This is going to be a “nitty-gritty” style review, in that I
will assume anyone who reads this is already somewhat familiar with the
Assassin’s Creed series. The review is
based on my playthrough of the PC version.
Differences between the PC and console versions:
Basically, it all comes down to graphics. The Xbox360 and PS3 versions are identical. Both contain some pop-in and the framerate tends to chug when there are too many citizens or enemies on the screen at once. The Wii U version, while otherwise identical to its console brethren, has an odd problem with the depth-of-field effect present through most of the game. It tends to make the background elements look weirdly stretched, rather than just “blurry” when the camera is focused on characters during cut-scenes. That’s not a slight towards the Wii U, it’s just a minor hiccup in that particular port.
The resolution is the largest and most noticeable difference between the console and PC versions. The consoles are locked at 720p (even the Wii U port), while the PC port is capable of displaying in 1080p and runs at a smooth 60 frames-per-second, as opposed to the console’s 30 (approx). I don’t mean to sound like a PC elitist, but if you have a PC capable of running the game as the developers intended, the PC is the definitive version of the game. And hey, at this point within the first few months of the game’s release, it’s $10 cheaper (on Steam).
Basically, it all comes down to graphics. The Xbox360 and PS3 versions are identical. Both contain some pop-in and the framerate tends to chug when there are too many citizens or enemies on the screen at once. The Wii U version, while otherwise identical to its console brethren, has an odd problem with the depth-of-field effect present through most of the game. It tends to make the background elements look weirdly stretched, rather than just “blurry” when the camera is focused on characters during cut-scenes. That’s not a slight towards the Wii U, it’s just a minor hiccup in that particular port.
The resolution is the largest and most noticeable difference between the console and PC versions. The consoles are locked at 720p (even the Wii U port), while the PC port is capable of displaying in 1080p and runs at a smooth 60 frames-per-second, as opposed to the console’s 30 (approx). I don’t mean to sound like a PC elitist, but if you have a PC capable of running the game as the developers intended, the PC is the definitive version of the game. And hey, at this point within the first few months of the game’s release, it’s $10 cheaper (on Steam).
Let’s get into it.
Story: 9/10
The story was definitely the best part of the game, but it came with a price: The main character, Connor, is kind of bland. I remember playing ACII for the first time and thinking the same thing about Ezio, but by the end of the game, the character had gone from a spoiled rich kid to a noble, honorable warrior and an overall likeable guy. Connor has no such story arch. The character stays completely one dimensional throughout the entire game. Connor is always focused on one particular goal (which I won’t detail for fear of spoilers) and absolutely nothing else. He’s also a jerk and comes off as really stupid and ignorant at times. Part of his character is that he IS, indeed, ignorant of his surroundings because of being thrust into an unfamiliar world, but some of his personal decisions made him seem… well… dumb. Harsh criticism towards a videogame character, I know. Hopefully Ubisoft will take the same route as ACII and release more games with Connor as the protagonist. Maybe then we’ll see him grow more as a character.
Aside from the mediocre main character, the story is really good. The Colonial setting provides a lot of intersections with history in which the player crosses paths with real-life figures such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere. Finding out how they all play in to the huge “end-of-the-world” plot of the present is definitely interesting to see. And again, aside from the main character, ACIII has some of the most interesting characters I’ve ever seen in a videogame, particularly the villains.
The overarching story set in the present day and featuring Desmond Miles is wrapped up very cryptically, but I believe that it falls in line with the series’ previous entries. What the next game’s plot will be is only briefly hinted at during the epilogue, but it seems as though the series could be going in a pretty interesting new direction.
The story was definitely the best part of the game, but it came with a price: The main character, Connor, is kind of bland. I remember playing ACII for the first time and thinking the same thing about Ezio, but by the end of the game, the character had gone from a spoiled rich kid to a noble, honorable warrior and an overall likeable guy. Connor has no such story arch. The character stays completely one dimensional throughout the entire game. Connor is always focused on one particular goal (which I won’t detail for fear of spoilers) and absolutely nothing else. He’s also a jerk and comes off as really stupid and ignorant at times. Part of his character is that he IS, indeed, ignorant of his surroundings because of being thrust into an unfamiliar world, but some of his personal decisions made him seem… well… dumb. Harsh criticism towards a videogame character, I know. Hopefully Ubisoft will take the same route as ACII and release more games with Connor as the protagonist. Maybe then we’ll see him grow more as a character.
Aside from the mediocre main character, the story is really good. The Colonial setting provides a lot of intersections with history in which the player crosses paths with real-life figures such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere. Finding out how they all play in to the huge “end-of-the-world” plot of the present is definitely interesting to see. And again, aside from the main character, ACIII has some of the most interesting characters I’ve ever seen in a videogame, particularly the villains.
The overarching story set in the present day and featuring Desmond Miles is wrapped up very cryptically, but I believe that it falls in line with the series’ previous entries. What the next game’s plot will be is only briefly hinted at during the epilogue, but it seems as though the series could be going in a pretty interesting new direction.
Visuals: 8/10The graphics are like the rest of the games: gorgeous. The team behind the AC games has an unmatched ability in creating an open-world environment which feels as though it was plucked directly out of the past. From the Crusade-Era “Holy land” of the original game to the recent game’s Colonial American battlefields, the series always has striking visuals.
With that being said, the art direction is a little bland. That’s no fault of the developers to a certain extent, it’s just the time period in which the game is set. For the past 3 games in the series (ACII, Brotherhood and Revelations), the setting has been in and around Italy and Istanbul. While it could be that I’m simply partial to the beautifully elegant Italian/Roman architecture of those games, ACIII falls a bit short. Story-wise, the mid/late 1700s setting works great, but for a game, I feel it perhaps should have had a different setting.
