New member
Hi, seeing as it said new users should post here first (though it's actually my 2nd post 
) I thought I would give a short introduction.
I'm RaccoonSandwich.
Been a fan of the AC franchise since the first game, which in my opinion is still the best of the bunch.
I've played all the major AC games, and I think its a shame that Ubisoft is moving the franchise further and further away from the original installment with each game released (In terms of target assassinations mostly).
Welcome!
Sounds like you'll fit in here just fine. 
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
You're not alone. The core traditions of:
- feeling like an assassin
- stealth
- excellent designed assassination missions
are all gone. This series assassinated itself a long time ago.
You're not alone. The core traditions of:- feeling like an assassin
- stealth
- excellent designed assassination missionsare all gone. This series assassinated itself a long time ago.
Exactly.
Especially the first and 3rd point you make is what really bothers me, seeing as ubi did add some stealth (though usually as weird optional objectives).
I would have been fine with all the missions before the actual target assassinations being "anti-AC" but in my opinion the target Assassination should always be the highpoint of a sequence. Yet in AC3 they all seemed to be an afterthough/something to rush through. If I remember correct there are only 2 assassinations where you are allowed some freedom (Though very limited too, but better than nothing) out of the 8 targets in game (Connor's six, and Silas/Braddock with Haytham) where the rest were chases or the infamous "Press square button"(How I hate these kinds of "assassinations", seriously WHO enjoys this). Though this was something that already started in AC2 it reached a new low in this game.
I should probably save my frustrations/issues with the game for an appropriate thread though
So many topics on GameFAQs start out with "I know AC1 is the worst game in the series..." or "What would I miss if I skipped the first game?" I feel like screaming, "You'd miss the greatest game of all time!" 
I don't say that but sometimes mention that a plurality of members of The Hidden Blade agree that AC1 is their favorite title in the series.
Besides the well-designed assassinations, another thing I liked about AC1 is that Hidden Blade Counters and Air to Assassinate were basically undocumented and challenging to pull off even after you learned about them. I practiced doing airs on regular guards and then made videos of air assassinating main targets. In subsequent AC games, Air Assassinations became well-documented and routine. I quit making videos of them because it was just like, "Watch me press X."
AC3 Assassinations:
Seq 2 - Infiltrating Southgate - Freedom is there, even if it's not stealthy.
Seq 3 - Braddock Expedition - Chase... but you can probably be creative when he sits there cowering at the end.
Seq 6 - Hostile Negotiations - Full freedom to do whatever you want.
Seq 7 - Battle of Bunker Hill - MUCH more linear than needed (should be able to infiltrate the battlefield), but still have some options for stealth and open combat once you reach the target zone.
Seq 8 - Public Execution - No real freedom, but look at the front page... fun stuff can be achieved... but still, not very good gameplay wise.
Seq 9 - A Bitter End - not the best assassination mission, but Seq 9 was among the best in any AC game, if you ask me.
Seq 11 - Lee's last stand - the mission is okay, the assassination, not so much.
Seq 12 - Chasing Lee - Not good from a creativity standpoint, but I didn't mind as much as most.
Things I'm happy with AC3 about, Assassination wise:
- Moreso than any game, save the original, each target had some lead up... because
- Each sequence (few exceptions) actually ended with an Assassination target that was the focus of the sequence! You relive memories to gather information on certain guys. In AC1, you did the same thing... but they were investigations... since then, they've tried to tell more of a structured story with more ancillary character development. The only way to do that is to make the game more linear.
AC3 was definitely better than ACB/ACR in regards to freedom to operate within Assassination missions. And it was better than AC2 in regards to meaningful targets. In AC2, you learn about a guy, then kill him immediately (something like 26 times).
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
Sadly enough, because of comments like that Ubisoft will probably never go back that kind of gameplay. They will cater to the loud majority.
Though one can still hope.
