Assassin’s Creed 3

Every long running game series will run into problems eventually. Either by being drawn out for too long, or the development team hitting a brick wall after throwing out every idea they could potentially offer. These problematic entries are often labeled as divisive. In other terms we refer to them as “the black sheep”. Dark Souls 2 divided fans by struggling to figure out how to follow up a game with a strong foundation. Throwing in ideas that classed with the last game’s design, and being big for the sake of being big rather than consider how much of its content was good. I often think of Mass Effect 3 when it comes to divisive games, because its story and how it ended the series felt rushed. Poorly accounting for choices made throughout the prior two games and putting too much focus on its combat loop rather than RPG systems & mechanics. Dead Space 3, Fallout 4, Resident Evil 5, the list goes on. Yet, I never seen a series have as many every divisive entries as Assassin’s Creed. Kinda surprising how I managed to get into this series despite all my rambling about stale open world game design in the past. There’s a common argument on when Assassin’s Creed started to become bad?

Some people will say Assassin’s Creed: Origins and others will say Assassin’s Creed: Unity. For a majority of people though they will credit Assassin’s Creed 3 for being the dividing point. Back in 2012, the folks at Ubisoft were killing it. Ubisoft was a household name before they started to fall off and lose player respect. Assassin’s Creed was fresh and burning hot thanks to the quality consistency of the Ezio trilogy. They wanted to deliver the grandest Assassin’s Creed to date and end the story they started with modern day protagonist, Desmond Miles. Revealing the numbered third entry during E3 and announcing Assassin’s Creed would be finally coming to the country a vast majority of gamers resonate from. Good old America fighting for their independence during the late 1700s. Originally the franchise was planned to be a trilogy. Stuff happened, Ezio then got a lifetime storyline, and Assassin’s Creed 3 stayed in the oven since Brotherhood was a concept. There was also the fact it was 2012 and Ubisoft wanted to make fun of how Y2K was happening that year. I’m not gonna explain the whole story as you can read it yourself, but overall there was a lot of hype for the third game. The idea of a new AC each year, and open worlds to spend hours in. Assassin’s Creed was finally coming to America.

Unfortunately this game did not go the way Ubisoft had hoped. A yearly released schedule came to bite them in the ass for Assassin’s Creed 3 was pretty rough at launch. Not busted as Unity, but pretty darn noticeable. Despite the game having reviewed well with critics, fans were left feeling displeased. How it ended the modern day storyline. The top quality gameplay turned redundant, and at times went backwards despite what the Ezio trilogy managed to build up within 3 years.   You have how the main selling point was handled. An protagonist of native heritage fighting for freedom during the American Revolution. It’s not new for games to have an native american as the lead roles. The original Prey was doing this back in 2006, but whereas that game struggled to blow up Asssassin’s Creed 3 did due to rising popularity.  This got fans to question the direction the franchise was heading. If it would continue to stagnate, which makes sense why Ubisoft then went in the direction of Assassin’s Creed 4: Black Flag. A title that got many people hopping on board again (pun intended) for how it pushed what a pirate game could. By being one of the very few pirate games ever made. However, even though Black Flag is my favorite entry it’s hard to ignore that it further divided a fanbase. Leading to the question of, “What is an Assassin’s Creed game?” Should the franchise deviate from what it once was, or stay the same & never evolve?

So these are all the problems Assassin’s Creed 3 created since it launched, and people are to this day still witnessing them. I love Assassin’s Creed: Origins and have Odyssey on the backlog, but know damn well those RPG entries contain game design many would find atrocious. It’s a shame this is the legacy Assassin’s Creed 3 must hold, because having played it I can see some attempt was made. I think Assassin’s Creed 3 is deeply flawed. It’s not great, but it’s not close to being one of the worst. I certainly like it more than Unity and it has more effort put in than Mirage. The game even at times contains some genuinely brilliant writing and one the boldest messages told aside from Black Flag. Yet, it’s difficult to recommend with how unfocused and oddly paced the journey can be. Unity was the most painfully okay entry, and Assassin’s Creed 3 is an okay game I really wish I could love more. Today let’s talk about AC3 and the feelings I have for it.

