Creeding in the USA! It's boring!
This game was honestly a pretty fat struggle for me to get through, it felt extremely drawn out and I couldn't help but be disengaged throughout most of it. I think a lot of this has to do with the setting, it's really boring! Revolutionary War NA is just not something I'm interested in, especially considering I've already seen so much from this era in my life, but even so, Ubisoft made it boring. They didn't have any good ideas with it, the whole world looked like I was playing through a documentary video a history teacher would show me in school, I mean seriously this whole game is so drab and grey throughout it's legitimately one of the most aesthetically boring games I've ever played.
ACIII is mostly a story about failures, as both Connor and Desmond find themselves failing again and again, this has a lot of potential to be powerful, but as always Ubisoft excecutes it all in the most boring ways possible. What I mean by that is there's legitimately bad cinematography throughout cutscenes, awkward lines additionally voice acted awkwardly, a complete lack of pacing, and a completely forgettable soundtrack. This culminates into story ideas that anyone could respect, but a story that will leave a majority of people, me included, completely bored and disinterested. I was never invested in the story of Connor whatsoever, which is a shame because he has endless potential.
As for the modern story, this is the finale of 5 whole games here and somehow they made me just not care about it, with once again dreadful pacing and uneccesary jargon. Forcing a father-son relationship into the plotline was just a bad idea, Desmond absolutely did not need this and the father contributed literally nothing meaningful. There was also a clear setup for a player choice at the end that could've played into the ideology of the games and made the ending much more memorable, but alas they don't let us make the choice. So, for the finale of 5 whole games, it's just quite mundane, not really showing us anything new then ending as anticlimactic as it could've, it just ends instantly after the big ending moment happens. It felt like the payoff of 5 games was just a crumb of what it should've been.
Finally, onto the mission structure! Ubisoft is really hitting their stride at filler content that wastes your time here, as literally everything outside of main missions and homestead missions are complete filler with nothing interesting going on. It's all collecting meaningless shit, clearing forts, fetch quests for meaningless currency or materials, doing the same world events over and over, y'know, typical Ubislop. As for the main missions, they're EXTREMELY linear and rarely put the player in interesting situations that shake things up, noticably a major lack of stealth situations, especially in the second half of the game. Essentially every mission is just a vehicle for the story, nothing more. The homestead missions are probably the best thing this game does, and it's a bit puzzling why they completely dropped this idea in future entries. The homestead missions basically let you build up a community in the American Frontiers, with characters that partially seem like actual humans and let Connor show off some personality. It's just quant stuff.
This review feels a bit too long, so I'm gonna talk about final gameplay points then call it:
This game marks the downward spiral of the emphasis parkour has in AC. Parkour is somewhat smooth but has mostly been neutered, basically the player has less control and things become more automated. You'll be just holding two buttons mindlessly more than you could've in previous titles. The world is no longer a playground for your parkour, but is more of a cinematic piece to make you feel like you're really in this world, in this games case, really in colonial new york, boston, and yk, the woods. This means you'll be riding around on a horse or running WAY more than previous games, which is frankly boring and eventually I just started fast traveling everywhere. Even in cities, everything is spaced so far away that it's just impossible to flow around everywhere like you could in previous games.
Finally the combat and stealth, it's just more AC combat and stealth. They give you a lot of tools this time around but I hardly ever used them, as I never really needed to. combat is flashy and looks better than previous games. Connor is a pretty strong brute with a tomahawk, how can that not be cool? But y'know, pretty animations aside, it's the same stuff, which is fine, combat has never been AC's strongest aspect. I am a bit dissapointed by the absence of stealth in missions outside of the obligitory trailing missions. Social stealth is still here, there's a lot of gadgets for me to work with, but I'm rarely given opportunities to use them. Really the main times you'll be doing stealth is when you clear forts, which you have basically no incentive to do. You see the problem here?
ACIII felt like an absurdly dragged-out game that leaned into the aspects of AC I don't care about, while shying away from what makes AC special. I'm left with a game that makes me bored, and makes me wish I was playing a different AC game.
If you wanna see my rankings as I go through the series, click here.
This game was honestly a pretty fat struggle for me to get through, it felt extremely drawn out and I couldn't help but be disengaged throughout most of it. I think a lot of this has to do with the setting, it's really boring! Revolutionary War NA is just not something I'm interested in, especially considering I've already seen so much from this era in my life, but even so, Ubisoft made it boring. They didn't have any good ideas with it, the whole world looked like I was playing through a documentary video a history teacher would show me in school, I mean seriously this whole game is so drab and grey throughout it's legitimately one of the most aesthetically boring games I've ever played.
ACIII is mostly a story about failures, as both Connor and Desmond find themselves failing again and again, this has a lot of potential to be powerful, but as always Ubisoft excecutes it all in the most boring ways possible. What I mean by that is there's legitimately bad cinematography throughout cutscenes, awkward lines additionally voice acted awkwardly, a complete lack of pacing, and a completely forgettable soundtrack. This culminates into story ideas that anyone could respect, but a story that will leave a majority of people, me included, completely bored and disinterested. I was never invested in the story of Connor whatsoever, which is a shame because he has endless potential.
