User Score
6.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1058 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 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
  2. 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
  3. Oct 31, 2012
    6
    First of all, let me be clear, I've been an Assassin's Creed fan from day one. I followed the development of every single game since it's conception. I have all the games, all the books, most of the merchandise. I even did some internshipping at Ubisoft to work on Brotherhood. I would go as far to say I'm a diehard fan. This is why, it pains me to say this. Appart from Revelations and the games on other handhelds, this is the weakest Assassin's creed and a blemish on the overall series. Don't get me wrong, it's not terrible and has fun parts, but it's an average game that is part of an overall franchise that stays away from the average. Let me break it down, so you see where I'm coming from and to make it clear I'm not "trolling".

    The Cons:

    The glitches. Oh, the glitches. This game is FULL of them. There have been a few that have made me chuckle, like a horse getting stuck on top of a house or a man stretching out like crazy after I hit him. The ones that really upset me though, where the game breaking ones. Such as guns missing from parts where you need to shoot, being unable to fire, escort missions where the NPC will get caught in a wall, the protagonist just falling though the floor into oblivion, the NPC's shooting through buildings. There's been several times I needed to restart due to a glitch. I'd let some of them slide, but this is an AAA title and there should never be glitches that break a game. This is 2012 for Christ sake. The AI is terrible too. You could be walking down a street, with no notoriety and suddenly five guards will come out of nowhere and kill you. Or you could be super wanted and walk by- even punch a guard- without getting them to attack you. The horse back riding is so bad... oh man. Horses- when shot- will fall over. They'll also fall over randomly when you hit a glich and die. The combat, now different than the other AC's, is like trying to drive a minivan with a popped tire. You'll lose half your health just taking out a group of guys. Guarding and countering doesn't work anymore. And good luck dodging. For some reason Muskets in 1777 are as accurate as sniper rifles now. huh. It starts out slow- I wont say spoilers, but it's about 4 to 5 hours in before you actually get to the meat of the game.

    There all a lot of cut-scenes. It sorta brings you out of the game and it feels, sometimes, like a movie, but overall it's not that big of an issue. Pros:

    It's BEAUTIFUL. More beautiful than AC2 or Skyrim or fallout. This game will make love to your eyes.
    The soundtrack is amazing too. The ship battles. Yeah, it's a learning curve, but it's not terrible. It becomes really fun later-on

    Climbing on trees and free-running are smooth like butter. It feels fresh and natural. Connor is a very easily controlled character and you'll just have fun running around in the forest, The Protagonist. Shockingly, Connor is a really interesting character. Hunting is fun. There's no better feeling than stealth killing a bear from a tree. I can honestly say, as a "hardcore" assassin's creed fan, I was disappointed. I had very high hopes for this game, and I even expected something better than AC2. I'd recommend you play it, but don't go in with the high expectations of the people and reviews that are giving it 10/10 or perfects. I'd go in expecting an average game and you wont be too let down.
    Expand
  4. Nov 3, 2012
    6
    The combat mechanics definitely took a step (or even 2) backwards. The beginning of the game is extremely boring(specially on the ship. Go talk to someone, then back to your room to end the day. Next day, do it all over again). All the cut scenes really don't help. On the 360 version while walking in the city objects appear out of nowhere (probably because of a low field of view). The older games did not have this problem(maybe because there were a lot more buildings and they blocked other streets so you wouldn't be able to see this problem? But I doubt that. AC/AC2/AC:B/AC:R just didn't have this problem) How you uncover your map is also a pain in the ass. I DON'T want to go EVERYWHERE, I want to climb a tall building and uncover a part just like in the older AC. The story is perfect, but it is annoying to enjoy the story when everythin else is worse compared to the older AC games Expand
  5. Nov 5, 2012
    6
    This likely won't be a new position, but I'll start my review by stating that I've played every single Assassin's Creed game through to completion - 1, 2, Brotherhood, and Revelations, playing 1 and 2 twice each. I'm not some newcomer to the series. Which is why I am pained to say that AC3 is a massive let-down. To begin with, players are thrust into the series' running protagonist, Desmond Miles in a moderately interesting first sequence that serves as an intro to new players and a refresher for series veterans. This sequence contains an irritatingly un-skippable tutorial on how to perform free-running actions (hint: hold RT and the game chooses where you go. It's that blindingly simple). The tutorial grinds on for an agonizing 10 minutes or so. It was not a good omen of things to come. As other reviewers have mentioned, the first (almost) 10 hours of the game is essentially a drawn-out intro to the game. I'm probably a good 7 hours in and I still haven't gotten access to the second city, New York. C'mon dev's - cut me loose. The exposition is a painfully long slog through various new (and old) AC gameplay elements, including the new hunting "feature" (clearly added in order for devs to talk about something at trade shows), the fun-as-it-sounds accounting system for your new homestead, and the surprisingly exciting naval combat sequences. Obviously, since my campaign experience is not yet complete, I cannot review it to its fullest; however, I can (and will) review gameplay mechanics. They are, to put it mildly, frustrating. Holding RT to free run was touted by Ubisoft as a 'revolutionary' gameplay choice. "You no longer need to hold both RT and A to free run / parcour / climb," they said. Well, frankly, this change should not have been implemented. There's a reason why the two were separated. In the old system, players could run by holding RT in order to sprint around roads within towns, without needing to worry about accidentally climbing up buildings or onto market carts. With the new one button system, I find myself wanting to run around towns, but having Connor consistently trying to run up a building instead of staying confined to the ground. Its a frustrating and entirely unnecessary element to the game that serves to make me hate each increasing moment I spend in the AC3 world. Couple this with the intensely finnicky combat system and the game is more of a chore to play than an exercise in enjoyment. The combat system just feels less refined than in prior games, including the very clunky system of AC1. Parrying / countering attacks is intensely hit-and-miss, with Connor performing the action with maybe half of my button presses. Moreover, the game asserts that hitting X after parrying with B should perform a counter move in which Connor attacks his attacker. This does not happen. Ever. As a result, combat becomes yet another chore, in addition to running between objectives. But what about free-running? Surely that must be good, right? Nope. AC3 has given players less of a choice of where Connor free-runs and has seemingly introduced a system where the game makes jumping choices for the player. On the surface, this may seem like a positive, but when you're in a chase and you want Connor to jump from a roof to another and instead he jumps on the chimney of the first house, causing another death, it gets old. I analogize this new system to an overly-tuned auto-aim feature in a FPS game. Too much auto aim and you find your character aiming at enemies that you aren't trying to attack. All in all, it seems to me that Ubisoft tried to do too much with AC3. The gameplay mechanics worked much better in AC2, Brotherhood, and Revelations. Freerunning was more fluid, combat was more fluid, everything was simply *easier*. And not easier in a sense of difficulty level. Easier, in that the system made more sense. I knew where Connor would go, because I would point him in that direction and execute the proper button sequence (RT to run on the ground, RT+A to run). Combat was much less hit-and-miss. When I pressed the button to counter, Ezio would counter. Simple as that. AC3 is more of a chore to me than a game. I want to finish it because I want to see how the story plays out. But with every increasing minute I play AC3, I find myself wanting to play less AC3. And all of this doesn't even touch the other issues I've run into. One hard freeze, where my Xbox completely locked up in the middle of a story mission, one where my character motions were in 50% speed until I restarted my console and an assassination mission where, after killing my target, the completion sequence did not trigger, so I was forced to do another restart. And when gameplay mechanics are decidedly below-average, re-doing a mission because of technical glitches becomes an extreme irritant. I wanted to love AC3. I really did. And the work put in makes it clear that the devs did too. They just tried to do too much. Expand
  6. Nov 6, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I've been a huge fan of the game and series... until now. The new combat mechnics just dont play or feel right. The big final of the game, is a f*** **** I really do not understand how Ubisoft makes that. I'm really disapointed with AC III. I think, the better in the game it's the Connor's history. It is good. The animals, the ships, the battleships, the cinematics (a few bugs). But that's all. Expand
  7. Nov 11, 2012
    6
    As I was playing Assassins Creed 3 I realised that all of the oranges I had in my fruit bowl had started to go green and furry looking. Like Tennis balls. Tennis balls that emit a strange smell. As a man of science I can only presume that this occurred by way of radiation emitted by Assassins Creed 3. In summation, do not under any circumstances allow Assassins Creed 3 near your bowl of oranges. Expand
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Sep 24, 2013
    6
    This game is the definition of a major disappointment. It had so much potential to be amazing, and instead we got a very mediocre game. Extremely mediocre honestly. Where do I even start. The combat is stiff and restricting, the free-running is annoying and a step backwards from previous games, the enemy a.i is bad, the map is uninteresting and not even fun to explore and worst of all:The game is boring to play. I mean there were a few good moments in the game, but there's not enough of them to truly say this is a good game. The game was so boring at some points, I was nearly put to tears. The protagonist is dull, the main missions are repetitive and restricting, and the map is a chore to explore.The game is beautiful to look at, but that's about it. Oh and I forgot to mention how the game's ending is awful. This game sucks. My rating: 6.1/10 Expand
  14. 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.
  15. Oct 27, 2013
    6
    after a very disapointing game(assassin's creed revelations)there wans't how make a worst game,the story of assassin's creed 3 can be good but the rest of the game isnt so good.
  16. Oct 31, 2013
    6
    This game might be entertaining, but it is a little bit boring. The storyline is a bit too draggy too. I liked the soundtrack of this game, A LOT. I think ubisoft should not have added 4 sequences of us playing as Haytham, because playing as him is extremely boring.
  17. Jun 18, 2014
    6
    Assassin's Creed III. Before I reviewed this game I played Assassin's Creed II. Most people seemed to love that game, but for some reason, I didn't. I thought the game was just plain overrated, and was mediocre at best. It's a game that you should really try before you buy. Having played through the sequel now, I have to say that this game has improved upon its predecessor in most of its flaws. So, does this game present a nice rendition of the American Revolution, or was it the right move for this game not to written in the U.S. Constitution? Let's find out. The gameplay of this game is definitely better than Assassin's Creed II. However, that's not really saying much. The game is still little more than Grand Theft Auto set during the American Revolution. It provides quite a bit for an open world game, but is still nothing we haven't seen before. Of course, there are no cars to steal and drive, so you pretty much have to run everywhere. Running in this game can be fun, but it still isn't nearly as fun as stealing someone's car, and driving off. The open world is set in the cities of Boston and New York in the 1700s. There's a lot to enjoy in these cities. There are plenty of missions to undertake, a few mini games, and even some enemy bases to take. There's a lot to enjoy in these two cities, along with the wilderness surrounding them, but none of it will blow your socks off as none of it is anything we haven't seen before. The combat in this game is literally a copy and paste of the Batman Arkham series. It is an improvement over Assassin's Creed II's clunky combat, but it is still hard to excuse that it just stole this from Batman. It has many of the same beat'em up mechanics. The stealth is slightly different however. Despite this, the stealth in this game is actually worse than Arkham's. It can be hard to figure out when the perfect time to switch to stealth is, and when to beat people up. This can detract from the overall experience, and make it much less fun. Overall though, the gameplay of Assassin's Creed III is an improvement upon the second game, but is still nothing we haven't seen before. The graphics on the other hand, have had a huge improvement from the second Assassin's Creed. This time, they are actually great looking. In fact they are on par with many of the games released on the Xbox 360. It is not as good as Just Cause 2 or Grand Theft Auto IV, but it is still a beautiful looking game nonetheless. The characters and environments all look very good and rich with detail in this game. They may not be on par with some of its competitors, but they still look very good. As for the story, that's the only part of this game that has unfortunately seen no improvement over its predecessor. The story in this game is still absolutely terrible, just like the last game. The first thing I noticed after completing the story was how much of the game was a complete rip-off of Star Wars. Seriously, the main villain of this game is actually the main character's father, and his reveal is just terrible compared to Darth Vader's reveal to being Luke's father in Star Wars the Empire Strikes Back. Also there is a war within a war going on between the Assassin's and Templars while the Americans are fighting the British. This is basically the same thing as the Jedi fighting the Sith during the war between the Rebellion and the Empire. Also, the main character once again has everything taken from him, and it is almost exactly the same as Luke Skywalker this time. As for the storyline set in the present, all I can say is this: remove it. Just remove it from this game entirely. It is everyone's least favorite part of the story. It just makes the plot of this game more confusing than it should be, and it is still a Matrix rip-off. Plus, the ending is so terrible! I won't spoil it, but let's just say the main character has to make a choice, and you don't even get to make it for him! Overall, the story of this game is about as bad as a video game story can get. Overall, this game took several steps forward, but then it took several steps back. It is a decent game, but still not enough to take it out of a worth a rent status. It is better than ACII, but still not that great. I recommend this game to anyone who likes the American Revolution. Everyone else should just rent it, and nothing else.
    Gameplay: 6/10
    Graphics: 8/10
    Story: 3/10
    Overall: 6/10
    Expand
  18. Apr 13, 2014
    6
    This game being my first time playing anything from the Assassin's Creed franchise I was very impressed at how the story plays out, the game play, and just the look back in history premise these games bring. If you were to ask me what I thought about this game a little over a year ago I would have said it was fantastic!
    However after playing AC2, I became more and more disappointed in
    what AC3 was.
    This is still a good game (don't get me wrong) but it just does not compare to the previous entries in the franchise.
    Expand
  19. Jun 15, 2014
    6
    Assassin's Creed III continues the experiences of Desmond and the team, and moves on to two new ancestors of Desmond, Haytham & Connor, who are father and son respectfully. AC3 takes forever to get started, you actually play as Connor, but for the first two sequences you play as Haytham. This become rather droll and the story in the overall game moves very slow and with uneven speed. This iteration of the series is also very cinematic heavy, you'll perhaps do 3-5 minutes of actual playing followed by a 1 - 2 minute cinematic (you can skip the cinematics, but then the plot is basically meaningless). This iteration feels very much rushed, a lot of things go wrong in the game.

