Assassin’s Creed 3 Is a Classic Case of Not Realizing What We Had

by

It’s safe to say that I’ve been around long enough to witness the full cycle of opinions on Assassin’s Creed 3, and it’s been one hell of a ride.

A decade ago, I would have passionately criticized this game, considering it one of Ubisoft’s weakest entries in their beloved franchise. But now, to my surprise and delight, I find myself among many fans who are showering it with praise! It’s incredible to see how perspectives can change over time.

I’ve rephrased your sentence:

Initially, I witnessed everyone taking stock of it, and I am still present, observing as people begin to understand what we had anticipated all along. In retrospect, there were numerous criticisms: the narrative moved too slowly, the main character was perceived as dull, there were too many technical glitches, and the setting lacked the vibrancy of the bustling cities in previous versions.

But over time, as the AC formula evolved (or, depending on who you ask, lost its way), AC3 started looking less like a misstep and more like an underrated classic. AC3 had the difficult task of following the Ezio Trilogy, widely considered the golden age of the franchise.

Ezio Auditore was the face of AC, a charismatic, smooth-talking master assassin who carried three entire games on his back. Meanwhile, Connor Kenway was a stark contrast with his stoic and duty-driven personality. Compared to Ezio, he felt stiff and emotionless, but that was only if you weren’t paying attention. Players found it hard to connect with him and expected Ezio, not a character with a different past.

The game’s structure didn’t do him any favors either. The intro was long. I played as Haytham Kenway for hours before I even got to Connor, and by the time players finally became an Assassin, some players had already lost interest. The pacing dragged, and the mission design relied too much on tailing sequences and eavesdropping.

The slow start left those of us eager to don the Assassin robes feeling frustrated. The world was historically rich but lacked the verticality of Italy and the swashbuckling freedom of the Caribbean, making it feel less grand than what came before.

Technical issues didn’t help either. AC3 was one of the most ambitious games Ubisoft had ever created, but that ambition came at a cost. If you played AC3 at launch, you probably also have a horror story about missions breaking, characters glitching through the map, or your save file deciding to self-destruct. Ubisoft’s ambitions bumped into hardware limits, and for many, that first impression didn’t fade.

Can’t believe I’m saying this, but it seems like folks are just now figuring out that Assassin’s Creed 3 wasn’t half bad, eh?

It’s partly nostalgia, but even more so, how AC evolved. As AC turned into a huge open-world RPG with games like Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla focusing on role-playing and grinding, players started missing the classic stealth-action gameplay. The strengths of AC3 were drowned out by its flaws when it came out. But in retrospect, those strengths were what set it apart.

The biggest misconception about Connor is that he was “boring.” In reality, he was one of the most skillfully written assassins the series has ever had. Unlike Ezio, who had charm, or Altair, who had an air of mystery, he was a serious, conflicted character who never truly fit in anywhere. He was torn between two worlds and constantly used by people who claimed to have his best interests at heart. He stood for justice, yet the revolution he fought for failed to fulfill its promises.

People claim he had no personality, but that’s only if you skip the Homestead missions, which are easily one of the best side questlines in the series. The side content was ahead of its time and foreshadowed the base-building mechanics that would become more common in later games. If anything, the problem wasn’t that Connor had no personality—it was that most players never got to see his full depth.

For a series built on the idea of a war between Assassins and Templars, AC3 was the first game to make that war feel morally gray. Haytham Kenway (Connor’s father) was a Templar who genuinely believed his way was the best path to order and peace. His ideological clashes with Connor were a debate over what freedom really meant. Their rooftop conversation in New York is still hands down one of the most thought-provoking moments in the series (at least for me).

Some people contend that the parkour in Assassin’s Creed III wasn’t as impressive, and I can understand their perspective. But if you play it now, you might appreciate how fluid and substantial its movements feel. However, some veteran players found issue with this game’s approach to parkour since it streamlined the experience, making it less about mastery. In contrast, Assassin’s Creed II and Brotherhood required a high level of precision in climbing and freerunning. AC3 introduced an automatic navigation system that simplified traversal, taking away from the skill-based aspect.

The combat was visceral, with animations that made every counter-kill feel satisfying. His fighting style (inspired by his Mohawk heritage) was aggressive and distinct. But tree parkour and tree-running made traversal feel natural, even in the vast American frontier. And although the cities weren’t as vertical as Florence or Rome, they felt alive in a way that later games struggled to match.

At the time, AC3 was seen as a disappointment because people wanted it to be Ezio’s Grand Finale Part 4. It was a bold step forward, and maybe that’s why it took people this long to appreciate it fully.

If released today, AC3 might still encounter similar criticisms, but it’s clear that AC3 was a game ahead of its time, given the significant changes that the Assassin’s Creed series has undergone throughout the years.

And now, over a decade later, people are finally starting to see it for what it was: an AC game that deserved better.

Read More

2025-03-18 07:47