As for the modern story, this is the finale of 5 whole games here and somehow they made me just not care about it, with once again dreadful pacing and uneccesary jargon. Forcing a father-son relationship into the plotline was just a bad idea, Desmond absolutely did not need this and the father contributed literally nothing meaningful. There was also a clear setup for a player choice at the end that could've played into the ideology of the games and made the ending much more memorable, but alas they don't let us make the choice. So, for the finale of 5 whole games, it's just quite mundane, not really showing us anything new then ending as anticlimactic as it could've, it just ends instantly after the big ending moment happens. It felt like the payoff of 5 games was just a crumb of what it should've been.
Finally, onto the mission structure! Ubisoft is really hitting their stride at filler content that wastes your time here, as literally everything outside of main missions and homestead missions are complete filler with nothing interesting going on. It's all collecting meaningless shit, clearing forts, fetch quests for meaningless currency or materials, doing the same world events over and over, y'know, typical Ubislop. As for the main missions, they're EXTREMELY linear and rarely put the player in interesting situations that shake things up, noticably a major lack of stealth situations, especially in the second half of the game. Essentially every mission is just a vehicle for the story, nothing more. The homestead missions are probably the best thing this game does, and it's a bit puzzling why they completely dropped this idea in future entries. The homestead missions basically let you build up a community in the American Frontiers, with characters that partially seem like actual humans and let Connor show off some personality. It's just quant stuff.
This review feels a bit too long, so I'm gonna talk about final gameplay points then call it:
This game marks the downward spiral of the emphasis parkour has in AC. Parkour is somewhat smooth but has mostly been neutered, basically the player has less control and things become more automated. You'll be just holding two buttons mindlessly more than you could've in previous titles. The world is no longer a playground for your parkour, but is more of a cinematic piece to make you feel like you're really in this world, in this games case, really in colonial new york, boston, and yk, the woods. This means you'll be riding around on a horse or running WAY more than previous games, which is frankly boring and eventually I just started fast traveling everywhere. Even in cities, everything is spaced so far away that it's just impossible to flow around everywhere like you could in previous games.
Finally the combat and stealth, it's just more AC combat and stealth. They give you a lot of tools this time around but I hardly ever used them, as I never really needed to. combat is flashy and looks better than previous games. Connor is a pretty strong brute with a tomahawk, how can that not be cool? But y'know, pretty animations aside, it's the same stuff, which is fine, combat has never been AC's strongest aspect. I am a bit dissapointed by the absence of stealth in missions outside of the obligitory trailing missions. Social stealth is still here, there's a lot of gadgets for me to work with, but I'm rarely given opportunities to use them. Really the main times you'll be doing stealth is when you clear forts, which you have basically no incentive to do. You see the problem here?
ACIII felt like an absurdly dragged-out game that leaned into the aspects of AC I don't care about, while shying away from what makes AC special. I'm left with a game that makes me bored, and makes me wish I was playing a different AC game.
If you wanna see my rankings as I go through the series, click here.
12 Comments
@RedBackLoggd I did, it took me around 20 hours. The game being drab is my opinion, I think it looks very boring. My point on the documentary bit is that there is no artistic direction, take RDR1's nature for example. And yes there are countless poor angles, just a bunch of still up-close shots of characters standing like mannaquins. The consistent close ups on the faces are quite puzzling considering how ugly the faces are, look at Farcry 3 for example, which came out the same year. And I found the soundtrack forgettable, I'm no musical expert but I cannot remember a single piece from my 20ish hours of gameplay.
William was in revelations, but the time spent with him in this game was just a waste of time, he should've been killed of honestly. I wasn't expecting player choice, I was saying how it was a missed opportunity that I found odd as it really seemed setup for one.
And no, the side content was not diverse. the frontiersman missions, of what I bothered with, were fine, nothing to really write about. Honestly don't remember the peg leg missions, those were the ones involving an absurd amount of collectibles, no? The naval missions were just fighting other ships again and again, nothing of note there, and seeing as I played on the remastered release for better compatibility on pc, I don't know what exactly the club missions were. and on them being abandoned, I more so was referring to the fact that they weren't in any of the games following III, like the system was abandoned for 8 years then PARTIALLY brought back in valhalla.
my critique was that the main missions were ONLY a vehicle for the story, nothing more.
my parkour criticisms are accurate, it's quicker to just ride around on a horse than parkour, and there are TONS of large open stretches with no parkour options to get across it. It's a much different, slower pacing to get around in the cities than previous games.
I personally wouldn't know how broken the stealth is considering I hardly used it, and the ridiculously long tutorial ties in to the pacing issues this game has in my opinion.
I think it's pretty clear that I didn't watch a play-through of this game, that'd be overly masochist for me lol.
William was in revelations, but the time spent with him in this game was just a waste of time, he should've been killed of honestly. I wasn't expecting player choice, I was saying how it was a missed opportunity that I found odd as it really seemed setup for one.
