User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1063 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. Jul 21, 2014
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I've played games since the original XBOX came out, so I do know what I'm talking about. I've also loved the Assassin's Creed franchise from the start of it. And personally, this game was a joke. The story is based out on during the Revolutionary War, yet, most of the entire story has nothing to do with it! When I saw trailers and gameplays, it was at a scene of an actually battle, making the player/buyer think that you are going to be in a lot of the actually battles between the Redcoats and the Patriots. But you aren't. All it really is is you running around trying to kill templars that have barely anything to do with the actual revolution. In after Assassin's Creed Revalations, i thought Ubisoft had given up. Luckily they were able to get there priorities strait for Assassin's Creed Black Flag, which was a good game. So please, DO NOT BUY THIS GAME! Expand
  2. Jul 15, 2014
    The only reason I gave it as high as a 4 and not a flat 0 is because of how much I love using the tomahawk. And Haytham Kenway. Connor is just so hard to like.
  3. Mar 8, 2014
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Wow, Ubisoft you did it again! You failed another multilogy of your games (another was Prince of Persia). You made me hate your сompany after this game! Expand
  4. Ape
    Feb 26, 2014
    Is this assassin's creed or melee creed? What the hell were they thinking making this? The city is cluttered and stuffy with nowhere to really utilize the game mechanics. The guards are a joke. The story itself is tedious and unbelievable, even for a video game. The pacing is abysmal and clumsy the whole way through. The best part of it is the beginning with the boats. After that I'm at a loss for how they could think this would be a good game. Expand
  5. Jan 24, 2014
    I loved AC2, and I enjoyed Brotherhood. I consider those two games the height of this series. But something was clearly lost after Brotherhood. I may piss some people off saying this, but Revelations and AC3 are utter garbage. There is almost nothing good about those two games in my brutally honest opinion. This whole "Those Who Came Before" plot line was novel and interesting in AC2, but in AC3 it has become pointless and feels like it should have been wrapped up a game or two ago. Combat again becomes simplified, and the game lacks interesting side stuff like the glyphs in AC2/Brotherhood. The main character is boring and uninteresting. At a lot of points in the game, you play for 5 minutes then watch a 10 minute cinematic. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when it happens this often I get annoyed. And, much like AC1, the voice actor for the main character is atrocious. AC1 was still enjoyable because it was an ambitious game that brought a playstyle into the industry not really seen before other than in Prince of Persia. But AC3 is the fifth installment in this franchise -- the gameplay is no longer a saving grace for bad voice acting, cheesy dialogue and a bad plot. I've heard AC4 is significantly better than this game and I sincerely hope so. I was severely disappointed with this title, as I also was with Revelations. If you care about the story, play the game for plot progression's sake -- otherwise, there really is no point in playing this game. These are just my opinions, and not objective criticism, which is a distinction I hope you make while reading my review. I loved AC before Revelations, so it's just an incredibly disappointing game for me. Expand
  6. Dec 10, 2013
    Just terrible. The main character is an idiot; the guards are omniscient to the point that stealth is impossible; controls are poor; the story is AWFUL; and the missions are nothing but frustrating.
  7. Sep 24, 2013
    Finalmente, el sacar una nueva entrega de la saga cada año les ha pasado factura. Lo mejor que tenían los AC no eran los gráficos, ni el combate, sino la historia y la trama en general. Todo queda arruinado en esta "conclusión" hecha deprisa y corriendo (en particular, el protagonista queda muy pobre y sosainas). En general no está muy mal el planteamiento, pero repito, falla la ejecución. Si le hubieran dedicado el tiempo que necesitaba, igual les hubiera quedado mejor. Por lo demás, la mecánica bien, innova algo con respecto a sus predecesores que incluye nuevas áreas más grandes, para hartarse a explorar (cosa que a mí no me llama mucho la atención, la verdad. No creo que "skyrimizar" el juego lo mejore, pero...bueno) y algún que otro cambio -que no mejora- en los combates. Expand
  8. Sep 15, 2013
    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.
  9. Jul 22, 2013
    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. May 18, 2013
    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.
  11. May 17, 2013
    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.
  12. Apr 25, 2013
    Disappointment of the year.

    You need to have a level of expectation to get disappointed, so I'm not saying AC3 is'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

