Amazingly, this is the fourth Assassin's Creed game in four years. But while Brotherhood and Revelations felt like ambitious expansions, Assassin's Creed 3 is more of a sequel. The world is bigger and more complex, combat has been streamlined, climbing feels more natural and intuitive, and we're introduced to a new setting and hero for the first time since baby Ezio came screeching out of his mother's womb. But some things haven't changed. There are problems here that have plagued the series since the first game, and they stick out like a Redcoat in the snow.
Further reading: Review Q&A; | Assassin's Creed 3 guide | 360 vs PS3 video comparison | Assassin's Creed 3 review round-up | Assassin's Creed 3 Liberation impressions
Set in the 1700s, Assassin's Creed 3 gives you a glimpse of America before it was covered in strip malls and skyscrapers. The British are ruling the colonies with an iron fist, and the Patriots are fighting back. It's a time of bloody civil war as the rebels battle for their independence.
In the middle of it all are the Native Americans, including new hero Connor, who are being driven from their land and persecuted by the foreign invaders. It was a troubled, violent period of history, and Ubisoft Montreal treat it as such. Nothing is glorified, nor is it the pro-America propaganda piece the trailers suggested it might be. Connor regularly points out the hypocrisy of the colonists who fight for their freedom, yet still keep slaves.
That doesn't mean the writers haven't taken some artistic license, though. As in previous games, the century-spanning battle between the Assassins and the Templars is tied into real historical events. History has no record of a guy in a white hood helping to win the Battle of Bunker Hill, but the game sees Connor disabling artillery on nearby ships to help the soldiers on the front line, then charging head-first into the battle himself to execute a Templar general.
This cocktail of real history and the game's mythology works really well, and taking an active part in landmark moments in American history, and witnessing others, is a thrill. Connor all but blows the ink dry on the Declaration of Independence.
HEAT WAVE
Outside of the Animus, Desmond is back. The solar flare mentioned at the end of Assassin's Creed: Revelations is about to toast Earth and wipe out humanity, and he's living out Connor's past to find a magical MacGuffin that'll stop it.
You can eject from the Animus at any time and wander around talking to Danny Wallace and co., but the meat of the game takes place in Connor's memories. Desmond still has no discernable personality, and spends most of the game complaining. Connor, although likeable, is too serious.
He has positive traits - noble, moral, good-natured - but none of that makes him an interesting character. His biggest flaw is that he has a short temper, which actually ends up being quite irritating. We miss Ezio's sense of humour.
Sometimes you'll hear the pounding of military drums and a platoon of Redcoats will come marching by. As the Revolution heats up, musket battles between British and Patriot soldiers erupt around you. It feels alive. The story takes place across a number of years, and seasonal shifts completely transform the landscape. In the summer it's green, lush and hazy, and in winter everything is covered in layers of thick, powdery snow.
Boston and New York are just as detailed, but the colonial architecture doesn't offer as much variety or verticality as any of the cities from previous games. You spend most of your time hopping across slanted roofs, and there are no big, imposing structures like the towering Basilica di San Marco in Venice or the Colosseum in Rome. But that, to be fair, is a limitation of the setting and not the developers' imaginations.
To make up for the smaller buildings, there are more novel ways to navigate. You can jump across trees placed between houses, or climb through open windows to cross to the adjacent street. There isn't much distinction between the two cities, sadly. Both are very similar in look and feel, and only a handful of story missions take place in New York.
Climbing has been simplified, and you now only have to hold the right trigger to free-run. They call this 'safe' free-running because there's no risk of falling. This does its best to combat the problem of accidentally jumping to your doom or running face-first into a wall you can't climb and interrupting your flow. It also frees your right hand up to move the camera around, which is useful if you're using the trees to stalk an animal, or attempting one of the new running assassinations.
The tree climbing is superbly animated, and initially feels much more organic than the platforming we're used to in the series. But you soon begin to instinctively recognise the few tree shapes that are climbable, which shatters the illusion somewhat.
Enemy behaviour has been modified so that you can't repeatedly use the same move over and over again. As a result, combat is tougher than in previous games. Not Dark Souls tough, but still challenging. The primitive 18th Century guns are so unwieldy and slow to reload they're never much of a threat, but sometimes you'll have to break away from a swordfight to interrupt another enemy who's about to fire their musket at you.
