Good writing can make a game great. Bad writing, however, won’t necessarily sink a game, though, if the mechanics are good and the game itself is fun. There are many badly written games that are classics.
Which brings us to Assassin’s Creed III, a game which is not only hampered by bad writing, but by bad writing gone amok. This is a game where the story actively fights your attempts to play the game, that demands your attention when you couldn’t care less. Ubisoft is, for some baffling reason, absolutely convinced you have paid $60 to play a movie.
Good thing that the real fun in the game comes from pretty much ignoring it completely.
I can sum up the problem very simply: The very opening features a cutscene. And then you slowly walk to your mission objective. Which is another cutscene. Then to the next mission objective. Which is still ANOTHER cutscene.
This is your first introduction to how clunky this game is, in service to its story. That would be fine if the story were any good, but it isn’t. The sub-Dan Brown conspiracy stuff has always been the least compelling aspect of the game, and here it’s not only front and center, it actually takes precedence over gameplay.
You’ve got to do each mission exactly the way the game dictates, sometimes down to using the exact route it wants, because you need to hit these specific story beats that are jammed awkwardly into the mission. It destroys any real sense of agency on the player’s part, especially when a cutscene ends and you walk to… another cutscene. Worse, these cutscenes are almost always fat that could have been trimmed. At times, the main campaign makes you feel you’re a monkey pressing buttons so the game can stuff another cutscene in your eyeholes.
That said, when the game actually lets you play it, hand-to-hand combat is fluid, logical, and most importantly, fun. Messing somebody up has never been easier or more entertaining. Platforming has also been heavily tweaked to be much more engaging and logical. Unfortunately, you still have to hold down buttons to move more quickly through the world and climb things because apparently to Ubisoft gaming controls have not changed since 2004.
That said, the core mechanics of the game, the jumping and the stabbing, are great, but they’re hampered by bad pacing of both story and mission.
Fortunately, if you want to ignore the main game completely and just screw around in the vast, gorgeous, open world that Ubisoft has put together for you like a playground, you can, and I heartily recommend you do. This is where the game becomes worth every penny of the $60 you pay for it.
Particularly, the naval combat stands out. I admit I was skeptical for just about every reason you can name, but Ubisoft has turned naval combat into an exciting, engaging, and clever action game. Hunting seems tacked on at first but rapidly becomes engaging and challenging. Even chasing after Almanac pages gets your attention. There’s literally hours upon hours of things to do in this game from blowing ships out of the water to herding pigs to training other assassins.
Normally, I’d say Assassin’s Creed III isn’t worth your money, and the main game is frustratingly dated and broken in many respects. But considering that you have something like five or six other really fun games in here, games that will absorb you for hours, it’s well worth the money. It’s just too bad the side dishes are so much better than the entree.




The Assassins Creed games have always had two camps of fans with regards to the plot of the games. You either love it or you hate it. If you hated the stories in the previous games, AC3 isn’t going to change your mind and in some cases, you’ll probably hate it the worst of all 5 games. If you’ve been a fan of the stories, you won’t have anything to complain about here.
My problem is really how intrusive the story is, at every single turn. Even if you like the plot, a lot of the cutscenes aren’t really concerned with the plot arcs. You literally walk somewhere, get told something you already knew (or was patently obvious), and then back to the mission. It thins out later in the game, but it never goes away and Dear God, is it irritating.
good thing there’s a lot to do since i bought the limited edition pack and won’t be able to resell it
I bought it digitally day and date for sixty bucks, so I’m in the same boat.
That said, I seriously would have paid sixty bucks for the naval missions alone. I enjoyed the HELL out of those.
Love reading reviews on this site, as they always give me good and bad, but never try to shame me for having interest in a game. Wanted to say thanks for that.
That said, reading the section where “You’ve got to do each mission exactly the way the game dictates, sometimes down to using the exact route it wants, because you need to hit these specific story beats that are jammed awkwardly into the mission. It destroys any real sense of agency on the player’s part, especially when a cutscene ends and you walk to… another cutscene.” really bothers me simply because I feel like this is the route that a lot of game franchises have been going lately that weren’t that way before. Especially the idea that I can’t assassinate someone the way I want to, something that drove me to this series from the beginning. It feels similar to the way that Resident Evil games have gone from “the environment and world trying to mess with you while zombies want brains yum” to “kill all the zombies, move forward. Kill all the zombies move forward.” Kind of disheartening.
