Assassin's Creed: History is your (glitched) Playground - Games

Ah, is that the Australia incident they keep mentioning in e-mails etc in the modern day segments?

Major spoiler She is mentioned in Atlantis

Anyone whose beaten the game can they tell me how much more I got left in the main story? Just finished the Olympics and now I'm doing the shit in Boetia for the Spartans.

Really? I don't remember that. That entire scene was so awful I think I blocked most of it out of my memory though.

Very near the end.

Only one more chapters worth

Same question, just trying to finish the story before RDR2 releases: I'm currently on my way to Sparta with mum, already did all the Atlantis shit

Your horse slowing down when near or in a town is literally the most obnoxious thing in the game, next to literally every npc that you need to follow having different run/walk speeds.

You got two decent sized chapters left.

I've just refinished Assassin's Creed III and I'd like to take a moment to talk about its writing. Because yes, the gameplay is too "dissipated" to be enjoyable from one to the other, but the writing is something else. I'm not even talking about the main story, though the way it intertwines history and a personal story is remarkable though also hard to believe at times. No, I'm mostly talking about the little things: the small bits of dialogue heard here and there, not even in cutscenes but just while you talk to people at random. There are so many bits of conversation that are simply memorable because they open a window onto the greater historical context and are also thought-provoking in their own right. Things like Braddock justifying the violence of the Seven Years' War to a young, gullible Washington. Samuel Adams explaining the need for quick propaganda, however dishonest it might be. Haytham and Lee talking about how unfit a leader Washington is, and the latter whispering about how uncertain his victory is. Doctor Church talking about unethical capitalism long before America became renowned for it. Shaun and Desmond debating the legitimacy of the American revolution. Even Benjamin Franklin talking about sex. On all sides, the player (and the main character Connor) are assaulted by different points of view, on all topics. And that's where you realize, this is the core of what Assassin's Creed is supposed to represent: individual freewill. And after all that and Achilles' constant defeatism, it starts making a whole lot more sense that Connor feels constantly lost in the story. Witnessing so many conflicting opinions can take its toll on the mind. And this is the reason why, in my opinion, Assassin's Creed III remains the best written game in the series. Because it took advantage of the historical context to prove a timeless, philosophical point, the one the series has always kept. Of course, after that, both The Tyranny of King Washington and Rogue completely shat themselves while trying to replicate the fine level of writing that III had.

they fixed this in revelations and I don't know why they never brought that feature back.

Its because if it didn't, the game's fps would grind to a halt and look terrible. Witcher 3 did the same technique when going to novigrad, plus it buffs up scale mentally.

gonna revive this thread for a question. the google game streaming service ends tomorrow and I'll be getting a free uplay copy of odyssey. Google gave me $10 worth of helix credits to test the store and whatever I "buy" will transfer to my free real copy (game save will transfer too), but unspent helix credits will be lost. should I buy the permanent XP booster or waste it all on cosmetic crap? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/110042/f6ddac57-64d0-4700-881c-a78aae07482c/image.png

Last time I checked, XP boosts just make the game quicker and easier and not in a good way unless you have no patience. Just played Syndicate with a permanent XP boost and I was level 10 before the mid-game. I suppose Odyssey's the same but I don't know yet.

I'm currently putting the purchase for Odyssey on hold till all DLC will be released and I'll be done with Kingdom Hearts III. Considering the game still recives quality of life and technical improvements updates, maybe it's for the best

Is there somewhere that sums up the whole precursor story as I have had no idea what it is since AC3?

So, I just finished Part 2 of the DLC, and....I'm not a big fan of how it ended. Throughout the DLC, I treated Natakas as a friend, and nothing more. But when I told him and Darius to stay when they were about to leave, suddenly Kassandra and Natakas are married with a kid. What the fuck? This is not the path I wanted to go on. My Kassandra only fucks chicks, and now she's settling down with some random ass dude that I barely give a shit about. This really sucks tbh.

I got spoiled about that and like everyone's reaction to being pissed about it is entirely justified.

The funny thing is, this wouldn't be a problem if they didn't have the whole "choose your odyssey" gimmick.

I love Assassin's Creed to death and will usually, to a flaw, defend it with massive bias. But jesus christ Legacy of the First Blade is awful. The first part was really "eh" but I thought to myself "okay, but it's only the first part. Surely it'll get better?". Boy was I wrong. Darius and the Hidden Blade are massive deals in the overall AC Universe and rather than put both of these to good use, they're just put on the backburner for... OTHER THINGS. Jesus Christ part 2 was atrocious. Fuck the ending.

I'm not going to lie, but Odyssey has really made me consider just abandoning this series altogether. I mean, I've been gradually becoming frustrated with the series since Black Flag for its inability to advance an overarching narrative that link the events of each game, only to abandon what little overarching narrative they did have (Juno) prior to Odyssey (or perhaps even Origins). But everything before Odyssey I managed to enjoy for its own merits and individual stories, if not a connecting one. Odyssey though, has just left a hollow impression compared to the games prior where the thinks I like about it are mostly superficial things and are outweighed by the things that frustrated me (My "review" of Odyssey for added context).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wgs3CxcEfU Looks significantly better, but I really really want to know how much of the rampant glitches and gameplay flaws they've patched. Still excited to see my favorite entry remastered, and the one I still think is the most mature on a narrative level.

I wish the screenshots on the site weren't such low res.

The women clothes in Haytham's sequence at the Theatre Royal are still historically inaccurate, tsk tsk tsk

Looks better then I expected.

I hope the textures are overhauled well

Look at the ground in the first comparison.

I feel like that if AC3 wasn't so rushed in its development it could have been a masterpiece. AC3's story was the epitome of what AC should have been: a clash of ideologies (neither of which is right 100% of the time), the uncertainty of the future, and the consequences of your actions Connor is easily my favorite assassin since he actually had to mature over time and make tough moral and philosophical decisions in his life (some of which were wrong) instead of just Banging Chicks and killing Bad Guys

I don't think Connor matured much at all, he's still largely brash and arrogant by the end of the game, and the reason he made bad decisions is because he spent his life on a single-minded revenge quest against the man who (didn't) burn down his village. He only followed Achilles because a godlike vision told him to, and upon learning that his home was really destroyed by his pal George Washington, he chose to help out Washington some more then hunt down Charles Lee and the Templars anyway instead of, you know, reconsidering his terrible choices. By the end of the game Haytham and Charles are still shoehorned into villainous roles not because of any ideological battle, but because Connor is stubborn and hopelessly idealistic whereas they became pointlessly cruel. The clash of ideologies could have been much more potent if it wasn't undermined by a definite black and white morality made present for the sake of having hero versus villains.

You're missing the point entirely You say that he didn't change at all and spent his life on his revenge quest, and then immediately afterwards say that he didn't kill the man who ordered his village burned. The reason he didn't kill Washington and still hunted Lee down is because he matured enough to understand that the cause of the Assassins was more important to him and the future of the nation and his village than revenge, and Lee was still trying to drag Connor's village into the war