And no, the side content was not diverse. the frontiersman missions, of what I bothered with, were fine, nothing to really write about. Honestly don't remember the peg leg missions, those were the ones involving an absurd amount of collectibles, no? The naval missions were just fighting other ships again and again, nothing of note there, and seeing as I played on the remastered release for better compatibility on pc, I don't know what exactly the club missions were. and on them being abandoned, I more so was referring to the fact that they weren't in any of the games following III, like the system was abandoned for 8 years then PARTIALLY brought back in valhalla.
my critique was that the main missions were ONLY a vehicle for the story, nothing more.
my parkour criticisms are accurate, it's quicker to just ride around on a horse than parkour, and there are TONS of large open stretches with no parkour options to get across it. It's a much different, slower pacing to get around in the cities than previous games.
I personally wouldn't know how broken the stealth is considering I hardly used it, and the ridiculously long tutorial ties in to the pacing issues this game has in my opinion.
I think it's pretty clear that I didn't watch a play-through of this game, that'd be overly masochist for me lol.
Brother, the main campaign alone is 13-15 hours if you're rushing it through, and far more than 7 hours of side content. If you only spent 20 hours, you didn't properly review the game.
Alright, well luckily the links provided will show prospective readers the truth. The remaster even made the lighting more vibrant.
You're not explaining anything - throwing generic phrases like "lack of artistic direction" doesn't tell readers anything other than that you know how to use a dictionary. RDR1 had the same color palette so not sure what the point was there - in fact, I just looked up videos and they have eerily reminiscent models for trees, leaves, and rocks (animals of course are night & day, but something tells me you aren't referring to them). I wouldn't be surprised if ACIII was influenced by RDR despite them coming out within similar timeframes.
If characters are in conversation....why wouldn't they be standing still lol? Provide links then if you are insistent on this supposition.
And lmao, the game came out 12 years ago - are you seriously criticizing them for showing close-ups of what were then good looking models? RDR1 is in the exact same boat. I agree Far Cry 3 has aged better, but it was less photorealistic so that was to be given.
Yeah, the fact that you couldn't draft up a response to the main theme I sent over says it all.
Why was it a waste of time? He's the Mentor of the Brotherhood and was responsible for saving Desmond after the coma in Revelations- it'd have been inconsistent if he wasn't in it. If you want to argue his screen time should've been limited, then that's fine, but to say he shouldn't have been in it at all makes no sense from a continuity perspective. They literally did that in Odyssey and it was rightfully criticized for that reason.
And why should he have been killed off? You consistently provide random statements and then don't back them up with any kind of argument.
Fair enough, but considering those would create vastly different timelines for a series that was intent (back then) on doing yearly-releases, one timeline would've been followed anyway for "canonicity" like what happened with Dishonored and Odyssey.
By not knowing what the Peg Leg and Club missions were, you realize you just openly admitted to not properly reviewing the game right lol? The clubs weren't removed in the Remaster, they're a part of the main game.
Calling the Naval Missions "just fighting ships" is disingenuous when they had a story thread going through them with unique encounters - it's also laughable for you of all people to lob that criticism when 80% of Black Flag's content, a game you consider the best AC, was just destroying ships.
Yah that's true. I guess it wouldn't have befit every MC.
Again, the criticism makes no sense when the purpose of story missions is to, shock, tell the story! You literally went off on a tangent about filler, and now want to harp on non-filler.
I didn't say it wasn't quicker to ride a horse, I said it was false that the cities were not designed with parkour options. That said, you were consistent on this point with your Brotherhood review, so I'll respect that.
So again, you admit you didn't properly review the game b/c you're misleading potential readers by not fully explaining a core system of the title.
You're right, someone watching a playthrough would've observed all the parts of the game. You've written good stuff in the past like with Arizona Sunshine and Helldivers 2, but this is a genuinely terrible review full of falsehoods, poorly-backed opinions, and open admittances of not even engaging with the title. You're above scribing something this misleading mate.
Alright, well luckily the links provided will show prospective readers the truth. The remaster even made the lighting more vibrant.
You're not explaining anything - throwing generic phrases like "lack of artistic direction" doesn't tell readers anything other than that you know how to use a dictionary. RDR1 had the same color palette so not sure what the point was there - in fact, I just looked up videos and they have eerily reminiscent models for trees, leaves, and rocks (animals of course are night & day, but something tells me you aren't referring to them). I wouldn't be surprised if ACIII was influenced by RDR despite them coming out within similar timeframes.
If characters are in conversation....why wouldn't they be standing still lol? Provide links then if you are insistent on this supposition.
And lmao, the game came out 12 years ago - are you seriously criticizing them for showing close-ups of what were then good looking models? RDR1 is in the exact same boat. I agree Far Cry 3 has aged better, but it was less photorealistic so that was to be given.
Yeah, the fact that you couldn't draft up a response to the main theme I sent over says it all.
Why was it a waste of time? He's the Mentor of the Brotherhood and was responsible for saving Desmond after the coma in Revelations- it'd have been inconsistent if he wasn't in it. If you want to argue his screen time should've been limited, then that's fine, but to say he shouldn't have been in it at all makes no sense from a continuity perspective. They literally did that in Odyssey and it was rightfully criticized for that reason.
And why should he have been killed off? You consistently provide random statements and then don't back them up with any kind of argument.
Fair enough, but considering those would create vastly different timelines for a series that was intent (back then) on doing yearly-releases, one timeline would've been followed anyway for "canonicity" like what happened with Dishonored and Odyssey.
