Source
r/assassinscreed•
Keysss

I decided to play AC3, to make me appreciate AC IV a bit more.

It's done the complete opposite - I think there are so many things missing black flag. Worth noting I'm playing black flag on PS4 and AC3 on 360.

  1. The tree climbing in black flag is full on retarded and glitchy. It's so fluent in AC3. How have they gone backwards like this?

  2. The blood on Connor's robes after he's finished a fight - awesome.

  3. Far better weapons in AC3 (Tomahawk, heavy weapons, cool swords)

  4. When you press X whilst wielding a weapon, Connor does some cool moves whereas Edward just shrugs his shoulders. It's like they've purposely tried to make Edward kind of lame in that respect.

  5. I generally prefer the Map of AC3 - Mainly personal preference I guess. I was hoping the Jungles would be explorable like the Frontier was in AC3, though - with similar tree navigation etc. This didn't happen.

  6. I don't like Edward's animations when moving, running, and fighting.

  7. Combat system in AC3 is much more fulfilling. Connor is more brutal, and I like how often other guards attack you half way through attacking another guard, and how fluent this used to be. In AC4, it happens far less and for some reason is more annoying than exciting.

  8. I've only had two duel kills throughout the entire 70 hours of playing Black Flag. Far more common in AC3.

  9. I miss rock climbing. Although, it's understandable as Edward grew up in flat terrain - he's not going to have the same skills as Connor.

  10. I miss notoriety.

  11. Some aspects of the crafting and hunting system were cool in AC3. Like what weapon/method you choose to hunt with affects the quality of the hunting materials you get.

  12. I think the free running is more fluent in AC3.

  13. The motion blur on black flag is retarded. It takes away from the game every time I notice it. Does this bug anyone else?

Of course these are all my opinion, but I'm sure at least a few people can agree with some of these points.

I don't understand how Ubisoft have gone backwards in so many ways with this game, whilst improving on a ton of other aspects.

For the record, things I think black flag improved on are:

  1. Variety of wildlife.
  2. Map is pretty f'in huge.
  3. Naval combat - but I'm not crazy for it either way, so it's not so noticeable to me.
  4. Storyline - I felt that they spent so long working with the new engine, making the amazing map and adding in the small details on Connor (so basically everything visual), that they realised they were short on time for the story in AC3.. so it was rushed. AC4 has a much better storyline.
  5. How you change weapons - that really annoyed me in AC3.
  6. The free aiming is pretty cool.
  7. A lot of stuff to do.

Also worth noting I didn't build hype for either of these games. I never watched a single video of AC3 - just picked it up 1 week before getting my ps4 and AC4. I watched 2 ubisoft official videos of AC4 before buying.

Thoughts?

Posted Dec 11, 2013, 12:05 AM UTC · edited

126119
Chizek•

Of course these are all my opinion...

It was great that you pointed that out. I think most of these aren't a step backwards like you have said, but rather just a difference in preference.

I got into the series initially because of the "Assassin" in AC. I didn't feel compelled at all to explore in AC3. All the crafting and hunting, I ignored. Tbh, I only did the main missions. That was it. The Frontier, for me, felt like just another annoyance for traveling. I'm not the wildlife exploration type. I like architecture. BUILDINGS! CLIMBING BUILDINGS. They didn't have much of that in AC3.

I miss notoriety.

I hate notoriety. It might subtract from the realism of the game, but that's not important. It's extremely annoying when you enjoy combat. It's an disincentive.

I don't understand how Ubisoft have gone backwards in so many ways with this game,

My point is that many examples you bring up are personal preference. I wouldn't say that Ubisoft has taken a step back exactly. I know I have enjoyed Black Flag over AC3.

And of course you right about glitches and motion blur (luckily PC can turn motion blur off).

51
Alexander_Hamilton_•

I don't think notoriety is really that realistic. I mean you rip down a couple of posters in the entire city and suddenly no one knows who your are anymore. Do they just suddenly forget? I like how in 4 they get rid of this pointless system (except in sea combat which is fine).

