In our TA section, it honestly seemed like people weren't too excited about playing AC3 (myself included). When we're used to playing games like Celeste and Superhot in lab, I get why we weren't too sure about AC3. And while I think it's hardly a game I would play in my free time, I actually think we REALLY need to appreciate the mistakes it made.
There are a lot reasons why AC3 is so clunky. The walls feel weird to climb, jumping into the hay barrels is awkward, and the general lack of identity with the protagonist avatars. I get why the AC series gets such mixed reviews, but we need to also consider how close it got.
The walls were the first tripping point for our group. I'm going to be honest, we are quite spoiled by Breath of The Wild. It was really weird that some walls were not interactable without any clear indication. But, AC3 deserves some credit for pioneering the idea. They weren't the first open world game, but they certainly started adding depth to the enviroment. Most open world games before this series used it as a prop, but AC3 really started building it into the language of the game. Almost every mission in this game requires you to climb something, jump from building to building, or use the natural cover. By building in climbing, AC carved a new standard into the art.
And even if AC somewhat failed at it's own standard, it failed in an obvious way. It failed in a way that was interesting. Without experimentation like this, there is no precedent for other games to improve upon. AC taught us to value world design beyond an aesthetic, open world games have the potential to use its landscape as much more than that.
I will admit, I actually think the roleplaying aspect is a huge miss. I don't think a triple protagonist style is good for building relationships between the player and character. Even if you didn't have to use all three, I think it's psychologically hard for humans to see themselves in three characters at once. The plot just sets this inherent distance from the role we are supposed to be playing. But, I think it's a really cool way to set the player up as an observer. Not great if you want to emulate the freedom of being an assassin. But in a game like GTAV RDR2, or any other game with amoral protagonists, it's a great way to set distance between the player's self image and the protagonists character. It's not the intention at all of AC, but I think this game is incredibly pivotal in what was to come for gaming. And even if this one in particular wasn't ready entirely, we still need to appreciate it.
I think it is also interesting to think about what defines a video game series. It's more than just a character, every video game series that stands out has something unique about it, whether its a game mechanic or a certain element. And for Assassin's Creed one of their trademark features is this open world, but containing multiple different elevation levels. So over the years, not only was the series able to continue the story line they began in the first game, graphics also improved, game quality as a whole did as well, and specifically they were able to try various things in relation to this open high to low elevation exploration that other games couldn't. So while some games…
I really agree with you that games should be sources of experimentation, and that failing while doing something interesting is worth it. Even if AC3 itself was not a hit, the rise of the AC series could not be where it is today without the introduction of some of the pivotal mechanics of lots of climbing and jumping. I will be honest that my level of knowledge of AC before this week was very small, but everything I knew was about how important the open world, jumping and climbing were to the series. Since these factors have very much become synonymous with AC games, I do agree with you that this game should not only be evaluated based on itself,…
I think you raise an interesting point how AC 3 is an experimental game in the sense that it gives us the freedom to interact with the environment in a multitude of ways in which it was not possible to do so previously in video games. I also completely agree with your point of video games in that it many video game offers something new and different form what was previously experienced. I think that's one of the key reasons that analyzing video games is rewarding and exciting. It allows you to interact with an element that maybe previously wasn't available in prior video games or it fleshes out a concept that was forming.
I understand what you mean about the triple protagonist style, but I actually thought that was one of the better aspects of the game. I think it sets up a sort of relationship between the player and the character that consists of similarity. We as people are not one-dimensional or only have one aspect of ourselves that we are all the time and neither does Aveline. I think it allows people to be able to identify with Aveline at times because she has to judge several identities at one time (that sometimes conflict) and, at least for me, I can relate to that.