By not knowing what the Peg Leg and Club missions were, you realize you just openly admitted to not properly reviewing the game right lol? The clubs weren't removed in the Remaster, they're a part of the main game.
Calling the Naval Missions "just fighting ships" is disingenuous when they had a story thread going through them with unique encounters - it's also laughable for you of all people to lob that criticism when 80% of Black Flag's content, a game you consider the best AC, was just destroying ships.
Yah that's true. I guess it wouldn't have befit every MC.
Again, the criticism makes no sense when the purpose of story missions is to, shock, tell the story! You literally went off on a tangent about filler, and now want to harp on non-filler.
I didn't say it wasn't quicker to ride a horse, I said it was false that the cities were not designed with parkour options. That said, you were consistent on this point with your Brotherhood review, so I'll respect that.
So again, you admit you didn't properly review the game b/c you're misleading potential readers by not fully explaining a core system of the title.
You're right, someone watching a playthrough would've observed all the parts of the game. You've written good stuff in the past like with Arizona Sunshine and Helldivers 2, but this is a genuinely terrible review full of falsehoods, poorly-backed opinions, and open admittances of not even engaging with the title. You're above scribing something this misleading mate.
@RedBackLoggd it is of my opinion that you don't need to 100% a game, or more specifically you don't need to engage with every piece of OPTIONAL content to be able to have an opinion on a game. seeing as I spent an estimated 5-7 hours on side content, I don't see why I cannot have a say on them, as 5-7 hours is longer than some games entire campaigns.
I don't know what else to say other than our eyes percieve things differently, RDR1 has a specific aesthetic to it not found in AC3. It's world can be distinctly recognized, AC3's not so much. As AC3 goes for pure realism that's just what happens and that's fine, but it leaves the game looking boring now that it isn't technically impressive anymore, that's all it had going for it in 2012.
As for the characters standing still, do I really need to explain why it's boring? we're shown the same still, close-up shots of characters talking to each other over and over. Can you imagine how boring a movie would be if that was every shot? It's static, it's dead, there's nothing to keep my eyes naturally engaged.
on the music, what exactly do you want me to say here? I listened to the main theme from the link and I've already forgotten it. It's well-done no doubt, but it's generic, it's not iconic, it's nothing remarkable. You don't hear anyone mentioning AC3 when talking about video game soundtracks, because no one cares about it.
William was a waste of time because he did nothing the entire story. The only moment he affects the plot is when Desmond has to save him. His relationship with Desmond is just awkward in-fighting in a cave, while the other two characters just kinda stand there in silence. He should've been killed off to waste less story time simply.
On the peg leg and club missions I interacted with them, found them boring, then ignored them for the rest of the game. Peg Leg became ignored because I am not going to collect any trinkets to get actual content, and clubs got ignored because I'm not going to do repetitive tasks to get actual content. I initally forgot what the club missions even were when you mentioned them, I thought you were referring to ubisoft club exclusives or something, but I now remember why I forgot them in the first place.
Onto the naval missions, I can't recall any story thread that actually mattered and the unique encounters lack enough variety to actually feel unique. The ship combat in AC3 lacks any depth to make simply changing the number of ships, the ship sizes, or idk, the rocks scattered about to actually shake up things. Every ship encounter feels the same regardless of these variables. AC4, imo, added enough depth to the naval combat to not have this problem to the same degree.
I feel like it's pretty self-explanatory, but maybe this way will make it clearer; each story mission felt like a set-on rails rollercoaster ride to get you to the next cutscene. Actual gameplay within these missions felt completely automated, like I could do it without actually thinking. The only thing that would change this would be following the in-mission challenges, but I have no incentive to do these challenges, as I don't care about getting an outfit AFTER I've completed the game.
On the bit of not explaining a core system, as a reviewer, I think it's completely redundant to explain every aspect and system of the game, you're allowed to talk about what you want, why you like/dislike something. If everyone had to explain everything within every game they talk about, every review would be filled with the same speech.
I stand by all of my points in this review, you don't have to agree with them, or even understand them. It's just a perspective in the endless sea of perspectives.
I don't know what else to say other than our eyes percieve things differently, RDR1 has a specific aesthetic to it not found in AC3. It's world can be distinctly recognized, AC3's not so much. As AC3 goes for pure realism that's just what happens and that's fine, but it leaves the game looking boring now that it isn't technically impressive anymore, that's all it had going for it in 2012.
As for the characters standing still, do I really need to explain why it's boring? we're shown the same still, close-up shots of characters talking to each other over and over. Can you imagine how boring a movie would be if that was every shot? It's static, it's dead, there's nothing to keep my eyes naturally engaged.
on the music, what exactly do you want me to say here? I listened to the main theme from the link and I've already forgotten it. It's well-done no doubt, but it's generic, it's not iconic, it's nothing remarkable. You don't hear anyone mentioning AC3 when talking about video game soundtracks, because no one cares about it.
William was a waste of time because he did nothing the entire story. The only moment he affects the plot is when Desmond has to save him. His relationship with Desmond is just awkward in-fighting in a cave, while the other two characters just kinda stand there in silence. He should've been killed off to waste less story time simply.
