Is Assassin's Creed 3 better then AC2, BH, Rev?

[Chingylol]

I've played every AC game and loved them (although Revelations was kind of meh compared to the rest) but I still haven't had a chance to play 3 since I've been preoccupied with other games. Was wondering how it ranks compared to the others? For me my favorites in order:

AC2 > BH > AC1 > Rev

[Vankrys]

what i loved about the AC2 series is the evolution of ezio, from a young man laughing at life, brawling in the street, chasing girl to a old, skillful master assassin, leader of the brotherhood.

wonder if they plan the same for connor.

[Oerba Yun Fang]

AC3 is definitely my favorite so far.

[trink202]

It's different. If you are looking for the open-world sandbox assassinations, you'll still have that. Connor is a different character and the time period is different, and the tone of the story is different. There is not so much humor in Connor's story as in Ezio's.

[OmniSkribe]

Setting is suberb, quality and new features are awesome, but goddamn who, please show me this person, created Connor? Dumbes, grayest character i've ever seen. AC 3 should be about Connor's father.

[Oerba Yun Fang]

Setting is suberb, quality and new features are awesome, but goddamn who, please show me this person, created Connor? Dumbes, grayest character i've ever seen. AC 3 should be about Connor's father.

I agree. Connor was a HUGE downgrade after playing Haytham. I actually started liking Haytham more than Ezio. XD

[Dakhath]

Haytham is easily my favorite character in any AC game, and I couldn't agree more about Connor being a downgrade. Personally I loved AC3 as it's about one of my favorite periods of history. It's easy to be hard on Connor though after having 3 games to see the growth of Ezio, I don't think they plan on doing anything more with him considering how AC3 turned out however.

[Tethrys]

The thing I enjoyed about 3 over Brotherhood/Revelations is that you actually assassinated people who were known and important. In 2 (minus the final guy), they were all just no names really. Don't get me wrong though, I LOVED 2. I actually prefer it over 3.
2 for a few reasons. All the different places were really interesting, and then getting to Rome at the end and just seeing it but not being able to go to it created such a feeling of mystery and expansiveness. It also showed growth of a character as well.
3 had growth, but a PAINFULLY long intro. I'm talking sequences 1-5 are all introduction pretty much (12 seqs). The open world feeling and hunting was great, with snow being pretty cool and whatnot...but the locale just does not interest me at all. I'd really like to go to Boston in real life, but playing there and New York just wasn't that great.
I'm huge fan of ancient history, so seeing Ubisoft's re-constructions and weaving the assassin/templar storyline into those worlds (1-Rev) was terrific. Going to places like Jerusalem and Florence, and traveling through Forli...it felt so cool. 1 & 2 also focused on being sneaky and learning about your targets which I really liked. Maybe it was just the location, or the lack of trying to be really sneaky in the 3rd, I'm not sure. On another note, the graphics and animations are AWESOME. The crafting system leaves much to be desired though.

Actually turned into quite a wall of text; hope you can read it clearly. I believe I kind of ranted there...

[Chelly]

I've played every AC game and loved them (although Revelations was kind of meh compared to the rest) but I still haven't had a chance to play 3 since I've been preoccupied with other games. Was wondering how it ranks compared to the others? For me my favorites in order:

AC2 > BH > AC1 > Rev

In my opinion:
AC:BH = AC2 > AC: REV > AC1 > AC3

The gameplay, setting, and story pales in comparison to the previous titles. Connor is just so damn boring and stupid. I wish the game was about Haytham instead.

[wynnyelle]

I thought that AC3 was the worst game in the series, actually. As others have said, Connor is the most bland character, and overall the game just isn't as good as the others. The new setting is neat, yeah, but it doesn't seem like they put as much effort into it as the past installments.

[masterrofl12]

Well, gameplay wise it's pretty solid if you ask me, but story wise it's quite lacking compared to the AC 2 series. Like other people said, Haytham really was the most interesting and likeable character out of the whole thing, I really enjoyed playing as him even though it was just 4 sequences. Connor isn't a bad character, but he lacks personality and he doesn't show much emotion toward things which turns him into a very dull main character compared to Ezio.