Story

Back in 1754, an assassin named Haytham Kenway journeyed to America to unearth a cave his people were searching for. This cavern was a tomb, and they believed the tomb contained words, scriptures, and artifacts that would assist them. Upon reaching this tomb Haytham discovers the doors are locked. Unable to be opened from the outside and no one knowing how to get in. The tired assassin gives up his pursuits, but during this search for the tomb he befriends and falls in love with a native woman named Kaniehti:io. The two start a relationship and soon give birth to a child, Ratonhnhaké:ton. Haytham would leave America to continue assisting his order, and the child was forced to mostly grow up alone. With only his mother and surrounding tribe members to raise him. Ratonhnhaké:ton spent his childhood playing in the woods, helping elders hunt for food, and participating in religious practice. One day though he’s caught off guard by a British man, Charles Lee. He guides a group of men armed with muskets, and informs Ratonhnhaké:ton that he plans to attack and raid the nearby village. The boy responds by spitting into Lee’s face, and is met with a rifle hilt bash to the face. To then wake up to his village burning to the ground, and unable to save his mother from burning to death.

From that day onward Ratonhnhaké:ton planned to get revenge on Lee and those responsible for the harming of his tribe. He seeks the tribe leader for guidance who then gives him an artifact the tribe had been protecting for years. This artifact bursts with light, shows Ratonhnhaké:ton all that may happen if chaos is allowed to spread, and he must seek a fan knowing of a specific symbol. The symbol being of the Assassin Order. Ratonhnhaké:ton packs his belongings, ventures into unknown territory, and reaches the home of Achilles. A former Assassin now in hiding due to the Assassins struggling to maintain control in America. They lost the fight years ago and those who want to help are in fewer numbers. Ratonhnhaké:ton demands Achilles train him so that he may be able to hunt and kill Charles. The old Achilles declines, but after Ratonhnhaké:ton fights off a group of mercenaries he accepts. Spending the next few years turning our traumatized native into a stone cold killer, and giving him a new name so that he may walk the city  streets without being discriminated against. Connor, half native and caucasian by blood. Off to dismantle the Templar Order and fight for his people’s future freedom. 

Gameplay

The numbered third entry feels like a test on how they could evolve Assassin’s Creed onwards. It still contains a lot of the principles the Ezio trilogy built up, but also contains some ideas that we would see in Black Flag and going forward. You parkour around the world, fight enemies, try to not cause too much trouble, and reach whatever goal is set before you. Combat is the same as the games prior. Attack, break defense when enemies have their guard up, and counter when they try to attack. Chain killing is still a thing. If enemies are close to you after you kill one of them you can then zip over and kill the next. However, some enemies like brutes and skilled fighters can’t be chain killed so there’s some strategy. You can swap out tools and weapons anytime, and each contains different attack power and swing times. The biggest change since Revelations is how the player has regenerating health instead of a health bar. You no longer loot or buy medicine bottles, and spend them to refill lost life. You either evade combat to refill, or play well enough so you can slowly regenerate. Some story missions will require you to fight, but outside of that you can avoid combat most of the time. Getting involved with criminal activity leads to notoriety going up, and when it’s high enemies act differently.

They become alert more easily when you are around, and becoming alert has them chasing you. Notoriety is lowered by either tearing wanted posters off of walls, paying criers to spread false information, or town poster printers instead. Do remember you are an assassin. You can sneak & scale along buildings to avoid confrontations. Pick off enemies one by one to decrease challenge or slowly remove an area of threats. The stealth isn’t flexible the same way later games are, but it is a choice. Speaking of choice you have a few things to do aside from story missions. There’s a small domain you and Achilles hunt for pilgrims seeking new homes. These pilgrims are distinct NPCs and when assisted they can run facilities to produce supplies. Said supplies can be used to trade or upgrade tools. There are side quests, citizens you can help rebel against the British, the sailing missions that serve as a blueprint for Black Flag, and returning from Brotherhood and Revelations are the fortresses. Strongholds you can run into and kill everyone, but if you are able to kill the leader, blow up their powder reserve, and raise the flag hastily you don’t have to kill everyone. There’s quite a bit you can do in AC3. Not all of it I did and I have quite criticisms for it, but if you like side content it is here. 

I don’t have much else to say about Assassin’s Creed 3 aside from it offering more. It is more of what the prior game did, but the execution and quality of some of these ideas is where I am left divided. Assassin’s Creed 3 has good ideas on paper, but you can tell some were rushed. Part of it is to blame on the yearly release schedule and each of the games getting one year of development time. Now not all Assassin’s Creed games are made by one department. They’re separated into different studios in different countries. Every game aside from Syndicate and Odyssey were made by the Montreal team, and the latter were made by Quebec. Mirage was by Bordeaux and recent Black Flag Resycned was handled by Singapore. A majority of these games came from Montreal though, and you can tell they were starting to get burnt out with Assassin’s Creed 3. It’s shocking how each Ezio game managed to improve in small increments only for the third to go back. Then see how quickly the team can improve in one year with Black Flag. There are things in AC3 that just don’t work, and we are about to unravel why they don't. 