On the peg leg and club missions I interacted with them, found them boring, then ignored them for the rest of the game. Peg Leg became ignored because I am not going to collect any trinkets to get actual content, and clubs got ignored because I'm not going to do repetitive tasks to get actual content. I initally forgot what the club missions even were when you mentioned them, I thought you were referring to ubisoft club exclusives or something, but I now remember why I forgot them in the first place.
Onto the naval missions, I can't recall any story thread that actually mattered and the unique encounters lack enough variety to actually feel unique. The ship combat in AC3 lacks any depth to make simply changing the number of ships, the ship sizes, or idk, the rocks scattered about to actually shake up things. Every ship encounter feels the same regardless of these variables. AC4, imo, added enough depth to the naval combat to not have this problem to the same degree.
I feel like it's pretty self-explanatory, but maybe this way will make it clearer; each story mission felt like a set-on rails rollercoaster ride to get you to the next cutscene. Actual gameplay within these missions felt completely automated, like I could do it without actually thinking. The only thing that would change this would be following the in-mission challenges, but I have no incentive to do these challenges, as I don't care about getting an outfit AFTER I've completed the game.
On the bit of not explaining a core system, as a reviewer, I think it's completely redundant to explain every aspect and system of the game, you're allowed to talk about what you want, why you like/dislike something. If everyone had to explain everything within every game they talk about, every review would be filled with the same speech.
I stand by all of my points in this review, you don't have to agree with them, or even understand them. It's just a perspective in the endless sea of perspectives.
Of course not, but when you make blatantly false statements about said side content and outright acknowledge you don't even know what certain side content is, it's a sign you didn't engage with it enough. Idk how to simplify that concept more lol.
Unless you're color blind, I'm not sure how you could make an obvious mistake like that as RDR1, like most RockStar games, is the game that went for photorealism. AC games have NEVER been photorealistic - they go for something akin to neo-baroque. Once again you're making inaccurate misleading statements: if you can't tell what the difference between modelings and styles are, then your statements have no merit. I'm not even an artist, it's just basic Googling really.
I asked for sources about the cinematography and you're still not providing it.
If you're not able to describe why something is the way it is or isn't, then you've failed as a critic.
Lmao, "William did nothing the entire story....minus that one time he did something in the story." Great argument.
So in other words, you openly admit you didn't engage with the game haha. Thanks mate, another reason for people to disregard this poorly-written review. I'm also 99% sure you just Googled them after the fact rather than this magical realization that you actually knew about them in-game and just forgot.
Mhmm, so not only do you not know there were different ships, you don't even know the basic Templar story that ran through the ordeal? Yeah, combined with your low run time, I'm gonna assume this is another pontification on your part. It also actually had a relatively more in-depth template than Black Flag's via the different ammo types technically serving different purposes - obviously the end result didn't exemplify it enough, but you would know that if you, you know, actually played the game.
Yes, "story missions drive the story" is a self-explanatory critique lol. But wow, you finally came up with a legitimate criticism! Shame you couldn't put this in the actual review as it would've elevated the quality marginally.
Well, thanks for admitting that disingenuity is a principle of yours, now I know you're not worth following anymore. I've disagreed with plenty of users here before, but they remain trustworthy b/c they don't lie in their analyses.
You're right, and in such a sea, you'd think quality would be prioritized as a means of standing out rather than fora-quality dribble. It's a shame b/c you are capable of writing good stuff, but the inability to check your biases combined with laziness (over playing video games no less) tanked that potential.
Unless you're color blind, I'm not sure how you could make an obvious mistake like that as RDR1, like most RockStar games, is the game that went for photorealism. AC games have NEVER been photorealistic - they go for something akin to neo-baroque. Once again you're making inaccurate misleading statements: if you can't tell what the difference between modelings and styles are, then your statements have no merit. I'm not even an artist, it's just basic Googling really.
I asked for sources about the cinematography and you're still not providing it.
If you're not able to describe why something is the way it is or isn't, then you've failed as a critic.
Lmao, "William did nothing the entire story....minus that one time he did something in the story." Great argument.
So in other words, you openly admit you didn't engage with the game haha. Thanks mate, another reason for people to disregard this poorly-written review. I'm also 99% sure you just Googled them after the fact rather than this magical realization that you actually knew about them in-game and just forgot.
Mhmm, so not only do you not know there were different ships, you don't even know the basic Templar story that ran through the ordeal? Yeah, combined with your low run time, I'm gonna assume this is another pontification on your part. It also actually had a relatively more in-depth template than Black Flag's via the different ammo types technically serving different purposes - obviously the end result didn't exemplify it enough, but you would know that if you, you know, actually played the game.
Yes, "story missions drive the story" is a self-explanatory critique lol. But wow, you finally came up with a legitimate criticism! Shame you couldn't put this in the actual review as it would've elevated the quality marginally.
Well, thanks for admitting that disingenuity is a principle of yours, now I know you're not worth following anymore. I've disagreed with plenty of users here before, but they remain trustworthy b/c they don't lie in their analyses.
You're right, and in such a sea, you'd think quality would be prioritized as a means of standing out rather than fora-quality dribble. It's a shame b/c you are capable of writing good stuff, but the inability to check your biases combined with laziness (over playing video games no less) tanked that potential.