20
TheOriginalDovahkiin•

Don't forget this is the animus. They could be speeding it up and simulating you going around and tearing down all the wanted posters.

19
maltador001•

Everything that's unrealistic in AC games is always blamed on the animus XD

8
defiant_lion•

It's not "blamed" on, it's a legitimate reason that you don't understand . The "assassin" has done certain things a billion times in his real life or just once. But thanks to the animus we can do what ever we want at anytime as long as the ancestor really did it ever. We also skip the boring parts of life , which is why you can pass 20 years in 4 hours of gameplay

7
Chizek•

well that's true, but just killing people and rampaging the street with no consequences is pretty unrealistic as well.

but tis' a pointless topic. These games aren't meant to be too realistic.

5
DrkHoax•

But fun mind you.... ;)

2
KeysssOP•

Yeah a lot of them are just preference. But I do feel that the free running/tree climbing, the press X with weapon thing, the choice of weapons, and possibly the combat system are all a step backwards - no matter how you look at it.

Regarding my last point, do you feel the same? As in, not inclined to get into fights because it's boring. The lack of double kills, and the fact that when a second guard does attack you mid-motion (which is less frequent than AC3), it's just annoying. In AC3 I found it exciting, because so much was going on and it was smooth.

10
Chizek•

I've only played a few hours into AC4, but I do feel that the free running isn't as smooth.

Though the combat feels the same, but dual swords... I love them... visually anyways. I haven't really had trouble with mid-animation attacks though.

and actually I only encountered one double execute (non-stealth) in AC3.

It's good to know the other people enjoy the other parts of AC. I just love the freerunning/stabby aspect of every AC so much, less horseriding is better for me.

3
[deleted]•

When you sneak around you tend to get more dual kills by jumping on two guards. The combat, in my opinion, is better because they added the other sword.

0
BogusSoup•

I think he means double counters, not double kills/assassinations

4
[deleted]•

This was my understanding as well. I've only had one or two times and I'm 80% finished where I've had the cutscene for multi-counter in a fight. I enjoy taking on hordes of enemies at a time and I find that it actually is kind of boring to battle now.

2
sshastings114•

No the story was crap because they had a different story lead and he was terrible. The guy who wrote revelations returned for AC:IV and thank the lord for it.

-3
NyoZa360•

I personally think AC3 and AC4 are shit compared to the Ezio trilogy. I finished rev a few days ago.

-2
Chizek•

Any particular reason?

I've only played ~5 hours of AC:BF.

We watched Ezio grow and mature, so it isn't surprising we all cherish Ezio's trilogy.

Ezio was concerned about the Creed and the Assassins as a whole, while in AC3 and AC4, the main characters seem to rush for bloodshed and money. Connor's ignorance... is bothersome...

2
NyoZa360•

The story lacks substance and such, but it does have a good cinematic aspect going for it. The gameplay is absolute shite. And the enviroments are dumbed down too much wth nothing much new and interesting.

-1
edwardkenwayyargh•

While all are valid points, i still think black flag whips AC3's ass overall.

30
KeysssOP•

I have to make myself play Black Flag... I didn't leave AC3 for like 3 days straight haha.

I will agree black flag is a theoretically better game, by far. I guess it was just my love for bows, and Native America that made me forgive its flaws.

6
clonesguy•

Theoretically a better game?

-2
KeysssOP•

More enjoyable things to do, way more polished, bigger.

I think most of my concerns are the character and environment, really.

I do think AC3 was incredibly ambitious, though - it was a massive step up from revelations in so many ways. Black flag has merely improved on the foundation that AC3 laid.

8
clonesguy•

That's good to hear. I enjoyed AC3 also, and wanted to get AC4 sometime this Christmas. The face that you were more honest about the game is settling as well. Seems like a lot of people have just been glorifying it. Can't wait to get it.