    As most people have reviewed this game is plagued with bugs and glitches, now I actually am a game programmer myself (I even have a degree in it), and some of the bugs that have gotten through quality control are absolutely absurd. I had hoped that a few years down the road that most of the important and game break bugs would be fixed, but they aren't. I know the Xbox 360 doesn't have the most advanced hardware specs and given the size of the worlds the Assassin's Creed series has come to be known for, but this is a bit too much.

    I can't count the number of times I'll be walking (this is later in the game around sequence 9 for whatever reason) and I'll be incognito and walk past a guard and suddenly all the guards in the area will attack me as if I had been Notoriety Level 3. This is awful, because it happens repeatedly, and I'm not talking 1 or 2 guards, I'm talking upwards of 7 - 10, not all of them infantry that can be killed using simply counters. I've also seen (and took a picture, wish I could post it) a manikin sitting on the seat of a hay trailer, it's like the texture for whatever person was supposed to be there is missing so what I see if the plain white model of a human. Also something you'll notice and these are actually acceptable bugs considering the limitations of the hardware, but texture pop-ins are a thing you'll have to get used too. You can be riding your horse and getting to a bridge and clearly see that when your about 50 meters from the bridge the higher resolution texture will pop-in and if you're running in a grassy area you can see the grass actually grow right in front of you. They just overlay the ground ahead of the player with a texture of grass, then as you get closer to be able to interact with it they pop the model in, well it's like watching time move fast because the grass will grow right before your very eyes.