This comment was deleted
@RedBackLoggd nah, I didn't make any "blatantly" false statements, and the side content is so forgettable and meaningless it literally does not matter if I remembered the names of every single type of side content. I engaged with it as much as it deserved.
and I would have to start insulting you and calling you colorblind to say RDR1 is going for a photo-realistic style, it's far from it. GTA 5 and onward yes, but GTA 4 and RDR1? Not even close. Meanwhile AC has always gone for purely realism. neo-baroque? What are you talking about? It looks nothing like a work from that era? It's a 3D game going for realism and nothing more.
Sources for the cinematography include 90% of cutscenes with characters talking to eachother lol.
I explained why the music is forgettable to me personally, I didn't fail at that lol. I'm not a musician so I'm not going to be able to specifically explain why this is bad or this is good, as a guy that plays video games I can simply tell you which soundtracks were memorable to me and which were forgettable. VERY basic concepts that I really don't feel like need to be explained.
Thanks, it is a good argument :p. William takes up too much of the players time when he adds nothing of value to the game, he's used once as an excuse for Desmond to go to abstergo. Underwhelming character that was a waste of time, that's that.
This idea you seem so firm on that I didn't engage with the optional content of the game is pretty ridiculous, as I already said, it sucked so I stopped wasting my time on it. I'm allowed to have an opinion on the OPTIONAL SIDE CONTENT even though I didn't play literally every bit of it. And you can be sure of whatever you want, I didn't lie.
I already mentioned there were other ships when talking about ship sizes, because that's mostly all it boils down to, they're larger, they take more hits, and they do more damage, big whoop. And again, the storyline throughout these missions was unimportant, I don't care about it. And to say AC3's naval combat was more in-depth than black flags is kinda laughable.
I'm glad you finally grasped the criticism I was making regarding the story missions, I didn't put it in the review as I'd assume I wouldn't have to spell it out for you.
to call me saying I don't need to explain every facet of a game as being disingenuous is actually absurd, I don't really know how else to react at that one other than laugh at the ridiculousness of it.
Quality is additionally subjective buddy :). I don't write to stand out to other people, that'd be quite silly. And check my biases? Dude, art is a subjective medium, literally every critic on planet Earth is a biased one, that is how humans work.
and I would have to start insulting you and calling you colorblind to say RDR1 is going for a photo-realistic style, it's far from it. GTA 5 and onward yes, but GTA 4 and RDR1? Not even close. Meanwhile AC has always gone for purely realism. neo-baroque? What are you talking about? It looks nothing like a work from that era? It's a 3D game going for realism and nothing more.
Sources for the cinematography include 90% of cutscenes with characters talking to eachother lol.
I explained why the music is forgettable to me personally, I didn't fail at that lol. I'm not a musician so I'm not going to be able to specifically explain why this is bad or this is good, as a guy that plays video games I can simply tell you which soundtracks were memorable to me and which were forgettable. VERY basic concepts that I really don't feel like need to be explained.
Thanks, it is a good argument :p. William takes up too much of the players time when he adds nothing of value to the game, he's used once as an excuse for Desmond to go to abstergo. Underwhelming character that was a waste of time, that's that.
This idea you seem so firm on that I didn't engage with the optional content of the game is pretty ridiculous, as I already said, it sucked so I stopped wasting my time on it. I'm allowed to have an opinion on the OPTIONAL SIDE CONTENT even though I didn't play literally every bit of it. And you can be sure of whatever you want, I didn't lie.
I already mentioned there were other ships when talking about ship sizes, because that's mostly all it boils down to, they're larger, they take more hits, and they do more damage, big whoop. And again, the storyline throughout these missions was unimportant, I don't care about it. And to say AC3's naval combat was more in-depth than black flags is kinda laughable.
I'm glad you finally grasped the criticism I was making regarding the story missions, I didn't put it in the review as I'd assume I wouldn't have to spell it out for you.
to call me saying I don't need to explain every facet of a game as being disingenuous is actually absurd, I don't really know how else to react at that one other than laugh at the ridiculousness of it.
Quality is additionally subjective buddy :). I don't write to stand out to other people, that'd be quite silly. And check my biases? Dude, art is a subjective medium, literally every critic on planet Earth is a biased one, that is how humans work.
Alright, be a troll - these comments have more than exposed you lol.
Alright, if you can't tell the difference between photorealism and stylization, I can't help you. In retrospect, explains why you do a consistently bad job describing graphics in all your reviews.
"That which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You didn't explain why - you literally just made a point blank statement lol. There's a world of difference b/w describing music theories and basic music concepts one could Google.
Aka "William did nothing the entire story....minus that one time he did something in the story." lol
But you did lie haha. You made statements that were proven to be false throughout this discourse, and when pointed out you had to move the goalposts. If you got retrograde amnesia, then my condolences, but the proof is for everyone to see.
Aka you didn't engage with it, therefore you lied about it in this poorly-written review. Seems to be a trend with you lol.
If you think saying "story missions being a vehicle for the story" = on rails, then you need to retake middle school English.
Making deliberately misleading/false statements is the definition of lying. And then not even being mature enough to admit you made a mistake is just, well, I'll leave it at that lol.
Opinions can be wrong bud. I can say it's my opinion that the sky is neon pink, doesn't make it real.
