Assassin's Creed III Hands On Preview

Assassin's Creed III Hands On Preview

Climbing trees, riding horses, and stringing up Redcoats in Colonial Boston.

Read Full Article

Well, that was somewhat disappointing (not the article, the game).

I've got plenty of games I can go to if I want to blow shit sky-high; Assassin's Creed was the only game where I could run across a city's rooftops, leap down and stab someone in the neck in one smooth action. But if they can't pull off parkour, that is no longer a possibility.

I knew this game was going to be disappointing, but I desperately hoped it would prove me wrong.

Let's just hope it doesn't suck as much as Revelations did.

Dennis Scimeca:
I think the closer the Assassin's Creed franchise draws to contemporary events, the more difficult it might be to accept the idea that there always seems to be an Assassin or a Templar around when important historical events took place.

This is something that's worrying to me as well. We know from some of subject 16's hidden messages that the assassins were active up to WW2 but by that time the combat that makes AC so fun is worthless, I have a feeling the number of guns we'll see in this game will mean hack'n'slash might be a worse option compared to using your bow.

Hopefully since this is probably the end of Desmond's arc we will see a new animus subject and can jump back in time, even further back than AC1 if they want (assuming that they keep making AC after this of course)

As for the poorer sides of the game, I'll wait and see for myself. I remember the escapist review of revelations said the defense mini-game was a really bad idea but I found it to be OK - not great but not awful. I'll be buying this anyway so I'll find out soon enough.

Eh, I'm still excited; I'm all for a bit of a switch-up in mechanics, although if the combat is anything close to Brotherhood/Revelations, I'ma be very disappointed, then again I don't reckon AC has ever shined so much in it's straight up combat, thinking about it.

Thunderous Cacophony:
Well, that was somewhat disappointing (not the article, the game).

I've got plenty of games I can go to if I want to blow shit sky-high; Assassin's Creed was the only game where I could run across a city's rooftops, leap down and stab someone in the neck in one smooth action. But if they can't pull of parkour, that is no longer a possibility.

Just to be clear, I only felt a problem with parkour in the woods. Giving you feedback like that is tricky, because for all I know a lot more experience playing in the frontier would have taught me how best to utilize parkour there, but I doubt it ever would have been as free as the rooftop movement in Boston.

Being a huge fan of the AC series, this may be the first AC I might wait for a 30 dollar or so price tag. I just don't feel like paying another 60 bucks to be disappointed.

This is the first Assassin's Creed game that actually looks like I might buy it new. My main complaints about the previous games is that I thought the settings and stories, while pretty and mildly interesting, were honestly a bit boring after awhile. The concept of skulking around Revolutionary era America really hasn't been utilized yet to this extent and it sounds like fun.

Just out of curiosity, how many of the enemies in the demo were Revolutionaries/Americans?
I remember a while ago that Ubisoft said that the game would be rather unbiased, that there would be enemies on both sides. Yet from the trailers it seems like all the enemies are the British - The Redcoats.

Dennis Scimeca:

Thunderous Cacophony:
Well, that was somewhat disappointing (not the article, the game).

I've got plenty of games I can go to if I want to blow shit sky-high; Assassin's Creed was the only game where I could run across a city's rooftops, leap down and stab someone in the neck in one smooth action. But if they can't pull off parkour, that is no longer a possibility.

Just to be clear, I only felt a problem with parkour in the woods. Giving you feedback like that is tricky, because for all I know a lot more experience playing in the frontier would have taught me how best to utilize parkour there, but I doubt it ever would have been as free as the rooftop movement in Boston.

But that's the problem, isn't it.
In previous AC games, it was always easy; you hold a button and the game does the heavy lifting-no long tutorials, no frustrating quicktime events, just pick up and go. I found that a lot of fun, allowing me to plot a basic route while planning ahead how to intercept a target, not having to worry about getting stuck on a 1 metre ledge. All the past Assassins had experience running around on roofs, so it made sense that it would be easy for them to do. You would imagine that Connor Whatshisface, having lived in rural areas his whole life, would be similarly skilled in terms of outdoor running.

So the thought that it is significantly more difficult is a little off-putting. I don't know how long you played, but if you couldn't pick it up quickly, that means that the game is moving from sky-based spinny-jumpy-stabby wahey (to borrow a term) to more ground-based, slow tracking. As you said, it may never have been as free as city movement, but for a game which largely takes place in the woods and small settlements, it should still be flowing and recognizably Assassin's Creed.

So...based on that preview it looks like Ubisoft was lying and the game is, in fact, a massive overly-patriotic piece of 18th century propaganda.

Think I'll wait until its on sale or something. The combat has been going downhill since AC2 so the only thing really worth left was the story. But since said story has seemingly been sacrificed on the alter of "the US market" in favour of helping the US win the war (guess the Templars can wait until later, eh?) there's no way its worth launch price.