    I'm hoping that future iterations of the Assassin's Creed series will be benefited by the new hardware from the Xbox One and Playstation 4. I'd suggest you play this game only for the story to find what becomes of Desmond, but if you're looking for the charming character development like Ezio or anything like Brotherhood/II you'll be sadly disappointed.
    Expand
  20. Aug 13, 2014
    6
    AC III has problems. It's the ultimate example of AC's "everything and the kitchen sink" design philosphy where they decided to keep piling features in like it was a hoagie. It doesn't work, and results in a muddled experience. The story takes a more serious turn as we follow Connor, a man with a very black and white view of the world entering the morally gray colonial period. Connor is a great character, earnest and sincere, who is not served well by the poor implementation of the time period. It's just a stiff, uninteresting mess all around. Multiplayer is once again its saving grace. Expand
  21. Oct 30, 2012
    5
    Nothing revolutionary here. It´s an OK AC game. PROS: -AnvilNext Engine is superb, and, surprisingly, not very glitchy, given the GIGANTIC environments. -TONS of missions. -Commanding your frigate is GREAT ! CONS: -Ultra dumbed-down controls: everything seems automatic. You just press RT and move forward. Parkour inside the houses ? No, no: it´s just a cinematic. -Tree Parkour is great, but since there are no clear visual clues to where you can hop on the trees, you will be, most of the time, riding a horse or walking, A LOT.
    -The American Independence war story and sites are not as appealing as previous AC´s plots. Besides, an african-american as a master assassin and a native-american so fondly helping the founding fathers is too far-fetched.
    -Very cliché father-son sub-plots, inside and outside the animus. You´ve seen this before ...
    -A 5-year-old child can combat in this game.
    Expand
  22. Nov 6, 2013
    5
    Because I trust user reviews over magazine reviews, I waited close to a year before purchasing it in the bargin bin. I wasn't disappointed. This was the worst game of the series. At times the story felt exhilerating and epic, but mostly it felt lame and dull. The large expansive world that they added falls flat when they give you such a large area with nothing interesting to do in it. For a game to have been out for a year and still be as buggy as this game makes no sense. It was as bad as the very first Assassin's Creed, yet that one got a pass because it was the first...this is the fifth game of the series! Way too many redcoats in town that prevent you from stealth. If you jump up on a roof, it's like you ignited a hornets nest and spend most of your time running for your life. Combat it ridicolous now because you regenerate your health very quickly, and so does your enemy apparently as it takes about fifteen hits with your tomohawk to kill them. Some assassin, can't stealth and can't kill. Such a shame because the did a great job with the graphics, Boston and New York, the ships, and the voice acting was the best of the series. Expand
  23. Nov 7, 2012
    5
    I fell in love with Assassin's Creed with the second game, and that game is still magic for me today. ACIII is massive, there are a ton of things to do, but so much of it feels meaningless or trivial, and some of the historical missions are so blatantly forced into the game and so badly done (Paul Revere's ride, for example) that it's amazing to that they made it into a game of this magnitude. There are anachronistic missions and controls problems that seem like they'd more likely be seen in a game with far less of a budget than ACIII had and, overall, this game is a complete disappointment for me. In the two years I waited for this game I never expected that I would have beaten it and sold it back within the first week of release, but here I am. Ubisoft hasn't put out a good AC game since Brotherhood and it's time to find a more inspired series not relegated to the role of cash cow. Expand
  24. Mar 14, 2013
    5
    There's a departure here from the classic Assassin's Creed format. The graphic are slightly improved, the implausible Sci-fi plot remains, and the combat is great. But this like Brotherhood feels more like an excuse to milk the franchise by acting a period piece that is intriguing than a progression of the overall story. Let's not forget that Desmond is the real main character. Yet I'm left feeling that over the course of 4-5 games, Desmond has made no progress as a character. Nor have his supporting players. The main characters suffer for the sake of an ancestor's story. It's becoming frustrating especially since the end is so near." I just keep wondering how many more games they can squeeze out of this franchise. Finally, as I've noted in multiple reviews before, the ending of a game or movie or any story is crucial to how it is perceived. If the ending is bad, that's the last you'll remember of the game. Not just the story was flawed, but the broken final mission as well. As a result, I was left with a "this is it?" moment that was just annoying. Expand
  25. Mar 25, 2013
    5
    This is what happens when the second game in your series is incredible. You have nowhere else to go so instead you throw in chair making and lumber delivery. It then takes various parts of Red Dead redmptions hunting aspect and fails at them on every level, integration and execution. these are just two of the few problems plaguing the third entry in the series. No longer do you assassinate people. That entire mechanic has been so castrated that the game is no longer about it. Compounding this is a serious case of the Kojima's. Overly long cinematics interspersed with a little bit of gameplay. From an artistic standpoint, the game falters from blandness. In AC1 and 2, every local was distinct, in had its own life. This new game misses that, everything feels the same, artistically bland.
    On the plus side, even though the game fails to use its setting properly, the controls show definite promise for use in these environments.
    Expand
  26. Nov 27, 2013
    5
    My biggest gripe with this game is the disjointed and fractured storyline. It's like they forgot to do some of the cinematic cut scenes that explain how a particular situation ended up. You have to try to gleam from the conversations between your character and NPCs later what really went down when you finish a mission that is important but the details are left out. Game play itself is just like all other AC in my opinion, naval battles are okay, and the trading aspect is pretty stupid. Overall would of had a better score if the story had been checked by someone without ADHD before production. Expand
  27. 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
  28. Nov 1, 2012
    5
    Disclaimer: I have not finished the game, these are my impressions after playing around with for a couple of hours and going through possibly the first 30-60 mins of actual content. I am hoping that the rest of the game helps me reassess and give it a higher mark.

    This game is proving to be a major disappointment at the moment. The franchise was in a dire need of a shakeup because the
    formula after revelations had certainly become stale. However, this game while trying to break the mould really suffers from poor implementation and in my humble opinion its been released at least 2 months too soon. It's glitchy, i had my graphics go completely blurry the first time i was asked to take a pistol shot and had to quit the game for it to be fixed. Camera angles during sword play are wonky, especially the first sword fight you get in which i guess is kind of a tutorial, you end up losing sight of your opponent when you knock him down. I got desynchronized in the fight coz my opponent somehow managed to fall into the ocean when we were fighting inside the ship!!! (graphics are crazy).

    The control system feels clunky and the smooth swordplay of the previous iterations has completely disappeared. You cannot hack and slash, and each button press leads to an attacking sword thrust. This can only be done when facing an armed opponent, because it is an integral fighting mechanic, you cannot slash thin air and you because fighting is dependent on there being a foe present ur never going to miss. The dodge and counter is an attempt to mimic Rocksteady's Batman franchise, with red indicators appearing over the attackers but neither is the mechanic explained and even when you get it right the fight seems clunky and not at all satisfying. (Granted i am still getting used to it, but it just feels really clunky).

    A lot of control has been taken away from the player, free running has been dumbed down and this results in it just feeling clunky. Plus since you hardly have control anymore its really random what areas you can climb and what areas you can't. And sometimes there is no good reason why you cannot climb some areas. Attacking civilians has been prohibited and you can no longer just start fist fights with them too. (I haven't been able to at least). Silly and frustrating Gimmicks Floating almanac pages, wtf? its a silly gimmick but the worst one is the new lock picking mechanism. OMG, if you thought lock picking in Skyrim was frustrating then welcome to the crude rip off that is Assassins Creed 3. You need to rotate both analog sticks in a manner that your fingers and hands are in the most unnatural position ever and then mash right trigger. If you are unlucky and just move your fingers a fraction you need to start again and there is a time limit to boot. Its frustrating and uncomfortable, I wouldn't be surprised if people sue Ubisoft for causing them Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

    The story (disclaimer still stands) so far is just meandering along, its like setting the base for what is to come and in all honesty i am like 90% sure where its going and if it as predictable then not only is it dumb but completely unnecessary. IGN points out that the first couple of hours of this game are just boring and while playing it i tend to agree. The paying customer would have been better served if these sections were shown to the player as a mini series promoting the game launch aka Forward unto Dawn. Imagine having to play Lasky's childhood before controlling Master Chief or imagine having to go through boring tasks as Ezio's dad instead of the fun stuff Ezio the teenage boy did. The story just doesn't have the pace, wit and character that Ezio's had in its early moments at least. All in all am persevering with this game at this moment because of the money i have dropped on it and the hope that it gets better. If this had been the first game of the series, I would have given up on it.
    Expand
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Feb 26, 2013
    5
    One of the most frustrating games I've played. When it works it is brilliant and exhilarating; far too often, though, it feels simply like work. A chore. This is largely due to the fact that most side missions serve no purpose other than time filler (sea missions being the exception and the true high point of the game), and to the variable glitchy, twitchy controls--seems that at key moments the designers decided to slightly alter the control command for no apparent reason, and you end up failing full synchronization. Or in a final boss battle when suddenly you have to learn an entirely new control command scheme to succeed. At any rate, when i finished this game it was with no sense of joy or accomplishment-- just a grim determination to finish something I started. In other words, work. Expand
  32. Oct 30, 2012
    5
    Another year and another Assassins's Creed game which basically plays itself. Yes, making a game to hard and challenging can frustrate people, yet making it too easy will bore them. Good game design means finding a balance between those 2 extremes. And it's might be just me, yet I take a little frustration over boredom any day in a game. Because managing something that was difficult leaves you with a feeling of accomplishment, finishing something that was boringly easy one the other hand just leaves you bored. And a game isn't supposed to bore you, causing boredom is pretty much the opposite of what a game should do.

    Or maybe you are one of those people who enjoy to cheat in multiplayer games, or usually run through single player titles in god-mode, because in that case this might be a game for you. For those who require a little challenge in order not to grow bored with a game, better look elsewhere.
    Expand
  33. Jun 7, 2013
    5
    I scored this game a 5. And I think I am being a little generous in doing so.

    The reason I believe that is because this game seemed to have looked at the prior AC games and everything they did (all the improvements made and all the feedback given) and then promptly ignored it all.

    The game starts you off as probably the most interesting and fun AC character ever, Haytham Kenway, and
    then at the end of that section of the game hits you with the two by four in the face revelation that shock! Haytham was a templar all along! *facepalm*
    The delivery and telegraphing of that particular fact was seen a mile off, and when it finally game out it was done in such a hamfisted way that I physically rolled my eyes.

    You are then shifted onto the Connor sections of the game. And from there the whole thing just rolls downhill until its inevitable car crash at the end.
    Connor's youth VA is stilted, and incredibly fake sounding; and the impetus for his revenge was delivered in as pointless and hamfisted a manner as the Haytham-is-a-templar "revelation" it was eye rollingly bad. And he gets no better as an adult. His adult VA isn't as poor but honestly that is no saving grace as the adult "Connor" is the single dullest most annoying character I have ever seen (and I have sufferred through Adoring Fan in Oblivion).

