Assassin's Creed 3 to be Set in Revolutionary America

One of the many news regarding this. All I can say is hell yeah! For me there are two things in the AC franchise that stand head and shoulders above the rest of the industry: Animations, and story. There are a few other games out there with excellent stories but none with so much historical detail. Let the scalping commence!

This fits with the "reveal" at the end of Revelations about where the crew will be searching for the next apple.

Protagonist is part Native. The tomahawk made out of the assassin logo is awesome.

Red coats are an obvious enemy as they already fit the AC bad guy color scheme. However in AC mythos Washington was also a templar. It's no sure bet that we'll be fighting for the colonies. They briefly introduced the idea of competing factions that you could play against one another in Revelations - I bet we see more of that here.

My main concern right now - how tall were the tallest colonial structures?

I was really hoping for either Victorian London or pre-revolutionary Russia. But I'll take this anyway, it's about time they changed characters. Ocavian raises a point I had thought about as well. What kind of buildings can they possibly use in this one, it seems like a weird fit to me. In any case I'm glad their done with the first two characters. Too much Ezio already.

I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but can you tell me if AC2 id MUCH better than AC1? I really didn't like 1, but heard 2 was a thousand times better, and since it is only $12 now, I was thinking about trying it out.

QPCloudy wrote: I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but can you tell me if AC2 id MUCH better than AC1? I really didn't like 1, but heard 2 was a thousand times better, and since it is only $12 now, I was thinking about trying it out.

AC 1 is a tech demo with a really cool movement system and some weak combat. AC 2 adds a lot to the game and the game play but if you didn't like the way you move your dude or constantly discovering cities climbing towers and jumping into bushels of hay then 2 won't save you. If you wanted slightly better combat, improved movement, a monetary system and better side missions then 2 will fix the problems you had with 1. Brotherhood even more so.

So yes, 2 is way better than 1, but it might not be enough to save the series for you. The platforming gets more emphasized as the series goes on and generally gets better too. So if you like Flashback style platforming then they do an awesome job on that in the later iterations of the game.

Octavian wrote: My main concern right now - how tall were the tallest colonial structures?

There's always trees. Or church bell towers. Who know?

QPCloudy wrote: I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but can you tell me if AC2 id MUCH better than AC1? I really didn't like 1, but heard 2 was a thousand times better, and since it is only $12 now, I was thinking about trying it out.

AC2 is an entirely different game. I wouldn't recommend anyone play AC1 if interested in jumping into the franchise - read the plot summaries so you know the background and go straight to AC2. ACB is even better. ACR is not as good as ACB, but still fun.

Octavian wrote:

QPCloudy wrote: I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but can you tell me if AC2 id MUCH better than AC1? I really didn't like 1, but heard 2 was a thousand times better, and since it is only $12 now, I was thinking about trying it out.

AC2 is an entirely different game. I wouldn't recommend anyone play AC1 if interested in jumping into the franchise - read the plot summaries so you know the background and go straight to AC2. ACB is even better. ACR is not as good as ACB, but still fun.

So maybe I should just check the price on Brotherhood?

Both games are fantastic. For me these two games are a 9.5 and a 10. I wouldn't skip AC2. If you care about story at all, play AC2 first. ACB picks up pretty much where AC2 left off. And the story is a big part of the appeal.

Also, your reaction to AC2 will tell you all you need to know about the sequels. If you don't like AC2 then you're not going to like Brotherhood either.

This is the tallest building in Colonial America:



Christ Church in Philadelphia. If I remember my tour guide correctly it was the tallest until the Civil War.

S.

I am so happy I got AC2!!! It is the first open world that has actually made me want to explore.

The AC3 trailer was amazing as well. Are we to assume we will be thrown into a native american ancestor? I can't wait to get through these next few AC games and get caught up!

The ancestor is described as half-Brit half-Native American.

QPCloudy wrote: I am so happy I got AC2!!! It is the first open world that has actually made me want to explore.

The AC3 trailer was amazing as well. Are we to assume we will be thrown into a native american ancestor? I can't wait to get through these next few AC games and get caught up!

You’re in for a treat. I played through AC1 but it is not worth it, AC2 is the game to start with. But you should def. read the plot and watch all the AC1 movies on Youtube. While you are at it, you should watch the AC Lineage movies which total about 35 min. of live action story. That series shows the events leading up to the AC2 game you are playing.

I’m currently playing Brotherhood. I love this franchise. Playing a badass in video games is pretty common, but IMO the AC games make you feel like the ultimate badass. In time, you will note there is a lot of room for improvement on controls for fighting and climbing; these get stale as you rack up the hours. Also, chasing a fucker through the rooftops is an exercise in frustration similar to trying to flee in the Gears of War games. (Your character sticks to the wrong things). And they need to make shooting harder and rework the quickselect to allow more than 4 weapons to be quickselected (doubletap a direction for example). I hate to break the illusion of the game with the weapon selection wheel. I know in AC3 you will not be able to lock onto targets, so that is an indication they overhauled the combat system.

All gripes aside, I still find the shortcomings are more than made up with tons of animations, ambience, and story. Actually I would go so far as to say the AC games are the top dog in the industry for animations and art direction. I would be very curious to hear opinions of other gamers here on which games they feel are better than AC in those two categories.

Requeiscate de pache.

This sounds like an absolutely horrible setting for the new game. I'm getting flashbacks of the non-city shit in AC1, which was horrible.

And how the hell is combat gonna work? Alternate R1 and L1 rapidly to stuff your musket and pray that the piece of shit is accurate! Or will it go with some gimmicky tomahawk throwing bullshit thing?

All of the Freemason Founder shit aside, revolutionary Paris would make a far better setting. I'm more interested in playing a game about freerunning in a goddamn city than playing through a bad Dan Brown book.

SaMoKo wrote: revolutionary Paris would make a far better setting.

Awesome idea. I would be super interested in playing in this setting as well. Here's hoping that they move the next game after AC3 to revolutionary Paris, which is pretty close timeline wise.

No too concerned about playing in the wilderness. It would be a nice change for me. One way they could go is making the wilderness is increasing the amount of time spent in "dungeon" mode. I would be fine with having AC3 be more Prince-of-Persially. Being hunter and hunted by animals sounds good too.