1. The Scale
The American Revolution was a bold choice to set an Assassin's Creed game. It's a unique setting and an original era, but for 4 whole games we have witnessed the massive scale of monumental structures, and scaled some amazingly detailed, vertigo-inducing architecture. I literally spent weeks in Florence and Venice, and I doubt I saw everything there was to see, such was their immense detail. Traversing high walls, scaling impossibly tall towers, and navigating the seemingly infinite number of streets, alleyways and canals... it was truly daunting. By comparison, New York and Boston, with their wide streets, repetitive alleyways and brick houses are a huge step down in scale, spectacle and (by default) gameplay. It just doesn't come close to the splendour and majesty of Venice's giant monuments. The frontier at least has some scale to it, with cliff faces that when climbed begin to feel close to the epicness to the tall structures in a Florence or a Venice. I still feel that Ubisoft chose the perfect era and the perfect city in Venice to really showcase the power of the game engine and the now-classic climning mechanics the series is known for. AC 3 just isn't in the same league here.
Final Thoughts
For me it all comes down to quantity vs quality. Assassin's Creed had neither of these things. It was kind of a mess of interesting ideas backed by shoddy execution - but - it did have a game engine that was undeniably special. Assassin's Creed 2 however, took that engine and made it sing, not only ushering in a wealth of awesome new tweaks and features - but the quality to match the quantity. Unfortunately, AC3 - at least for this fan - seemed to forget a lot of what the essence of this series was all about. The cracks are starting to show again, and if Ubisoft are not careful the games will begin to buckle under their own weight from cramming. It's a shame to see the idea of being an assassin becoming less of a focus and then see several features from the other games squeezed into what was already a large game. In some cases, it feels like Ubisoft forgot what an Assassins' Creed game was all about, and got busy making the biggest possible game they could - not the most consistent or elegant one. Building a community is one thing, but when it comes at the expense of core gameplay? Are we assassins or land tycoons? AC2 expanded and tweaked the very best ideas of the franchise, and did so in a hugely engaging and entertaining way. We were given a new hero with depth and charm. New progression and customisation options. A story with a host of memorable characters. And quality missions (and side missions) that finally fulfilled the promise of the first game: to move, think and kill as the ultimate assassin from another time. Having said all this, Assassin's Creed 3 is still a hugely impressive and enjoyable game in it's own right, and many of the things above are minor annoyances and though unfortunate, are hardly game breakers. What the game does well, it does very well. I'm sure we'll see Connor again, I just hope Ubisoft decide to let him (and by extension, us) have just a little more fun doing what we were trained to do in the next game with more scope, scale and polish than what we have here. Agree? Disagree? Did I miss anything? Let me know what you assassins think in the comments section below...