User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1077 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 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
  2. Dec 7, 2012
    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.
  3. Nov 17, 2012
    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
  4. Jan 5, 2013
    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
  5. Jan 10, 2013
    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
  6. 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
  7. Feb 7, 2013
    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.
  8. May 8, 2013
    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.
  9. Dec 15, 2012
    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
  10. 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
  11. Dec 3, 2012
    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
  12. Dec 4, 2012
    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.
  13. Jan 24, 2013
    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.
  14. Dec 30, 2012
    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.
  15. 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. Expand
  16. Nov 7, 2012
    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
  17. Nov 9, 2012
    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.
  18. Nov 11, 2012
    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.
  19. Nov 13, 2012
    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.
  20. Aug 10, 2013
    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.
  21. Dec 30, 2012
    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
  22. Feb 9, 2013
    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.
  23. Dec 2, 2012
    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.
  24. Jul 27, 2014
    Assassin Bug III. I think is not a bad game, it´s a really good game, and ok it´s too late to do something years ago. But the bugs kill the game experience, the part of the house it´s great, the documentation of the buildings are nosey, but when you are inside the story and soldiers disappear, the instructions aren´t clear or the target appears in the middle of nothing...
  25. Nov 11, 2012
    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
  26. Nov 23, 2012
    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.
  27. Nov 25, 2012
    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.
  28. Nov 11, 2012
    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
  29. Nov 25, 2012
    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.
  30. Dec 6, 2012
    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

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]