    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.
  13. Apr 12, 2013
    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.
  14. Apr 12, 2013
    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!)
  15. Mar 2, 2013
    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...
  16. Feb 3, 2013
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I worried AC3 would be bad as soon as I heard the setting was to be Revolutionary America but since I'd enjoyed the whole series I persevered and gave it a try what a mistake. This game is so mind-numbingly poor and, worst of all, boring (the cardinal sin of gaming) that it's actually turned me off gaming. If there were going to be any further AC sequels I'd certainly avoid them and save my money after this travesty. I don't know who at Ubisoft is responsible for this fiasco of a game but if it was down to me I would fire their ass. I have absolutely no idea why people are giving this 10 when it's so obviously poor I hardly know where to start. It's biggest sin is how boring it is I can imagine sailing across the Atlantic in the olden days was a very tedious process but do I want to experience this seemingly in real time in a game? No thanks. Likewise (spoilers ahead) the ending where you track down Charles Lee is literally the most boring sequence I have ever played you're basically mysteriously injured by a rogue piece of wood while chasing Charles Lee (lame!) so you have to spend the next ten or fifteen minutes limping at 1 mph to track him down to a tavern where you don't even get to kill him, it's just a cut scene (I hate that, I might as well just watch a movie!). There's not even a prompt to press a button to execute lazy is that?!! And then just when you thought it couldn't get much more boring you're back to Desmond in the modern day for a super-tedious sequence where you have to explore the underground cavern to unlock some door. If you can keep your eyes open to complete this sequence that's basically the end of the game play because the rest of it is just a cut scene where you're insulted with one of the worst game endings in history. I get the feeling since the game makers had copied Red Dead Redemption so much already they thought they'd also attempt a controversial ending but whereas Red Dead's ending was jaw-dropping strangely moving, AC3's ending is just a complete travesty a joke and practically an insult to the legions of gamers who had invested so much money in the series.

    As many people have noted the game is also swamped with bugs and a lot of the animation even in the cut scenes is ropey error-strewn...sometimes the characters mouths don't even move when they talk who the hell signed off on that before the game was released?? The frontier setting is interesting but just reminded me of the far far superior "Red Dead Redemption". The only part I actually enjoyed were the sea battles which were something new and different.

    I've never been so disappointed in a game, it felt like a real chore just to finish it (almost like doing homework!) and a game should be the opposite of this, you should not want to put down the controller. For the first time ever I feel like asking for my money back and I'm not that sort of person at all. If you want to save yourself some time or money avoid this game like the plague. If you're a fan of the series, give it a miss and just remember the good times of earlier games in the series back when the settings were just right, the characters interesting and the plot lines intriguing.
  17. Jan 22, 2013
    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
  18. Jan 19, 2013
    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).
  19. Jan 13, 2013
    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.
  20. Jan 7, 2013
    I have never been more disappointed with a game in my life. Here is a triple-A title, ready to surprise everybody and then when you finally open the package, it's Ubisoft giving you the finger.

    Here's why this game is so atrocious. Beware; things stop being civil beyond this point.

    1) The glitches. They are literally everywhere. I have not played a sequence in which I have not
    experienced a glitch that kicked me straight out of whatever parcel of immersion I sunk into prior. Whether it be Connor or Kenway diving into a body of water when they're already in it, or things not spawning or doors not opening when they're supposed to, this game is pathetically full of them. Alas, everybody's commented on it, moving on.

    2) The gameplay. It's beyond non-intuitive. Everybody loves a challenge, and games are more fun when they're not intuitive and actually force you to think for a second. But this game stabs intuition, throws it on the ground, spits on it, and then sets it on fire. Most of the major assassinations have "optional" objectives, which are to remain undetected and do an airborne assassination, or something. This is okay, especially since the game is called ASSASSIN'S Creed. However, every single assassination I've played so far was just flat out impossible to tackle covertly. Sneaking in brush? Oh sorry, here's a half square foot of non-brush that'll force you to peek your head out for less than a tenth of a second, but triggering aggro from every single guard within a hundred foot radius. What the HELL is up with that? Speaking about guard aggro, it's way too sensitive when it shouldn't be, and not sensitive enough when it should be. (Being completely stealthed in a brush RIGHT in front of a guard, anyone?)

    3) The voice acting. Voice acting is great in that it helps you get more immersed in the game. I don't know what went wrong with the voice acting in AC3. The scripts are just atrocious. Who was the game production supervisor who let this junk through? The dialogue literally sounds like it was written by someone who just graduated from middle school.

    4) The characters. Connor's character is downright stupid. I would rather listen to your grandparents having sex than hear another sentence being uttered from this protagonist. The game designers COMPLETELY underdeveloped him, and it just shows in the dialogue. Every single time. There's no complexity to this character. In fact, here's Connor summed up in one sentence: "This guy f*cked with me or my tribe? Screw thinking this out; I will stop at nothing until I can lick the fresh blood from his corpse off my hidden blades." Seriously?

    5) The combat. Killing a group of men is dumb now. At least in AC1, you could tackle a group of guards and not get gang-banged from every possible angle. All you had to do was time your combos properly, and you'd emerge fine. Now? It's literally mashing B, and pressing X every couple of seconds. Maybe I'm playing the game wrong, who knows. All I know is that traditional combat sucks.

    6) The character control. I have not played a game that handled this badly. Trying to dictate Connor on where to go is like trying to manhandle a bull. Surprisingly, the times when I have the most joy controlling Connor is during the loading screens when there's nothing on the screen at all.

