User blog comment:D. Cello/Assassinews 02/16 -- AC3 date released/@comment-92.233.98.100-20120218152241

i know everyone has their opinion and i respect that but im so surprised that so many people didn't like revelations and liked brotherhood more, the story in brotherhood was a major dissapointment to me and i didn't like rome that much, acb was a good game but after a game like ac2 i was dissapointed, however i found revelations to be the best in the series, the script was well done, the story was exceptional, the setting was the best ever seen, no one can say that Constantinople wasn't engrossing and immersive. the 3 main gameplay cvhnages- the hookblade, bombs and eagle sense were well implemented and were gamechanging aspects, they didnt need to be used so that if people didnt like them they didnt need to use them which is what i which they did with buying properties, if they did it like ac2 where the shops were open but by upgrading the shop u got more discounts that would hvae been better. for altiar fans he was in the game and it ended his story well even if short, we got insight to desonds life even if it wasnt the way we expected ( i ould have liked it 3rd person), the missions were fresh, due to the main changes they were able to bring new mission types unlike acb, the assassinations were more meaningful and the side missions were improved even if there wasn't many,master assassin missions were perfect. i can understand the problem with den defence but your not forced to do it. even small things like new enemy archetypes, new weapons like the broadsword, new shops like black market dealer and book stores, new elements like random events. plus the characters were FANTASTIC, who didn't like yusuf for example, ezios end was AMAZING, was emotional and well done, the best trilogy af a character in a LONG time.

now onto yearly releases, they didn't effect it, its just they put the wrong stuff in, the time they spent on den defence and first person Desmond sections could have been used on other aspects like improving the random events or more side missions but the devs genuinely thought they were good additions and signs of trying to innovate, when have you seen cod take that risk? i didn't even mind the Desmond sections too much. milking it? there is no proof of that, its just they TOOK A RISK and it didn't work out well. i look at loads on sites people saying its milked and it looks liek they didnt even read the article that ac3 has been in dev for 3 years!

i know there were some bad aspects but they are in the shadow of the good ones. im not saying anyone here does this but i just wanted to post a reply to these unfair accusations on ac, it has innovated a lot and honestly if they changed the mission structure then i wouldn't like it coz its perfect, it just needs more mission types which acr did. i loved black ops and mw1 and waw but i aboslutely hate mw3, i am a cod fan so will wait for blops 2 but wen i see ppl comparing these two games i get angry because the changes ac make are genuine, not gimmicks and try to change on a WELL ESTABLISHED formula, unlike cod which is exactly the same, i mean some of the maps feel the exact same e.g lockdown feels exactly like crash from mw1, i have evidence but ive done on enough.

look at the good things not at the bad and u will be surpirsed at how much ac has changed as its not "the same game", cant wait for ac3 :)