It seemed rather fitting to have not one, but two Assassin’s Creed games released so close to election season. This of course could have been interpreted as either a very clever marketing campaign or a haphazard rush to the finish line. Unfortunately for AC3, the latter rings true in many aspects of Ubisoft’s decisions made with the game, though it is not without its high points either.Well acquainted with demo gameplay footage, I anticipated that this would be a chance to re-invent the series after Brotherhood and Revelations were beginning to lose their appeal. But taking a stab at this sequel, it still felt like the developers were following their formula a bit too religiously. In a way, AC3 feels like a near but less refined carbon copy of AC2, appearing only to adopt some of the more annoying and near-useless aspects of its sequels (such as den defense from Brotherhood). All while completely abandoning its more interesting ones, particularly from Revelations (like bomb creation). While these were flawed, they still held a lot of potential.Set in mid-18th century America, you play as the half-Native American Connor, bent on battling the infamous Templars in the midst of the American War of Independence against the British. Or so I thought from what the trailers had told me. In fact you start off as his father, Haytham Kenway, a British noble, also assassin. I was surprised by this, and at first thrilled as I carried out my first assassination with stealthy acrobats through a royal theatre performance in London. It quickly lost its appeal however, when it transpired this wasn’t going to be short-lived, ending only with a barrage of tutorials on a ship and coastal town that were in no way helpful and felt more video and filler than actual gameplay. This served only as a warning for the rest of the game of constant fathering and cut-scenes.When I finally got to play as Connor I was sadly underwhelmed, though perhaps a bit unfairly. From the bland American accent reminiscent of Altair (though in this case plausible) to his constant unnecessary moodiness toward everyone he converses with, he lacks the charm and poise of former Ezio. In comparison he feels very one-dimensional, much like Desmond as one tries to find reason to be interested in these two characters at all. The story, while impressively and impeccably historically accurate as usual, is slow moving and hits numerous staccato actions points while at times failed to hit some key high-notes as well. The Boston Tea Party is a particular example, resulting in a mundane let-down as I was counter-intuitively requested to throw boxes off a ship rather than hold off the guards. On the other hand though, meeting the charismatic George Washington himself and the action on Bunker Hill was more than cinematic. All in all it was barely enough to make up for it in comparison. 
That said, Ubisoft have put substantial effort into its graphics and world design, making it a significantly improvement on the last. It is something that would almost make any historian or artist cry in near agonising bliss. A far throw away from the rooftops of Florence, forests occupy your path as you explore lush tree-tops and rugged cliff-faces. Sun rays pierce through leaves like delicate sewing needles and water effects are enough to drown most doubt of Ubisoft’s graphical design potential. The American cities of Boston and New York, while blander and tougher to traverse than their Italian and tree-scattered counterparts, are nonetheless impressive and a nice bonus. NPCs, despite their occasionally noticeable pop-ins, are also well blessed with more interactive reactions to environment.The free-running system is practically perfected at this stage. It also comes with an expense to the game however. You can’t explore the environments as thoroughly as much as you want to compare to previous games. This is such a shame as it forces you to constantly flit from objective-point to objective-point, punishing you severely if you step out of line (chases being of a particular annoyance in this regard). It holds back the experience from its full immersive potential, finding it hard to be engrossed at times over such mundane slip-ups.Outside of objectives, there are still a number of side-missions to perform and keep you occupied, some if not most better than the main quests. They range from collecting weapons to almanac pages, to taking out pesky Red-Coats to protecting vulnerable civilians. Hunting also makes an appearance but adds nothing drastically new; it’s just killing animals instead with button mashing and collecting hides to sell or craft weapons and armour. Combat is nothing altogether new here either, although with a slightly different but easily acquainted button lay-out. It’s still the old ‘wait-to-counter’ instant kill mantra, just this time with dual-wielded Tomahawks. It carries a much greater focus and feels significantly more streamlined compared to other entries though, with the ability to take out two targets in heated battle at once. With guns now more prominent than ever in this period of history, you do have to take them into account as well. I thought it a travesty Connor does not have Ezios trusty wrist gun as reloading takes forever for you to make actual use of them, opting for bow-and-arrows is often a better alternative for long-ranged exchanges.Multi-player bears a not dissimilar lack of changes from its previous entry, though this is in no way a bad thing. While not well advertised it is the better aspect of the game, providing exciting play-style modes old and new. This entry sees the addition of two new goodies, Domination (that sees your team of assassins take control of zones that earn you points) and Wolf Pack (where your team sets out to assassinate NPCs to earn points, rewarding you for stealthier kills).The ending, without spoiling anything, is not necessarily bad. It didn’t quite grasp me as either compelling or convincing. But rest assured, fans can nonetheless expect more from the franchise.In the end AC3 appears to be nothing more than a well ornamented mixed bag; some parts are done well while other poorly. Apart from the stunning visuals and fluid combat mechanics, the story and exploration feel almost too bland and constrained to make up for the former. As far as I see it, it is the Marmite of the AC series, fans will either love it or hate it compared to the promised hype. One may wonder if Assassin’s Creed, like Ezio’s sequels, is beginning to show its age as a series. One may also wonder if Ubisoft have bitten off more than they can chew this time around. No one can berate the attempted scale of the game its developers have strived for and it is nonetheless something to be admired though not necessarily bought. All said and done, one can’t help walking away from the endeavour a little disappointed, even with the promise of DLC on the horizon. Newcomers to the series would probably yield a lot more satisfaction from a previous entry; While hardcore fans of the series (particularly for the multi-player) should perhaps buy or rent the game for some form of closure, even if in my opinion it feels at times a bit too much of a stab in the dark. 6/10.
