This is one of these games that could've been so insanely amazing because of it's insane quality. Instead it falls flat because of game design errors and a story not really suited for a "open world/free roaming"-game. So, what is good about AC III? The music is the best in the series, the score really adds a whole new level of cinematic feeling. The world is so huge and detailed it reallyThis is one of these games that could've been so insanely amazing because of it's insane quality. Instead it falls flat because of game design errors and a story not really suited for a "open world/free roaming"-game. So, what is good about AC III? The music is the best in the series, the score really adds a whole new level of cinematic feeling. The world is so huge and detailed it really makes everything feel like a real world. The art design is also amazing, making the houses, the characters and cities come alive like never before. The quality of the voice acting is very varied, with some of the best and worst voice acting ever heard in a game (the voice actor of Haytham Kenway is doing an amazing job while whoever voice acts Braddock does one of the worst and most overacted voice actings ever done). Also the PC-port is really good. The controls work well and the graphics are well optimized. So what is bad? Basically everything that has to do with the game design. The choices made make this, what could've been an amazing open world game like Red Dead Redemption, a linear "Call of Duty-style" game - with about every mission being linear with some cutscene cinematics that totally breaks the immersion of being in a living world. The combat could also have been amazing, if it weren't for the broken balance. You can EASILY kill up to 40-50 enemies at the same time without being hurt at all (haven't had the chance to meet more enemies at the same time). Not to mention the extreme curvature of difficulty levels. One mission can be dead easy (kill 100 enemies and murder some random bloke that you don't know why you are killing) while the next one is some kind of sneak mission, where when you are seen, you have to restart from the start of the mission. However, the animations are brilliant, probably some of the best combat animations I've seen in a game up to this date, the controls work great on a keyboard and the weapons are all interesting. Too bad the game designer destroyed both the combat and the immersion of the missions. So what about the plot? Is it good? Well, the plot is all just very jumpy. The "jumpiness" does not add any depth (such as seen in movies like Donnie Darko) and just destroys the immersion even more. The whole animus thing just feels stupid (I think it was better made in Assassin's Creed II, where the immersion was pretty good) and the twists and turns are all very cliché and predictable. Basically I think the story harms the game more than it helps it. So, instead of having an awesome "open world"-esque game (such as AC II) we are left with a jumpy, linear piece of garbage (that overuses cutscenes like never before - making this feel like a linear movie more than a game) only made for total newbs of PC-gaming. Why not add difficulty levels?? And then there are the minor flaws. The game is very buggy compared to the earlier games. The story is very predictable. The player is thrown between indoors, outdoors, animus and real world. In all these 4 different kinds of places different rules apply. You can only walk indoors (which once again removes immersion - why suddenly can't I jump, run or w/e). The UI is filled with strange popups (mission popups, Uplay popups, **** achievement popups that I don't care about at all and worst of all mail popups - why do an indian guy way back in time have access to mail??). All in all this game has amazing music, amazing voice actors, amazing combat animations, an amazing world with amazing art design but on the downside really bad game design, an UI that removes immersion, only easy difficulty with a strange difficulty curve and a strange, cliché and jumpy plot.… Collapse