I was eagerly awaiting Assassin’s Creed II. Then I played it and came away completely unimpressed with what seemed to be a step backwards in the franchise.
Don’t get me wrong; the gameplay was more fluid, responsive, and satisfying. But the story felt like it was ripped straight out of Grand Theft Auto. What happened to the recon work I did from the first game and why was it replaced with cut scenes before every mission? Why did a game with such an open sandbox to explore become extremely linear? Why was Ezio so annoying?
Assassin’s Creed III is the next numbered entry since the second game debuted in 2009. Brotherhood and Revelations followed, but did not change the numeral. It looks like Ubisoft is changing the number when the character changes. That’s a three year gap between numbered entries, one that’s been filled with the hype of exploring the American Revolution, trading in locales in Europe for the open plains and colonies of the New World. Oh, and hopefully forgoing all of that alien nonsense, but that’s not likely going to be the case.
Here’s what we know about ACIII:
- We’re introduced to a new hero, Connor, who appears to be the ultimate assassin. Connor is a Native American ready to explore New York, Boston, and the colonial fields of the late 1700s. And he uses tomahawks.
- Historical figures we’ll run into include George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, William Prescott, and several others. We doubt Mel Gibson’s character from The Patriot will make an appearance, but one can hope, right?
- Other than trailers, we have not seen any gameplay.
It’s that last part that scares me. Again, Assassin’s Creed II looked really, really good until I played it. After that, I was very disappointed; it wasn’t the same formula that made me fall in love with the original. One can hope that the final entry in the series (Desmond’s story is supposed to end here) will find a perfect marriage of the best parts of the first and second games, but until then I’ll be holding my anticipation in check.