But now we have to talk about Assassin's Creed 3's biggest flaw: the missions. Don't worry, some of them are sensational. We mentioned the Battle of Bunker Hill earlier, and that whole section will blow your mind. It's a thundering symphony of scenery-shattering set-pieces and ends with a thousand-man battle you can scarcely believe is running on a current generation console.
The opening sequence is fantastic too, set aboard a ship as it crosses the Atlantic Ocean from Britain to America. The atmosphere and detail of the world around you is stunning, and we got so immersed at times we felt like we'd plugged into the Animus ourselves. There are moments here to rival the best in the series, and each mission offers something different - including parts where you command armies - but the issue we have is with the instant fails.
Comments
68 comments so far...
Moribundman on 30 Oct '12 said:
I was going to say... Why is the review not due up till 5 when the embargo time is 9am PST (our clocks went back, theirs haven't yet). That pedantry aside, I will away now to read your 4pm review...
StonecoldMC on 30 Oct '12 said:
I'm looking forward to getting this on Friday. I'm going to go against the grain (I think) but ill be trading in Dishonored to get this Game. I just haven't fallen for it the way I hoped I would and the way that so many of you guys have.
AC has been one of the standout new IP's this Gen and in a Game like this, you are always going to have flaws, if going by past titles, I wont be disappointed.
MattyR95 on 30 Oct '12 said:
I had a feeling Connor wasn't going to be as good as Ezio. Guess I was right.
KK-Headcharge78 on 30 Oct '12 said:
Hmm not inspiring me there, I fell out with the 2nd game as while it screams beauty, breadth and 'coolness' it frankly bored the crap out of me after a few days. It's only one review mind and 8 is hardly a bad score, I just fear that as with many open world games the 'excitement' blurs into repetitiveness all too quickly, 2nd hand purchase methinks.
I'm sure the 15+ hours gameplay crowd will be delighted though
Two Pennys Worth on 30 Oct '12 said:
I know 8 is supposed to be a good score but i can't help feeling a little disappointed considering all the hype surrounding this game. It looks like they bit off a bit more than they cold chew.
Stryker89 on 30 Oct '12 said:
I immensely enjoyed AC2, Brotherhood and Revelations and have played all of them twice through, so I'll be getting this tomorrow without a doubt. Familiarity is of no concern to me.
frazzerr on 30 Oct '12 said:
All AC games had their faults but they were all really good games nevertheless, his hasn't deterred me for purchasing the game, still pumped for it
...
RandyChimp on 30 Oct '12 said:
Remember, its just an opinion, you might get the game and think "f**k, 10 OUT OF 10!" or "What? 5 out of 10, max!"
WHERESMYMONKEY on 30 Oct '12 said:
Blasphamy!!!!! i mean, i guess that's your decision. To tell you the truth i've finished it twice and can't be bothered to go for the 1000g despite being only 80 short.
Feds on 30 Oct '12 said:
Damn, well this could have been better. The Co o still sounds the same old boring as well, the should NOT include multi on this game series.
.
TheCrimsonFenix on 30 Oct '12 said:
After the questions for the review were answered, I definitely won't be investing any time in it. My key disappointment with the whole series has been the familiarity of it and after it's been said that the same core familiar idea is still there, dull character (even though I found Ezio to be dull, too arrogant and uninteresting) and the gameplay sounding and looking like more of the same but slightly "better".. I think I definitely will bow out of this and the inevitable semi-sequels that Ubi will come out with.
Pretty much agree with what KK said. The Creed world is there, the characters are there, the story is there. It's just not engaging enough when it comes to playing it though. Just my opinion of course.
Feds on 30 Oct '12 said:
Damn, could have been better, Seems the character has less ersonallity. co o. should not be on Assassins cread, its boring.
FishyGinger on 30 Oct '12 said:
If you say it 3 times I hear your dreams come true.
Good score, looking forward to this. Really liked the multiplayer on the last ones too
budge on 30 Oct '12 said:
Scripted missions?
Guess i'll pick this up in a few months time then.
Feds on 30 Oct '12 said:
sorry , thought it didnt get through
Windowlicker79 on 30 Oct '12 said:
I wonder if they'll update this review once the patch goes live? Sounds like it would fix some of the problems they mentioned.