Heh, glad to keep things shame free.
I agree that linearity is an increasing problem in video games, but here they rub it in your face constantly during the main campaign. It’s… distracting.
Sad to hear. I still remember the first Assassin’s Creed, when a lot of people I knew complained about it because it became repetitive with only a few options in terms of gameplay. I, however, loved it, because I had to things in what I considered an “organic” matter: I had to find view points just to find clues in regards to my targets, and I could take the targets out in whatever ways I wanted to. Also I had a slight option of choosing the order, something that I loved. Seems like the series has been constantly pushing the story since then, however, and it has corrupt the way you play.
It’s because of the tie-ins. Ubisoft has an entire fan base that has never picked up any of the main games, and to be fair, if they drop more money than the hardcore gamer…
While I can appreciate this opinion and certainly agree with it sometimes, arent we really basically playing a game within a game? We are TECHNICALLY playing as modern day Desmond, reliving the events of the past. We have never played as Altier, Ezio or Conner in the main games. We always have played as Desmond reliving the past.
While that doesnt excuse the fact that the game play can still feel forced, or that UbiSoft SHOULD allow you to create the history as you see fit, provided you hit the needed beats or assassinating the proper targets, it gives me a level of satisfaction knowing that the character Im playing is actually unable to control the actions presented in the game as well. I dont know. I guess for me it adds to the story element as well. I am one of those people who has enjoyed the plot so far, as corny as it has been.
It’s a shame because in the first Assassin’s Creed you actually had freedom to assassinate people the way you felt like it or just flat-out fight them. The game would of course give you a recommended way to do it, but there were others and a couple of them I discovered in hilarious accidents.
Sounds like Mass Effect with worse writing.
Eh, that’s not really fair to either, I think. Different types of games with very different goals.
You didn’t like the writing in the first two Mass Effect gASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL
The Assassin’s Creed franchise needs to move away from annual releases and put more time and effort into individual games.
Same for Call of Duty, of course.
Also, I was never sold on the Colonial setting. The previous games all relied on moving around large, densely populated urban environments, which colonial America didn’t really have. I feel like the game’s trying to make up for that with the Frontier location, but if I want to take time traversing a wide expanse of empty land I’ll play Red Dead Redemption again.
Actually, the Colonial setting works very well, without any egregious breaks from reality.
Spot on. So far there are a lot of things about this game that the Badger household is enjoying immensely, namely the setting, the naval battles,the overall game environment, the combat.
BUT. I definitely feel like I have to bear wrestle the story down and slit its stupid linear throat just so I can enjoy these things. I dont mind the story itself and the voice acting is great (yay John Delancy) but as far as actually implementing the story, clunky is the operative word. I like this game, but if Ubisoft had taken a page from Red Dead and made the structure not as harsh I would be able to say I love it. Haven’t messed with the multi player yet though, I will have to check in later on that.
And I admit, I did get a little giddy at seeing some very familiar Boston landmarks like Fanuiel Hall and the Commons.
Yeah, as digital tourism, it’s a hoot. But the story is aggravating as hell.
I really shouldn’t have bought this game right after beating Dishonoured. The lack of freedom is so glaring in contrast.
Although I’ve got a policy of not using one game as a club on the other, I am forced to agree with you. Granted, the AC series has never been very good at the stealth thing, but even so.
Have they removed the Brotherhood mechanic where you can call in assassin’s to kill guards for you? I’m assuming yes as Connor appears (in every gameplay and cinematic video I’ve seen) a lone fighter.
Nope the assassin recruits are still available, and their more versatile this time around. As you gain recruits through the Liberation missions, you’ll find that you can use different recruit abilities. It actually expands the recruit’s roles, for example, let’s say you need to access an area under guard but you can’t just kill the guards, well now you can have your recruits start a riot and sneak in during the distraction. The recruit abilities vary from having them back you up as marksmen from the roof top or even have them escort you acting as bodyguards. I like the expanded abilities as I like being able to have them play deeper tactical rolls instead of just killing everything in sight.