1
MafiaPenguin007•

I never understood the AC3 hate to the degree that it existed. I miss Connor's brutality, too. He was so powerfully built. Throwing the bigger axes around the way he did was absolutely killer.

28
AmericanCobraConnor is my favorite•

I just miss Connor, now that Ubisoft has admitted he won't be returning I don't even know how to feel. He's my favorite Assassin hands down.

6
MafiaPenguin007•

Did they confirm that?? :(

I was holding out hope for a Brotherhood-style sequel set during the French Revolution with an older, wiser Connor.

2
spencerdrake999•

It seems that Ubisoft is putting out a lot of one-offs recently... I hope this doesn't continue.

1
war3ag13•

Yeah, I honestly think the two games are pretty much equal.

2
justanormalguy01•

I haven't played Black Flag yet but you answered one of the questions I've had. The blood on Connors robe is bad ass and adds to the brutality of the game.

11
kminator•

AC4 is imo a rich and textured game with so many ways to play. The quick, virtually seamless transitions between naval combat and one-on-one swordplay and jungle/island/town exploring is very immersive and makes me want to play more. 3 was also great and had some really unique high points. The hunting in 3 is arguably more interesting, but the whaling elements probably make up for it.

3
hoffy87•

that was a big reason why I hated 3. SO MANY LOADING SCREENS! fast travel from one side of frontier to another to go to boston which requires another loading screen.

I loved the transition from ship to land and vice versa. And the transition from ship to ship in combat. It really feels piraty.

2
clickfailEDEN•

I think the biggest reason is time. Ubisoft had the resources to make a huge world, but not enough to polish the tree climbing, make each cliff climbable, and make new animations.

As for the combat, I don't know why they all but got rid of dual counters. Bummer.

11
KeysssOP•

They did make new animations. That's the problem - Connor's were better.

Why couldn't they just (overly simplified statement coming) copy and paste the tree climbing from AC3?

5
Gromek7•

With AC3 I think that there was a much larger focus on animation than in 4. In the prerelease trailers and "making of" videos, they talked a lot with the animation director Jonathan Cooper about Connors animations. I'm not sure if he was even involved with 4 since I never saw any mention of him. It seems to me that with 3, there was a large focus on Conner in terms of his visuals and movement, which you pointed out, and in 4 the focus was mainly on the world map and naval aspects.

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
falanor•

Why couldn't they just (overly simplified statement coming) copy and paste the tree climbing from AC3?

Probably because Edward is a pirate. He rocks at ship board combat. Swinging through the beams like Erol Flynn.

2
KeysssOP•

The tree climbing is there, so we can't put it down to his abilities. It's just the climbing itself is real glitchy. The physics of moving between two V shaped areas is the worst aspect.

2
drwuzer•

I found the tree climbing in AC 3 to be excessive and annoying. I play on PC so maybe it's different but there were several sync locations at the tops of trees that took me a good 20 minutes to climb. Annoyed the hell out of me.

1
acondie13•

Also building it for so many platforms. Ps3, ps4, 360, xbone, pc, Wii u. That's double the platforms most games release on.

2
MinusTheFire•

I'm also a much bigger fan of AC3 than I am of 4.

Did anyone else notice how wonky the combat was in Black Flag, from a targeting and control aspect? In AC3, if I picked a target and attacked, or if that target picked me and I countered, I knew that I was about to kill the living shit out of that target.

In AC4, I could start attacking someone, or even counter someone, and 9 times out of 10 Edward would slash back at them one or two times before switching to another enemy (leaving the original one perfectly healthy and able to attack me again).

This was infinitely more frustrating when boarding ships for me, as the camera is already zoomed in closer during combat in AC4 (which they did to up the difficulty) so I'm getting attacked left and right without being able to see what's coming, then I can't even manage to kill the person I intended to.