DAEDALUS79 on 30 Oct '12 said:
Im really not interested in this, and im not quite sure why. I loved Assassins Creed 1, infact im probably one of the few people who think its the best in the series. For me Ass Creed was about Altair, was about the crusades, fighting knights in the middle east and generally being a sneaky little git. Sure it was guilty of some major gaming flaws, and was repetitive as f**k, but for me it was and still is one of the best games of the generation. Desmond ruined the game for me, I hate the animus bulls**t, feel it detracts from the story and what matters. I loved Altair, I genuinely do not care about Desmond or his story.
Ass Creed 2 fixed a lot of problems of the original, but just felt a little soulless in comparison. It also went all fahrenheit/indigo prophecy on us towards the end, which I was not a fan of at all.
drunkadin on 30 Oct '12 said:
SOMEONE"S BITTER ABOUT THE REVOLUTION. I kid. But yeah, I can't believe it comes as a shock to anyone that 100 million dollar video game projects are overmanaged and derivative. RE, Dead Space, Dragon Age/Mass Effect...the list goes on. and. on. Do they take the hint? nope.
At least CoD will be a breath of fresh air in an otherwise commercial industry. AMIRITE GAIS?!!!!
No, but seriously...let's see what they do with Bioshock and GTA (and to a lesser extent, Hitman).
wishface on 30 Oct '12 said:
The video review seems reasonable so I give it credence.
Given that I will have to pay at least another £6 to access the online component (YMMV whether it's worth it, not really the issue) I'm probably going to wait. I like that it's long (hopefully), but Desmond's stuff is always p**s boring (hey I'm Q, jump around these weird platforms in your mind neo!) and the plot is nonsensical. I had always suspected that the cities of this era wouldn't afford the kind of verticality or style that you got in earlier games (although Constantinople was a right let down as was ACR in total).
BoomJack94 on 30 Oct '12 said:
I too was also expecting a higher score. To be honest, as long as the game feels markedly different from the previous games and is a hell of a lotta fun. I couldn't care less what CVG has to say. (I do love CVG though
)
AndyCVG on 30 Oct '12 said:
After I'd finished the game on one review disc, Ubisoft sent me another they said was patched up to the latest version. I tested it, and the pop-in, fuzzy shadows, and other visual bugs were still there. I've also tested a retail Xbox 360 copy of the game, installed to the hard drive, and patched from Xbox Live, and it's the same deal. I hope the PC version tidies it up a bit.
Cheers,
Andy
sigourney beaver on 30 Oct '12 said:
even though its a good score i was expecting better
The_KFD_Case on 30 Oct '12 said:
I concur; in particular with the closing comment. Few games have induced such gaming rage fits in me as the AC games (of the ones that I've played). So much potential brilliance and yet such tediousness!
The_KFD_Case on 30 Oct '12 said:
Thanks for the follow-up response, Andy. Refreshing to get a glimpse of what goes on behind the CVG online forum scene.
Bendanarama on 30 Oct '12 said:
Honestly? I wouldn't say Connor is a bad character, but if you've grown attached to Ezio he is very different. He's probably closer in personality to Altair, but not as sophisticated.
flyfletch on 30 Oct '12 said:
I was sooooo looking forward to this game, now i dont know what to do!
JPTiger on 30 Oct '12 said:
Oh, I remember the time when 7 was quite a good score, and 9 was reserved for the best. Now a lot of people are complaining that 8 isn't good enough
It'll be a first day purchase for me. Infact, the midnight launch is on in under 2 hours 
eastldn on 30 Oct '12 said:
that makes no sense. anyway..
those missions were you deviate from the path and is game over sound VERY annoying so...
FishyGinger on 30 Oct '12 said:
Still get it because you'll like it. Seriously, 8 is a great score. Too many people think only 9s or 10s are worthy of them.
budge on 30 Oct '12 said:
8 is a great score but the fact that you can't vary your playstyle for assassination attempts, missions feel very scripted, the lead character is a bore and the fact that the gameplay is a case of same old same old makes it a massive put off for me despite the high review marks.
AndyCVG on 31 Oct '12 said:
The smaller scale of the cities are a result of the time period, because the buildings were smaller then than in Renaissance Italy. So when I say they lack verticality and variety, it's not because the developers couldn't be bothered making any big, impressive buildings – it's because the time period is limiting them. Boston was founded in 1630, and Assassin's Creed 3 begins in the early 1700s. It was a young city, and thus had no massive structures. A limitation of the setting.
