So I played Assassin’s Creed Origins. Now playing AC3 and there’s more story in the first twenty mins than all of Origins

[Baccus]

Also having a scene in which after 1 minute you get a black screen that says 1 year later is just sloppy. Why even have that scene prior to the time skip in the first place?

Click to shrink...

Because it was supposed to show how the state of things was "happy" before. Bayek is shown as a noble family man dressed in white in the flashback. We see the Pharaoh and the people celebrating, and then he looking at smiling Bayek with a suspicious look. Then we see the former clean man all bloodied, bearded and looking for revenge, in a dark lit environment which serves as a contrast to the colorful sunny landscape presented at first . It was supposed to create intrigue and make you wonder "what happened?" Something that, as you said, is told an hour later, which is fine because videogames are long.

Can't see the problem really.

 

[60fps]

The only Assassin's Creed games I've played are 3, about 20 hours of Odyssey, and 50 hours of Valhalla. I know that 3 is generally considered to be the worst in the series, but man did I enjoy it. I loved it's revolutionary war setting and the story drew me in a lot more than Odyssey and Valhalla's did.

Click to shrink...

I played every AC up to Syndicate, so I haven't played the newer ones, but 3 has always been my favorite, followed by Black Flag. It fascinated me in ways few games ever do.

 

[Serpens007]

The real problem of AC3 is the pacing and that, while the initial twist is good, it takes so damn long that it's easy to lose interest once you get to play as Connor and get yet more tutorials. This was the ending for the Desmond era, already the fifth main game, it wasn't really needed to have tutorials as Desmond, then Haytham, then Connor.

AC Syndicate is the total opposite. Beggining is do damn fast, they care so little about the whole assasin's stuff, that it feels like "here, you are an assassin, go free London, have fun". Syndicate was pretty fun at least, but the formula was already repetitive, which in combination with the former, made me hard to care about what happened there. But Evie and some sequences were good enough to keep you plaing.

Origins story took a while to grow up on me. It's one of those games where it's easy to have fun without caring much about anything.

 

[Aerial51]

Because it was supposed to show how the state of things was "happy" before. Bayek is shown as a noble family man dressed in white in the flashback. We see the Pharaoh and the people celebrating, and then he looking at smiling Bayek with a suspicious look. Then we see the former clean man all bloodied, bearded and looking for revenge, in a dark lit environment which serves as a contrast to the colorful sunny landscape presented at first . It was supposed to create intrigue and make you wonder "what happened?" Something that, as you said, is told an hour later, which is fine because videogames are long.

Can't see the problem really.

Click to shrink...

The problem is that the in medias res is just used because they thought the actual beginning would be too boring, maybe?
Everything is too brief, there is no room to establish anything.
AC:O throws you in, gives you no real thing to be intrigued about, it rather leaves you confused and then retroactively explains to you 1 hour later what the actual meaning behind the cinematic was that you watched.

Contrast that with the in medias res used in Uncharted 2 which worked so much better. It starts with Nate in an situation that clearly escalated in insane directions, you have brief flashbacks to key characters and from that point on you want to find out how the hell he got in this crazy situation. Once you reach the train station during the midway point, you know something is going to go wrong and all of that builds up in one of the strongest set pieces of the entire franchise.

I think the AC:O Cinematic would have worked better if it would have cut out the part where you see Bayek as a nice Medjay and Family man and instead only shows us the revenge seeking, screaming bloodthirsty one and then starts the Game where he actually wasn't that man and shows us how he became that. And even then i still think you would not need it, because if this happens in like 1 hour then just start at the actual beginning.

 

[Garulon]

I mean, one of AC3's biggest problems is its horrible pacing, due to how much walking and talking it has compared to how little gameplay it has, and this is especially brutal in the like first 5-8 hours of AC3, i.e. the tutorial.

Click to shrink...

And when new York unlocks, my god. Five steps then it's forced story after forced story for three hours

 

[Gestault]

I know the more recent games have been better received in this regard, but content padding is/was a serious problem in the Assassins Creed series, hard stop. I personally struggle to start even the ones I expect to enjoy, and it's hard not to resent the way they sometimes treat the player's time.

 

[AndyD]

Which one was 3? I played Black Flag then jumped to Rogue then Origins. Was 3 the one in Boston?

 

[psychedelic]

My personal number one reason for quitting Assassin's Creed was the eventual lack of modern-day storyline. Now having heard that Valhalla has made an effort to revive it in some form, I might play it at some point.

 

[Necromorph]

I should probably give Origins a second chance after like 20 hours on it but I feel the same way. I felt the series lost its charm and got away too much from the Assassin's story that grabbed me in other games. I also feel that the map is too big which seems to be a concern in the latter games reading opinions on Odyssey and Valhalla.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, as a person who like to do the most of the content on a game, the new trilogy is too much grinding, fetch quest, mini quest, etc.. it's a cake with too much sugar.