Will not stay on
Assassin's Creed III
Capturing a sense a serious amounts of place has always been central towards appeal of each Assassin's Creed. If the dusty streets of Masayaf, the c**** veined archipelago of Venice or even the sun baked Constantinople, everyone of Ubisoft's chosen settings has been designed with such a level of authenticity and historical accuracy (albeit twisted because of their narrative purposes), which it's quite normal you just read stories of tourists having the capacity to make their way around Rome simply from having memorised the map in Brotherhood.
It's hardly surprising then that with Assassin's Creed III Ubisoft have absolutely nailed a recreation of 18th century revolutionary America. It's a sprawling land of open forest, bustling colonial cities and epic naval warfare, loaded with wildlife, frontiersmen and Redcoats. Many techniques from the lengthy reload animation of the period musket, towards the recognisable compacting crunch of jumping though waist high snow may be meticulously designed: not since Red Dead Redemption's Wild West comes with an American frontier been so fully realised and engrossing.
The burgeoning wooden structures of Boston and New York play much like the brick tiled buildings of Europe, albeit after a little less verticality and wider streets. However it's from the forested areas that people understand why Ubisoft think worthy of another numbered entry in the series, rather than a subtitled sequel. The pine-valleyed frontier is usually a technical and visual marvel, and whilst there's a little too much conveniently angular geometry operating in the series' trademark free running gameplay, it's varied enough to weave a convincing illusion. The width, depth and breadth on the " new world " can be a grand ambitious statement of intent from Ubisoft - this really is their American epic.
210 views
Usually answered in minutes!
×