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
I don't want to offend the reviewer, this is their opinion. What I will say is that CVG seem to have given the biggest sandbox game review in years to somebody who doesn't like Assassins Creed! (like giving me a COD or Mario game to review, I wouldn't be able to justify anything higher than a 3 out of 10, as I cannot see what part of these games is attractive to anyone)
I played it for around 9 hours yesterday, and I'm still in what seems to be the tutorial (this game is massive, the tutorial is longer than most modern games), after reading the reviews I wonder if most reviewers got past this part. This game easily has the best and most immersive opening I have ever experienced in all my gaming years and it just keeps getting better.
No bugs as yet.
What annoys the most, is that there is almost no mention of the leap in quality of nearly every aspect of the game. Also don't listen when the reviewers moan about being spotted then having to replay a section, what they are really saying is that they are a bit crap (no offence again Mr. Reviewer) at playing the game and don't really understand the tools at their disposal which allow them to hide in plain sight.
If you like Assassins Creed, this game will make you cream yourself. If you don't like Assassins Creed your experience will probably similar to that of this reviewer.
TheRandyNinja on 31 Oct '12 said:
Picked this up last night and had a few hours on it and was blown away what topped it for me was the 3d i have tried it in a few games on the 360 and it was horriable but the 3d effect gives amazing depth with no ghosting what so ever and for once it didn't hurt my eyes
adgr19 on 31 Oct '12 said:
what really annoys me is how games journalists casually ruin the ending of a brand new £40 game in their reviews, grrrrrr.
Andycvg - Bruce Willis is a ghost
JustOneMoreGo on 31 Oct '12 said:
I beg to differ - http://www.vg247.com/2012/10/30/assassi ... nt-page-1/
Yet another shoddy, broken release from a big publisher.
Anyway, had a go with it. While it looks lovely, it's pretty much the same as all the others. No sell here. Might pick it up once it hit's the under £20 mark.
AndyCVG on 31 Oct '12 said:
Nope. I love Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed 2 is one of my all-time favourite games. I even loved Revelations, which a lot of people seem to have a problem with. It's my love of the series that makes me disappointed in the new game. They can do better than this, and I WANT them to.
AndyCVG on 31 Oct '12 said:
I said the ending provides closure, which could mean an infinite number of things. They've been saying for ages that this is the end of a trilogy.
Bruce Willis is a ghost? Noooo! In what film? Die Hard?
bram4054 on 31 Oct '12 said:
My beloved went to grainger games this morning armed with dishonoured to exchange for AC3. £18 exchange for dishonoured, and £45 price tag for AC3... I no longer have any eyes!!!
AndyCVG on 31 Oct '12 said:
The game doesn't let you adapt to situations; it forces you down a linear, prescribed path, and punishes you if you veer from it. You might like that, but I think it's incredibly archaic, flat, boring game design. I want games that give me freedom to approach and solve problems creatively. I don't want to be part of some game designer's idea of how a game SHOULD be played, otherwise it might as well be an interactive movie. I want to use my brain.
Windowlicker79 on 31 Oct '12 said:
I understand that totally. It sounds like they've actually taken a step back in game design if the missions are less open that previous AC games. What's the point of having an open world if the missions within it don't let you take advantage of that?
adgr19 on 31 Oct '12 said:
"If you've been following Desmond's story since the beginning, the game does provide some sense of closure - while simultaneously opening things up for a new set of sequels. We may have seen the last of him, but the series isn't going to suddenly grind to a halt."
too much information?
Bruce Willis is a ghost in all of them
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
We all want perfection my friend, but if you can't see that Assassins Creed 2 (don't get me started on Revelations!) is a tenth of the game that Assassins Creed 3 is, then I find it very difficult to believe you truly are a fan of the series or understand what they are trying to achieve with this game.
That or your expectations were way too high. I read a lot of previews, so I had a very good idea what I was getting way before I pre-ordered. Ubisoft, so far, have fully delivered (in my opinion of course).
JustOneMoreGo on 31 Oct '12 said:
Is someone a bit butt hurt that not everyone is as 'thrilled' by AC III as he is?
Nimron Tang, are you absolutely sure you like AC III as much as you think you do as it strikes me that you're desperate for reviews to reflect your own opinion, thus justifying your purchase and your own feelings about the game...