Thoughts

I am not the first person to say what is about to be said. Assassin’s Creed 3 is a game with lots of missed potential. It wanted to be the grandest game made up until that point, and failed to deliver on a lot of the goals it set out to achieve. Retrospectively these goals are made worse with how much Black Flag managed to do directly one year after the third numbered entry. Again, part of this is to blame on the yearly release schedule. Some people will say the older games aged badly, but as someone who played the Ezio trilogy two years ago I’d argue that they hold up pretty well. Greatly in fact! They’re fun games with solid design, good pacing, and at no point did I feel any of the sandboxes were repetitive or boring to venture across. Assassin’s Creed 3 isn’t the longest entry, but you can see the bloat slowly making its way in. I think there are two reasons why this game feels like it drags on too long for me. An intro section I’ll ramble about shortly, and there being stuff for the sake of having it. For example, one of the new additions is hunting. Earning different pelts based on the animals you kill, and using pelts for selling or crafting. The game opens with having to hunt animals before you can progress, and then you never do it again. A problem that existed in prior entries, but is prevalent here.

I never felt like I needed to hunt, because most of what I do is based on personal skill & strategy. On one hand I honor the game for not wasting my time with grinding, but on the other hand why is it there? Far Cry 3 had hunting, but there was purpose to it. You need pelts so you can craft holsters to carry more guns, or larger pockets for bullets. This alongside the skill tree made it feel like you were growing stronger every step of the way. Assassin’s Creed 3 never made me aware I could use pelts for more. I don’t think I ever touched a single shop here compared to any of the games in the Ezio trilogy. Assassin’s Creed 2 gives you a new gadget every sequence or two. The game found a way to keep progression interesting by giving you new tools to experiment with. It allows you to feel stronger without the conventional level up or skill tree system. Making your journey feel well paced despite being a fifteen hour game. Assassin’s Creed 3 is about the same length and gives you everything you will probably use within the first five sequences. Then goes on for seven more sequences/chapters. This is what I mean by systems that are ‘there’. The devs wanted to incorporate them more into the game, but didn’t. Even though ideas that clash are more interesting than one and done deals. 

The same applies to sailing missions. There’s a list of them you can do, but the story requires you to do it twice. On one hand I appreciate seeing the blueprints that would become naval combat in Black Flag, but it feels ‘there’. Origins had sailing sections, but they served as set pieces. Show what one of the support characters was doing to aid in the grand plot. Assassin’s Creed 3 has this, but then teases saying, “You can do more but it doesn’t do much.” What I’m rambling about are these ideas, but how is playing AC3? Surely the main story missions are fun enough right? Well honestly they fluctuate between being good and annoying. I don’t think there’s a single mission in Assassin’s Creed 3 that made me say, “Well that was impressive.” I believe sequence seven is where I almost quit. First you help Paul Revere spread news that the British are coming. Taking his piss poor directions on what house to go to. Then you gotta command three different groups of soldiers to fire at the crowd, and you do this by walking between them on horseback instead of turning the camera and pressing a button. Then set off explosives on boats. Then dart through a battlefield with little way of telling when enemies will fire.

I don’t think a lot of the villains or side characters are as interesting as the other games. I’m sure a history nerd out there is losing their mind being able to serve George Washington, Sam Adams, and Paul Revere but maybe the reason why I’m not impressed is because of how much I’ve had this history taught and re-blasted into my face. I’m not saying America isn’t an interesting setting for a video game. Far Cry 5 was set in America, and I really liked that one. Compared to a lot of the other worlds in this series this is by far the least interesting to me. The game is divided into four maps. Two of them are in the wilderness and the other two are big cities. I cannot tell you the difference between Boston, New York, and the two wilderness maps. I adored how the cities back in Assassin’s Creed 2 had their own stories. In some way the cities were characters. You’d navigate each one differently, they had different tones, and you can see the differences. The map in Assassin’s Creed 3 is not just repetitive, but you can see when they copy and pasted stuff at times. Like how some of the tall synchronization points are trees, which is cool until you realize all of these trees are structurally the same.