    7) Best for last: the plot. Looking at the game from a macro perspective, the plot seems fine. But when you actually play it through it is the most jumbled, non-sensical, poorly scrapped together piece of junk I have ever had the displeasure of playing. I WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE TEMPLARS FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH, NOT GET CARRIED ON THIS INDIGNANT PROTAGONIST'S EVERY WHIM. JESUS UBISOFT.
  21. Jan 7, 2013
    I've loved the series but I loathed this game. Worst ending in video game history. Full of bugs and inconsistencies. Had potential, but needed another year in development.
  22. Jan 1, 2013
    I am going to try to some up all the ups and downs of this game. Unfortunately, there is more downs than ups. My quick opinion, do not buy the game for full price, do not spend the money on the DLC
  23. Dec 29, 2012
    The cut scenes. They are never ending. And if you try to skip, you walk around in a white light for as long as the cut scene would be. The things you would think DOESN'T causes suspicion does, and vice-verca. It seems like a bad attempt at arkham city
  24. Dec 29, 2012
    Expected much more than I got. It really is unfortunate that they'd incorporate such a bad ending in an attempt to milk the series in the future. Don't expect anything groundbreaking.
  25. Dec 27, 2012
    I wish the previews or the notes on the box said something about the missions I've actually had to go thru so far. "Enjoy missions where you... walk... slowly... listening to conversation." Ugh... I get a mission where I have to walk with someone, and listen to info related to the story, which I don't care about. Of course the person I'm to follow is walking slower than my slowest speed, so I have to stop and wait for him to catch up or get a few yards ahead of me. Who designed these "missions" and thought they'd be fun? It would be different if the conversation was clues to the next mission or something, but it's just random jibber-jabber about characters in the story which I'm already disregarding because the cut cenes are lame too! Why do developers treat their cutscenes like they're right out of a movie? We don't get distinct facial expressions or mannerisms so watching 2 wooden characters move arbitrarily while having a conversation is not anything particularly interesting. At least speed it up; we don't have to watch a guy drink a beer, slam the mug down, shake his head, turn his head, then start to speak do we? I'm skipping most of these by now... Also, several times as the game moves along, they will drop you just outside the building you're supposed to go in, then you take 8 steps to enter the building and the cutscene starts. Why not just start the cutscene instead of making we wait for the town to load, and take 8 steps, and then wait for the cutscene to load? Eavesdrop missions are nothing near being fun. Plus if you get spotted by mistake, you have to start from the beginning of the mission, and listen to the same lame dialogue again to get to the part you messed up on. I rage-quit over on these a couple times, because I'd get spotted by someone off-camera and have to start over. Then there's the great "new" addition to the AC franchise: running in snow! It's bad enough I have to commute across the entire map to get to the next mission, accidentally trying to climb every fence and tree stump I get too close to, but when I hit the woods I'm now "running" in 3 feet of snow, and it slows the already annoying chore down to sheer agony. I've been playing for hours, in the hopes that I'll get to something that is fun in this game, but am near the point of adding this to my trade-in pile. AC2 had some great buildings to climb and the dungeon puzzles, which was fun. Instead of that I have a chase mission riding a horse I can barely control thru the woods, and am bumping in to every tree and rock along the way. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but in an AC game I want to be able to explore, collect, and take missions with freedom to decide how I want to play. Why am I penalized for killing someone? Some missions have restrictions "complete mission without killing anyone" in a game called "Assassin's Creed"..? So far, not good... I'm giving this a "4" just on the anticipation I have this game will get better, based on what I enjoyed from previous games. Expand
  26. Dec 27, 2012
    BORING AND BROKED GAME! 9 or 9.5 for this game is a f#cking joke. Lame characters and lame story that involves the 2012 mayan apocalypse. Yes, it really looks like they wrote the storyline on a restaurant's napkin while taking elements of a popular myth because they couldn't think of creating something new or innovating. The combat system is laughably bad! I can't fight against the british soldiers with a straight face while witnessing the HORRIBLE combat animation and brainless hordes of enemies. The main character (Connor) is more boring than Sheppard! He's so charismatic as a f#cking plant! The lame and tedious story doesn't help either. The only good thing about this game is the Open World , navy battles and the cool ambiance of the colonial USA period, THAT'S IT. Everything else is garbage or boring. Ordinary side missions and the extreme linearity in the main missions are f#cking frustrating! Tons of bugs broke the immersion and irrational AI creates weird situations. Don't buy this game! Expand
  27. Dec 27, 2012
    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
  28. Dec 21, 2012
    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
  29. Dec 19, 2012
    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
  30. Dec 15, 2012
    The idea is great. But in my opinion, a game with bugs cannot be considered a finished game. Also I have to complain to being forced to buy additional content if I'd like to play more missions, which of course, is pointless to me if I've already completed the game's main story.

    I was aiming very high on this one, because it's focused on my favourite era, but the results are not worthy
    of an enterprise like Ubisoft. The thing that impressed me more are the ending credits. I can't figure how so many people worked for this... This game is the pure capitalism's expression. Expand
  31. Nov 29, 2012
    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. Collapse

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
    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]