Assassin’s Creed III is Ubisoft’s most ambitious entry in the series to date, and after spending a couple of hours with the game it’s not hard to see why. Featuring a sprawling open-world to explore, improved combat and a brand new engine, the game dwarfs its predecessors in terms of sheer scale and technical "oomph."
Yet bizarrely for a game that has endured three years of development, it’s easily the buggiest Assassin’s Creed game yet. This is particularly odd considering the fact previous games had considerably less time in the oven, and while not completely free of technical blemishes, performed far more consistently than Connor’s American adventure.
Things were so bad that Ubisoft had to cobble together a day-one patch for the sequel – and even then it didn’t iron out all the creases. Bugs and glitches vary from amusing to the slightly irritating, including bears walking through solid cliff faces, NPCs failing to trigger specific events, being able to open doors while on the roof above, game crashes, floating guns, choppy frame rate and more.
Why did the game ship with all these bugs? More importantly, how is it that a game that has endured such an arduous development cycle could contain more issues than annualized offerings such as Brotherhood and Revelations? Evidently, there’s always a pressure on publishers to deliver the product on its projected ship date, and Assassin’s Creed III is no exception. However, that shouldn’t excuse shipping such a sloppy product.
As mentioned, even after the patch PS3 users are still reporting many bugs. Some users are reporting instances of challenges becoming unbeatable. It’s a shame too, as the game could have been far more memorable than the buggy mess we received at launch. It’s also contradictory to Ubisoft’s pledge to deliver quality experiences – especially in an annualized series like Assassin’s Creed – to basically rush a game to market fully aware of the amount of niggles that still exist. Delays are never an easy pill to swallow, but surely quality would win the day in the long run?
How do you feel, PSU readers? Do you think we deserve better treatment of the triple-A sequels we're investing in? Or would you rather play the game sooner with a host of bugs? Let us know in the comments section below.