This did not happen in AC3, not for me anyways. If I swung my tomahawk at someone, I knew that person was going down. Sure, it might've taken 3 or 4 swings, but Connor never once switched targets on me without me explicitly telling him to.

11
GalakFyarrAssassin Archéologue•

+1 on the targeting.

1
HamsterChuckerAll we need is that the world be as it is•

#11: I air-assassinated and chased after animals for way too long before I realized shooting them made no difference.

10
hoffy87•

i liked it. I hated hunting in AC3. So much easier to collect skins.

2
JHawkInc•

My list of reasons might be different, but I definitely think AC:III is a better game. The parts I enjoyed more in AC:IV:BF are things I would strip out and put in new pirate game, and when you get right down to it, the things I enjoyed most in the series (mainly the Assassins and present day story) were either absent or so scarce they felt shoehorned in.

Being a pirate is fun, but none of that tops wrestling a bear, sprinting through the treetops, and dropping on a convoy to brutally slaughter my opponents with a wide array of weapons.

9
KeysssOP•

Being a pirate is fun, but none of that tops wrestling a bear, sprinting through the treetops, and dropping on a convoy to brutally slaughter my opponents with a wide array of weapons.

Agreed.

5
sshastings114•

Wrestling sharks and eels?

2
funkmasta98•

I don't know what game you're playing, but all I did when I met sharks and eels was bleed a lot.

11
SnowGN•

Well, I personally reject your opinion. Here's why.

  • I hated Connor's character. As in, actually hated him. I felt like he was nothing but an ignorant brute meddling in affairs beyond his ability or desire to understand. As far as I was concerned, I was playing as the antagonist, but he wasn't even worthy of respect. I don't care. At all. What people have to say to defend his character. I swore to never touch AC3 again after beating the game once. That's how much I despised Connor's character. I shouldn't get that angry at the character I'm playing as, since it poisons my gaming experience in general. I didn't even hate Kratos in God of War 3 as much as I did Connor, he was that willfully ignorant/murderous/awful.

  • Treetop running was a nifty addition, but I thought that AC4 did it better, and it's not the sort of thing you remember the game in general for.

  • Wresting a bear? You mean your quicktime event that lasts for a few seconds? This tops naval combat? Get real man.

  • The foot combat in the Assassins Creed games has always been awful, there's not much to enjoy in something so profoundly un-challenging. The AC characters have always been silly overpowered, and enemy variety has always been so, so weak. The games shine in other ways.

3
Krystie•

It's the 2edgy4me / emo character types that REALLY grind my gears especially when they don't have other redeeming qualities. The entirety of Connor's character is him being angsty. Every time he left the mentor's house it felt like "NO MOM NOT AGAIN".

He cannot understand that people don't have his tribe's interests at heart, and yet he keeps doing errands for these people. And then whinges about it, over and over again.

I don't get how people see Connor as badass or are impressed by his "physicality" when he's a massive douchenozzle in every narrative perspective and a whiny cold emo emotionless prat.

There are major issues with the voice acting and it feels completely sterile - possibly the pool of actors was limited since they needed people that could speak in native american languages.

I thought the setting could have been interesting, but the way they did it ruined parkour. For me personally just having independance america themes or having a native american feel to it isn't instantly appealing by itself - at least nowhere near how being a pirate is instantly appealing.

Wresting a bear? You mean your quicktime event that lasts for a few seconds? This tops naval combat? Get real man

Yeah I don't see how people find QTE's to be fun. I thought the shitty wolf QTEs stopped me from doing any of the frontier bullshit or even exploring it.

4
SnowGN•

I have nothing against QTEs. They're a great compromise between cutscenes and normal gameplay, indeed, I don't see how anything else can fill that gap. Some QTEs are done really well. Some aren't. That's really all I can say on the matter.

Agreed on your points regarding Connor.

