Was that it?!
Okay, I don't want to admit it given how much I spent on the collector's edition but I'm actually kinda disappointed in this game. It was playable, don't get me wrong. It worked, it was fun, it filled time. But it was just adequate. There was nothing incredible like in Assassin's Creed II. At least that knew what it wanted to be. I buy the Assassin's Creed series because I want to be a stealthy assassin. What is with this idea of making everything cinematic? What was wrong with the first Assassin's Creed games system of finding out information about your target, then figuring the way of best going about dispatching them? Okay, it got old fast and was horribly repetitive. But the idea was there. I also put a little of the blame on Connor who, compared to Ezio, was incredibly boring to follow. I didn't really feel all that attached to him and his progression as a character seemed a tad predictable. Though Colonial America wasn't really a particularly fantastic era to set the game, especially when compared to the previous Renaissance setting and some of the more interesting events in that period, such as the French revolution) I did like seeing just how much research and effort was made into making this world seem alive. The frontier was beautiful, but then I can't help but think I didn't buy a Colonial America simulator.
As I said, I liked the game but I just have gripes with it that I can't overcome. Is it wrong that I actually think the best part of the game were the ones where you play as Desmond? The whole Connor story arc just felt like so much padding or, for want of a better phrase, "faffing about". I'm sure some day they'll give us a modern day Assassin's Creed. Or Ubisoft will give us Watch_Dog which is also acceptable.
Now I should probably go back and finish Darksiders 2, which I really was enjoying, and then finally try and go through my hideously oversized backlog. Mass Effect 3 after that, people?