It was really weird for me to step into a game which a lot of people called "a complete failure, with lack of nice characters" to be proven kind of wrong by the game. Maybe it was the complete idiocy of AC2 and ACB's writing that burned me out and brought my standards really low, but the characters in AC3 are one of the strongest points to me.
Finally, Assassins' and Templars' motives are both in a rather morally grey area, as both will be highlighted to have fallacies (as opposed to AC2 and ACB where templars are literally only crazy dudes who want to rule the world and ezio just goes "haha u get the blade brrrr").
When it comes to the weakest point, I'd probably pinpoint it to two main factors:
- A lot of game mechanics aren't well explained. The stealth in this game is rather horrid and expects you to analyze your mission with a lot of attention if you don't wanna get caught, even if the game presents itself as action-packed. There's also a lot of changes that felt really good to the movement and killing system! but since the game doesn't tell you a lot about the game mechanics (about how exactly enemies get triggered, at what distance, how you can avoid it, etc etc) to be stealth actually meant to try and satisfy the game's engine and its buggy features. A step in the right direction for the movement, a step in the wrong one for the stealth.
- Side missions had close to no effect to the personal upgrading.
I get it, side missions are actually meant to tell a story, but It'd be nice if the upgrades that you get exploring and doing those missions actually meant something - but they do not. You oneshot enemies as soon as you parry with the first tomahawk you get in the game; any enemy, unless those who need a guardbreak. The hunting was also pretty cool, but again, no need other than completing sidemissions that will eventually unlock weapons and cosmetics. Surely better than the Ezio trilogy way, aka "hey uh oh there's a new sword in the shop, randomly", but still a rather wonky feature.
Finally, Assassins' and Templars' motives are both in a rather morally grey area, as both will be highlighted to have fallacies (as opposed to AC2 and ACB where templars are literally only crazy dudes who want to rule the world and ezio just goes "haha u get the blade brrrr").
When it comes to the weakest point, I'd probably pinpoint it to two main factors:
- A lot of game mechanics aren't well explained. The stealth in this game is rather horrid and expects you to analyze your mission with a lot of attention if you don't wanna get caught, even if the game presents itself as action-packed. There's also a lot of changes that felt really good to the movement and killing system! but since the game doesn't tell you a lot about the game mechanics (about how exactly enemies get triggered, at what distance, how you can avoid it, etc etc) to be stealth actually meant to try and satisfy the game's engine and its buggy features. A step in the right direction for the movement, a step in the wrong one for the stealth.
- Side missions had close to no effect to the personal upgrading.
I get it, side missions are actually meant to tell a story, but It'd be nice if the upgrades that you get exploring and doing those missions actually meant something - but they do not. You oneshot enemies as soon as you parry with the first tomahawk you get in the game; any enemy, unless those who need a guardbreak. The hunting was also pretty cool, but again, no need other than completing sidemissions that will eventually unlock weapons and cosmetics. Surely better than the Ezio trilogy way, aka "hey uh oh there's a new sword in the shop, randomly", but still a rather wonky feature.