    When Connor isn't being dull, he is being a pointless douchenozzle. And his miraculous involvement in every single major historical event surrounding the independence war period defies belief. It gets to the point of immersion shatteringly bad.
    And then Connor's arc ends, not with having to fight your father Haytham (who was the Grand Master of the Americas Templar Order) but fight "General Lee" his second in command... Which doesn't make sense considering the impetus for the game is to stop his father and the Templars.

    The game does do a better job of communicating the type of person that Desmond is. It shows him as rather brave and heroic and he comes off as pretty likeable. And the Desmond sections of the game don't feel as irritating or annoying in this game as they did in prior games; but I am unsure if that is a function of Connor being so dull that even Desmond looks better in comparison I don't know...
    And then we have that pointless car crash of an ending. I mean honestly what was it with 2012 games ending with 3 all having horribly stupid endings? Dear god.

    Moving onto gameplay. None of the improvements that Brotherhood and Revelations made to the gameplay seem to have made it into this game. In fact it seems to have gottten worst because the devs seem to be trying to portray Connor along the lines of the Wizard archetype (with all his techie stuff) and over complicated the whole thing and implemented it all incredibly poorly.
    There is literally no point to going onto roofs at all in this game. And combat is a frustrating and irritating slog. The guards seem to be psychic; and the controls seem to be back to being twitchy and overly sensitive as they were in AC1.

    The only part of this game I loved (and it seems to be universally loved) is the naval sections of this game. I bet I am not the only person in the world who said "I want a pirate game with these naval mechanics!"
    Evidentally I wasn't because we now have AC4: The Black Flag due out (less than 18 months after AC3 is not a good sign though) which centres the entire game around that mechanic.

    This game... Buy it because you want the complete collection. But honestly it isn't worth suffering through.
    Expand
  34. Nov 3, 2012
    5
    Let's get this out of the way first thing. How does this game stack up to it's predecessors? It's worse than every other Assassin's Creed except Revelations. Here's the details. The game starts off with a 5-7 hour tutorial. It will range from mildly interesting to mind-numbingly boring. When the game proper finally starts you get turned loose in the world. The world of Assassin's Creed 3 is probably the least detailed of all AC worlds. The cities have very few buildings worth climbing, and tend to look pretty much the same (i.e. the cities have no separate identity). The frontier suffers from Skyrim Syndrome. It's big, but it has nothing in it. Hunting is a waste of time and adds nothing to the game. The end of the game is a huge letdown. Climbing has been streamlined to the point where just pushing up will get you to the top of anything. There are no really cool secret locations to explore. Objective markers will hold your hand in the most annoying way. It's not all bad though, Ship combat is fantastic, and if this game had been Pirates Creed, we'd have an obvious GOTY. Your interactions with your manor are much improved and more personal. The Desmond sequences are very well done and probably the highlights of the game. The villain is actually a pretty interesting character. Combat has been given some tiny improvements which make the combat feel a little better, but it remains extremely easy. The story is typical AC stuff. Really AC3 comes of as a forgettable game. It's not bad, or great. It's a good game which no one is going to look back on and think "That game was awesome." It's one truly fantastic part is the ship battles.Some people describe it as a flawed gem. It's no gem. It's a copper penny. And you won't even remember it in a year. This all being said, it's worth playing to see the story's end. I wouldn't buy it full price though. Rating 7.3/10 Expand
  35. Nov 8, 2012
    5
    A once fresh and promising franchise has been reduced to a slog through frustrating gameplay, odd design choices, and bad dialogue in this latest game in the Assassin
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Nov 3, 2012
    5
    I have been an Assassin's Creed follower since its initial release and my expectations of this release had great anticipation given what I believed was a dismal Assassin's Creed Revelations because of the failure to follow up on character storylines in its release and what I felt was a very poor story; and falling for the marketing hype for this new release.

    Assassin's Creed 3 did allow
    the completion of those storylines especially with Lucy, Subject 16 and Daniel as well as Desmond's Father and Minerva and Juno. What is the most troublng to me is Ubisoft's continued persistence in not allowing the gamer to replay the memories at the end of the game. This alone is very frustrating and leaves a very sour taste. This has been the case throughout the series and I was hoping that Ubisoft would change that this time around. I feel the creators and project managers do not get it when it comes to this sort of gameplay. The complete lack of opportunity in this area rates a "0".

    The storyline was good in Assassin"s Creeed 3 but the gameplay, controls, cutscenes, fast travel, lockpicking and character development were abismal and the storyline just dragged. The opportunity to create a community in and around the Homestead was terrible and in the end when you went to the ledger your profits were not worth the time and energy to get the community up and running.

    The ending was in my opinion another slow motion fiasco and again took control out of the gamers hands.

    While understandably this is a work of fiction, it was a far stretch, especially Connor's mentor. This development was poor at best.

    Your ability to complete missions at 100% sync was next to impossible and your ability to remain undected at times was a joke. In the end I feel that Ubisoft needs to re-think how they allow the gamer not only to play but to finish a game as well as allow them the opportunity to go back and replay missions as well as the opportunity to play animus missions again as well as the ending. As a gamer this is again so very frustrating when you have invested so much time not only in the main missions; but the plethera of what I feel are way to many side missions, liberations of cities and getting Assassin's for the order.

    Perhaps there are far to many hands in the development "cookie jar". It would also be of great benefit to have Ubisoft develop gameplay difficulty settings. The average or recreational gamer would struggle with this game, especially the Pitcairn mission, the Charles Lee chase, the Prison Missions, especially the brawl he has to create and finish. The controls are not set up to allow the average gamer to succeed, unlike previous games.

    I sincerely hope that someone from Ubisoft reads these constructive comments and acts upon them. Up to now it does not seem that way.

    While the newness and enivironments were at times a welcome change, I do not feel Connor fit the character of the "ASSASSIN" that Ubisoft had developed. The voice acting was marginal in this game with the exception of Connor's Father. The dialogue scenes were terrible as mouths did not even move many times.

    Finally I feel Connor's home base in the basement deserved much more attention. It was a huge letdown from the previous games as were the rewards and the advancement of weapons in the game.

    I feel Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is the "mold" they should go back to and "Please, Please" allow us to replay the endings and the animus scenes, dialogue's and missions and not have to start and replay a whole new game to do this.

