Assassin's Creed 3 preview: The New World

An extended hands-on look at the single-player campaign in Assassin's Creed 3.

September 24, 2012 11:00 AM

More than any other game in the series, Assassin's Creed 3 is trading on our shared sense of history. It's chosen a historical event that many Americans hear about a young age, through a mixture of legend and history. More generally, it's centered around very recent world history, and some themes of justice, political manipulation, and hypocrisy resonate more closely with modern society than the more distant Crusades and Renaissance ever could. In an extended hands-on demo, the backdrop felt perfectly organic. The largely untamed wilderness of colonial America provided a stark contrast against the bustling city of Boston. And while I did get into my share of tussles with Redcoats -- or "Regulars" as the game accurately calls them -- it was enough to put any concerns of jingoism to rest. Connor is a character between two worlds, and his character's interactions with founding fathers, British officers, and even his own village show him more concerned with justice than fealty to a fledgling nation. This edition makes two major revisions to the mechanical interface of Assassin's Creed. The first is the removal of what Ubisoft cheekily called the "assassin's claw," the need to hold down both the RT and A button for smooth free-running. Instead, only RT is required, with A serving as a triggered jump when required. What seems like a small change became much more significant when I realized that this method freed my right hand to manipulate the camera and direct my run. This made Connor's movements over rooftops and through trees nimble and light, in stark contrast to his fighting style. That combat gets a revision with a new counter system, which is now centered around providing a host of quick options upon a successful parry. When a counter is successful, a subtle slow-motion camera effect cues the player to a short window to choose the counter type: kill, throw, or disarm. But a kill isn't fool-proof, and could be blocked or defended against with armor. When facing multiple foes, it became important and even difficult to judge which move to use in the split-second that I had an enemy in my grasp. Connor's arsenal is noticeably more brutal, thanks in no small part to his tomahawk. The hidden blades still serve as the quick and quiet method of doling out death, but the axe is much more effective for crowd management -- so long as you have a strong stomach. The tomahawk animations were ruthless, and so varied that I'm not sure I saw one repeat. My taste of the game took place roughly midway through the game, and spanned from inciting rebellion to the familiar Boston Tea Party and beyond. I won't spoil just how the sequence ended, but suffice to say that the lens of hindsight gave ample assurance that Ubisoft is exploring the moral grays in what we often interpret as a righteous war.

Click here to see all new screens.

Ubisoft emphasized the new Homestead mission types, an update to Ezio's city-building. Rather than purchase your way to a fully stocked private villa, building Connor's homestead takes a more active approach. Rescuing individual skilled (and fully voiced) laborers like farmers and trappers will convince them to set up shop at the homestead, functionally making Connor's home into a small town. Similarly, I saw hints that building a crew of fellow assassins would be more character-focused. I only welcomed one fellow assassin into the fold, but he was a character with an arc, and I can hope that means the others will be as well. Assassin's Creed games have each introduced new elements, and this game brings naval combat. I was skeptical about the notion, but I found it played better than it appeared. The videos don't quite do justice to the frenetic feel of multitasking as captain of a ship, determining speed, navigation, and aim all at once. It's just enough to be challenging without feeling overwhelming. I only took a taste of the naval combat, and I can't say if it will hold up throughout all of the optional missions, but I'm certain it won't inspire the backlash of Revelations' tower-defense game. Assassin's Creed 3 has a lot to live up to. After two annualized games, Ubisoft has made it clear that a numbered sequel should mark a larger event. Placing the game in such familiar territory was a risky move, as any benefits of the setting are counter-balanced against reasonable concerns about accuracy and tone. From my time with the game, it seems to be navigating these areas with aplomb, and Connor already stands out as deserving of Ezio's mantle.

This Assassin's Creed 3 multiplayer preview was based on a pre-release Xbox 360 demo of the game at an event where transportation and accommodations were provided by Ubisoft.

Steve Watts

Editor-In-Chief

Filed Under

From The Chatty

Refresh Go To Thread

Shacknews

 reply
September 24, 2012 11:00 AM

Steve Watts posted a new article, Assassin's Creed 3 preview: The New World.

