Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Assassin's Creed III

Montsta

By Montsta,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Montsta Rising Star

Montsta

Posted
Posted

Anyone else playing this? I picked it up on release day but have only played a few hours. I'm having surgery tomorrow and so I should be playing a ton this weekend while I heal. The multiplayer portion seemed as good as ever. I played AC:B multiplayer with a buddy of mine, but he never played Revelation so I didn't do the MP portion of that game. If anyone has this for PS3 let me know. I'd love to find some people that play multiplayer the way I do. Like when me and my buddy used to play one of us would use eagle vision and lock the target so the other could come up and disguise-poison him for a huge bonus and get 1300-point kills regularly. I'd also like to try wolf pack mode. PS3 name is V_1_C_1_0_U_S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C47 Newbie

C47

Posted
Posted

I picked up Dishonored for PC, Forza Horizon, and ACIII for 360 because they have a buy two get one sale on all games at target. Played the hell out of Dishonored and Forza yesterday, and gonna start ACIII today. Looking forward to getting into it, as I really liked the American Revolution setting....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CarolinaNCSU Proficient

CarolinaNCSU

Posted
Posted

Fun so far. Combat does seem harder than in the past, but if I remember correctly you had to buy new weapons/armor to increase your abilities. Haven't seen that yet though, and honestly haven't seen many stores. The game is moving kind of slow with all the steps you have to take to get to Connor, but I kind of like it as well. Also, the mission/parts of the missions can be unclear sometimes...so when all else fails, I just kill people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillerKat Grand Master

KillerKat

Posted
Posted

Don't like it so far. All the controls are different. There's only 1 button that controls running and climbing so if you run into something, you climb it. The fighting is weird and the gun shooting is really really annoying. How does a 15th century assassin have a better gun than an 18th century assassin? Takes so long to reload and hard to get the actual gun to shoot when you want it too. And you can't use any of your weapons unless you are locked on someone now. Outside of Boston, the maps are too chopped up and takes too long to get from one point to another. I've also gotten really bored at times with this game due to not enough action.

SPOLIER:

The writing isn't that good either. So Connor's dad has been nice and gentle the entire beginning of the game, then suddenly he's a templar and beating up kids and burning down the mother of his kid's village? I mean, he killed a guy that he used to consider his "brother" because that guy killed innocent people and children, so wtf? I wish they showed how his dad went from being an assassin to being a templar. Hopefully they will later in the game, Im on sequence 5 now. And also the random guy Achilles who somehow used to be an assassin and is teaching Connor now.

/END SPOILER

Overall it's like it's a whole nother game. I'm hoping when I actually get to the part where Connor is an assassin, the game will be better. Right now I can say that I'm really dissapointed in the game. If I had to rank all the AC games right now, I would put this as the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...