Game review: Assassin's Creed 3

Assassin's Creed 3 is an...odd beast, to say the least.

I'm not going to summarize the previous games' plot, seeing as it's huge, convoluted and, quite frankly, too complex to put into words adequately. I should know, I attempted to do it before. And, while this installment's plot might not be as rich (the word is used only in lieu of a more cliche term, such as "cosmopolitan") as the previous "pure" game in the series (by pure meaning of course, AC2) and while Connor might showcase, all in all, less personality than Ezio, the storytelling this time around is much more elaborate, cinematic, bombastic sometimes, other times building up slowly to an explosive crescendo. 

Of course, it's not perfect; there's some things you can see coming a mile off, but there's also one or two that will catch you completely by surprise. Then again, to achieve these double takes, story-wise, the game slightly, well, cheats, never outright lying to you, but fibbing, misleading, insinuating and, if you're very, very observant, tampering with your perception. You'll know what I mean when you actually play the thing, but I digress: this isn't a bad thing. 

From the very first, grandiose and operatic opening till about an hour in the game, you're well and truly hooked. Shame then that when you actually assume control of Connor (née Ratonhnhaké:ton), a half English-half Mohawk Assassin, the rollercoaster ride comes to an abrupt, if justified, all but complete halt. I'm not talking about a change of pace, but of a complete alteration. This is where the game suffers; pacing. It will take a while to get things running again, but it's well worth it. The rest of the game doesn't suffer from quite as big dramatic pauses later on.

Like I mentioned earlier, Connor doesn't showcase his personality as much as Ezio did, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have one; he's, in many ways, Ezio's polar opposite. Brooding, darker, tormented, torn, at certain times naive, and for good reason. Where Ezio was charismatic, a vagabond at times, badass at others, a womanizer, a seducer, likable, a hero that could talk as good as he fought and was driven by personal reasons into a much bigger story, Connor's tale remains personal throughout. Sure, the rising tensions between colonists and Crown are there, as is the birth of the revolution and the road to american independence, but Connor's purpose isn't to be a driving force; rather, history serves as a background, in this iteration of AC more than ever. And, perhaps because of the issues touched by the story, it resonates more vibrantly and vividly. What is freedom? Were the American forefathers and ideals as pure as the Americans want to remember them? Slavery, racism, political games, individual motives, love, different means to the same goal. It finally succeeds where the original AC performed in a lukewarm fashion and subsequent games didn't even try: to portray the Templars not as purely evil, plotting sons of bitches, but simply as a group with goals not entirely dissimilar to those of the Assassins, but with means marginally different. Instead of demonizing them, it humanizes them and makes them easier to comprehend, sympathize with, and maybe even...understand?

All the main characters you'll meet (and I do mean all, from historic figures to fictional ones) are portrayed under a harsh light that will both illuminate their flaws, but also reveal their redeeming qualities, their humanity. You will genuinely despise and/or like some of them, others you may not really care for either way, but none of them are caricatures, none of them stock villains. For you American history buffs, all the usual suspects appear: Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hancock, Lafayette and many, many more. In many instances, the portrayal of those characters as well as the running commentary of present day Shaun will double as a critique on current affairs, the game going surprisingly deep as a political and sociological study. 

But, wait, you might say. What of Desmond?

Far from the simple Desmond of AC, and the more skillful Desmond of AC2, Desmond has now grown into a character worthy of being the arc's main character as he, indeed, has been all this time. Not going to spoil anything, but you will spend more and, most importantly, more interesting time as Desmond this time.

I'm really not going to go at length on the story: there's too much personal involvement, twists and turns and revelations, both on Connor's and Desmond's sides of the coin. Let's just say that, story-wise, this game has outdone all the previous ones in the story arc. Good thing too, considering it concludes the arc. This doesn't mean there aren't going to be more Assassin's Creed games; it is, after, a veritable cash cow. Just that those particular characters have played their part.

Brief interlude: then again, much like a Shyamalan film or Lost, half the allure of the story, perhaps more, was with not knowing what the hell was going on, trying to make sense of everything. Once explained, it's weakened, granted, but that doesn't mean the ride isn't worth it for the ride's sake alone. End interlude.

Now, I suppose it's time to venture where things go a tiiiiny bit pear-shaped. The actual gameplay. We were promised, typically for an AC game, a great many things. Do we get them? Err....look, a bird! No, seriously, behind you! Look! 

Oh balls. Fine. Yeah, I guess we do. But, here's a question for you: did we really need them like this? The Homestead serves pretty much like Monteriggioni did in AC2 (which really confuses me as to why it's hailed as a completely new feature by some reviewers), the hunting is, well, interesting but ultimately a little bit pointless, Assassin recruitment isn't really a priority this time around, the naval battles are frankly quite fun but they too lack an overall usefulness, and tree climbing, while it sounded absolutely awesome, is not quite as useful as it sounds, at least not all of the time. In fact, most of these features seem to have been added purely so AC3 won't be undone to the previous games on the feature list, as they are completely optional. Even upgrading your weapons isn't really essential this time around, to be honest. The one notable exception to this is the (scripted, not dynamic) weather system, that creates different approaches to situations depending on snow, storms, fog or clear skies.

The actual combat remains, mostly, unchanged. You thought Ezio was deadly? Pah. Wait till you see Connor in action. Wielding dual hidden blades and a tomahawk initially, you'll quite frankly find little reason to change this setup. 

Whirling amidst enemies, blocking melee attacks without so much as having to face the attacker if you're good enough, using enemies as human shields from musket fire, Connor lacks the elegant, deadly flair of Ezio but makes up for it with a surprisingly brutal, lightning fast style that reduces men to carcasses in seconds. That's not to say you don't have other weapons, just that they're a bit more situational: the pistols and muskets may be powerful, but they take ages to reload, the bow while silent lacks sheer stopping power and so on. 

It's not without flaws, gameplay wise. It wouldn't be an Assassin's Creed game if it was. The Frontier areas (read: the wilderness) never really give you a need for exploration, and for a feature that was advocated as a revolutionary one, it feels sort of, well, barren. Gone from the forefront is the social stealth aspects as well, but that at least makes sense: Boston and New York, the main urban areas, are little more than towns at this point and let's not forget Connor is half Native American, so social stealth and, indeed, blending, don't come to him as easily as they did for Altair and Ezio. Unfortunately, for a game that advertised the replacement of urban sprawls with wilderness, huge chunks of the game if not most, take place in those limited urban environments. The environment lacks the allure and charm of previous games' cities, and the gameplay suffers from it.

However, some redemption can be found in the missions themselves, which are now more varied, interesting, exciting. And, more importantly, everything is story-driven. From the Boston Tea Party to real historical battles to preventing assassination attempts to performing assassinations to giving chase to tracking enemies, all serve for a more cinematic storytelling, ultimately. Albeit, sometimes, annoying. Being given trial and error sequences which can and will only be completed though multiple irritating failures should have been a thing of gameplays past.

As for the graphics? Pretty. Not quite as pretty as we were told to expect (being a supposedly new engine and all), and frankly quite similar to Revelations in quality, but pretty nonetheless. As far as technical stuff goes, Ubisoft have neglected the golden rule: if it works, don't fix it. The HUD and inventory are ever so slightly more cumbersome than before. Not particularly annoying, but I see no reason for the change.

All in all, Assassin's Creed 3 bets all on its storytelling, and I hope the bet pays off for everyone. It did for me, but then again, I'm not everyone. If you judge it purely on gameplay, it falls short of AC2 in my opinion, but if you judge it purely on terms of story, plot, characters and setpieces, then this is the penultimate game in the arc.