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
Did I say nobody was experiencing bugs? The answer is no. What I said is that in my 9 hours so far I haven't experienced any bugs. Lots of people will be in the same boat as me, therefore "shoddy" and "broken" are not words someone like myself who has actually played the game would use to describe it. Actually, "epic" and "masterpiece" are the words that come to mind!
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
Yes, its the best game I have played since GTA4. (so far)
It's not the reviews that bother me! I never agree with review scores or the opinion of the reviewer, it's the people who base their purchase off of one reviewers very subjective opinion! Quite simply, I don't want people (especially those sat on the fence) missing out on an amazing game. If you don't like it that is fine!
Are you sure you're not a bit "butt hurt" that someone (who has played the game) disagrees with the herds bandwagon jumping and has tried to offer some balance to the thread?
The Bossman on 31 Oct '12 said:
My copy hasn't arrived yet, not happy. Ordered it to arrive today on release, if it does still come then great, if it doesn't I'll be having words with Amazon.
JustOneMoreGo on 31 Oct '12 said:
I don't think you've brought any balance to the thread at all, and there's certainly no bandwagon here, just the rantings of someone who wants everyone to enjoy the game as much as he is.
The review is sound and it's clear the man enjoyed it, even if a few elements niggled him. What' exactly is the problem here other than you don't think the reviewer liked it quite enough?
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
Then use it! What linearity are you talking about? Uncharted is linear, COD is linear but Assassins Creed isn't (I can't stand linear games).
If you are talking about mission objectives, I never feel creatively restricted by them in any way, shape or form (a lot of the time they are optional anyway) and this is how Ubisoft add an elment of challenge (something that requires using your brain) to an otherwise easy game.
Essentially what you are saying is that Ubisoft didn't make the game that you wanted. I never believed they would make anything other than what they said they would make, so my expectations were perfectly in line with what was delivered.
You don't like the archaic, flat, boring game design in AC3 (which has hugely improved on previous instalments) but AC2 is one of your all time favourite games. Am I the only one who smells a rat here?
StonecoldMC on 31 Oct '12 said:
You're the only one who's going mental Nimron.
Chill out and enjoy the Game if you want to.
JustOneMoreGo on 31 Oct '12 said:
But that appears to be the issue. Other peoples 'views' are sullying his own enjoyment of the game - at least that's the impression he's giving.
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
The problem is the complete lack of balance, that I apparently (in your opinion) haven't brought to the thread!
It's ok for the reviewer to talk negatively about the game, but it's not ok for me to talk positively about it? Listen to yourself!
Oh, and if you can't see the bandwagon then what the hell are you riding on?
JustOneMoreGo on 31 Oct '12 said:
There's a difference between talking positively about a game and getting frustrated and all nerd-raged simply because not everyone on the entire planet likes it as much as you do. You fall into the later of those two categories.
Now, take a chill pill and go and enjoy your new purchase.
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
When did I say anyone is going mental?
Chill out and hate the game if you want to. (not you stonecold)
I didn't realise this was a "spout tripe about a game I have never played thread", if it had said that instead of "Assassin's Creed 3: Review" I wouldn't have even opened the article!
StonecoldMC on 31 Oct '12 said:
Your a fan of the series? So am I.
I'm looking forward to picking it up on Friday and to be honest I don't really care what any review makes of it, be it CVG, IGN, RPS or whoever!
Reviews are subjective, thats the point of them, its one guy (or gals) opinion of the Game and what they think could never be the same as you. Some people are giving this 10's and some 8's. Numbers are irrelevant unless you want them to be.
Perhaps I was out of line when I said you were going mental, but you do seem to be taking it to heart. Move on, read another article and look forward to playing Assassins Creed 3. It really is that simple
.
JustOneMoreGo on 31 Oct '12 said:
Nimron, can you show me where I said I hated the game? Oh that's right I didn't, in fact this is what I said:
Nope, can't see the use of the word 'hate' anywhere in there. More 'not my cup-of-tea' with maybe a possible purchase at a later date, I think you'll find.
By the way, go easy on all the !!! as I can't get this image of how you must look right now out of of my head.
http://massrealestatevoice.com/image_store/uploads/5/5/9/7/1/ar126446242017955.JPG
WHY DOESN'T ANYONE LIKE ASSASSIN'S CREED III AS MUCH AS ME!!!!!11111!!!!!!
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
When did I say you hate the game? Your powers of assumption know no bounds!
What makes you think I give a solitary sh*t about your mental image of me? Can you imagine what I think of you? Do you give a sh*t? ......Precisely!