Lightspeaker:
So...based on that preview it looks like Ubisoft was lying and the game is, in fact, a massive overly-patriotic piece of 18th century propaganda.

Think I'll wait until its on sale or something. The combat has been going downhill since AC2 so the only thing really worth left was the story. But since said story has seemingly been sacrificed on the alter of "the US market" in favour of helping the US win the war (guess the Templars can wait until later, eh?) there's no way its worth launch price.

What are you basing this on? The only thing the preview shows is that Connor sides with the rebels at the beginning of the conflict. There's no moral value made there.

i hope the combat will not be that bad on the pc. so far, i never had any problems with the combat in any AC games. also hope that later on in the game you will be also killing americans to balance it out. the story is still interesting and i hope it will deliver.
im still excited about it and i will get it when its out. since the pc version will come out later, as always.

Lightspeaker:
So...based on that preview it looks like Ubisoft was lying and the game is, in fact, a massive overly-patriotic piece of 18th century propaganda.

Think I'll wait until its on sale or something. The combat has been going downhill since AC2 so the only thing really worth left was the story. But since said story has seemingly been sacrificed on the alter of "the US market" in favour of helping the US win the war (guess the Templars can wait until later, eh?) there's no way its worth launch price.

To be fair, during the Revolution most of the major cities were still under British control, so it's more likely that it would be Redcoats running about rather than Revolutionaries.

That said, the fact that Connor instigates the Tea Party has me more than a little nervous as to where the story might head. My hope is that they're showing the Pro-Revolutionary bits more in marketing it because that's probably a safer strategy when it comes to US sales and the game itself will be more balanced.

Lightspeaker:
So...based on that preview it looks like Ubisoft was lying and the game is, in fact, a massive overly-patriotic piece of 18th century propaganda.

Think I'll wait until its on sale or something. The combat has been going downhill since AC2 so the only thing really worth left was the story. But since said story has seemingly been sacrificed on the alter of "the US market" in favour of helping the US win the war (guess the Templars can wait until later, eh?) there's no way its worth launch price.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR0qAOF35V8

this show kills several of good pariot.

Two most previews i read online praise. But wonder how it will during release. Plus it did sound gone out his way to start a fighting.

I was hoping for something better. But, with it already pre-ordered, and not wanting to waste the cash I already spent, I guess I'll wait to really grab an opinion.

You do know that forests generally aren't as stable or dense as Medieval and Renaissance Era cities, right? And combat in all AC games has always been a total button mash fest?

Everything I've seen and heard about this game points to it being significantly better than Revelations, and that was easily the best AC so far (with Brotherhood being the worst).

This is going to be the first one since AC2 that I'm going to buy when it comes out.

drizztmainsword:

Everything I've seen and heard about this game points to it being significantly better than Revelations, and that was easily the best AC so far (with Brotherhood being the worst).

This is going to be the first one since AC2 that I'm going to buy when it comes out.

whoa really?...most people hate Revelations...while Im not sure Id call it "the best" I agree in that is better than brotherhood

brotherhood I think made it so I cant play AC2 ever a gain...just burned me out on it too much (not to mention Ezios outfit was rediculous..like more than usual)

Vault101:

drizztmainsword:

Everything I've seen and heard about this game points to it being significantly better than Revelations, and that was easily the best AC so far (with Brotherhood being the worst).

This is going to be the first one since AC2 that I'm going to buy when it comes out.

whoa really?...most people hate Revelations...while Im not sure Id call it "the best" I agree in that is better than brotherhood

brotherhood I think made it so I cant play AC2 ever a gain...just burned me out on it too much (not to mention Ezios outfit was rediculous..like more than usual)

The mission design was much better in Revelations. It was more interesting, more varied, and didn't suffer from the horrendous frustrations in Brotherhood where you'd mess up ever so slightly, de-sync, and have to start all over again.

The areas you explored were also more interesting, and had MUCH more detail.

They also made combat far more interesting. In my opinion, AC's combat was the worst in AC2 and the best in Revelations. In AC2, the easiest way to win EVERY fight was to charge in with empty hands and just disarm everybody. Sure, it was cool for a while, but when the easiest way to deal with a guy in full-plate is just to take his sword out of his hands, it gets a little old. That, and the only other option was to just wail on them, because countering the heavies was rather difficult. In Revelations, disarming was still possible, but it wasn't the best option. The additional ability to have an off-hand weapon selected was fantastic as well. I could beat the crap out of some guy with a sword, drop him, then take out my crossbow and blow away the guy trying to rush me. It felt very fluid, and there was much more room for variety.

Perhaps the reason people didn't like it was because it was so similar in structure to Brotherhood and came out only a year later? I played both way after their respective releases, and I enjoyed Revelations immensely more; it finally unseated AC1 as my favorite game in the series.

With any luck, AC3 will destroy Revelations in the favorites department.

 

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 58499)