1
Mardarkin•

Thinking about the sudden increase in QTE hunting events with the arrival of Assassin's Creed 3 fills me with rage. You could implement a half dozen systems better than 'Press B and a Random Button'. They could have animated an actual combat system like the standard one, where pressing 'Attack' attacks and you can Counter into a series of kill/break defense/tool uses, with different uses for each animal type, mirroring the basics of human vs human combat, rather than an entirely unrelated system of Simon Says button bashing. It was my least favourite part of and, in my opinion, one of the biggest failures of AC3. It's clear they're capable of building a semi-decent combat system: why am I suddenly standing still waiting for 5 wolves to individually run at me to their identical deaths?

1
Krystie•

I always failed the wolf QTEs (even the one in the campaign), and for me the frontier was a qte nightmare with the roaming wolves.

1
Eslader•

I got AC4 as a freebie with my new video card. I'd never played or even looked at an AC game before. Played that and beat it in less than 2 weeks (and am planning on playing through again, slower), and bought AC3 to see what that was like.

I absolutely loved AC4 and the pirate theme. My SO was ready to kill me because I kept playing the sea shantys at full volume.

I'm also loving AC3. I agree with you about Connor (I'm about 50% of the way through, so I don't know how it ends yet, but thus far, Connor is a reactionary idiot who needs to be jailed until he grows up). I'm not quite as angry as you are, but I would have preferred if the devs hadn't made Connor fit the "ignorant savage" stereotype that most of the white NPC's in the game harbor.

I think AC4's treetop running is better when there's a route, but I'm finding a lot more opportunities to run in the treetops in AC3.

I hate QTEs of all kinds, so getting attacked by animals just pisses me off. I do everything I can to kill the animal with an air assassination or the bow before it charges.

Foot combat irritates me not only because of it's lack of challenge, but because its only challenge is keeping your target in a crowd long enough to kill him before you're forced to focus on some other target.

And I must be the only person who's really enjoying the frontier in AC3. I've spent a LOT of time just wandering the woods, often not even running. I tend to try to get into the character's head, and I suspect that the real Connor, who's not burdened by clumsy adherence to conspiracy plots, would spend a lot of time walking around the woods hunting and exploring. The extensive land exploration is something I felt was sorely missing in 4 - almost everything on land that isn't a city is narrow paths through a jungle that you can't deviate from. I much prefer the free-form wandering in the east coast woods.

1
Lam0rak•

You should realize that Edward isn't really an assassin for what feels like at least 75% of the game. He's just working towards setting himself up for life.

1
JHawkInc•

I know (it's one of those things I would list as "Why AC:III is better"; after all the complaining of playing as Haytham and then spending forever as a youth with Connor before becoming an Assassin, he actually becomes an Assassin earlier in his game than Edward does...).

1
Aubrile•

Gosh the combat has annoyed me so much in black flag... It's pretty much my only frustration with this game. Its so clunky, and when your chain killing, it takes Edward FOREVER to finish one kill. I like the flashiness of the animation, but when there are other soldiers who keep attacking you at the same time, it takes so long to get through a battle. Keep the Fanciness for the last kill. Which brings me to countering. Pressing B or O to counter has always been the way you counter. But this time around its so unresponsive! In the other games countering was so fluid, especially in brotherhood and 3. Yet now whenever I try to counter it doesn't happen easily or fluidly. As a matter of fact, I end up missing the prompt most of the time, even when I press it repeatedly enough not to miss. At first I thought I was off my game. But no. I went through and played the others and found nothing was wrong with my ability to counter the fuck outta those bastards. Yet when I play black flag it's so frustrating when I'm trying to chain together some nice kills streaks.i don't know. It seem like they changed something that didn't need to be changed. Hopefully they fix it for the next game. Rant over.

8
bokuwahmz•

It gives you less time to counter now, when I realised that it was no problem getting them 90% of the time. Just because you can't counter 100% it doesn't mean it's a crap system, it's just a little bit more difficult.

