Assassin's Creed 3

'Assassin's Creed III' is a clear labour of love. The world that Ubisoft have created is as dense as it is expansive; as beautiful as it is alive. But it varies wildly between moments that are utterly inspired, and others which are the total opposite. Indeed, the game is a project of such ambition that at points it's obvious that Ubisoft bit off more than they could chew. And although AC3's failings tower above the successes of other games, those failings are conspicuous enough that this final instalment in Desmond's story marks a step backward even as Ubisoft take two steps forward.

The game has four main problems. First, the character of Connor - a half-English, half-Native hybrid out for revenge against the Templars who burned down his village - comes across as little else than a hot-blooded brat, spouting platitudes about `freedom' like a broken record. He has none of the likability or gravitas of AC2's Ezio Auditore, against whose legacy he pales. It was very difficult to invest emotionally in the character, and ultimately, his story, despite an enthralling backdrop and a strong set of villains. Connor's blandness is also a particular disappointment given the exceptional quality of the first three sequences of the game, during which the player steps into the boots of Connor's father, Haytham, whose moral complexity and quiet charisma made him a sumptuous aperitif preceding a half-baked main.

Second, although the world is vast, much of the gameplay (especially the side missions) just feels like filler. This has always been true of Assassin's Creed to some extent, but Ubisoft managed to mix it up a lot more in AC2, pulling it off with such verve that it was rarely a chore. AC3 marks a serious step back in this respect, with many of the side missions being simply recycled if not outright duplicated. It's so formulaic that there's next to no incentive to bother engaging with them. The biggest travesty of all, however, is the management of Connor's settlement. Unlike in AC2, its development hinges on completing banal tasks for the inhabitants. Direct management of the economy is possible but it's so unclear how to engage with it that it just comes across as needlessly complex filler.

Third, although stealth is still very much a factor, it has an erratic role in the gameplay and can be needlessly frustrating. For example, once Connor has been spotted, it's not possible to hide again until you escape your enemies, which is incredibly difficult to do. The notoriety system, in particular, is very unforgiving, a bizarre feature in a game which overall prioritises combat over stealth. It's also a shame because stealth and prowess only translates into the first two or three Templars Connor assassinates, sections which show off the very best of the game and are sadly dispensed with later on.

Finally, the game weirdly suffers from its commitment to realism and period detail. This isn't Ubisoft's fault per se; but the architecture of eighteenth century Boston and New York was very utilitarian. The urban environments may be atmospheric and faithfully recreated, but they are also bland and repetitive (again, duplication is an issue), making them a chore to traverse as they are expansive. However, despite the visual commitment to historical accuracy, Ubisoft end up pulling their punches in terms of substance. The British are staunchly the `bad guys' here, even if passing reference is made to corruption and hypocrisy among the Continentals, and their penchant for slavery. Given how exhilarating and intellectually stimulating the settings of the Holy Land, Renaissance Italy and Constantinople were, AC3 disappoints overall.

But where AC3 excels, it really excels. The gameplay itself has largely been perfected. The combat system has been revised and turns fighting into a brutal, fluid ballet. There's much more emphasis on being proactive in combat (previously a major problem in the series) and it's more challenging as a result. And it looks beautiful. Few things become more satisfying than effortlessly cutting down a column of redcoats in fresh fallen snow. Climbing and movement is perfectly executed, Connor lurching around with the agility and ferocity of a cougar. The diverse, open world of the frontier is a saving grace, especially given the constraints of the cities. And sometimes, the gameplay meshes perfectly with the story and setting, creating memorably cinematic moments: be it sprinting up Bunker Hill, avoiding British volleys; or clambering up a cliff face without being spotted to reach your target; or chasing your target through the chaos of a French-Indian ambush on a British column in the wilderness. Lorne Balfe's score is a great complement to these moments.

Indeed, AC3 is worth the purchase on account of its ambition and scale alone. Ubisoft have surpassed themselves in terms of the overall polish and slickness they have brought to AC3, qualities that previous instalments never quite possessed in the same way. However, while it's natural that in a game this size there are bound to be holes, in the case of AC3 the holes are large. Most of its boils down to the repetitive nature of the gameplay, making for a bloated experience even though the story itself feels rushed and half-baked by its end. Ubisoft have simultaneously inspired as much disappointment as they have awe.

