the ENDING, it was so out of place, i played though 5 games in order waiting for THIS?. what NOOO!. , there's no choice like in farcry 3 and you are left more confused than you are in Mass Effect 3.
    This list looks pretty bad because it is, this is firmly the worst game in the series and hopefully we can all forget about i and move on to black flag. WHY,UBISOFT WHY.
    Expand
Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 61 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 52 out of 61
  2. Negative: 0 out of 61
  1. Dec 5, 2012
    60
    At least the petty indignities of the multiplayer are optional and situated around gameplay that's solid and unique, if frustratingly stagnant. In the single-player campaign, however, it's impossible to escape the ham-fisted manipulations of the Assassin's Creed III development team.
  2. 90
    Assassin's Creed III is a pretty damn fine game. It loses none of what makes the series fun with the translation to another time and continent, and creates a whole new set of experiences which define the franchise. The biggest issue, if there is one, are the small technical issues, but these niggling technical issues only seem worse because everything else is such a great experience.
  3. 90
    Like any game of such scope, not every part of it is perfect. Yet, taken as a whole, there is very little that can compete with its wonderful, lavish, historical playground. [Issue#91, p.22]