Alright, if you can't tell the difference between photorealism and stylization, I can't help you. In retrospect, explains why you do a consistently bad job describing graphics in all your reviews.
"That which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You didn't explain why - you literally just made a point blank statement lol. There's a world of difference b/w describing music theories and basic music concepts one could Google.
Aka "William did nothing the entire story....minus that one time he did something in the story." lol
But you did lie haha. You made statements that were proven to be false throughout this discourse, and when pointed out you had to move the goalposts. If you got retrograde amnesia, then my condolences, but the proof is for everyone to see.
Aka you didn't engage with it, therefore you lied about it in this poorly-written review. Seems to be a trend with you lol.
If you think saying "story missions being a vehicle for the story" = on rails, then you need to retake middle school English.
Making deliberately misleading/false statements is the definition of lying. And then not even being mature enough to admit you made a mistake is just, well, I'll leave it at that lol.
Opinions can be wrong bud. I can say it's my opinion that the sky is neon pink, doesn't make it real.
@RedBackLoggd calling people that you disagree with "trolls" is a bit immature man.
I say the same to you, no point in trying to persuade you when you can't see the difference between art styles.
I provided a source :3, plus if you've played the game you should know what I'm talking about, unless you're blind.
I did explain why actually, you're just not listening to me.
Keep coping about William, almost as much of a waste of time as he was in the game.
Nothing was proven false actually, insulting me does not make you right lol, but hey, whatever helps calm your nerves.
Repeatedly explaining how I engaged with the game only for you to respond "you didn't engage with it actually" is getting a bit repetitive, but again, calming nerves n whatnot.
Going back to that argument? I was hoping we'd moved past it lol, but anyways, it's like you solely read "vehicle for the story" and skipped over everything else, I'd suggest reading the whole paragraph.
There were no deliberately misleading/false statements, specifically there were no misleading/false statements in general lol
Opinions actually cannot be wrong lmfao, what color the sky is, is NOT subjective, while the quality of art IS subjective. Cannot believe I have to explain this to you.
I say the same to you, no point in trying to persuade you when you can't see the difference between art styles.
I provided a source :3, plus if you've played the game you should know what I'm talking about, unless you're blind.
I did explain why actually, you're just not listening to me.
Keep coping about William, almost as much of a waste of time as he was in the game.
Nothing was proven false actually, insulting me does not make you right lol, but hey, whatever helps calm your nerves.
Repeatedly explaining how I engaged with the game only for you to respond "you didn't engage with it actually" is getting a bit repetitive, but again, calming nerves n whatnot.
Going back to that argument? I was hoping we'd moved past it lol, but anyways, it's like you solely read "vehicle for the story" and skipped over everything else, I'd suggest reading the whole paragraph.
There were no deliberately misleading/false statements, specifically there were no misleading/false statements in general lol
Opinions actually cannot be wrong lmfao, what color the sky is, is NOT subjective, while the quality of art IS subjective. Cannot believe I have to explain this to you.
Insult? If the boot fits, the boot fits.
Lmao, the ole "I know you are but what am I." Nice
I'm still waiting for links: "That which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
No, you didn't - you're welcome to copy/paste a previous reply that did lol
Aka "William did nothing the entire story....minus that one time he did something in the story." lol
I'm sorry you get offended by being called a liar, but that is what you are Kago.
I'm saying that in response to you admitting you didn't engage with the game lol: "Peg Leg became ignored because I am not going to collect any trinkets to get actual content, and clubs got ignored because I'm not going to do repetitive tasks to get actual content."
Hey man, like I said, whether you're genuine or trolling (I lean towards the latter), people can see what truly happened via these comments. I guess they're like an addendum to this poor review lol.
Opinions can be wrong bud. I can say it's my opinion that the sky is neon pink, doesn't make it real.
Lmao, the ole "I know you are but what am I." Nice
I'm still waiting for links: "That which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
No, you didn't - you're welcome to copy/paste a previous reply that did lol
Aka "William did nothing the entire story....minus that one time he did something in the story." lol
I'm sorry you get offended by being called a liar, but that is what you are Kago.
I'm saying that in response to you admitting you didn't engage with the game lol: "Peg Leg became ignored because I am not going to collect any trinkets to get actual content, and clubs got ignored because I'm not going to do repetitive tasks to get actual content."
Hey man, like I said, whether you're genuine or trolling (I lean towards the latter), people can see what truly happened via these comments. I guess they're like an addendum to this poor review lol.
Opinions can be wrong bud. I can say it's my opinion that the sky is neon pink, doesn't make it real.
@RedBackLoggd it's still an insult regardless of you deciding whether it's appropriate or not.
Not sure what you mean by "I know you are but what am I." I'm saying you're not seeing the art styles, you say I'm not. Not much to argue about there.
Considering we've both played this game, you know the cutscenes as well as I. Additionally, you're not signifigant enough to pull up links for anyways.
"on the music, what exactly do you want me to say here? I listened to the main theme from the link and I've already forgotten it. It's well-done no doubt, but it's generic, it's not iconic, it's nothing remarkable. You don't hear anyone mentioning AC3 when talking about video game soundtracks, because no one cares about it." Again I ask, what do you want from this? It's my opinion that the music is forgettable, I don't know the musical terminology to specifically go in on the semantics of each instrument, so seriously, what do you want me to say?