Now not directed at you personally, but remember when games were difficult? I'm starting to forget. The only difficult thing in this game was taking down a couple of the Legendary ships. Sad culture of rage quit has encouraged developers to make games easier or more forgiving.

4
Aubrile•

Yea, I understand that it shouldn't be easier to do things like that, it's just when the character takes ages to finish a kill then you shouldn't punish the player for not syncing up your combat system. Normally you should be able to finish a kill before someone decided to attack you. I know it's not realistic but this is a game of fiction to be fair. It's not the easiness of countering that I miss. I don't know. There's something off about he combat system in this one. I can't really describe it I guess lol. And yea I'm all for challenges in games. You don't really see that anymore. I didn't really see the clunkiness of the combat system as a challenge to overcome in this one though, seeing as how Edward starts and ends with the same amount of skill anyways.

1
Luzern_•

How is the tree climbing retarded and glitchy? I never had a problem with it. What annoyed me was when you'd be trying to run through an alleyway and then Edward just tries to run up a wall instead.

6
KeysssOP•

It's all areas of climbing that are V shaped - not just trees. Some in fences too, but it is mainly the trees. It looks so unnatural when he jumps between two 'Vs' and it stutters a lot of the time. I didn't think much of it to start with - it was only when I went back on AC3 I realised the difference.

1
samuraislider•

Which console are you playing on? I don't notice any stuttering on PS4.

1
Krystie•

Yeah I don't understand it either - conversely I had issues climbing up to the top of tree synch points in AC3 and thought the parkour in that game was horrible. Running up walls by mistake in AC3 felt a lot worse because they happened in the middle of timed chase missions and threw you back to a horribly placed checkpoint - like the shittastic charless lee chase.

1
whacafan•

Of course, and it's because they push these games out so quick that they can't incorporate the issues people have had. There are like 5 Assassin's games in development at one time and after III came out IV had already been in development for like 2 years, thus solidifying what was already wrong with III. That's why it's nice when games like Grand Theft Auto TAKE TIME TO DEVELOP NEW GAMES and learn from past mistakes.

5
bokuwahmz•

I agree somewhat but I'm also pleasantly surprised by the amount of polish each game has considering it's yearly release schedule. I would actually rather play a new instalment of this quality every year than wait 2 years or more.

4
whacafan•

The last time an Assassin's game had plenty of time to learn from mistakes was ACII and look how that turned out. It made AC1 look like a tech demo, which is what a good sequel should do.

1
bokuwahmz•

Sure but they've laid down a lot of groundwork since then and have a massive team at their disposal. In an interview they said AC4 was 2 and a half years in the making.

1
whacafan•

Exactly my point, which means it was 1 and 1/2 years in the making after III came out, which is pretty far into development on a game that already has the engine and mostly everything there for you. I guarantee you that if they sat down after a game was released and spent 3 years making the next game from the ground up then we'd be seeing less AC games and a hell of a lot more quality. These games kind of trick us into thinking they are very long by throwing a crapload of crap to collect everywhere. What is really the difference in collecting a treasure chest or an animus fragment? At least the shanty's move. What I'd like to see is less collectibles but make them more meaningful. I don't like that there are treasure chests just chilling around. With all these poor people, why not just open the multitude of chests? They could really make a next gen assassin's creed if they would just WAIT a little bit. AC6 is already in development and AC7 is most likely already in development a bit. AC6 will fix what was wrong with III. AC7 will fix what was wrong with IV but they aren't going to be bringing huge improvements... well actually I hope by then there's an actual next gen version and not a port.