    Put the next release into the hands of those who developed and produced "Brotherhood" and someone with some knowledge and wisdom to figure out how we can replay the endings and loose the slow motion and inability to just use the "Apple" at the end of the game.
    Expand
  39. Oct 31, 2012
    5
    Alright I have to be harsh here, as I wanted to enjoy this game but so far it has been boring me. Will it get better after 15 hours? Maybe, but so far it has been boring. Controlling your character feels like controlling a drunk bicycle, many times when I wanted to approach a door to open it I would climb it instead. The shadows looks really bad, what is this dotted mess supposed to be? Yes it does look better then the previous games but it Expand
  40. Nov 3, 2012
    5
    I think this game seriously suffered from the hype. Amazing new graphics! Biggest map ever! Hunting! Look at all the cool things we can do! The developers lost their way. The little details are great, but the overall pieces just aren't. Best examples: combat is difficult, harder than any AC game before it. It takes forever to get anywhere, because the frontier is huge and the cities are full of guards who seem to be much smarter than they were in previous games. And while I love US history and the story so far, it doesn't make up for the fact that this is a frustrating game to play, just because of how the game is set up to work. I'm sad really. Everyone was expecting a masterpiece, and what we got was a decent game at best. There are some fun parts. But ultimately, if I was new to the series, I wouldn't be coming back. Expand
  41. Nov 5, 2012
    5
    They succeeded in making the same game again. It's prettier now but it's essentially the same as the previous two with an even more boring combat system (the old one was already a zero threat snooze fest). Lots of glitches and bugs in this one as well. I've always found these AC games somewhat boring and easy but this one was much worse in respect to combat. I'm surprised there are so many positive reviews it makes me wonder how many employees have metacritic accounts. Expand
  42. Nov 5, 2012
    5
    My oh my I expected this to be the 2nd greatest AC game to date. The reason why I didn't expect this to be the best is that I used to always get my hopes up about everything, and it ended with me being extremely dissapointed. Ok so I'll get to the point. The new AnvilNext engine is a love hate thing, leaning towards the hate side. The good: Lots of new animations, naval battles weather, tree climbing, better water, seasons, lots of explorability, a little bit better multiplayer, and most importantly, new graphics, which were just a tad better than Revelations'. The bad: The combat wheel/interface is a bit trickier to use, parkour system is 3.5x more derp than Brotherhood's, the stealth is TERRIBLE (you could walk up to a group of guards, stab somebody not in view of the rest, and then out of nowhere the will attack you claiming they "saw what you did".), many, many, many, many glitches and bugs, almanac pages are soooooo hard to get, even the ones that seem simple to get, cutscenes are boring, sequences 1-5 are very boring (I fell asleep for a couples of minutes while one was still going on), combat mechanics are so very hard to get the hang of, musket shots are like modern sniper rifles, officers have very bad aim and often shoot their own squad (but I really won't complain too much though), grenadiers are really hard to kill, officers are very hard to kill, Conner's arm glitches through Ezio's Brotherhood cape in his outfit, rope darts are very derp and hard to use, guards are really dumb, the crowds are very dumb, I can't seem to find the power source places to put the things in during the modern time, is game is a bit too racist (I'm part Cherokee N.A. myself), the naval ship is a little off center when shooting broadside cannon shots, the naval ship is a little hard to control, a lot of unnecessary equipment that I highly doubt anybody would use, horse mechanics are worse than ACII's, my horse will randomly get shot down, I don't understand why Conner had to wait soooo many sequences to kill Charles Lee, Conner was way too mean to Achilles, not able to keep a musket in place of the bow, certain walking movements made you seem like you were drunk, air assassinations don't always work, viewpoints were dissapointingly low in altitude, items in the general store were expensive, and money was hard to come by, lockpicking was very hard, the Frontier was too big and confusing to navigate, I can't seem to equip more than 1 pistol, as I see I have holseters for 2, no ability to use a sword or weapons besides a ranged one on horseback, naval missions were a tad bit too hard, I never had any idea how much was needed to go up 1 notoriety level, the battlefield mission of bunker/breed's hill was harder than trying to melee only your way through a Halo 2 legendary mission, raging at this game was very easy, if you can't kill children in the game, then you shouldn't be able to kill domestic animals, Desmond's missions were too short, and THE ABSOLUTE WORST THING ABOUT THIS GAME IS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO 3 VERY HARD/RAGE INDUCING THINGS TO GET THAT 100% FULL SYNCHRONIZATION!!!!!!! So if you are considering getting this game, don't, please, you'll hate yourself if you do, save your money for Halo when it comes out. Thank you for reading and have a nice day. Expand
  43. Jan 18, 2013
    5
    This game had the mechanic to be the best Assassin's Creed ever, but it was the worse in my opinion (considering the release date). Don't understand me bad, I'm a great fan of franchise, I buy it every year and if release a new I will buy it again, but this game gave me a attack of rage that I want give a score of 0 to it.

    And why am I so disappointed? The main campaign is excellent,
    full of reverses, it really surprises you. Connor is an amazing character, he is pretty different from Altair and Ezio which gives him a own mark. The great defect of the game are the most weak side missions of ever AC. In AC2, Brotherhood and Revelations we have made missions of ASSASSINS what includes espionage, steal and the most important: assassination. But in AC3 this missions are very rare, there are a lot of farm's missions (for children) that the own Connor says in one of them: "The things I make for this place."
    There are some good missions in the city to recruit new assassins to the order, but they are just acceptable.

    There would be no problem in add farm's missions (just to remember: they are for children) to Connor's adventure, but without remove what I learned to love in previous experiences.

    And there is more: AC is a game that permits you be free, you can kill the target any way you want, in stealth way or like a barbarian entering in a scandalous fight, but in 3rd edition you is obliged to do a second option, very rare the moments you can make all sneaking (just in forts and missions of main campaign)

    This should be an action-adventure game with STEALTH ELEMENTS, but they removed almost all the stealth.

    Because this, it was a major deception I have had when the matter is videogame, I hope it change in 2013.
    Expand
  44. Nov 17, 2012
    5
    I first of all have to say that I had really high hopes for this game. The first AC did not really strike my interest but it did intrigue me enough to give ACII a try and I was blown away. Then ACII:B came out and I was hooked. The combat was fun, the stories were awesome and Ezio was a fantastic protagonist. Then when Revelations stumbled a bit I thought it was just a bump in the road. Boy was I wrong. ACIII comes out of the gate limping. The graphics might be beautiful but they are only skin deep as pop ins and texture tearing is rampant.

    Then there are the glitches...Oh the numerous, numerous glitches. From getting stuck in a pile of hay to watching a guard fly into the stratosphere the glitches are everywhere and range from funny, a woman spawning into the back of a cart and being dragged along, to game breaking, finding Connor frozen in place while his target gleefully runs away. The glitches could be forgiven if it wasn't for the fact that these two examples appeared AFTER the day one patch. That's right, after Ubisoft claimed they were fixing the numerous issues I got the pleasure of having the game break several times.

    The there is the story and characters. The AC franchise has been a series that has done a tremendous job of transporting gamers to unique locations, and while this one is no exception, the Colonies in 1775 are beautiful and full of life, the story and characters come off lacking. Connor is in no way shape or form a replacement for the charismatic and dangerous Ezio. Where as Ezio was charming and roguish and likable, Connor is quiet, easily angered and all around just bland. He continually asks characters, "what would you have me do," a number of times while having paper thin motivations. I find it troubling when the side characters in a game highlight just how bland and boring our main character is. I found myself wanting to play as Samuel Adams, at least he has a range in his vocalizations and has clear motivations.

    This seems to be ACIII's problem, it looks the part and is trying to convince you that it is the next step in the franchise but its motivations are all over the place. The combat is fun, if a bit too familiar (Arkham City) and the ship battles are fantastic. But for every step forward the game takes two, even three steps back. Why is it that I am doing eavesdropping missions when they were one of the worst gameplay aspects of the FIRST AC?! Also why is it that AC:B and Revelations gave me more options to complete missions where as ACIII punishes you for not completing a mission precisely how the developers planned it? For freedom it seems a bit constrained.

    Which brings me to the 100% sync. Introduced in Brotherhood, this was a clever way to challenge players. In Brotherhood and Revelations it was just that, a challenge. In ACIII 100% sync becomes a tedious almost torturous chore and goes to highlight the broken gameplay mechanics and a number of irritating glitches. If I am supposed to kill my target without anyone noticing don't make it so my hidden blades alert every damn guard in Boston! It goes to frustrating even further when you realize that you cannot complete epilogue missions without getting 100% sync, which means that as a fan of the franchise, if you want to see the real 100% ending of the game you have to do the OPTIONAL side objectives. Ubisoft, don't make something optional and then purposely withhold content from the ending of the game. The 100% sync options come off as cheap and lazy, as though the developers added them in at random to flesh out bare boned missions. I really wanted to love this game, so much so that I thought I could hail it as a huge leap for the franchise, much as ACII was from AC. But that was not to be. Instead I came away from ACIII feeling as though three years of development and anticipation evaporated into a cloud of mediocrity. ACIII is in no way a revolution, it is more a slight step forward with a bum leg and an eye patch. Here is hoping we don't have to see two more games of Connor before we truly get the next huge step for the franchise.
    Expand
  45. Nov 22, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. ...Continues from previous comment:

    What I didn't like:
    - The LAG: It is the first thing you notice when you start playing the game, do not lie to yourselves guys, this games lags, and it does it horribly. How can this happen in 2012? When you get to Boston or New york the game is almost unplayable, all immersive feeling towards the game you might have achieved absolutely breaks up when you see that painfull, unforgivable lag.
    -The glitches:Unforgivable Ubisoft... glitches in this game are a bad joke.
    - The fight system: somethings are better, the blood is great, but i HATE the camera; character seems so far away when you're fighting and you wish you cold just look closer. Besides, you get a feeling of "Arkham city" with this new fighting system, one button magically blocks the attack, and then you can counter. If that was the intention, let me tell you that Assassin's Creed never needed to copy or imitate another game's fighting system... well, that's how I felt when playing it.
    - Too much running: The missions were like: Frontier to Boston, Boston to frontier, frontier to New york, New york to frontier, Frontier to homestead, homestead to frontier, frontier to boston, and so ON, it was like they were forcing you to go through the world over and over for you to see how wonderful it was, or using fast travel everytime, but there's no fun in that either...
    - Besides the incredibly BIG setting, you feel limited at times. I wish I could haev thrown the tomahawk, wish you could choose between leaving the hood on or off with a button, felt limited when switching weapons cause it took too much time for example to pick the horse to be able to whistle and call it. Thought the round weapon invetory system of previous games was easier to use.
    - Too many cutscenes (spoiler): If you have beaten the game, you know that you don't kill the bad guy, you watch Connor kill the bad guy in a cutscene... what's up with that?? - Atmosphere: You never feel quite as "inside the game's world" as with previous assassin's creed games where setting and music and graphics combined perfectly while pulling you into the middle of this incredible world.
    - Short story: From Brotherhood on i have always felt these games are way too short. Being able to explore and hunt for hours or have a lot of fun in multiplayer shouldn't compensate for a short story.
    - Desmond: since revelations he is getting uglier. Looks like a completely different person.
    -Horses: It has always bugged me that you can't go faster when horsebackriding inside a city or town, it is ridiculous. Same with not being able to run inside some taverns, it is way too frustrating to have to walk slow because the game wants you to.