I just did not have an overall fun time with Assassin’s Creed 3. Not every game needs to be fun, but it’s depressing seeing how quickly a series’ quality can dip within one entry. Which brings us onto one of the points I really want to highlight. The opening hours, and how much a prolonged slow f*cking burn it is. Earlier when I was explaining the premise I summed the Haytham part in under three sentences. Then I explained Connor’s start, as he is the main protag of this game. It’s a shame the game spends the first three sequences with Haytham rather than make it info you’d slowly figure out without. It’s cool that the game reveals Haytham is an assassin who defected into the Templar Order. A twist for a series about people who are wronged, and join the side of the assassins to do the right thing. Then the game does that afterward. With the dude who is on the front cover on this game’s boxart! Now there is an argument to be made on, “This game needed to tutorialize stuff, so that’s why this slow burn intro was made. To get you into this stuff.” Okay, but consider this: You could’ve achieved the exact same results with Connor! The section opens up with him playing hide and seek. So you teach them basic movement and how stealth works. You have a section where you scale tree branches. That teaches them parkour and how the world has verticality then when used right can benefit the player. Heck, during hunting you teach them some encounters cannot be handled through a bear attack. Teaching you to run from fights and hop into hiding.

Then when you meet Achilles you’re attacked by mercenaries. Teaching you basic combat. You could’ve done this and not have to waste three to four hours with Haytham. Heck, make the stuff with Haytham info you learn through interacting with him or from others. The other games were not afraid of giving glimpses of past events in between what was happening. Origins reveals to you Bayek’s tragic past. How his son was murdered from failing to protect him. The game does this while Bayek journeys back after being sent away. Grabbing his belongings together to enact his revenge. Black Flag opens with a ship battle and Edward’s fight with Wallpole. Dropping us scenes of his past marriage, divorce, and endless struggle to prove he’s right. The intro is so bad in Assassin’s Creed 3 and I can’t believe how much it affected pacing. In between writing this I started up AC: Syndicate and I liked how that game didn’t waste it’s intro trying to explain who the Frye Twins are and why you should care. Just tosses you in to have fun.

I hate how AC3 handled the intro like this. In some way I even find it disrespectful for a game whose main selling point was the native american protagonist. It sucks, because Connor’s story is the only reason I kept playing. Massive spoilers for the story, but I really liked what they tried to say with this game. Assassin’s Creed 3 had one of the boldest messages I’ve seen in this series, and while I can’t see everyone connecting to it, the people it speaks for is why I think it’s bold. Connor, a racial minority, is forced to watch a large portion of his village and mother be burned to ash. Unable to stop it, because of what little the tribe has to defend themselves. He then spends the rest of his training so he may defend his people. Participating in the American Revolution & fighting for freedom. Not just freedom for his people, but freedom for everybody. So no one has to experience the tragedy and trauma he had to go through. He assists in the fight, but when he meets Haytham he’s made aware that despite his good efforts it’s not enough to protect natives. George Washington, one of his allies, was responsible for the killings that occurred & planned to continue driving indigenous people out from their territory. No matter what Coonor did, his people are still being looked down upon.

The game doesn’t end with Connor’s tribe being saved. No, it ends with Connor coming home to find his tribe gone. Vanished after having been harassed and bullied enough whether it be by the British or Americans. Connor is left frustrated and alone. Left to contemplate his choices & all he fought for. Yet, he continues to fight even though there’s nothing left. He carves his American name into a tombstone. The name which he adopted so that the majority populace would accept him. He stands with his culture, beliefs, and history because even though he’s on a losing side he knows it’s better to do that than fall in line. Than to erase the past and all who came before thee. Assassin’s Creed 3 is a game about discrimination. It is about the time spent fighting when all seems hopeless. It’s the one redeeming quality of this game, and why I find it hard to hate AC3 even though I wouldn’t recommend it over the other entries I’ve played. Overall this game is ok. The game has great writing, but it’s tied to frustrating and poorly executed gameplay. It’s the best seven or so out of ten video games I’ve played in a while. Not great, but the passion and drive to achieve said greatness is there. Some players think this game is underrated or misunderstood. I can kinda see what they’re trying to defend. If you love Assassin’s Creed 3 then that’s great! You were able to appreciate aspects I wasn’t able to, or interpret them under a better light. I just wish I could too. In the end I am going to give Assassin’s Creed 3 a 7.5/10 for being alright.

7.5/10, Alright