2
GalakFyarrAssassin Archéologue•
  1. I have experienced no such glitchiness, at least not more or less than AC3's.
  2. I don't see how that makes one game better than the other. More gore ≠ better game.
  3. Agreed. Combat and variety in combat is the sole thing I think AC4 has regressed on.
  4. Tiny nitpick, if you ask me, but I'm inclined to agree it's a bit silly. Then again, what kind of trick could one do with two swords?
  5. I don't think we can compare the two maps, In 3, there was a big non-explorable map of the US, with 3 places we could go. In 4, there's ONE HUGE map, where ALL the places where you can go to are in.
  6. A lot of his moves are identical or very similar to Connor's when fighting with swords. As for moving, I thought he sprinted far more realistically than Connor, and all the other climbing moves are identical to 3. I don't see how you not liking his moves is somehow something that's "missing" in the game, though.
  7. We've been over this, I agree.
  8. More combat?
  9. There's not a lot of rocks around which you might think "there's definitely some reason to climb these" I find...
  10. You do? After the mess AC3 made of it, where just running by certain buildings while not doing ANYTHING wrong suddenly made every soldier aware of where you were, and angry at you for running? Or the fact that when you're at 3 stars, you can't put a foot in front of the other or you're already bumping into another 5 jaegers? Maybe getting rid of it was a bit much, I think they should've kept the same system as in the Ezio games where the more known you are guards will just jump you immediately instead of being suspicious, but the Jaegers, although fun to fight (at first), broke it.
  11. Crafting was never cool in AC3. It was a tedious job to do in a cumbersome UI. As for the hunting, I guess they were limited to the gear Edward has (no bow for perfect kills). I do agree they could have made hunting a little more in-depth, although it fits that a native american would be more experienced with hunting and be more cautious as to how he kills his prey than a pirate.
  12. So you're repeating your point 1?
  13. I've turned it off immediately.

Overall, I fail to see how any of your points, aside from combat, are things AC4 is missing, as opposed to things you like less.

5
KeysssOP•

Yeah well, fuck me for wording that first sentence incorrectly on reddit, right?

On the subject, things missing are: variety of weapons, lack of traversable jungles which, lack of blood on armour, lack of cool movement when you press X (everyone wants to feel epic playing AC), lack of complex hunting system which we know already exists in AC3.

Also motion blur cannot be turned off on console.

These are the things that made AC3 a good game for me, and yes they are my opinion and I stated this in my post.. but the looks of it some of these points are 88 other peoples opinions too.

I apologise for the messy wording, I wasn't expecting my English to be critically assessed.

7
jrgray6•

I did the same thing, just last week. I really missed Connor's Tomahawk, it's by far my favorite weapon of any AC. Really the only place I don't agree with you is the story line, I got into ACIII much deeper in that respect.

Only thing I would add, is lack of side missions/ content in Black Flag. I finished the game 100% in about 2 weeks. It took me basically 2 months to do that on ACIII.

5
fdott•

Yea the tree climbing wasn't as good as AC3, also making the double kills less frequent just took out such a great aspect..Other than that I feel that most of the things you didn't like were more based on the character and the settings. Since Edward was a different man, so were his animations and fighting styles. He wasn't as brutal. Also the map had to be as similar to the real thing so that's why I feel there wasn't a lot of land exploring.

4
KeysssOP•

You're pretty much right. But I still think they could have made a better main character.

After playing AC3 for an hour or two and now playing black flag, I'm really starting to notice how glitchy the normal free running is. There's lots of choppy movements when running over objects. AC3 was perfectly fluent.

I recall reading about bad free running in AC3 though. Maybe they patched that and the people complaining had played the game before the patch?

3
The_Sassinator•

Nah, Edward's just more clunky than Connor, which is odd, given how big Connor is in comparison to him. Edward's the sort of a rough-and-tumble pub brawler, eager to take the opponent down quick and will resort to using dirty tricks. Connor, on the other hand, uses his size to just overpower his opponents, which Edward can't do. Functionally, I think Edward's supposed to be a synthesis of Haytham and Connor: he's not quite as brutal as Connor, though far more so than Haytham, nor is he as graceful as Haytham, though far more so than Connor.

What Edward lacks in the skills department, however, he makes up for in spades by just being a much better character than either his son or grandson. In comparison to him, both Connor and Haytham seem sort of static.

