How many sequences are in assassins creed 3

Main Quest 2 Answers How many taverns are in each area? Side Quest 2 Answers Every type of weapon? Side Quest 5 Answers. Ask A Question. Browse More Questions. Keep me logged in on this device. Forgot your username or password? I just want to know how many there are total "Estuans interius ira vehementi estuans interius ira vehementi Sephiroth! User Info: sid sid 9 years ago 4 theres only 12 sequences and u dont even start gettting to craft upgades and stuff until sequence !??

Main Quest. How many taverns are in each area? I liked the game. I've said before that I thought most of the other mechanics in the game from the Homestead to the naval missions, etc. The game felt like minigames rather than a coherent whole. On the other hand, I loved the naval missions and loved the homestead. They were great ideas, but they weren't incorporated into the main mission structure as they ought to have been.

Things were also "streamlined" in ways that made the game worse, such as the lack of manual locking on wasn't a problem in earlier games , the simplified health and nonexistent armor systems, etc.

The movement of Connor seemed a huge step backward to me. So, yeah. It's not as good as Brotherhood, because they keep screwing with things that weren't broken.

Still, I had a great time playing this game. It wasn't a horrible experience at all well, the framerate did occasionally suck, but not as much as some people claim.

My major complaint common, it seems is that the good stuff was all side-missions. I'd like for them to go back to Brotherhood, and basically just do that again with new characters and a new setting.

They seemed to ditch everything that made Brotherhood a great game. The result is merely good, with some flaws. Frameate issues on consoles asside, I thought 3 was the most fun gameplay and had the most beautiful landscapes of the series. The problem I had with its story did not come together at all in the end and most of the systems dont work well together Such as giving you sidemissions in the homestead but not giving you any incentive to actually do them because its out in the middle of nowhere.

It was a great game, but Ubisoft hyped it up to be way more than it ended up being. I still think it was a great game, but it was just such a huge let down because they could have done so much more with the story and made more of their systems play well together if they released early instead of sticking to their 1-a-year-AAA-titles policy that Ubisoft has.

It felt like a major step back in terms of gameplay. None of the side stuff was meaningful, all of the Desmond stuff was just awful, and the game lacked the giant, beautiful cities with magnificently tall towers that you could climb. This obviously was accurate for the time period, but still, Boston and New York were not as enjoyable to be in as Rome, Venice or Constantinople. Additionally, all of the assassin recruit stuff was basically pushed aside.

It was all in there, but the game practically ignored it. Also, I think building up a guild of assassins is much cooler than, say, a dirty butcher man with a meat cleaver. I'm not super far in, I've been distracted by other better games, so I just met George Washington and I've mostly been doing side activities. I'm not hating it but yeah it has a ton of problems.

First of all, your right their enemy AI is terrible for stealth and you feel clumsy when trying to stay stealthy, this especially stands out this year when you can compare it directly to Dishonored and Mark of the Ninja. The AC2 trilogy knew the stealth was terrible and thus their mission design seemed to get further and further away from stealth missions. Second, more than any game in Ubisoft's past this game feels like how it was produced, by many large Ubisoft studios.

This was fine when you had one studio handling the single player while another handled multiplayer but with multiple studios handling different aspects of single player you can really feel how much they struggled trying to glue it all together. As many people have mentioned the economy is kind of pointless, there is pretty much no real reason to do the side-activities if your looking to improve you chances during the story missions. After recently playing a bunch of Sleeping Dogs this stands out because all the side activities in that game feed into each other quite well.

The naval battles are easily the best part of the game, I encountered some pretty wonky physics during one battle, but generally its pretty fun. Though they did have a much smaller portion of gameplay to tackle.

I remember reading an interview somewhere from one of the Montreal producers saying that he didn't expect the Naval Battle stuff to be very good and they were actually planning to cut it due to a lack of faith in Shanghai. OfficeGamer : Let me start off by admitting that AC3 is probably in my top 5 games of the year. I loved the previous games in the series and while AC3 isn't the best AC, it does improve on all the previous games in one way or another.

It seems to me like half your problems come from playing a crummy PC port of a game designed for consoles. The menu's work fine on a console. The use-key is a staple in console games and AC3 chose to adopt this approach because, frankly, the previous system confused too many people.

Now on a PC, you have a whole keyboard in front of you and you're probably somewhat used to keys having certain meanings i for inventory, m for map, etc. The AC series tried something like that and it was a barrier to entry read: barrier to more sales. The minimap thing works fine at least on PS3.

The map shows roughly what Connor has or might have seen. The higher up you are, the larger a radius you reveal on the map. And like previous games, this game has view points which allow you to reveal larger portions of the map. Not sure what the problem is here The rest of your issues are mostly a matter of preference.

I loved the verticality of previous AC games, but AC3 trades some of that in for more varied environments. I'm glad they took a quasi-break from tall ass buildings and offered something new and unique. The wilderness is amazing. Yes, it's a shame they didn't do a whole lot with it in the main story, but that doesn't make it less interesting to explore. The stealth is the way it is because that's what 'stealth' in Assassin's Creed games is.

