I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I'm glad that they chose to split focus to both city freerunning and forest stalking. We've had 4 games that completely focus on large metropolis areas. They'd have to add more sooner or later because the game would become too stale otherwise.

I'm also expecting that we'll be running/sneaking through battlefields and army camps in AC3, which should prove to be quite fun and challenging. And as I mentioned in my last post, how could anyone not possibly see the awesome of prowling in a misty forest, stalking some poor redcoats and just waiting for the perfect ambush spot?

 

The forest freerunning should prove to be awesome. It's really interesting that they've added forest and countryside gameplay to the already built upon urban.

 

Honestly I'm really happy with what I've heard so far. Instead of rushing out another game extremely similar to the previous games, they seem to be attempting some innovation. The three Ezio games were getting very stale in my opinion, so this is very welcome.

Moving away from an entirely urban environment is an interesting idea and their focus on keeping the player moving constantly sounds pretty interesting to me. The bits outside of cities have always been the series weakest parts and inevitably they'd have to improve on that. I'm also hoping the emphasis on movement means an empasis on stealth and clever tactics to win fights rather than "stand still and counter attack a small army to death" like in the previous games.

Also, if we're lucky this game just might inspire Grinning Lizard to finish his AC story in the next hundred years

 

That's what has me worried. Every other game, once you left the gates of a city, everything wasn't even worth looking at or the time it took to get the flags/feathers. I hope they do this way better then they've treated other noncity areas. I'd still have rather seen almost any other setting then colonial America though.

 

That's not quite right. I always enjoyed slowing my horse to a crawl when approaching a city in AC1, especially Jerusalem (if I remember it right).
The combination of awesome scenery, impressive view of the city and great soundtracks made this one of my favorite parts of the game.

Besides that though, I agree that nothing done outside a city was of any meaning. Remember those carriage sequences?
/shivers

 

I think you guys need to give these developers a break. The turn over from AC1 to AC2 was amazing. Fixing the repetative nature of the game and making combat more fluid. Then all everybody did was complain about the staleness of the ideas, and how each game was just a redo of the last. Trust me when I say the majority of people would have bitched and moaned about how much France/England played like Florence and Rome. I think it took balls to do the American Revolution and I would expect they have some very cool and origonal ideas to go along with it, otherwise they would not have shifted the period so drasticly. I have high hopes for this game, creating an interesting juxtaposition of wilderness tracking, camp assassinations, colonial cityscape freerunning and sweet indian gear.

I'll bet a healthy amount saying ol'B Franklin designs some wicked cool assassin's gear.

EDIT: Reading the article and retracting Franklin comment.

 

The main reservation I have about this game is that colonial America wasn't exactly the most developed, so there probably won't be massive structures where I could jump off and splat hilariously onto the ground.

 

IMO: That's a good thing. Accidentally "i can FLYYYYY"-leaping off of the tower i was climbing was immensely irritating.

 

Trailer released

The forest free running looks epic, as does the tomahawk combat.

 

Structures? No. Cliffs? Yes. Huge-ass trees? Hell yes.

 

There have been some great updates/news features recently... here are two from Kotaku.

http://kotaku.com/5896386/50-things-about-assassins-creed-iii-that-you-should-know

http://kotaku.com/5896501/here-are-the-weapons-youll-kill-redcoats-with-in-assassins-creed-iii

I'll go ahead and note that the 50 Things About Assassin's Creed III That You Should Know is virtually all new information on top of some of the older lists of information. It's very interesting... VERY excited for this game!

 

Oh dear.

Sauce.

Never played it with a controller, never will. Here's hoping it's not worse than it was in the past four games.
Also, anyone wants to take a guess as to how much will the PC version be delayed? My guess is four months.

 

I'm kinda glad, seeing as I'll be playing it on my PS3, and the controls have always been leaning towards controllers rather than keyboards.

 

You're glad that it won't be good on keyboard because you're on PS3? I might be misinterpreting what you're saying, but that sounds pretty spiteful. There is literally no way it has any bearing on you as a PS3 player, so to be glad PC players are getting shafted a bit seems strange to me.

I can understand that a game that plays like AC is more suited to a controller, but the fact of the matter is that it really doesn't take much effort to make a suitable keyboard/mouse UI and control scheme. The fact that they're basically just saying "fuck it we can't be bothered, just buy a controller" seems very lazy and screams that this will be just another shitty console port the developers put no effort into.

 

Well, that sure makes me less likely to buy it. If they can't be bothered to make it run well on a keyboard, then I can't be bothered to pay for it.

 

I personally do hope they make you pc people get a controller. And it is purely out of spite. Buy a damn console already! Join the twenty-first century. PCs should only be used to spew mind vomit onto semi-Anonmous forums, watch porn and write/research your college career.

 

Consoles hold gaming back, and I'm sick of companies having to deal with the limitations they present. Disc space, memory issues, etc. They're ruining things for everybody by making companies cut corners.

 

How about fuck you?

I don't see why it's better suited for a controller, nor why it would be such a big problem to map controls onto a keyboard and mouse. I didn't have much trouble playing AC2 on a PC or even Brotherhood on a Macbook, it only heated like a bitch when I had to go through those stupid extended chase sequences. The camera can be absolutely retarded but I find it easier to manage with a mouse than a joystick.

 

Not sure if trolling or just a complete idiot.

You realize that consoles are, more or less, computers that are slaved to one purpose? The original intent for the NES was to be affordable for people that couldn't afford a computer back in the 80's. Guess what brah? PCs are just as affordable as consoles now. Moreso, even. I'll gladly buy a PC at a seemingly horrendous entry cost (let's go with $1000 for a nice round number) and then only have to buy parts every few years and replace those. Meanwhile, you buy a console that's a one-time thing, (I can assume it's a day one buy, from the content and tone of your post).

Let's compare, shall we?

Day One cost for a PS3 was $600.

This is in comparison to the part on a computer that you'll probably replace the most; The graphics card. Buying a brand new GFX card now will have you set to play games on at least medium for the next five years, even if it's suggested that you replace your computer parts something like every 2.5 to 3 years.

That graphics card probably costs about $250.

EDIT: Just had a thought. Consoles are consistently re-hashed and upgraded throughout their lifespan. If you're not tech-savvy enough to upgrade the damn thing yourself (in this example, we'll go with a new hard-drive in your PS3) you'll probably be replacing yours. Or, more likely, you'll import your saves from your shitty 20 GB Day One PS3 hard-drive to a PC.

You're still using a PC for more than "Porn, Anonymoose image boards, and college shit". Congrats, dude.

 

Do we really need to have a 'what type of gaming is best' showdown? Aren't we above that?

Can't we all just calmly resume masturbating / resume playing Call of Duty?