    What i liked about AC3:

    -New running system: Feels more real to run with connor, and it is great to jump between trees.
    -The frontier/Homestead: running through the open field is a charm, you fell free, in contact with nature, away from the noise of the cities and the guards chasing you. It's where I usually hang out when i've had a stressful day.
    -Naval Warfare: In one word: AWESOME.
    -Animals, children: Everything feels much more alive and real when you put animals and children in it. Previously we got to see only adults and horses...
    - Seasons: the depth of snow is great among other cool things about having seasons. And also the rain and thunder is a really good addition to the series.
    - Character development: I agree game starts painfully slow, but it is cool to see how Connor grows up and becomes an Assassin. Although you feel like it is a proggressive development, in the end you feel like you become an Assassin way too fast when you're told "Ok, you can wear the suit now".
    -Peaking through corners: great! only thing left is being able to crouch and move more stealthy.
    -Everything about the landscapes, cities, forests, trees, grass, houses, fences, sky, water... too bad it lags like hell.
    -Locking system: well it's not a great improvement but i like to run sometimes with the close camera, gives it another 3rd person perspective.
    -Blending: great job with this, it's so much simpler to blend almost anywhere.

    There might be other things I'm forgetting right now, but as for now I hope the patch Ubisoft is offering fixes all that it says it will, and I also hope it helps a little with the excessive lag, which is what bothers me the most about this game.

    Thank you for reading, waiting for AC4 now.
    Expand
  46. 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.
  47. Dec 13, 2012
    5
    I really don't recommend buying this game full price, maybe buying cheaper, but for $ 60,00, it isn't worth this price. The game is unfinished, they wasted too much time on the engine and graphics, so there wasn't money and time left for adding, you know? Gameplay. The missions are linear, scripted, short, and unchallenging, even Assassins creed I is better than this game and I hated Assassins Creed I. The side activities are pointless, I got bored very quickly when I discovered that most side missions required of me to watch two or more loading screens, walk half the map to just beat a random dude or to do a simple fetch quest to some generic NPC. The game is just a big interactive movie, the story is decent, but is no way as good as assssin's creed II . I really don't understand, why Ubisoft want to turn all their games into interactive movies. Do you like interactive movies? Buy Walking dead instead (the story is way better and its cheaper too). Do you like open world games? Better games for you: Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, Read Dead Redemption. Do you really want to buy an assassins creed game? Buy assassins creed II (it's still a game an not an interactive movie, will not bore you to death with endless cutscenes, the story is way better). Really want to buy this game? Better buy used or wait for the price to drop. If you buy this game for $ 60,00, you are just wasting your money and if this game sales are good, I fear for the future of the franchise. Expand
  48. Jan 10, 2013
    5
    Assassin's Creed III is a very predictable game, the graphics are really great that
  49. 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.
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Mar 22, 2013
    5
    Such a heartbreaker! Been a fan of AC since the beginning and have loved the adventure/history blend. Am also a fan of the American Revolution. AC's gameplay has always been stellar... until now. The game is one big glitch. Don't know if I'll buy AC: IV. Yes, it has pirates but this player has been burned.
  53. Apr 28, 2013
    5
    This game was a major disappointment.The begging of the game took forever to get to the fighting.Even though the combat is really fun,the game is so boring.
  54. Aug 23, 2014
    5
    I have made another user review that overdid the hatred a bit, this is to fix this, Assassins Creed 3 is an acceptable game It made steps in the series, some right and some wrong, Some of the right things is that is established it's own framework from which the game formed, it gave us new mechanics and gameplay. But Connor is such a bland character in relation to Haythem, I would of prefered to play the whole game as haythem. Also does this time period really appeal to anyone Outside the UK or America, you can't get an Australian like me to care about the things that those to carried on with, it just doesn't tick, the crusades and the renaissance as appealing to everyone, especially since the majority of us aren't in Italy, it helps boost the fanbase, and I shouldn't need to mention th time it takes to properly escape the linear boundries. In conclusion It's an OK game but it doesn't appeal to everyone. Expand
  55. Oct 22, 2013
    5
    I love the AC games and I feel like this isn't a terrible entry but I think they strayed to far from the stealth mechanics of the previous games. And it is way to easy to get out of impossible situations
  56. Dec 27, 2013
    5
    These are the negative facts in my opinion about the game. Overall it's a great game. It has amazing graphics and great environment and i enjoyed playing it, but there were some things that ruined my experience during gameplay.

    For me it was difficult to follow the story, because there's too much of information happening at the same time and i got confused. The maps are too big and
    exploring them gets tedious, the characters have no special personality. The main character (Connor) is too serious and cold, i missed Ezio's charisma. The start-menu is very confusing. The main message and meaning of the assassin's creed felt kind of weak in general. Expand
  57. Dec 26, 2013
    5
    When I started playing this game, I was swept up in Assassin's Creed nostalgia. The gameplay was smooth but refined, and the world was massive. The combat flowed well and all in all the voice acting was very good. After a couple hours of gameplay, I noticed the first issue, the opening sequence is way too long. It took me three hours before I met the protagonist, and left me feeling like most of what I had done to that point was just a glorified tutorial. I finally got to Connor's storyline and expected the game to finally pick up, there were a few issues with that though. First off, Connor is boring. He just floats through revolutionary America taking jobs for a bunch of founding fathers and barely has any traits. There may be a scene where he challenges his teacher, but as soon as that's over it's like it never happened. The use of founding fathers is enjoyable for a little, but I like American history, and when this game decides to say, "Paul Revere didn't do the midnight ride, it was Connor, Paul was just kind of there" it becomes annoying. It undermines the efforts of all these real people to promote the protagonist, and it didn't need to do that. Finally, there's the biggest problem with the game, it's boring. There are long stretches of game where you just follow people around and wander between Boston and New York (no Philadelphia?). And while that also happened in AC I and II (and all the other games), at least you were someplace interesting where you could have fun exploring the environment. 18th Century Boston isn't nearly as big or fun as Damascus or Rome, for god sake, if there was a building over 3 stories it was a treat, while in old ones you could climb hundreds of feet in the air. The action is fun, but there is a bit of issue with the technology of the time, namely, guns. In the revolutionary war, everyone owned a gun. Using swords and throwing knives is fun, until you get shot, then you just need to pick up a musket. I think this was a poor choice for setting, because the system worked in the other games. The player would meet some people they had heard of, some people they hadn't and run around getting into sword fights. Here, the player knows all the major characters (or at least I did) and realizes they made them so much less interesting than they were. A conversation with Thomas Jefferson about slavery should be riveting, but he just vaguely talks against it while Connor accuses him of being a hypocrite, then agrees to do some bland chore for him. Along the way, Connor gets shot and has to run around dodging redcoats until he can hide. It just doesn't work as well. Maybe Ubisoft is just spinning their wheels, but this feels more like an uninspired peripheral game than the climax of the franchise (or at least the trilogy). I give it a 5/10, if only because I did like the older games so much. Expand
  58. Nov 8, 2012
    4
    What a flimsy, glitchy POS this game is. A shame too, the artists brought their A game, and the people responsible for bugs and game control phoned it in (they probably worked hard, but on their end this game was not ready for ship). Hoping a patch will fix some issues though I doubt it. If you loved AC2, for me anyways this was a disappointment bordering on a stealing 60 dollars.
  59. Dec 15, 2012
    4
    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
  60. Nov 8, 2012
    4
    This is the worst Assassin's Creed in the series (I think is even worse than Revelations...). The story of this game is absolute boring, specially the past part wich is the 80% of the game, but the Desmond story was even worse... Specially the ending which is specially bad, not to mention all the bugs that game haves, it feels like an unfinished game. If you want a real AC experience just play AC2 and AC:B instead of this game... About the online part, at fist looks good, but it doesn't have many variety on places to play, and most of them looks the same. Also all the customization parts for characters are overpriced, I already have played like 70 times online, I'm in level 31 and I still doesn't have enough credits to allow me to buy character stuff, only skills.. obviously they want us to spend real money on it, also the rewards (videos) for leveling up on the online game are not good as the ones in AC:R.

