Assassin's Creed III is (supposedly) the final part of Desmond Miles' story of the Assassin's Creed series. The game picks up where Revelations left off, with the Assassin Team in front of the Grand Temple. The new protagonist and main ancestor is Connor Ratohnhake:ton (pronounced Ra-doon-ha-gay-doo), a half-European, half-Native-American Assassin.

Personally, I was pretty much against the fact that the setting was going to be Revolutionary America, since in my opinion that time period is boring, overused and "meh". I wanted the game to take place during the French Revolution, since that seemed much more interesting and more in-line with Assassin's Creed's overall style. BUT, with all this new info, I've gotten more optimistic about the game. Assassin's Creed: Revelations, which came out last November 2011, was disappointing, and I realize this has led the others to drop the series and think it's turned into a sellout like CoD. But I haven't lost hope in AC3 yet. It's been in development for three years, after all; it better be fucking epic.

Assassin's Creed III will be released on October 30, 2012.

More details on AC3 here.

Discuss.

---

I wouldn't say Revolutionary America is overused at all. I can't even recall a game set in that time period... Besides the setting makes complete sense since it follows the ending of Revelations, but from what I've read on other AC3 articles people only complain because it's not set in China/Japan. *Sigh* Methinks people only care for the gameplay and they don't give a shit about the story.

I've never really complained about yearly Assassin's Creed games simply because the story is continued. I could really care less about how gameplay supposed to be "altered" each iteration, but IMO if it isn't broken then don't fix it. Yeah, I suppose I understand that Block, Counter, Kill streak is too easy and that's why some are easily turned off by the series. Ehh whatevs. You could say the same for a lotta games *coughCODcough*.

In conclusion, Assassin's Creed 3 will be awesome. Desmond will find that secret vault, and Lucy will RIP.

---

In games, maybe not, except for the RTS genre. But overall, if you're talking books, movies, TV shows, hell even songs, the Revolution IS pretty overused. But like I said, all the newly-released info is making me more optimistic about it, and the setting does make sense since the Grand Temple is in New York.

But the idiots who keep complaining because AC3 isn't set in China / Japan are just whining because they didn't get the fucking samurai and ninjas they wanted. Pfft. I find the fanboys who use Shao Jun as "evidence" of AC3 being in Asia especially ridiculous. And besides, an Asian ancestor would make absolutely no sense in Desmond's case, now would it? If anything, Connor is a key figure in explaining how Altair and Ezio's bloodlines made it to America, thus resulting in the Miles family.

Gameplay-wise, I heard the Ubi developed AC3 "from the ground up". By that, I HOPE they bring back the level of difficulty in fighting that was present in AC1. Let's face it, the AC2 / ACB/ ACR guards were weak and pathetic, and fighting was way too easy. OK, the Papal Guards in AC2 and ACB were a bit better, but the Janissaries in ACR were just a huge pain in the ass. I also hope we'll be able to recruit more Assassins in this game, too. Maybe Native-Americans from other tribes or something. And they could also apply free-running to nature, and not just buildings. I for one think it would be cool to jump from treetop to treetop, or rock face to rock face, etc.

And speaking of Lucy, did you by any chance play The Lost Archive DLC? It was pretty shitty because of the annoying first-person gameplay, but we finally confirmed that

---

Oh yeah no doubt the AR is used in other forms of media, but games aside from RTS's are pretty rare which is why I find it to be a nice setting full of possibilities for adventures. The China/Japan fanboys really bother me with their begging for Samurai and Ninja I wouldn't mind playing that way, but really what's the point.

And no I didn't play the Lost Archive DLC, but that's a pretty big twist. I figured Lucy was a Templar given from Juno's cryptic speech in Brotherhood, but I was never too sure. Urgh, DLC. Such a dumb practice.

---

And I think DLCs are a stupid practice too. Why not release the important shit along with the whole game in the first place, eh? Greedy bastards.

---

Unfortunately my memory only goes as far back as Brotherhood, so I tend to forget a lot of plot points in the AC series since it's pretty heavy with information and junk.I mean seriously, it's 60 bucks for the damn game, plus another 10 for 1-2 hours of plot points. Why must consoles be connected to the internet?! Oh right...

---

Teaser trailer has been released.

Game looks pretty sick so far. I was expecting better graphics, but the free-running on the trees won me over.

---

I stopped playing after the second one came out.

I like the second, and new ones kept coming out and I don't like following games that change too quickly.

---

The last two spinoff games were made by a different dev team, which explains the sub-par quality. AC3 has been in development since 2009, so it should be better than the last two. At least, that's what I'm hoping.

P.S. This is off-topic, but I really like your user avatar for some reason. Reminds me of Disney's Tarzan LOL.

---

I don't see why people would be bitching so much. The American Revolution was an extremely important time period on global history, drenched in historical goodies. No one, no matter how America hating, disliking, disdaining can deny the country's position as a superpower, and it's tumultuous political history lends itself to an Assassin's Creed game perfectly. The only other plausible locale around the same timeframe (given the 200-300 year jumps the Assassin's Creed series makes to distinguish each main entry from each other), would be the French Revolution, and frankly I feel that might not be as captivating as the American Revolution.

Also, my favorites are those who are feel like setting it in America will ruin it because Americans are full of themselves etc. etc., yet do not realize that 1) the present day storyline has been in America since the beginning of AC:R, 2) Revolutionary America is vastly different from America today, and 3) it wasn't set there because the team had huge patriot boners, Ubisoft is a French development team, so if they chose the American over the French revolution, I'm sure they felt it would be better for the game.

My only worry is that there won't be huge cities like in the past. Florence, Venice, and Rome were brilliant, and alive, I'm unsure how revolutionary America will capture that.

---

Ubisoft themselves have acknowledged that, and that's most likely the reason for the new Frontier system where we get to climb trees and rock faces instead of buildings. But Alex Hutchinson did say that there would be "a lot of churches to climb". I know these are most likely at the same height as the AC1 churches, but meh, as long as we get an equal share of nature- and urban-based free-running, I'm game.

Also, I'm intrigued about this recent interview where we apparently get to assassinate someone "within the first 30 seconds of the game".

---

This one amuses me a lot more than my old one did.
But you might like this

---

That song has been stuck in my head ever since I clicked that linked. Haha, good job.

---