They have dlc?

They may have yearly releases but they haven't been yearly development cycles.Ubisoft has split into teams since ACII's release.ACIII has been in development for years now under a different team than those that worked on Brotherhood and Revelations

That's good. Brotherhood and Revelations were the cheapest kind of sell out imaginable.

I don't know about that. Why is it necessary for something to change when it's successful? Brotherhood was a great balance of what made ACII great while fine tuning it and adding some new features. I'll admit that Revelations was a bit of a beaten horse and didn't really innovate but it was still a fun game.
Ubisoft said in an interview with GI that we'll be seeing more of Desmond than we have in the past but it's like a 80/20 split in favor of Connor.

It clears up some things about Lucy Stillman and Subject 16.

Not really, they still added alot of story and fun gameplay.

Maybe for you, I just felt like I was playing the same game again. I've already played AC2, don't need to go back to Italy Ubisoft.

I don't understand all the hate for the series, what exactly would they be changing in these games? Ubisoft is massive and they put in a lot of effort in making these games massive and fun.

On another note, I would have enjoyed playing in the Roman Italy more than Renaissance Italy, but whatever. America will be cool!

http://www.joystiq.com/screenshots/assassins-creed-3-4-8-12/4949918/#/0
Look at all them redcoats...

Such a pity... RIP! ;(

I think a lot of hate comes from people who didn't like the first game and just assume the rest of the series is garbage. I admit the first game was repetitive but ACII blew me away with how fun it was. I don't know anybody IRL that has played and beat any of the AC games. It's a shame. One friends is on the final mission and I keep telling him that he has to beat the first and play the second because they made it a whole lot more fun. He had an issue with always being spotted by guards which I'll admit did piss me off in the first game as well.

I'm just about done with Brotherhood. Should be starting Revelations in a week or so.

Slaughtering redcoats is going to be a lot fun. Think we'll be able to aim a cannon during the course of a major battle?

What I think most of you guys aren't getting is the fact that Brotherhood and Revelations were just spin-offs. Continuations to AC 2. I don't think they were even made by the same team...
Judging the series by those games is like judging Zelda by the CD-I games.

Plus, AC 3 has been in development since the release of AC 2.

Damn, in two of those shots it could be hypothesised that we actually get to kill an American soldier; given that there's about another 50 or so just behind them though I very much doubt it.

AC Brotherhood and Revelations may have been expansion packs sold initially at too high a price, but they were pretty good with the storytelling, puzzle sections, and unbeatable when it comes to tooling around in a beautiful open world city. I can't be the only one that loves throwing bodies off rooftops to distract guards while I rob their safeboxes. Or see them beat up their buddies as they die of poisoning.

Redcoats shall feel the wrath of my blade. Honestly can't wait until this game. The Revolution is one of my favorite times in history.

I just got back into the series, finished Brotherhood, and I'm working on Revelations. I'm looking forward to III, as well. Any information on the specific area it'll be set in?

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/03/12/the-world-of-assassin-s-creed-iii.aspx


http://www.gameinformer.com/p/ac3.aspx

I'm glad they're going for a broader approach than the last couple. Sure, running around in cities is fun and all, but I was going to be perturbed if access to the wilderness (which is, in my opinion, perfect for a Colonial American Assassin) wasn't an option.

I just beat Revelations. I have to say the gameplay was pretty terrible. They added too much and made it super clunky. I liked the story a lot though and that makes up for some of the poor gameplay. The bombs were useless. So was the hook thing in battle. I'm also pretty sick of the Synchronization. I played Brotherhood and Revelations back-to-back in less than a months time so that is probably why I'm so critical.

That said, I'm not going to buy ACIII right away. I'll wait until I know for sure it's a new game.

cant wait for AC3, played all of the Assassin's Creed series. One thing i'll miss is the epic medieval atmosphere and medieval swords.

So basically he is Mel Gibson in The Patriot?Only ever played the second one and it was a crash prone mess on the PC,hopefully they port it right.

You did not use them properly then. The bombs were incredibly useful and so was the hook so long as you know how to use them which is not hard. You could take out like 20 damned Jannisaries with explosive bombs. Silently kill an entire sewer full of guards with poison or get past them by causing distractions. Get away from a large group of enemies with clatrops or gas. Hell it wasn't even a bad thing to drop an explosive bomb in the middle of a crowd of enemies while you were in it. It barely damaged you and insta-killed most enemies. It was TOO effective. I really enjoyed the inclusion of them though. The hook was not meant for battle but was very useful for other things. It did let you run past waiting enemies who would otherwise cut you down and you could throw them off ledges and into water with the grab and throw move very quickly. I actually played Assassins Creed one recently and believe me, the gameplay has improved. How was it clunky? Seems more fluid and more challenging(bombs aside) than before. Jannisaries were actually good opponents if you did not catch them by surprise. However the gameplay is still pretty damned stupid that the guards only every attack one at a time in the least efficient way possible for a group.

As for Assassins Creed 3? There better be slaves and there better be slaves owned by George Washington. The guy was no saint. Supposedly he was purported to sixually violate his slaves, otherwise known as [censored]. Not sure if this part was true though. Sounds like BS to me. There is little evidence to back it up except oral traditions. No documentation that may support it either. Anyone know more?

Anyways this better not be historically bathed in American Propaganda and half-truths(I am American btw, yes our country tends to play down the lesser known parts of our history)

Hoping it will be marginally historically accurate....just the main things.

The bombs were an added thing to the game that added clutter. I don't recall using any bombs during any of the sequences and they weren't needed. I did play with them after the game was over and other than the few achievements that were linked to using them, it was kind of pointless. As for the hook letting you run past enemies, I have no idea what that was about. If there was ever a guard waiting to cut me down a simple jump and I was past him. The only useful thing that the hook was good for was traveling from building to building by the rope. It maybe made climbing a second faster as well opposed to the regular jump. The game is clunky because it has everything the other games have and more. There is too much at times. My map was decorated in tons of things that I had no idea what they were. I had no sense of direction as to what I should be doing and controlling Ezio while climbing can be a real hassle. Often times he jumps for no reason or he goes the complete opposite way he is supposed to be going. There wasn't much variation from ACII-Revelations and the things they did add were nothing that amazing except one thing and that was started in Brotherhood with the ability to call on your assassins and train them. The minigames added like tower defense I could have gone without. The game is not terrible. The story was great but the gameplay is too cluttered and overwhelming at times.
There has been evidence that suggests that Thomas Jefferson had relations with his slaves and it is quite possible. It is not that uncommon. The history of slaves going back to when the slave trade was ending shows that slave owners would go to great extents to make sure their slaves were having kids. More kids means more slaves which translates to more free labor/money. They did it to protect their businesses. This game takes place before the end of the slave trade in the United States which ended in the early 19th century. At this time the slave owners were seeing that it was cheaper for their slaves to have children opposed to just buying more and it was also easier to train them. Now back to the point, this game is probably not going to have slaves in it directly and the fact that some founding fathers may or may not have had relations with their slaves is irrelevant to the game. I don't see how there could be any "American Propaganda" when it's the Redcoats vs Bluecoats and we obviously know who the winners were.

Well, it is made by a French/Canadian company, so I wouldn't think there would be that much bias.