Other than Haytham and Connor, there really isn't any other characters that I cared of, we had huge characters like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, but I just didn't feel like you connected to them the way you did with characters in the AC 2 series, which is a shame.

Another thing that I think was lacking compared to the previous titles was the cities, I understand that they might be correct for time period, but man are they underwhelming compared to Jerusalem, Damascus, Rome and the list goes on.


If you loved the other AC titles, then you will for sure enjoy AC 3 too, but don't expect it to be the best one atleast story wise.

[Oerba Yun Fang]

The DLC sounds rather interesting though. That whole "What if George Washington were a tyrannical leader" thing sounds like something I'd love to play. lol

[Calelith]

In my opinion:
AC:BH = AC2 > AC: REV > AC1 > AC3

The gameplay, setting, and story pales in comparison to the previous titles. Connor is just so damn boring and stupid. I wish the game was about Haytham instead.

This ^

AC3 is the first AC game i havent finished, got bored about halfway through.

Having to run around lost in the forest for ages got boring, the ship combat was awesome though.

[Littleraven]

so far (for me anyway) i like it way better than revelations. revelations just seemed like one too many with ezio. AC2 was great because it expanded so much on what AC1 did. brotherhood was the high point of the series imo. it took me a minute to get into it but once i did i couldnt put it down. havent felt like that since.

so i guess for me....

brotherhood > ac 3 > ac 2 > rev > ac1

[wynnyelle]

The DLC sounds rather interesting though. That whole "What if George Washington were a tyrannical leader" thing sounds like something I'd love to play. lol

Yeah, I am interested in trying that one. It's probably the only one I'll buy, but it does look really cool! And the concept art of Washington sitting on his throne is awesome.

[Oerba Yun Fang]

Yeah, I am interested in trying that one. It's probably the only one I'll buy, but it does look really cool! And the concept art of Washington sitting on his throne is awesome.

YESSS that art is amazing. It's my desktop wallpaper right now.

[Winterstrife]

By far IMO AC3 is the best. I really can't wait for the next installation & seeing as how things turned out in the end of AC3, its interesting to see how they're gonna progress the story.

[Boxtroll55]

I didnt like this game : / I thought 2-revelations had a better story. the ending just kinda bugged me esp cause it was supposed to "end desmonds story". there are plenty who like it better though the game is buggy. Id give it a try still this is just my opinion though theres plenty of people that like it

[dragothica]

I haven't finished AC3 or ACR yet, so after first impressions (halfway through the games):

ACB > AC2 / AC3 > ACR > AC1.

Not better than Brotherhood, which in my opinion is the best of the series, I absolutely love Ezio as character and the setting (Rome) and size of the world felt just right in ACB. It's definitely better than Revelations which was just unnecessary extension to Ezio's story (which could easily have been finished in that AC:Embers animation, without Reveleations ever happening). AC2 is kind of a classic game so it's difficult to compare AC3 to that, AC3 has a wider and more varied world but I think the story and setting are better in AC2 (or more interesting at least, I think if you're really interested in Americas history it could beat AC2). I think AC1 is the worst of the series, it was great if you played first when it was released, but I played it only after I had played AC2 (or even ACB) and it felt so sub par compared to the later games.

[Kuntantee]

AC3 is biggest piece of shit of 2012 together Ghost Recon: Future Soldier(I bought both of em). Both are developed and published by Ubisoft(I guess) and both are ported to PC by Ubisoft Kiev. Both games are ported very badly to PC to decrease cost and make more money. Now, I am fan of AC series and bought every game since AC1. AC1 was flawed in terms of game design but it was not flawed technically. AC3, however, flawed both in terms of game design and coding(I bought on PS3 as well as played on PC). I made a review of game in AC3 megathread and quite few people agreed with me. It's a truemaster shit. I will never ever never buy another Ubisoft game again instead(I am their long-term customer since Prince of Persia: Sands of Time) I will crack the fuck out of their games because this is true insult to us, AC fans. AC games are cash-grabs instead of innovative games since AC:R.

It really pains me when you pay for full price and get a cracked-quality game with tons of bugs.