View Full Version : AC3. Disappointment?

12-26-2012, 04:02 AM
I will admit. THE GAME WAS AWESOME. Ubisoft really did a good job. But unfortunately the game didn't really live up to your expectations. Compared to AC2, ACB, and ACR...I feel like AC3 doesn't have that "thrill of the story" and "thrill of the character" anymore. I didn't get much of the story. Maybe that's just because I'm not good with history though I don't know. Connor is a NEW character. Yet I felt like after more than 5 hours of gameplay, I wasn't feeling Connor anymore! It's all about Charles Lee, Charles Lee, Charles Lee, Washington, Washington, Washington, and some other guys. The tutorial kinda took its time too. After a few hours of Haytham you use Connor(eagerly waiting for him) and then its a new whole set of long tutorials! Given all of that atleast the Naval Battle was really really really good. Ubisoft did a good job with that. The naval battle was really unexpected. The new engine lived up to expectations.

Looking at all these posts about how bad AC3 is(i finished the game with a good spec pc but with very bad framerate), I believe this just a start for Assassin's Creed(i hope). Let's wait and see where will they take us next. Whether it's Connor again or a new assassin, looks bad or looks good, I will continue to like Assassin's Creed. :)

12-26-2012, 12:39 PM
Yes. Assassins Creed 3 is a good game, its not **** or something like that, but I think it could be better. The hunting is a good example. Its a nice idea, but they didnt full cover it. It could have been way better. The biggest disappointment in the game are the setting. Connor is boring. Lets start with that. Ezio was x1000000000 times better, even his moment of becoming an assassin was so lame its like "OK you're an assassin now, I dont wanna celebrate it - Bye.". He's not funny, and he doesnt talk much. He's not the assassin I wanna play with. Plus, the American Revolution is a dark, gray period. It doesnt have the magic that was in AC2, I didnt want to explore Boston or New York very much because they're as beautiful as Rome, Venice or Firenze. Its just more awful buildings with nothing special. Plus, the characters were bad and unknown. Washington and Benjamin Frenklim are the only people that I knew (Im sure it wasnt just me). In AC2 (I keep saying it because I think AC2 was the best game), there were Savonarola, The Borgia, Makaveli, Lorenzo de Medici and many more. I hope we'll see something different in the next game. Again, I dont say the whole game is bad. I enjoyed very much the naval missions, and the main story (again, could have been better but it was cool). Plus, I think Ubisoft should have added some missions from Connors youth (Like Cristina missions in AC:B). So thats it.. Soory for my bad English. Soory for its being so long.. (:

12-27-2012, 12:36 PM
Exactly, the only problem i have with this game is Connor's voice acting, he is very boring and fake, in addition to the voice that doesnt fit the character at all, i seriously dont know who approved this voice acting since AC team gave us a voice acting pattern with Ezio and everyone just loved it, its a huge disappointment and a total downgrade for Connor character.

in AC2 and later we were very eager and impatient to play with Ezio and continue his story, so it was Ezio story and Desmond story which made the game perfect, but with Connor, i'm sure most of us dont give a **** about him and its just OK to play with him again, so it was just limited to desmond story which also didnt bring much to the table.

I would say its not too late to change Connor voice actor, they can just assume he was young with this immature voice, but with the sequels if they intend to continue with him, his voice acting definitely should change.