Don't get me wrong though, I loved AC3. It's just when I start to think about these things and what it could have been, it kinda makes me sad/angry
So many topics on GameFAQs start out with "I know AC1 is the worst game in the series..." or "What would I miss if I skipped the first game?" I feel like screaming
i know this feeling so much.
Hello, Mr. Raccoon. I'm glad you agree with a lot of our views. 
To me AC1 and 2 are tied as the best.
And it was better than AC2 in regards to meaningful targets. In AC2, you learn about a guy, then kill him immediately (something like 26 times).
Actually, about every target is introduced early.
Rodrigo appears several times in the game.
Uberto is the one who hangs Ezio's family.
Vieri is the first enemy you make.
Francesco (Vieri's father) and Jacopo appear in a scene before Vieri's assassination.
The other Pazzi conspirators appear to attempt killing Lorenzo.
Emilio appears in the scene before you kill Jacopo.
Carlo appears in the scene before you kill Emilio.
The other Venetian conspirators appear in Birds of a Feather memory and a few other times.
I would have been fine with all the missions before the actual target assassinations being "anti-AC" but in my opinion the target Assassination should always be the highpoint of a sequence.
To me assassination targets are like the boss battles of the game, except you can kill them instantly with stealth. They truly should be the highlight of the sequence.
Sadly enough, because of comments like that Ubisoft will probably never go back that kind of gameplay. They will cater to the loud majority.Though one can still hope.
Don't get me wrong though, I loved AC3. It's just when I start to think about these things and what it could have been, it kinda makes me sad/angry
Then we just have to be louder.
You hear that, Ubisoft? Make well designed assassination targets!!!
*screams*
Welcome, RaccoonSandwich! I've already appreciated your comments so far! 
Very nice to have you on board Raccoon
You've already contributed something major to the Assassin's Creed III research we've been doing on the William Johnson mission. Can't wait to see what else you'll have to say in the future.
Hello, Mr. Raccoon. I'm glad you agree with a lot of our views.Double McStab with Cheese wrote:
And it was better than AC2 in regards to meaningful targets. In AC2, you learn about a guy, then kill him immediately (something like 26 times).Actually, about every target is introduced early.
Rodrigo appears several times in the game.
Uberto is the one who hangs Ezio's family.
Vieri is the first enemy you make.
Francesco (Vieri's father) and Jacopo appear in a scene before Vieri's assassination.
The other Pazzi conspirators appear to attempt killing Lorenzo.
Emilio appears in the scene before you kill Jacopo.
Carlo appears in the scene before you kill Emilio.
The other Venetian conspirators appear in Birds of a Feather memory and a few other times.
You can't pretend to tell me that the background on Antonio Maffei, Bernardo Baroncelli, Stephano de Bagnone, Francisco Salviati, the Orsi Brothers, or any of Savonarola's 9 lieutenants was more meaningful than the targets in AC3. That's over half the targets right there. And just because you appear in a scene earlier in the game doesn't automatically mean you have a meaningful backstory or character development. I never felt as connected to the targets in Ezio's trilogy as I did to Altair's targets or Connor's. Even after playing all the games twice (except AC3, only one playthrough so far).
The good thing about the AC3 leadups, is that to the player (and to Desmond, if you will) we know them very early on. Know their motives, etc.
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
You can't pretend to tell me that the background on Antonio Maffei, Bernardo Baroncelli, Stephano de Bagnone, Francisco Salviati, the Orsi Brothers, or any of Savonarola's 9 lieutenants was more meaningful than the targets in AC3. That's over half the targets right there. And just because you appear in a scene earlier in the game doesn't automatically mean you have a meaningful backstory or character development. I never felt as connected to the targets in Ezio's trilogy as I did to Altair's targets or Connor's. Even after playing all the games twice (except AC3, only one playthrough so far).The good thing about the AC3 leadups, is that to the player (and to Desmond, if you will) we know them very early on. Know their motives, etc.
Spoiler: Highlight to viewHell. We recruit them all to the cause ourselves!
True, but we don't "learn about a guy, then kill him immediately". Just making a point. And concerning the spoiler