Be-Mpowered.com: "I really don’t like Assassin’s Creed. From the moment I reviewed it back in 2007 to this day, every entry just feels like a step further away from what was originally promised. Yes, Ubisoft made good with the sequel and polished that off with Brotherhood, but considering we have 19 games in the franchise… well… they’re not the best statistics."
Shaz from GL writes: "Assassin’s Creed Unity is looked at as one of the worst in Ubisoft’s iconic franchise. But playing it nearly 10 years later reveals it may just be the best"
This should make fans and collectors very happy. PureArts & Ubisoft Announce Assassin’s Creed Hunt for the Nine 1/6 Scale Diorama Assassin's Creed Hunt for the Nine 1/6 Scale Diorama available for pre-order on January 25.
AC3 was released during a turbulent transition period for Ubisoft and the Assassin's Creed series. It ventured into uncharted territory, narratively and mechanically, which caused it to receive mixed reviews. At its core, though, it's a damn good stealth game.
Nope, I hated 3, connar was bland, literally the most flat character in the entire game. Not to mention to myriad of bugs, camera issues, and that annoying thing where he automatically ditches his weapon you payed for for the sake of a cool finishing move forcing you to trek back to your base after almost every encounter just to re-equip your own weapon. It just didn't work as fluidly as the others like 2 and 4
The series peaked at AC3 for me. It’s been my favourite in the series. Connor will always be one of my favourite video game protagonists.
No. Game was BORING. Connor was really dull. Environments, while impressive, because of the geographic location and time period were not really exciting to be in. I would love some kind of game set in there colonial American time period, but a game like AC that back then centered around parkour and vertical traversal really didn't fit those environments.
Nope
There was a lot of issues but mine is how they handled the war
They told us Connor was not going to get involved, that the war was more of a background setting for the real story and it wasn’t going to be one sided
They lied, even the cinematic E3 trailer showed Connor emerge from the Colonist side and slaughter the red coats to get to his target, inspiring the Colonists to fight back
I just thought it would have made more sense lore wise that the red coats were mostly compiled of Assassins fighting the Colonist templars who wanted to take the new world for themselves.
Since the Red coats lost the war, it would then explain how the Templars started to gain the upper hand and how on the future the assassins were mostly killed off and the Templar’s had pretty much taken over everything.
Instead it just felt like they didn’t want to p*** off the American audience
Even Haytham was cool, he should have been an Assassin through and through and should have been the main lead.
The game even seems to lack the humour of the other games. It almost seems as though the idea of even slightly making fun of American history wouldn't be acceptable.
Exactly
It just felt super safe
“Better not make the colonists look super bad incase people boycott our game”
There was literally no point
What I've just said above would at least make sense lore wise and why the Assassins start to loose their war, die off and how the Templars are in control in the future of almost everything....what they did was just, pointless
I’m one one of those weird people that liked Ass Creed 3, but to be fair I never got around to finishing it.
Quote " but considering we have 19 games in the franchise… well… they’re not the best statistics."
Well the COD franchise has 35 games
http://callofduty.wikia.com...
Just saying, people complain how the AC series is being milked every year etc yet I bet a lot of them still buy COD after all these years.
I really wish that they would get back on with the story. The story of 1 & 2 are what really drew me in, I used to buy it until revelations, where I really saw a decline in the story value. I still haven't played black flag, buy judging from reviews, it doesn't do anything to really bring back the mystery that was originally created from the cliff hanger in 1 and 2.
It's a shame, it really seemed like it could be a promising franchise.
Five things I hate about Assassin's Creed:
1. U
2. N
3. I
4. T
5. Y
I've always WANTED to like these games. I love the idea of a historical setting and the world, at least from the trailers, has always looked really immersive, at least thematically.
I just can't though. Open world should mean that the game (the story, the progression, etc.) itself is tied to the openness of that world. Like skyrim. But these games always seemed to offer a big sandbox with nothing to do but obey the linear story.
At the risk of starting more than I already have, I think the GTA games have the same boring problem; you do the linear story or you fart around doing nothing that the game recognizes as important.
This bores me. This is also why what Bethesda does is so interesting to me. They make games in which everything is connected.
Assassin's Creed's world is like a Christmas ornament. It's pretty to look at, maybe even worth exploring the contours of, just don't expect to actually DO anything with it.
Unity was my last mistake.