You are as obsessed with me, as I am obsessed with balancing the opinions on this game!!!!!!!
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
First of all, you'll love it mate.
Second, apologies for the double post!
If you've read any of my comments in any other threads, you'll notice that I'm usually the first person pointing out subjective opinions to fanboys and trolls.
I'll try to be as clear as possible to clear up any confusion relating to my posts. I don't mind if AC3 gets bad marks, I'm also not bothered by the fact the reviewer and myself perceive the game differently.
What annoyed me was that the reviewer admitted in a reply to my post that AC2 was one of his favourite games (nothing wrong with that it's a good game) but then claimed AC3 had archaic, flat and boring mission structure. The core structure hasn't changed. (maybe that is his point) I was trying to understand why he didn't mind this in AC2 but had issues with it in AC3. I wasn't saying he was wrong, I was trying to get a clearer understanding of why he believed that. His opinions seem contradictory. That was what irked me so, JustOneMoreGo.
JustOneMoreGo on 31 Oct '12 said:
Yes you were. In fact you even went on to accuse him of lying about playing the game beyond the tutorial and having little to no knowledge of previous iterations.
My word you're a dickhead.
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
More assumptions. Is this the kind of response your lack of intelligence reduces you to?
My word, re-read what I originally wrote.
Windowlicker79 on 31 Oct '12 said:
I just read your first post. It says you haven't got past the tutorial yet. Surely this renders any opinion you have about the playability of the game completely irrelevant?
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
Did you read the part that said I was 9 hours in? It's just before the bit that says I think I'm still in what seems to be the tutorial.(it's a long tutorial mate) If you think that makes my opinion irrelevant, that's your opinion. In my eyes that is not the case but it's all subjective. Have you started it yet? I'm intrigued to see what others who have started from the beginning think of the game.
theideal on 31 Oct '12 said:
I've played about five or so hours so far and I'm inclined to agree with some of Andy's criticisms up to now, though that obviously may change as I press on.
And as a massive AC fan I find your comment "If you like Assassins Creed, this game will make you cream yourself. If you don't like Assassins Creed your experience will probably similar to that of this reviewer" to be broad-stroke bulls**t.
I also disagree with your "This game easily has the best and most immersive opening I have ever experienced in all my gaming years and it just keeps getting better" comment.
I don't really find walking a bit, watching a cut scene, walking a bit, watching another cut scene all that immersive personally tbh.
Nimron Tang on 31 Oct '12 said:
That's not a problem mate, you are entitled to your opinion. I take it you're not enjoying it so far? Give it another five hours, you may look upon it differently. (you may not, but I can't say anymore due to spoilers)
theideal on 31 Oct '12 said:
Wouldn't say I'm not enjoying it, it is Assassin's Creed after all, I'd say I'm not enjoying it as much as Ezio's adventures as yet.
gmcb007 on 31 Oct '12 said:
So far i've played 3 hours worth and it looks like you're all right about the tutorial being pretty long! I tell you what though, they have done a brillant job in making the places feel alive! It's also nice to see the inclusion of children and animals as well. I'm quite looking forward to getting to the later sequences when the game really kicks in.
Windowlicker79 on 1 Nov '12 said:
No I've yet to play it. I'll be withholding my opinion of it until I've completed it. It would be the only way to make an informed judgement of it.
wishface on 1 Nov '12 said:
Some of the missions are very poorly explained, and I'm only in sequence 2. The tutorial aspect is wanting IMO. Explanations pop up and disappear on screen far too quickly and things are not really made clear especially given that you don't start as Connor. Things are familiar and yet quite different. I'm not convinced about the new combat model, and I'm annoyed that you can't save during missions that's just basic game design ffs. I'm also annoyed, in trying to get 100% sync, that objectives are not clear: for instance the mission where you raid the fort and have to kill the general doesn't explain that, once you free the captives, the kill the general objkective inexplicably fails. There's a cut scene where it all kicks off and then it places you right in the middle of a large fight and a big red cross appears next to the 'kill the general' objective. Lame. They can and should do better than silly little things like this.
TheCrimsonFenix on 1 Nov '12 said:
Was watching the brother on it last night and even he says it's feeling more like another but slightly different, typical AC sequel. It doesn't sound or feel like a game that was long in development before Revelations and Brotherhood. The only areas I can praise it in is the graphics and the sea battles.