Your Cart is Empty

Assassin's Creed III sucks less when you expect to hate it

April 01, 2019 1 min read

Assassin's Creed III is like the inverse of Metal Gear Solid 2. There's a similar bait-and-switch protagonist swap, but Assassin's Creed III begins with an unannounced intruder whereas Metal Gear Solid 2 transitions from Solid Snake to Raiden. They both have fantastical sci-fi stories, but only one of them is lauded; the other is widely panned.

Actually, that's the heart of the gulf between Assassin's Creed IIIand Metal Gear Solid 2: The latter is considered an all-time classic, and the former is derided as one of the most high-profile video game flops in recent memory. It was the culmination of a five-game arc, and it took place in a setting that was bursting with promise. This was supposed to be the payoff for Assassin's Creedfans, and Ubisoft's marketing made the wait feel unbearable.

I'm one of those fans who felt burned by Assassin's Creed III. It bungled everything I loved about the series. Boston, New York, and the Frontier weren't compelling locations. Nothing about the mission structure ever made me feel like a real assassin. Connor was somehow less interesting than Altair. Desmond's present-day story (which I actually liked) was hastily wrapped up and sent to slaughter.

Assassin's Creed III sucks less when you expect to hate it screenshot