    So, I'm afraid this is not an AAA title anymore. Not buying another AC on the release.
    Expand
  61. Dec 27, 2012
    4
    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
  62. 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
  63. 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.
  64. Nov 9, 2012
    4
    First of all the people giving this a 10 of 10 you either smoke way to much drugs or have no idea. I loved the AC creed series, but I must say this one has ruined it for me. The story line is way to short and just suddenly dies, major let down. As for the side quests and all the other features. I like the idea, but if you dont make these side missions have any impact on the story/main gameplay then its just a waste of time. For example I finished the entire game without doing a side mission or even purchasing new weapon. Oh and another thing. The animation for firing the muskets is horrible, kinda looks like he isnt even aiming. On the positive I enjoyed the start to mid way of the main story. Created a good atmosphere until it died towards the end. Expand
  65. Nov 4, 2012
    4
    Sadly, this Assassin's Creed experience wasn't what I had hoped it would be. Don't get me wrong, it's a good game, but it's only a good game and nothing more. The game starts off well but it's all down hill from there. There aren't many new features and the combat is basically the same. Sure you can hunt, and sail ships but if I wanted to do those things I'd buy 'Cabela's Big Game Hunter' or 'Sid Meier's Pirates!'. The story telling aspects are poor also. You find yourself jumping from month to month, not really feeling that well connected to the characters. The multiplayer is quite repetitive to say the least. It's not bad but why spend your time playing AC3's multiplayer when there are much better multiplayer experiences elsewhere? The worst part about AC3 is the ending, it'll leave you annoyed and confused, kind of like a big slap across the face, especially to long time fans of the series. The game might keep you occupied for no more than a few days and it is somewhat enjoyable but in contrast with the previous games it comes up short in it's presentation, storytelling and gameplay. Expand
  66. Nov 4, 2012
    4
    There are so many bugs and problems it is worth returning the game if not avoiding it all together. To be clear, the game looks amazing. Once you get used to the fighting mechanics, they're pretty easy and even satisfying. However . . . it's not enough.

    the LB menu scroll needs to be accessed constantly, and sometimes, the game resets your D-pad hot keys. It also randomly reassigns your
    custom marker on the map. Also, after some missions your consumables (arrows, traps, bullets, etc) are all reset to zero so you have to buy them again. I've encountered glitches with assassin recruit missions not respawning if you screw them up (making it impossible to get one of the recruits. Mission optional objectives sometimes don't appear until part way thru a mission. sometimes in the heat of very intense gameplay. It's a pain in the tush to read this stuff and perform what they want you to do and many times i finish something not knowing there were specific parameters. It's a god-awful pain. Sometimes, the parameters are just ridiculous (Don't touch the water, was one of them: fine: except the climbing mechanics are not flawless and sometimes your jump comes up short and your heel lands in the river.)

    The game-play mechanics are such that you are usually holding RT the whole time. if you play marathons like I do, your finger, no joke, is gonna start getting sore.

    The button prompts when you fight an elk, bear or wolf, etc, is very predictable. After the first few fights, you realize it's the same for every animal fight thereafter.

    If you're riding a horse, stay on roads. Take it into the trees and you are in for some major frustration.

    The story: vapid. I cannot stand recreations of history in which the main character is actually involved with the decisions and actions that shaped history. It really bugs me. Connor doesn't feel like an assassin to me. He feels like a native American taking revenge and you don't get the feeling that he's connected or invested in the rich history of the assassin order.

    I'm very disappointed with this game. I'm surprised I haven't returned it yet. I love the series, and I am very invested in MIles's destiny. But This might be the last game for me. revelation was a disappointment, but i stuck it out. There was so much hype for AC3, and you can see they rushed it. This is big studio work. All their money went into advertising and press, that's why there are so many positive critic reviews. But none of the money or love went into making a good game, and I think it's because the team at UBISOFT are freaking out about 2012. They rushed this game.

    Do not buy it.
    Expand
  67. Nov 11, 2012
    4
    NO SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW Well, thanks god I'm not the only one who sees that this game is really bad. As more people here, I've been an AC fan since first day, I've all cómics, books and games, even the little ones for Android and IOS, I've beaten AC1 ( my favorite ) 18 times, AC2 12, BH 8 and Revelations 3 and I have all superior editions ( Black, Códex, Animus and Freedom ). Not much people can say that they love AC as I do, but this game, AC3 is such a s**t. It's like Ubisoft got all the ingredients, but they didn't know how to cook it, this game could have been the very best AC, they had the history context, they had the graphics, the maps, the varied missions, the best combat in all the saga, and they have screw it up. AC is not famous for his combat or varied missions, it's famous for the story that it has, one of the best stories ever on videogames industry, it's almost as epic as Metal Gear Solid ( which I love even more than AC ), but this game has ruined that history, I wish this game didn't exist, what a boring and EMPTY story, the "epics" moments in this story are empty, that's the main problem of this game, If an important character dies, it doesn't hurt, not like previous games when I almost cried, and the whole history has holes, it's not narrated properly.

    So... I've been talking about Connor's story, but Desmond story is horrible too, I don't want to spoil you, but seriosly, what a bad story, It's ruined. And the bugs in this game are really upseting, fast travel points that desapear, NPCs that doesn't walk, NCPS popping in front of you as you walk on the city, game freezes, lot of secondary missions bugged, it's really horrible, please don't buy this game. I'm realy disappointed with UbiSoft, they did the worst work ever, they are really important developers and they have lost all my respects and all really fan's respect. And... you know what? The worst thing they did, it's that they have lied to all of us. They said that they would end Desmond's story and they didn't. When I was at the end of the game, I was like, well, after 5 years, finally I'm gonna give and end for this amazing story, but It doen'st end. If you say that this game is good, you have no idea about what you are saying, I can't handle a 7, but no more than that, this game s**ks, thank you so much UbiSoft, you have ruined one of the best sagas ever.
    Expand
  68. Nov 15, 2012
    4
    i signed up here to just let my frustrations out that this game is overhyped! and empty. Im halfway and the game is just plain boring filled with glitches. i expected more on this game but it failed to deliver they hype around it. Still i will finish the game and sell it for something better.
  69. Dec 27, 2012
    4
    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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Jan 7, 2013
    4
    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.
  73. 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.
  74. Jul 15, 2014
    4
    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.
  75. Oct 30, 2012
    3
    I am gonna get right to the point here. This game is NOT good. It has some redeeming qualities like the graphics and cinematics. But there seems to be a continuing theme for so many AAA titles. They just want so badly to be liked. They put cinematics and set pieces above everything else. This game is no different. It is basically cutscene, 2 minutes of gameplay, cutscene, 4 minutes of gameplay, cutscene, 3 minutes of gameplay. AND then you consider that the gameplay is usually walking around or riding on a horse. This is pretty bad. The game also starts off incredibly slow. Conner, the main character, is not nearly as likeable as Ezio or Altair, and his motives seem at times either predictable or just iffy. When the game picks up though, you notice just how simplistic the combat is. It is clear that they wanted to ripoff the Arkham games, especially if you pay attention to the music that plays during combat. It is nearly the same exact music found in Arkham City. BUT the combat found in AC3 is no where near as fluid or polished or fun as the Arkham games. Not even close. It fails hard. Glitches also plague the combat, as well as the overall main game. Horses glitching out, muskets flying around, enemies teleporting, some clipping issues, and dialogue glitches are forgivable I guess, but freezing camera glitches and getting stuck in terrain forcing you to restart is just pushing it. Add to this, braindead AI that is some of the worst I have ever seen in a video game, and you have a very pretty game that is anything but good. PLEASE don't be fooled by the marketing. This is a failure from Ubisoft. Not recommended. 3/10 Expand
  76. Nov 2, 2012
    3
    Normally love the Creed... but really didn't like this game at all. It has so many bugs, online servers offline a lot. forgettable boring characters and the story means nothing to me as an international player. The game keeps talking about people like i should know who they are...

    game tries and fails to rip off Red Dead Redemption. Americans might get something out of this...
  77. Jan 1, 2013
    3
    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
  78. 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
  79. Jan 24, 2014
    3
    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
  80. Oct 31, 2012
    3
    Boring game... 0 Gameplay... Every little part is automatic. I hope, for the next episode, to have an automatic control, so i can only watch the game and don't play it.
  81. Nov 3, 2012
    3
    I've been a huge fan of the game and series... until now. The new combat mechnics just dont play or feel right. characters wanting to run up a ladder or wall when your trying to get to a hidespot. where was the stealth game-play? So many glitches within the game. with the size of the team they had you would think that they would be able to get a good sized QA team point them out the the coders and artists. the IGC's have really bad animations and lip sinking Expand
  82. Nov 7, 2012
    3
    Sorry, as much as I like this game, it falls in one of the worst. The online game play is horrible. You are always place in unfair circumstances, and its not fair to newer players. My first game was played with a level 50, and all upper leveled people. I couldn't get a single kill. And now that I'm half decent at the game I still find myself getting shafted by the ignorant games style. My character refuses to fully stun an enemy (honorable death), but on the other side of the table I am always finding myself stunned. And I also see an abuse to use stick targeting. I can have my sights on my target but by the time I get into the killzone my character has switched targets and killed a civilian, then shortly after that I get stunned and if I'm lucky my assassin doesn't come kill me. So all in all the campaign is good, it has a good story line. But the online play is horrendous. And to me, the online play is the main part of the game no a days, so I'm rating this game a 3.

