I see that people really think that AC III sucks, well at least most of them, but is it realy like that?
This can also be named a "Comparison"
Well i personally think AC III had a really good story especially a nice start to begin with but hey guys we all know we want to get in Connor's Assassin robes and kick some Templar arse.
Anyways the story in this game is pretty good the characters are also not bad either. Especially the real ones. One of my favourite here are the "historical" missions, such as the Tea Party, Midinight Ride and the Bluecoats vs Redcoats battles. You should have seen the look on my face when i found out Haytham was a templar and then he betrayed the mother of his son and her people which really brings some emotions. I really like Tyranny of King Washington trilogy and I think it's better then AC3. The Storyline is quite fine in lenghth without the DLC that is. And i especially like the ending where Connor finally revenges to Charles Lee after he was running after him in the harbour-i have to admit though thats a really difficult obstacle course. As there is only mainland you really have no problem getting the storyline to the end unlike in AC IV.
Well even though there is fast travel its annoying to travel by boat after each mission to a location on the other side to the map so that makes it so much slower to me making me want to play less like SHADDDAP BLACKBEARD I GOT BOARS TO HUNT, RUM TO DRINK AND HOES TO KILL.
Gosh that part about Hoes sounds a bit like GTA.Anyways.
The start is quite odd really it shows that Ed has bad morale and not just kills the Assassin but also steals his clothes When getting to the Assassin island after killing that poor dude i was surprised he did not kill them all. But seriously guys lets admit it the only thing it has to do about Assassins Creed is fighting againts templars its not like you see assassins a lot throughout the game on the other side the map is full of redcoat and yellowcoat bastards and i really enjoy destroying their forts convoys and legendary ships.
FIGHTINGWell both games are quite similar but I thing AC IV is more difficult I really like the soldier variations they are the same in both games-the musketeer (which shoots you from a distance but is weak as ****ing **** when you come near him), the brute/headbutter (everyone hates this guy), the Officer/Captain (same as the headbutter but also has a gun) and the "Poor guy we Air-Assassinate".
What i like about BF but not about III is the number of ammo we can carry in our pouch-in BF you can carry 20 bullets (cartridges) and also a large number (10?) of darts and bombs. In III however you only have 8 bullets, 8 arrows, 3 bombs, 5 rope darts---THE BEST WEAPON EVER, and 5 other darts (i think).
AC3- 7/10 AC4- 8.5/10
To me atleast one of the most important aspects in both games also this is why i bought RDR and FC3 too. You are more involved in AC 3 where you can use bait and snares too,along with the normal weps,and that is i guess because the area was full of hunters back in the day. And the reason why i liked hunting is the Frontier,yes-one place to hunt all animals. Plus the areas where lots of Wolves,Bears,Beavers and Cougars spawn too. Could have used some more animals.
AC IV had great potential here, and i really like the animals you can hunt, but they are missing a frontier, hell no i do not want to travel by ship to hunt a different animal on each island. For Cuba, being the largest island, they should have made a large frontier where you could hunt all land animals in one place (but could also hunt in other islands), and this is just one more thing i dont like about BF. Harpooning a great addition really, and i really cannot say anything bad about it, its all i expected.
In AC3, i really love both Boston and the Frontier, with Boston i really love the colonial feeling, especailly the main harbour, ah it reminds me of Titanic before the ships goes to America. New York was boring, like a village actually, and it could have been much better.
8/10, had potential but did not fully use it.
I really love the AC 4 locations, Havana and Cape Bonavista easily being my favourite. Why the above? Well, Havana is the only city that has no wooden cottages, and you get a feeling of nostalgia, as it is somewhat similar to AC 2 or Revelations. Cape Bonavista cause it really is creatively made, and no other island that i have visited is not as nice as this one is, and as i said, they had a lot of potential, but i simply dont like Kingston or Nassau very much,they look pretty much like villages when comparing to Havana, or even to Boston.
Quite good in both games, in AC3 you can hunt, do side missions, search for feathers, there are naval contracts, you can also explore, as in every similar game.
AC4, even better, with everything mentioned above, you can destroy enemy forts, rob enemy convoys and ships, rob warehouses and simply so much more.
9.5/10 This is my first review so it is not that good, yes, i could make more paragraphs, like for navy and characters, but i do not think it was necesary, as ACIII's navy is only a small thing on the side, while in AC4 it is one of the main things in the game. As for characters, all of them in both games are ok, somewhat. Only if Ed was acting less like a pirate, and Connor was a bit happier, but i understand him seeing his mother dying in front of his eyes.