Keep coping about William, almost as much of a waste of time as he was in the game.
Now you falsely accuse me of being offended, another false accusation onto the pile.
I'm admitting I didn't play literally every piece of content in this game. I engaged with the side content, deemed them a waste of time, and moved on. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
No need wasting both of our time typing out that people can read comments.
Opinions actually cannot be wrong lmfao, what color the sky is, is NOT subjective, while the quality of art IS subjective. Cannot believe I have to explain this to you.
Not sure what you mean by "I know you are but what am I." I'm saying you're not seeing the art styles, you say I'm not. Not much to argue about there.
Considering we've both played this game, you know the cutscenes as well as I. Additionally, you're not signifigant enough to pull up links for anyways.
"on the music, what exactly do you want me to say here? I listened to the main theme from the link and I've already forgotten it. It's well-done no doubt, but it's generic, it's not iconic, it's nothing remarkable. You don't hear anyone mentioning AC3 when talking about video game soundtracks, because no one cares about it." Again I ask, what do you want from this? It's my opinion that the music is forgettable, I don't know the musical terminology to specifically go in on the semantics of each instrument, so seriously, what do you want me to say?
Keep coping about William, almost as much of a waste of time as he was in the game.
Now you falsely accuse me of being offended, another false accusation onto the pile.
I'm admitting I didn't play literally every piece of content in this game. I engaged with the side content, deemed them a waste of time, and moved on. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
No need wasting both of our time typing out that people can read comments.
Opinions actually cannot be wrong lmfao, what color the sky is, is NOT subjective, while the quality of art IS subjective. Cannot believe I have to explain this to you.
Yeah, you're starting to get annoying. I'm gonna bail before I get sucked deeper into your gutter. Later lol
@RedBackLoggd Later, if you take anything at all from this, I'd suggest looking up the definition of opinion lmfao. Saying an opinion can be wrong with full sincerity TWO TIMES is possibly the silliest thing I've seen someone do all year.
RedBackLoggd
17 days ago
You criticize the game for looking drab when it literally doesn't outside of of course rainy weather. NY has pollution, but that's to be expected from this era of US history and smog doesn't make things drab just dirty.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yAcdQh9ZIHs/mqdefault.jpg
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/assassinscreed/images/c/c3/ACIII-TheInn_6.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20130220050129
https://www.thetechlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Assassins-Creed-III-Connor-Using-his-Tomahawk-in-the-Frontier.png
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsteosphere.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F11%2F08%2Fassassins-creed-3-thoughts-bigger-but-smaller%2F&psig=AOvVaw2ZJTzZm_HSsykuVi5wYoSZ&ust=1714441171266000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBIQjRxqFwoTCJjv0Zml5oUDFQAAAAAdAAAAABBr
And criticizing the game for looking like a documentary....yes, that's the point, it's a historically accurate title lol. I fail to understand how that's a bad thing unless you wanted them to take artistic liberties like what happened with Valhalla, which you don't make the argument for at all here.
Bad cinematography? ACIII was the first game in the series to employ mocap cutscenes and they've aged surprisingly well. There's no awkward angles ala David Cage, no hard cuts ala Resident Evil, no random fade to blacks ala Spec Ops the Line; and characters are framed properly, what are you even talking about? I actually don't know what you mean here.
Calling Lorne Balfe's OST a "completely forgettable soundtrack" actually got a laugh out of me. Music is of course subjective, but when you don't bother explaining why, that indicates you perhaps didn't have a strong argument. I actually would like to know why you think this, for example, is forgettable: no generic beat, but an astute combination of percussions, synths, strings, and vocals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EevWu6A1LPM
William was literally in Revelations - the father/son dynamic wasn't just added here. I also don't know why you were expecting player choice at the end when none of the AC previously had done the sort minus the hug to Leonardo in Brotherhood.
ACIII had a shit ton of diverse side content, again, what are you talking about? Yes, it had your standard viewpoints and collectibles; it was actually the first Ubi game to include forts, so I don't think that should be a dock against it. But even if you want to be retroactive, off the top of my head you had the Frontiersman missions, Peg Leg Missions, Naval Missions, Club Missions, and as you pointed out the Homestead Missions (which were partially brought back in Valhalla despite your claim otherwise that they were abandoned). It's disingenuous to say everything was a fetch quest.
Did you.....did you actually criticize the main missions for being a vehicle for the story? I'm at a loss for words that you unironically typed up that sentence.
The parkour criticism is just not true. Yes, the Frontier is spaced out at parts, but the cities could absolutely be parkoured from place to place - they literally designed new animations like the running-up angled walkways, gripping monkey bar handles, and of course the tree movements.
There are some true things you write here - the modern day was disappointingly concluded, the Homestead Missions were indeed great, and the parkour was rendered more automated. For all your ranting you surprisingly overlook harsher flaws with the game like the stealth not only being diminished but outright broken, and the first 6 sequences having tutorial aspects.
You have a right to be bored with a game, but next time make sure that boredom comes from the actual game and not some abridged walkthrough you caught on YouTube.