This is the first time I'm giving an Assassin's Creed game 3/5 stars. All other games in the franchise received excellent ratings from me. Hear me out.

The game is visually stunning as always. The music is outstanding as always. The setting, story, and characters, however, are not as great as they were in the previous instalments. Ezio and even Altair had more charm than Connor, and their stories were more gripping than this one. Now, I had my fun playing this game and there were parts where I said, "wow". But this game is so riddled with bugs that it looks like Ubisoft needed way more time to polish it than they took. And I'm inclined to blame their "Call of Duty" strategy of releasing yearly games for this issue. I thought the combat was the smoothest in Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood, with some complaints about them in Revelations. But the combat and controls in AC 3 can be ridiculously annoying and inaccurate.

As far as multiplayer is concerned, what can I say. I'm not a huge multiplayer person so for a game to suck me into MP mode is actually quite an achievement. So far, I have only managed to log into Multiplayer a few times, thanks to a Ubisoft issue whereby the linking of Ubisoft passport and servers is faulty and it throws people into Limited Mode with no chance of getting online. Having paid the full price for a new game, it is disappointing that one of the main features of the game is inaccessible for many people around the world due to a bug. However, from what I have played so far, the MP is no better than the first time it was introduced in Brotherhood, honestly.

I'm a huge fan of the Assassin's Creed series so I'm not ashamed to admit that I'll probably buy every game in the franchise till I wake up and realize that I'm being robbed and call it quits. But I would be lying if I said that this game was the same quality that was promised to gamers. As a matter of fact, I'll go ahead and say that Assassin's Creed 3, with all factors accounted for, ranks below all other AC games in my opinion. AC 2 was the best one hands down, followed by Brotherhood. THIS, however, doesn't come close.

Feel free to disagree and thank you for reading.

Assassin's Creed 3 is such a poor finish to what started out as quite a special series; one that stood head and shoulders above competitors not just in terms of gameplay but in scale, vision and depth. AC3 shreds this legacy, and more. It's difficult to believe that such a high profile game that's been in development for 2-3 years can dissapoint so resoundingly on all fronts.

Firstly, the game just isn't interesting to play. I like that the franchise has always been adventurous in journeying to relatively unexplored places and eras, but it doesn't work here. The world is bland. I fast travelled across the frontier and the two cities whenever I could because I had no interest in drinking in the atmosphere and scenery like I did with Florence or Venice. Visually, there's little to complain about, but apart from one or two "Ooh" moments at the top of a tree between cities, I completely forgot about the graphics because everything is so dull. The musical score threatens to get interesting at one or two points but never makes good on this. I'm surprised to find out there are 25 pieces in the OST because I'm struggling to remember two distinct tracks.

The game is stuffed to the brim with minigames and extra feautures, but the ones I tried were uninteresting and unentertaining. I remember actively hunting down Assassin's tombs, contracts and chase missions in AC2. There was nothing here that made me want to do that.

The controls and combat have been given an overhaul. I understand some might see the need to jazz things up a little after four games with an identical - albeit mostly wonderful - control scheme, but it doesn't work here. This is most apparant during combat. The combat system from ACB and ACR definitely had room for improvement, but they're infinitely preferable to what's been done here. The fighting is more button mashy than ever. Targetting enemies is a pain, and sometimes it seems that you're flitting in and out of high profile at random. And it gets worse when the camera starts swinging around wildly.

Worst of all is what goes on in the modern day story. After several hours, I had simply resigned myself to not being able to enjoy playing the game, but I decided to force myself through it just to see the culmination of Desmond's story. I think I would have been happier if I had stopped halfway through. Without giving away details, the ending left me feeling empty, somewhat depressed and asking "is that it?!". There's no satisfying closure, no positive feeling for having finished the quest and having come so far. Very little seems to tie in with what's been revealed by earlier games, and I'm constantly wondering whether the development team and writer have been making it up as they've gone along.

The only way the series could preserve some dignity in my eyes is if it was put to bed right now, but I know that's not going to happen. It's sad to see something young and vigorous mature into the same kind of bland, cynical, new-installment-yearly franchise that the market is flooded with. At least when this happened to Final Fantasy, the independent storyline of each game meant you could legitimately forget about the lamer installments (I live in a world where FFX-2 never saw the light of day).