They have done such a fantastic job of lowering the quality of their games over the last ten years that when you look back on AC3, it’s so much better by comparison now, it is hard to be disappointed with it.

A lot of studios have been elevating their legacy titles in exactly the same way lately. Looking at you BioWare.

I dunno. Connor is still boring - nigh unlikable - but the mechanics were solid, and the hunting was done well......Haytham was an awesome foil, and the side characters were cool, but it still all felt disconnected somehow. It wasn't bad, just not nearly as good as Ezio's trilogy. It did sow the seeds for Black Flag, though.

I credit this game for introducing me to Nine Man’s Morris.

Ezio will always be my favorite Assassin. As for AC 3 I liked some aspects like the ship battles later ironed out in AC4 and Rogue. AC3 was all right not one of my faves after AC2 I would go AC4, Rogue, Oddysey, then Syndicate all as my favorite interests. I really hated Unity and Liberation Valhalla I lost interest in it and the new one I might grab when it's convenient on sale. But like Final Fantasy Assassin's Creed everybody has their favorite entry AC 3 was not mine.

AC 3 is actually my favorite because its the only one where you actually get to do SOMETHING in the modern era! After 3, all modern stuff went to pot. This is what they should have been building off, but alas, they went down the endless grind and filler route, as is the easy, sloppy, lazy, monetized method of making games. The Ubisoft Way(tm).

AC 3 was definitely rushed a bit, and needed some patches, but overall I enjoyed it, and the DLC story packs. People complained about the slow start and character switch, but I loved it. People complained about the boring main character, but I thought he was exactly what the game needed. People complained about the homestead (building your own small village as the story progresses), but I enjoyed it.

After AC 3 the series lore went down the toilet, it meant nothing, and lead to nothing but worthless dead ends. I kept playing until Odyssey, but after too many throwaway plots (6 games in a row!), I will never support Ubisoft again, though I will continue to play the old games I've bought, they no longer get my money, for their generic, filler, grindy, skill-tree filling, repetitive trash.

I wouldn't really say it ventured far from where the series was already at. It just looked nicer, but it was more of the same. Yet again focusing more on the past while ignoring what was happening in the present until near the end of the game. The protagonist was a huge missed opportunity, instead they named him Connor and mostly ignored the fact that he was a native. And I think that's where the game failed, they should've focused more on the struggle of the natives, which by the games opening you'd think that's what the story would've focused on but instead Connor was more a walking/breathing America propaganda.
Also it's a bit confusing cause the Templar's were the ones that destroyed his camp, but then they're the ones that are trying to help the Indians. So the Assassin's were more of the bad guys in this but Connor never really questions this. Also the ending was horrible, they did Desmond dirty. I was really disappointed overall with how horribly they handled the modern day sections and rather than fix em they kill off Desmond.

Being lake to the party (finished this game in 2022 on Switch and it was my first Assassin's Creed game after 1 back in 2007), I can honestly say that I really liked it despite the newer mechanics that most modern games have now introduced.

Conor was in my opinion likeable because he was driven but gullible (trusted both sides at some point) and his relationship with his father was varied. He started as an orphan who became an assassin who assisted Americans and allied with his templar father for a short time

The beginning was also different that the other Assassin's creed games, as they put you in the shoes of a Templar who was a very likeable character.

You cant beat Ezzio collection which I finished this year so the memory is recent, but it was a real enjoyable game.

Also Black Flag and Rogue (yes I know Rogue it is not the people's favorite) were better than 3, but this is not to say that I did not really enjoyed 3.

But this is clearly subjective as for me Shay Cormac was my favorite character (unpopular opinion),

No

Among my top 5 Assassin's Creed games.

1, 3, Rogue and Valhalla were my favorites.

Pros: Haytham was awesome. Much more compelling and charismatic character. (“I do not feign affection!”)
Some cool combat (including introing ship combat)
King Washington DLC was fun and creative.
Cons: Connor. All the charisma of a wet blanket. Who somehow was behind like every event in American early history? Paul Revere riding bitch on the back of his horse pushed it over the top for me.
Tree running.

I love this game so much! I'm so glad they remastered it for 60 FPS goodness 😁

It's was boring. Only thing I liked about it was they introduced the boats. That became a big part of the best in the series assassin's creed 4.

No. I'm not apologising to a game.

No, the game was sh!t imo

Found Connor and the setting a bit borng, it was also super glitchy at launch, I preferred black flag which this laid the groundwork for, but even then there are way too man tailing missions.

Nope. Haven't really liked any of them. Somehow I've tried all of them.

No. 40% of the game was a tutorial and I'll never forgive such terrible game design. Game was dull, quests completely forgettable, press square to kill everyone, and a story that's only memorable for its opening twist and nothing else. Assassin's Creed 3 is where the series went wrong. It course corrected gameplay wise with Black Flag but that's where I'd put the decline.

This entire franchise is lame as hell. Can't believe it was financially successful enough for ubisoft to milk the hell out of it.

It does. It's a great game that was a big step forward for the series. I like it more than the Exio trilogy .