The Paranoid Gamer writes: "Even though it’s up there in massive capital letters in the title, I feel inclined to warn you again that we will be discussing massive spoilers that will include the ending of Assassin’s Creed 3 (and possibly other games within the series). If you haven’t finished the game yet I highly suggest you do so before reading any further."
IGN - Assassin's Creed's focus on character-driven storytelling has been buried by its RPG sandbox features, and the series is weaker for it.
A rare W opinion piece from IGN.
IMO, Ubisoft needs to setup two primary AC dev teams. 1 would focus on and release character-driven OG-style AC games for OG fans and the other would continue the current RPG-ified AC style for current fans.
Release by them Bi-annually and alternatively. There'd less fatigue and a boost to quality.
I definitely appreciate 3 more after playing it again in recent years along with the Liberation game. Back when 3 was new I was still riding high on AC2 and Brotherhood so when I played 3 I felt a bit let down. Even the ship battles grew on me.
AC2 - Yes
AC3 - Urm...I don't know
I feel they kind of dropped the ball with AC3 and with the way the story went it just didn't make sense to me at all. I felt it would have made more sense lore wise if they had it so the Red Coats were mostly Assassins and the Templars were mostly the Colonists who wanted this "new world" as a fresh start for their operations, to build a country up they'd have full control of from the start so they manufacture the war as something else while really it's just a front for the Templars vs Assassins.
It just meant that since the Red coats lose the war it explains how the Templars have gained full control of future America and how the Assassins have slowly died out by then. This entire event would have been the turning point of how things went to s**t for the Assassins and how there's not many of them left in the present.
Haythem was a lot more interesting than Connor and he should have been the main Assassin of AC3.
I thought AC2 was the greatest of the series and it is but replaying it recently, I stared to see more flaws in the game. Basically every single mission is an assassination besides a few tailing missions lol. Still, the implementation of all the new mechanics were great. The smoke bombs, disarming guards, story, hidden tombs, swimming, flying machine, multiple locations, etc. it definitely felt a bit more special to me at the time of release though
Dunno about 3, the 1st act was cool, then i couldn't tell you what happens after that. But 2 was so good! The entire acts 1-3 were al memorable, whereas i really couldn't even tell you what happens in any other AC game
Non-playable characters in certain games are meme material, thanks to their foolish behavior. These are the big-budget games with the dumbest NPCs.
Bethesda makes the most consistently stupid NPCs, like really bad... yet I still can't help but love playing their games. Guilty pleasure, I guess. *sigh* 😩
Every Bethesda game and Every Halo game. This list needed to have Cyberpunk somewhere.
Here are the most peaceful areas in games that are otherwise quite violent, offering players respite from chaos in the game world.
My first thought was the safe rooms in the resident evil series. When you hear that enchanting music you know you’re safe.
I literally just came here to post this. That music in the Resi 1 safe rooms is playing in my head.
I was thinking TLOU work benches. Although I remember one time where it was a false security.
Perfect. 👌👌
I'd add the top of my highrise apartment in GTA Online. That calm, quiet peace, just knowing as soon as I step out that door I will be bombarded by 8 and 12 year olds calling each other n**** and f****, trolled by combat jets and rocket launchers.
The entire map of SotC is peaceful as hell. Used to just ride around exploring it.
Afterlife in Cyberpunk 2077 is a peaceful area? Erm, hands down and very hard to miss, Misty Olszewski's Esoterica is the absolute epitome of peaceful areas in that game.
The "last of us" deer location i found to be a welcoming respite. It was nice to not have someone trying to eat me.
Basically states all of my thoughts about the end. Quite a good read.
I have the same opinion.
I think out of the two options given to us it was the better choice. The other would have made poor future games for the AC series (remember the main mission statement of the AC series is to go to historical locations not usually visited in games)
How they continue the franchise was down to Connor's feedback (Ubi have come out and said depending on the feedback about Connor will dictate if we will see him again in a future AC game). If Connor's feedback was good then they would have to do some lame " o look Desmond not dead" or "o look here is a relative we could have used before but we didn't" (the feedback from what I have seen has been less favourable).
I personally do not see them going to the first civilisation for a whole game (maybe snippets). I see the next game setting a little bit in the future from AC3 where the gang have found a new protagonist who will use his memories to find certain pieces of Eden to finally over throw Juno. I just think that's the most logical step forward
I personally didn't fully like the ending to AC3. I could see it coming a mile a way and I knew they had to kill of Desmond because they said it was the end of his story and he couldn't just survive and then retire in the hills somewhere.
The ending was the most rushed thing I've ever played. Zero dramatic effect.
Also is Desmond really dead? I know the thing was supposed to kill him, and he is shown lying on the ground motionless, but we aren't shown anything after that. Plus there's tht point that you still play as Connor for the epilogue. And you're definitely still in the animus given the whole pivot thing.
Another thing, you really don't get much of a sense that the world is about to end. Sure the characters say it, but I feel like there should have been the odd tremor or something.
And no, the second option would have sucked. I think the point is that the First Civilization could predict exactly what would happen (they seem to be beyond time), so that IS what would have happened. How is basically repeating the same patterns of human history better than moving ahead?
There should be a game based on Haytham. That would be sweet, considering he was by far the most interesting character in the entire game.