[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
[quote]En Sabah Nur wrote:
[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
AC III is horrible…I’m not excited for AC IV at this point.
I liked the UI, the timeline, and the father-son premise, but the game really felt flat.[/quote]
I would say its far from horrible, its really a very good game if you’re judging it by itself, but in the context of the series and what came before it, its the weakest entry since the first one in my opinion.
ACII>ACB=ACR>ACIII>ACI IMO[/quote]
I agree with this man 100%. The thing that ruined ACIII for me was the pacing, you spent like 6 hours in what felt like an extended tutorial, not to mention I wasn’t all that fond of Connor as a protagonist.
In retrospect, I would’ve really liked it if they would’ve explored the idea of being an assassin for the Templars. And man…Haytham was the perfect character for that. They could’ve started you off as an Assassin, and then in the later part of a game, or maybe in another game, have you join up with the Templars.
[/quote]
I agree with both points as to why acIII was a disappointment. Also, climbing around in the wilderness turned out to be much more boring than it was initially made out to be, and at times pretty damn tedious.
The thing that really disappointed about it for me was that the intro made probably the best first-impression of any AC game to date, only for it to fall flat afterwards.
[/quote]
100% agree! AC2 was obviously SICK, AC3 made some great improvements (game-play wise, movement, attacking) but after you get transformed from the first char, into the wilderness, then the game goes to shit. AC3, the first part, was incredible though. Never felt that impressed / drawn-in by a game before.