    Update lagging online and crappy play style or I will never touch this game again.
    Expand
  83. Nov 13, 2012
    3
    I created an account just to echo what people have been saying here. Loved AC2 and this looked so promising... finished the game in just a few days and I just feel let down. Exactly what people are talking about. Gameplay interrupted by cinematics. Glitches galore (horse riding is awful). Forget about the Frontier; it's too annoying to ride through the woods and tree-hop. The new gameplay interface (e.g. for switching weapons, etc.) is for the worse. Bad voice acting. Massive plot holes and poor storyline continuity. Some missions are a total waste of time (i.e. the entire first third of the game before you get your Assassin's hood; all the Desmond missions; and especially the chase missions). You can't even free roam much once done with the game (i.e. run around and cause murderous chaos), because after gaining sufficient Notoriety, the game sends unbeatable Jagers against you that spawn out of nowhere and you are inevitably killed. Nothing like AC2; that game is still a masterpiece, especially when compared to this thing. It's like they had no quality control before putting AC3 out! Expand
  84. Nov 14, 2012
    3
    The same, redundant gameplay, but in Revolutionary America! For the sake of organization, I will break my review into two parts, one for each disc, respectively.

    Multiplayer: There is nothing very eye-catching in the multiplayer, in my honest opinion. The multiplayer of the game is essentially the same glitched, buggy experience from Revelations, mixed with the end of Brotherhood's,
    but with a twist. X is now the button to stun as well as kill, making an ever-so-slight change for the better in the mechanics. Smoke bomb makes its infamous return in the game, but with available counters in the forms of Animus Shield, Wipe, and even well-timed knives. However, unlocking items is more expensive than ever, in effort to keep you playing longer. Getting points takes an ungodly long time in game, even after winning many games. In the end, you will still be run down by a pursuer for a typical 150 points, you will still experience glitches, lag, and many other aspects that the Ubisoft devs refused to acknowledge. But hey, you can always just throw down some real cash for "Erudito Credits" and get a completely unfair edge far ahead of everyone else, all while sacrificing any value of playing the game. The multiplayer is worth maybe one and a half marks to me, at most, due to Ubisoft's blatant disregard to the problems so many cried out about after Revelations..

    Story: The story takes place in Revolutionary America, where you begin not as Connor himself, but his father. After setting sail for the American settlements, you get to play through a very long and tedious introduction to the story, filled with puzzling scenarios and making no effort at telling you where to go. If you can make it through the confusion of the introduction, new fighting system, and change of scenery from the usual Mediterranean streets, you get a special surprise! What is it? More of the mindless repetitive tasks that Assassin's Creed is famous for. Go here, do this, kill this person, free those people, etc, etc. Perhaps the games should be called "Errand Boy's Creed", because the time you spend actually influencing anything in the story is very slim to none. I personally was skeptical upon seeing AC step into the Revolutionary War, because it makes you wonder.. "What the hell? What's next, the assassins started the Civil War? Did they cause the World Wars as well?" Nevertheless, the transition was seemingly smooth, for the most part. Every now and again, I can't help but feel like I'm right back in the middle of Revelations, though. The game isn't very gripping for the era it tries to relive, for whatever reason. In short, the story is very repetitive, daunting, and slow, mostly even cinematic I would say. The story earns another one and a half stars for its lack of a gripping, engaging story that makes you actually WANT to stick with it until the end.

    Better luck next time, Ubisoft. And a word of advice, consider what the people buying your game want beforehand, instead of realizing and trying to correct long after the damage has been done.
    Expand
  85. Nov 19, 2012
    3
    This game is so muddled by glitches bugs that it is nearly unplayable. The type of game play where you assassinate people (as in Assassin's Creed) is completely absent. Missions and objectives seem completely arbitrary, as do the reasons for passing or failing. I have yet to meet a single real life person that enjoyed this piece of garbage. God only knows how it is receiving so many good reviews from critics... Expand
  86. Sep 24, 2013
    3
    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
  87. Ape
    Feb 26, 2014
    3
    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
  88. Jul 21, 2014
    3
    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
  89. Nov 12, 2012
    2
    Total disappointmet. To break it down in negative terms:

    - The cities are lifeless. You can keep on running from A -> B without any interaction as there were in AC:Brotherhood or Red Dead Redemption with people crying for help, or chasing a criminal wheras you could intervene if you'd choose so
    - The story is so confusing. It keeps time-jumping from here to there and new characters are
    introduced ALL THE TIME without any depth.
    - Conner is as interesting as an horses arse. He also lacks humangous depth, as Ezio had.
    - Glitches, glitches and more glitches.
    - Irritation UI where you have to enter the meny every time you wan't to call on the horse or an other action that isn't in the action-wheel. FRUSTRATING AS HELL.
    - Sucky implemention of fighting. Worse than any other AC game.
    - ... I could go on for hours.

    + None. All the negative ones diminish the ones I - at first - thought where positive.
    Expand
  90. Dec 10, 2013
    2
    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.
  91. Oct 30, 2012
    2
    Its the same **** all over again! The gameplay and fighting is still way too easy and gives no challenge at all. Each year a "new" Assassin's Creed with new City but still the same boring Gameplay. If you played AC2, you should leave the franchise and never play any AC Game again.
  92. Nov 14, 2012
    2
    Boring!!!! No fun factor whatsoever. I keep waiting for this game to get better but it just isn't happening. I don't usually review games before I finish them but people need to be warned that this game does not live up to the hype. I will finish the game because I want to know what happens in the story and I do love the series but it will be a struggle. The first game is still the best and in my oppinion they continue to go down hill from there. If this had been the first game in the series I would never have bought a second one. Expand
  93. 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.
  94. Nov 10, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I've played all 3 Assassin's Creed, and this is not an Assassins Creed. This is a game with the AC logo and name and a wonky version of its mechanics, but nowhere the depth of the previous ones. AC franchise is built on the ability of the player to visit historical cities and cites through the memory of Desmond's ancestor - but there is not historical sites in revolutionary America. You are no longer climbing century old buildings of masterful architecture, but merely wooden shed of various sizes, and perhaps the top of the sorry box of matches that the colonist call a House of God. There are people who pointed out the clunky combat system and mechanics... I guess they had to change it for the tree climbing in this game, but it seems like they've broken more than the features they've added. And it seems the game was completely lacking in play test due to the countless bugs I've encountered such as unkillable guards, horrid and cryptic lock picking, complete gray screen, and inability to correctly load the game from save files. The story is an utter mess and any small bit of analysis into the main character of Connor would cause the story to fall apart during the middle of the game. While his motivation for the first half of the game is understandable (the death of his mother, the attack on his tribe), the latter part - after which his reason and preconceptions were revealed to be false (His supposed attacker were innocent for the death of his mother and attack on his tribe), the entire latter half of the game became aimless and pointless to the player. Especially so when 1) We as a player knows exactly what happens to Native Indians after the revolutionary war, and 2) His templar enemies specifically stated they were attempting to prevent the very result that we as players know would happen from history. Connor's main reason for his joining of the Assassins was to blame Charles Lee for the attack on his village that resulted in his mother's death, but it was revealed later that Charles Lee was not responsible, and the attack was in fact ordered by Washington. But instead of the player change allegiance, he doggedly pursued Charles Lee to the very end, despite him being completely innocent to the very reason that the main character joined the Assassin's order. The game lacks the depth and intrigue that was the highlight of the AC series. Where the previous games had puzzles with conspiracy undertones, AC3 seems to have fired the writing department and replaced it with mini-game department. There were no overhanging questions about subjective or objective morality, nothing to make the player think about and question the correct view of the world - it was just Connor getting used by Templars, Assassins, and those who came before as pawns. Connor as a main character no longer contains a brain like Altair or Ezio, but became a human shaped murder tool controlled by the player, manipulated by those who held more cards. One also cannot ignore the blatant attempt to portray the French in the happy sunny light - While the British were portrayed as tyrants, thugs, and fascist police organization, the Patriots led by Washington was portrayed as inept, brutish, uncultured. I'm sure the fact Ubisoft was a French company had nothing to do with this though. The game's only salvation was 1) Connor's Father Haythem - a more fitting and respectable character as an Assassin, ironically 2) the Naval Battle missions. If one word could sum up Assassins Creed 3, it world be the word: TOOL. Expand
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. Jan 7, 2013
    2
    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.
    Expand
  98. 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
  99. 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!)
  100. 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
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]