An extended hands-on look at the single-player campaign in Assassin's Creed 3.
- hyperwired
  
   reply
  September 24, 2012 3:49 PM
  
  I somehow missed this series - it seems like an interesting IP. Is it worth playing all of the Assassins Creeds from number 1 at this point?
  - MamiyaOtaru
    
     reply
    September 24, 2012 4:09 PM
    
    one's not the best. Start it, then watch some youtube videos. Two is gold
  - Rice-Rocketeer
    
     reply
    September 24, 2012 4:13 PM
    
    Abso-fucking-lutely.
    
    Well...maybe not #1.
    
    Or, if you play #1, just skip al the ancillary stuff.
  - fuell
    
     reply
    September 24, 2012 4:44 PM
    
    The people who say skip #1 are jaded. #1 is a fine game and worth playing. Compared to its sequels it's a little lacking in polish, but it's very far from a bad game. My recommendation is to only play them if you have a gamepad to play them with. I tried m+kb ages ago and hated it. I actually uninstalled the game after 30 minutes because it felt so bad. Picked up a gamepad like a year later and started going through it again and it was a completely different experience. It felt way better.
  - ghost in my shell
    
     reply
    September 24, 2012 5:16 PM
    
    I always tell people to play 1 and focus only on the story missions and they tell me they enjoy it.
    
    You often get distracted by the side stuff(which is just the story missions again and again making it redundant), and flag collecting that you forget what the fuck you are supposed to be doing in the story.
    - bryanvlo
      
       reply
      September 25, 2012 12:53 PM
      
      Yeah this is bang on right. I unfortunately did most of the side missions and they were tedious. I can imagine you will blow through the main story in a solid afternoon.
  - fuzzydevil
    
     reply
    September 24, 2012 6:45 PM
    
    The original certainly wasn't a bad game, but it definitely didn't live up to either the hype or the potential of the concept. To me, Assassin's Creed 2 felt like what the first game should've been.
    
    #1 might actually be more enjoyable now than when it was first released, as it's unlikely that new players are going to have sky-high expectations for it. I'd suggest giving it a try, certainly, but do what the others have suggested - either stick to the story missions or just start YouTubing it if it starts to get a bit dull, assuming you want to keep up with the series' ongoing plot.
    
    After that, Assassin's Creed 2 is definitely worth a go. Brotherhood and Revelations depend a little on whether or not you want more after finishing it, but you'll have a pretty good idea after AC2.
  - thetangent
    
     reply
    September 24, 2012 7:22 PM
    
    Yes, absolutely. They're fantastic games.
  - hyperwired
    
     reply
    September 25, 2012 2:56 AM
    
    OK thanks to everyone for the advice. Gonna grab em on steam. Here I go!
- fuell
  
   reply
  September 24, 2012 4:52 PM
  
  I didn't know people had a problem with the tower defense minigame. Maybe it's just because I love the TD genre, but it seems fine to me. Not exceptionally well done or deep, but for a minor diversion I don't see any reason to hate on it. Is this really a thing?
  - MamiyaOtaru
    
     reply
    September 24, 2012 5:05 PM
    
    yep. couldn't stand it. Of course I hate tower defense period, so having my AssCreed gameplay interrupted to do a poorly implemented version of it was super unwelcome
    - [deleted] 2084680424
      
       reply
      September 24, 2012 6:59 PM
      
      [deleted]
  - Vimn
    
     reply
    September 24, 2012 7:04 PM
    
    Not a fan of TD, so the first thing I ended up doing was getting master assassin's at every tower just so I wouldn't have to put up with it.
    - MamiyaOtaru
      
       reply
      September 24, 2012 7:09 PM
      
      I just got really anal about tearing down posters and bribing heralds. Only had to do TD twice, but i didnt like having to tsilor my gameplay around avoiding it
  - Conan
    
     reply
    September 25, 2012 6:27 AM
    
    I didn't have a problem per se, I just didn't think it added anything.
  - bryanvlo
    
     reply
    September 25, 2012 12:54 PM
    
    I didn't pick up the game just because of this. I don't mind TD, but it just seems retarded in this genre. Also read that it was hugely non-fun.