The “frontier” areas which connect all the various cities and towns are all beautiful, albeit a bit void of any purpose save for small side-quests.
Sound: 10/10
Hands down, this is the best sounding game you’ll ever hear. I’ve never really taken notice of the sound design within a videogame, but in ACIII, sound is constantly driving the atmosphere. Whether it’s the bustling streets of New York and Boston, the wilderness of the frontier and homestead areas, or the ocean waves during Naval combat, the sounds of the game immerse you, I guarantee, as no other game has before.
Along with the sound is ACIII’s music. In my opinion, and no disrespect to original series composer, Jesper Kyd, Lorne Balfe has created the best score of the entire series. Like many of Hans Zimmer’s apprentices (Klaus Badelt), Balfe manages to have the same disease: He’s better than Hans Zimmer. I strongly recommend picking this score up on www.amazon.com where it’s available as a digital download. You won’t regret it.
Hands down, this is the best sounding game you’ll ever hear. I’ve never really taken notice of the sound design within a videogame, but in ACIII, sound is constantly driving the atmosphere. Whether it’s the bustling streets of New York and Boston, the wilderness of the frontier and homestead areas, or the ocean waves during Naval combat, the sounds of the game immerse you, I guarantee, as no other game has before.
Along with the sound is ACIII’s music. In my opinion, and no disrespect to original series composer, Jesper Kyd, Lorne Balfe has created the best score of the entire series. Like many of Hans Zimmer’s apprentices (Klaus Badelt), Balfe manages to have the same disease: He’s better than Hans Zimmer. I strongly recommend picking this score up on www.amazon.com where it’s available as a digital download. You won’t regret it.
Gameplay: 6/10
I found the gameplay to be quite unfocused at times. The game constantly changes up your control scheme and play-style throughout its entirety. One minute you’re doing your normal assassin routine, the next you’re riding on horseback while yelling at 3 groups of soldiers to fire their cannons at redcoats in a “tower defense” mini-game.
And that’s essentially what most of the game felt like to me: A series of mini-games with normal Assassin’s Creed gameplay sprinkled in. You spend more of your time with these diversions in gameplay than you do being sneaky and “assassin-ing.”
Most gamers probably welcome these types of constant gameplay changes since it has been stated that the series tends to be “boring and repetitive.” This is a claim that I can agree with if talking about the first game, but I believe Ubisoft rectified the problem with the sequels from ACII through Revelations. In all fairness, it’s probably a good thing that Ubisoft did, in fact, change things up a bit to keep the series fresh, I just felt like the change ups seemed rather forced at times.
I found the gameplay to be quite unfocused at times. The game constantly changes up your control scheme and play-style throughout its entirety. One minute you’re doing your normal assassin routine, the next you’re riding on horseback while yelling at 3 groups of soldiers to fire their cannons at redcoats in a “tower defense” mini-game.
And that’s essentially what most of the game felt like to me: A series of mini-games with normal Assassin’s Creed gameplay sprinkled in. You spend more of your time with these diversions in gameplay than you do being sneaky and “assassin-ing.”
Most gamers probably welcome these types of constant gameplay changes since it has been stated that the series tends to be “boring and repetitive.” This is a claim that I can agree with if talking about the first game, but I believe Ubisoft rectified the problem with the sequels from ACII through Revelations. In all fairness, it’s probably a good thing that Ubisoft did, in fact, change things up a bit to keep the series fresh, I just felt like the change ups seemed rather forced at times.
Controls: 6/10Control is kind of wonky every now and then. Connor will sometimes get locked into position and unable to move. This becomes extremely frustrating when having to jump from rooftop to rooftop, or tree branch to tree branch in order to escape guards, or take out a target within a time limit. Although it could have been because I was playing on PC with an Xbox360 controller, it seemed like my ‘B’ button would occasionally stop working. This usually happened when I was engaged in combat and had to use the button to counter an enemy’s attack. I would hit the button to counter, but absolutely nothing would happen and Connor would just stand there like an idiot, resulting in a musket being driven into his face. Again, this could have just been a PC related issue or a problem with my controller, though I haven’t had this problem with any other games using the same one (including other AC games).
For the most part, I felt that Assassin’s Creed III was a
decent entry in the series. It was good, but it certainly didn’t live up to the
standards which I believe were set by ACII.
I always like to give an “is it worth $60,” or “full price verdict” and here it is:
Is it worth retail price? Maybe.
If you’re a fan of the series, full price is definitely worth it, but if not, wait till the price comes down around $30. Frustrating (at times) controls/gameplay and a main character that has about as much personality as a rock, might turn potential fans off if they haven’t spent time in the AC universe before. Only spend the full price of admission if you absolutely cannot wait to see how the Desmond Miles portion of the Assassin’s Creed series comes to an end.
Final
Score: 8/10I always like to give an “is it worth $60,” or “full price verdict” and here it is:
Is it worth retail price? Maybe.
If you’re a fan of the series, full price is definitely worth it, but if not, wait till the price comes down around $30. Frustrating (at times) controls/gameplay and a main character that has about as much personality as a rock, might turn potential fans off if they haven’t spent time in the AC universe before. Only spend the full price of admission if you absolutely cannot wait to see how the Desmond Miles portion of the Assassin’s Creed series comes to an end.
-Josh
By the way, I take credit for these screenshots. All were done by me from my PC except the boxart and video/music. I'm slowly inching my way to fancier things!
No comments:
Post a Comment