Always has been, hopefully always will be. This is a third person action adventure game, not a stealth game. There's a bit of a renaissance of stealth going on elsewhere, which is cool I guess. But I doubt most AC fans would appreciate a more hardcore stealth style game. The Desmond scenes where always terribad. Worst part of most games. In AC3, it's still not great, but they made it play better and mean something. Anyway, I could go on and on, but opinions and all. I'm sorry you had a horrible experience with AC3.

Sure, it has its flaws my biggest beef is that the homestead stuff doesn't really go anywhere , but there's an awesome game there. Also: naval missions! The problem with 3 an AC in general since Part 2 is that is has to much pointless systems in it. Wanna save settlers so you can build tabels to sell for money if you clear trade routes? Don't get me wrong, diversity is a good thing but I feel like the Devs put this in, not because it was a meaningful addition but because they needed something to stretch the game out a bit more.

Seriously, not once. Also the story is weird and kinda stupid. So the whole time Connor is like "I must revenge my tribe! Erm, okay? I guess that makes sense? Another weird part, for me at least, is that every single time you kill somebody important the game makes you feel guilty about it by having them speak about how you don't understand anything and they just wanted to make the world a better place for everybody etc.

Now, I'm not opposed to a good, intricate story but it was getting ridiculous. Just let me murder somebody AC3 without him telling me that he was about to deliever the cure for cancer. In AC1 the templers all had similar speaches but at least they also sounded crazy and where clearly evil. By the half of AC3 I was convinced that Connor is actually the bad guy.

I loved the game. Just not as much as Brotherhood. Plus Connor sucked, Haythem should have been the main character. Deadmanforking said:. I really liked Connor, guess I'm in the minority. One of the best moments to me was when he tells certain people that should they try to oppose or follow him he would kill em both.

I liked it, way more of a slow burn compared to other AC games though. I really liked the wilderness parts, making the homestead better etc but the city design was a bit lacking, in terms of going on a crazy parkour run along the rooftops as you could in AC2. I don't understand how anyone is able to like this game. I haven't gotten to Connor yet, but I'm starting to think I'm never going to make it.

I'm not complaining about the long intro or being tired of the series. I love the other games and thought every one of the first 3 made great improvements and I thought the systems and controls in Brotherhood were just about perfect. I loved running around Rome and the game gave you so many different things to do at every turn and they were almost always really enjoyable.

So far in this game there is nothing to do but one mission at a time or run around killing soldiers. I start having fun climbing around, but every time I go into a mission the controls don't work, the stealth systems are terrible, you don't get enough information about what you're supposed to do but then you fail for not approaching every mission exactly the way they want you to. I even had a couple of missions where I had 2 or 3 things to do and kept failing until I changed the order I approached them--everything else I did the same.

This game is beautiful and the location and story are appealing to me, but it does everything it possibly can to try to make me rage quit. If I hadn't been given the game as a gift I'd be wanting my money back. I know there is a lot of complaining about the game, but from what I've experienced so far, I can't believe it's not as big of a deal as ME3.

I don't know why we have to put up with shit like this from the big publishers. I've invested a lot of time and a decent amount of money into this series and I'd really like to finish it, but I have a lot better things to do with my time than waste it with a buggy game that is such a chore to play.

Anyone who even considered this for their top 10 of the year in such a great year of games is either stupid or crazy. That's funny seeing as most of the GB crew seems to think that was a pretty meh year for gaming. I don't know what to tell you, I've never felt like the AC series had great stealth or great combat. Also my expectations were low after hearing all the hate for the game. I was surprised when I liked it. I didn't feel like the controls were broken but the main reason I play AC games is for the historical setting and I ended up really liking Connor and Haytham Desmond can fuck off.

I guess we just had different experiences, you should probably stick with it but it's okay to have different opinions. I do have many problems with the game though but nothing too major. I really dislike that there seems to be no way to kill a captain of a fort without then having the whole fort come running to kill you.

Also, I wasn't a fan of how many missions had instant failure states. It made the game feel way too linear in that there was only one way to complete the mission, and you had to do that one way perfectly or it was game over. It got pretty frustrating. As a long-time fan of the series I've finished AC1-AC:B 3 times, invested tons of time into the multiplayer , I'd rank them as follows:. You can complain that Assassin's Creed 3 has poor mission design, but people are too quick to forget how painful so much of the Revelations experience is, and the severe lack of meaningful content Assassin's Creed 1 has between assassinations.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the best thing Ubisoft has had going for itself as a franchise since Rainbow Six.

That's part of the problem though. When great individuals are attached to games, they are about creating great games. When you are left with a faceless corporation, they become franchise factories. OfficeGamer You said that Max Payne 3 wasn't a good experience. Sorry, I disagree. I thought MP3 to be a superb experience from bottom to top. I also strongly liked AC3. Much better overall, in my opinion, than AC2 and its spin-offs.

Because I totally felt disconnected with the character and its world. It wasn't believable to me. Also, most of its storyline, again to me, felt forced and disconnected. Please Log In to post. This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:.

Until you earn points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.

What do you need help on? Cancel X. Topic Archived. Sign Up for free or Log In if you already have an account to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts. User Info: wallacebreen. User Info: FelixFelicis. Much obliged "Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining". User Info: SkullBasherX. You play as Haytham at for 3 sequences then you play as Connor the rest of the game.

I go by Grubs now.