assassin creed 3 worth it?

A

arr4ws

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
6,671
Right now AC3 is 12$ on steam and i almost bought it full price at release. Is the game worth it now and how does it play on pc?

are the expansion any good?
 
if you've played and enjoyed the previous AC games then you'll like AC3...the naval parts in particular are fun...not better then AC2 or Brotherhood but still a good game for fans of the series...I'm a fan of the entire series as the games' historical settings are very unique for video games
 
I think so, but this is very dependent on what you think of the other games. The gameplay is 90% the same as it was in AC1 from 6 years ago.
Still, the campaign is pretty large, there is a lot to do, and the game is pretty flexible with how you go about it.
 
Domingo said:
The gameplay is 90% the same as it was in AC1 from 6 years ago.
Click to expand...

Huh? AC3 and AC1 are almost opposites. AC1 directs you to a city and then lets you decide how to assassinate a target. You have a specific goal, and there isn't too much to do on the side. AC3 is the opposite; the story is very direct about how it wants you to go about things, but there's plenty of optional things to do on the side.

As for the OP's question, I enjoyed AC3 more on the PC than I did on consoles, and it's absolutely worth $12. That's a bargain for the game.
 
If you enjoy the series, then $12 is absolutely worth it. That said, I didn't enjoy it as much as the previous games (aside from AC1, which got boring fast). I preferred the economy and assassin recruitment stuff in the Ezio trilogy. I also liked his story and the locations in those games better. I didn't find colonial USA as interesting to explore, and getting around the wilderness was more of a PITA than fun.

But, it's still Assassin's Creed and it's heart, and it was fun. There's lots to do if the setting holds your interest. As it didn't for me, I really only played though the story and liberation missions I still felt I got my monies worth at $25 or so, so for $12 it's no question.

Since you're on the fence, I'd say skip the DLC. It was fun, but incredibly short. I beat all three DLC's in a day, probably around four hours total (again ignoring all the extras, just doing story missions). It's on sale for $10, but it's most certainly not worth the same asking price as the full game.
 
I enjoyed AC3, well worth just 12 bucks imo.

Naval aspect is fun and the rural environments are a nice change of pace from the smae ole city aspect.

Main drawback is Connor, he's just not as good/well rounded of a character compared to Ezio.
 
Stiler said:
Main drawback is Connor, he's just not as good/well rounded of a character compared to Ezio.
Click to expand...

Respectfully disagreed. He's a different kind of character, and he's relatively pretty well developed considering Ezio had three games plus a movie. The side missions help flesh Connor out, I found. Though the game overall is still shorter than even just AC2. Tough to fit Ezio level character development in just one game.

Also, it's nice to see a lead in video games who is determined to the point of stubbornness, but not because the designers wanted to appeal to dudebros.

I'm hoping Connor comes back as an older character for the French Revolution.
 
Terpfen said:
Respectfully disagreed. He's a different kind of character, and he's relatively pretty well developed considering Ezio had three games plus a movie. The side missions help flesh Connor out, I found. Though the game overall is still shorter than even just AC2. Tough to fit Ezio level character development in just one game.

Also, it's nice to see a lead in video games who is determined to the point of stubbornness, but not because the designers wanted to appeal to dudebros.

I'm hoping Connor comes back as an older character for the French Revolution.
Click to expand...


The thing about Connor is he's very one dimensional, not just because of it being one game (Ezio's first game had a lot more character story around him and his family life/love interest, etc).

Connor's main story arc is cliche "Village attacked, I must get revenge!"

That's about it.....you never see him bonding or his story with anyone outside this really, he has no love interest, just one goal for most of the game and that's it.

It just felt very bare-bones as far as character depth/building.
 
Stiler said:
The thing about Connor is he's very one dimensional...

Connor's main story arc is cliche "Village attacked, I must get revenge!"
Click to expand...

Disagreed again. Connor spends most of the game trying to fix a problem that occurs in a variety of ways: the relationship between two different types of people. The entire game is about reconciling differences.

Ezio is literally "Family killed, I must get revenge!" for the entirety of AC2. He's exactly what you denounce Connor for being. Ezio just went about it in a more movie-style manner. The entirety of ACR is about Ezio regretting being revenge-driven and thinking he wasted his life.

That's about it.....you never see him bonding or his story with anyone outside this really...
Click to expand...

I think you're defining "bonding" as "hits on women", because he does plenty of bonding. And suffers a lot for it.

I'm not saying Connor is the greatest character ever, but he gets a bad rap because he followed up the act of the best character of the previous decade.
 
It's 12 dollars.. Why are we even having this discussion. Buy it and try it yourself. Not like its 60$.
 
Terpfen said:
Disagreed again. Connor spends most of the game trying to fix a problem that occurs in a variety of ways: the relationship between two different types of people. The entire game is about reconciling differences.

Ezio is literally "Family killed, I must get revenge!" for the entirety of AC2. He's exactly what you denounce Connor for being. Ezio just went about it in a more movie-style manner. The entirety of ACR is about Ezio regretting being revenge-driven and thinking he wasted his life.



I think you're defining "bonding" as "hits on women", because he does plenty of bonding. And suffers a lot for it.

I'm not saying Connor is the greatest character ever, but he gets a bad rap because he followed up the act of the best character of the previous decade.
Click to expand...


I'm not defining bonding with "hitting on women" at all, and I don't know where you get that from.

What I mean is that the game never really gives you any character depth to the side characters, Connor doesn't really take an interest in anyone (male or female) enough to get to know those characters really, backstories, character arcs, etc.

The closest character that has this is Achilles (which I'd like to have seen dlc that focused more on him).

Connor never has a love interest that he meets or knows, a character to help drive him or give someone for him to play off of.

The side characters you hardly get to know through Connor's brief interactions with them, usually just very brief character encounters for them joining your community and a few minor quest that don't really tell much about them.

Most of all the problem in terms of this is Haytham.

So much potential for story building and character growth, backstory, etc that was just glossed over.
 
Having paid $60 for the retail version, it's definitely worth the $12.

I can't say it was worth my $60 though. The naval battles and just general setting and flow of the game were a welcome change from AC1/2 though, and it was enjoyable none the less.
 
I've liked all the AC games, including AC3.

In AC3, I have to say I wasn't motivated as much to complete optional missions, or to craft upgrades, which I found kind of cumbersome compared to the other AC games.

Like others have said, wasn't as keen on the colonial setting as the settings in the previous AC games.

The game I found to be very nice graphically, and ran smoothly on a GTX 670. Controls are a bit different than in previous AC games, but well implemented. Tree-running is definitely fun, and the naval stuff.

For $12, definitely worth a run through the main missions.
 
Stiler said:
I'm not defining bonding with "hitting on women" at all, and I don't know where you get that from.

What I mean is that the game never really gives you any character depth to the side characters, Connor doesn't really take an interest in anyone (male or female) enough to get to know those characters really, backstories, character arcs, etc.

The closest character that has this is Achilles (which I'd like to have seen dlc that focused more on him)...So much potential for story building and character growth, backstory, etc that was just glossed over.
Click to expand...

I agree about Connor...I much preferred Ezio...Connor seemed to have little to no personality...even his background info wasn't as dynamic as Ezio's...Haytham was the more interesting character in AC3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top