2
sshastings114•

I agree with this totally. Connor is the exact reason I hated ACIII. Hate his arc.

0
SnowGN•

Agreed.

2
Alexander_Hamilton_•

I think the tree climbing is part of his character as well. You wouldn't see a pirate jumping through trees. He learned all his free-running skills on masts which are far more predictable and straight than the trees Connor learned to free-run in. Plus Connor free-ran his entire life, Edward didn't start until he was older.

1
fdott•

That's true, but I was talking about the graphical part, it just looked choppy. Like it wasn't polished enough.

1
metalgamer•

I think what makes AC4 better than AC3, and in many, aspects more successful than any other as asscreed game is that your money is actual useful for something other than costumes or minuscule improvements in weapons.

The game makes me want to make money and pillage ships so I can improve the jackdaw or else I can't fight the big ships. There's a clear economy in the game that makes it feel so much more real.

4
bokuwahmz•

Making money is too easy though, I've made over 1m and have 550k spare with nothing else to buy.

2
GalakFyarrAssassin Archéologue•

do you have the companion app and did you use it to do Kenway's fleet?

I didnt install that app until I was 50% through the game, since it wasn't out for iPod Touch at the time. I was short on cash pretty regularly, and I felt like I did have to "work" to get reales to buy upgrades (not a complaint!).

I did the occasional Kenway's Fleet, but rarely because, well, who'd rather play that turn-based minigame instead of actually raiding ships.

But then, once I had the app, I just managed my fleet a lot more while I wasn't in-game.... and I have a ton of reales now.

2
bokuwahmz•

Yep I used the Companion App on my mobile, that's how I made so much money so quickly while not even in the main game. I wouldn't have done it if the fleet stuff wasn't fun though.

I would have liked better customisation options for my homebase, instead that felt really useless, I was not attached to it at all and none of the upgrades really helped me.

1
bananabelle•

I liked the money making aspect in AC4 than in the previous games because I feel that you actually worked for it. Remember when all you had to do was stand around for 20 minutes and you'd make some money? I threw money around like candy.

Now I raid ships for money. So much more fun.

1
bokuwahmz•

Using the Companion App on my mobile I was making about 50k a day while not even in the game lol. I wouldn't have done it if the fleet mini-game wasn't fun though.

1
HolyMackenzie•

I certainly don't miss notoriety.

4
samuraislider•

I skipped AC3, played and finished AC4, and then went back to try AC3. I was like WTF is this shit?

1
Jessie246Commit unjustice in this world, and I will send you to the next.•

Ive gone back to ac3 too. I like ac4 but I prefer the open frontier in ac3. I love winter in that game too. For me, if I want to sail and do pirate things, i play ac4. If i want to hunt and freeroam in a huge map i will play ac3. I also like the setting in ac3 better( being a bad ass aboriginal in revolutionary america even though im canadian).Also I fuckin love the winter setting in ac3!

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Freerun_and_stuff•

Getting rid of the rock climbing pissed me off so much. I also hated that I couldn't explore every jungle that I saw. The way Ubisoft said it in the open world gameplay demo made it sound like you could.

3
pistonhonda•

Ubisoft has two development teams that alternate AC games in order to complete and ship a new title every year. I imagine the biggest reason ACIV has a different design flavor than ACIII is because it was made by a different team of people. See if next year's game is more to your liking.

Also, you didn't mention the best part of IV: sea shanties.

3
puzzler995•

I don't have IV yet, but my roommate does, and I hear those stupid shanties in my sleep...

3
GravityChanges•

I don't have IV yet, but my roommate does, and I hear those BEAUTIFUL shanties in my sleep AND DREAM WONDERFUL DREAMS...

FTFY

2
pjng•

I kind of agree. I think AC3 just got too big with all the mini-features like hunting and crafting, but I will always love the game, because the scenario is exactly what I like. I even liked Connor because of that.

3