cogadh: I don't get the dislike for AC 3, it was one of my favorites in the series (even more than the Ezio trilogy).
JMich: Post may contain spoilers My beef with AC3 is Connor. While I did like the setting and the mechanics quite a bit (spent quite some time bear hunting), the main character is like a spoiled child. While Ezio understood why he has to do something he disagrees with, Connor acted like a hothead, acting without thinking of the consequences. He rarely (if ever) accepted advice, and he always thought he knew better.
It has been too long since I played AC2, but I don't recall Ezio acting that way. And while Altair in AC1 may have started that way (in the prologue), he did learn humility soon enough.
See, that's what I liked about Connor, he was more realistically relatable. Unlike Altair, who was just an arrogant asshole for no apparent reason at the beginning of his game or Ezio who was on yet another generic video game "I shall avenge my family!" quest, Connor has far more complex motivations and more human reactions to them. His mother was murdered, his tribe virtually destroyed, the very land they live on is being taken away, all by these Templar and their white man associates. He wants to go on that generic revenge quest like Ezio and get a little "tribal justice" for his entire culture, but can't because he's too young/inexperienced/ignorant. I get why he was such a hothead and refused anyone's advice, he had no reason to trust anyone after what he had been through, then he gets thrust into the cloak and dagger machinations of a centuries long, worldwide conspiracy where trusting anyone can mean a knife in the back. On top of that, the conspiracy directly relates to, and by extension draws Connor in to, doing what is best for the white man invaders in what used to be his country. Anger on top of angst on top of vengeance on top of pride... that's bound to make anyone act a little petulant, I think.
