Recent reviews by Keep calm and eat Milky Way

Would I recommend buying this game? Absolutely not. It has a good basis but this release has been terrible.

• There is an insane lack of (interesting) content. No statement of "We have 1000+ more events and so much more things to do than EU4 at its end of life!" is going to make a "lose 5000 ducats or gain 7 stab" event interesting. There are many mechanics/situations but those all feel very barebones and there is legitimately stuff that does not matter at all - Buddhist cults are quite generic for example.
  
• The game tries too much for what it can actually deliver. I know that Johan (the project lead who already fumbled the release of Imperator: Rome) is very ambitious with his games and here he at least involved the community a bit but that does not detract from the fact that there are many things in this game that either don't matter or should not be interacted with; The trade interface basically just outright lies to you and even if it wouldn't, reacting, as a human player, to a highly dynamic trading situation is simply unrealistic and necessarily worse than the automation. What I'm trying to say is that there should have been a second person involved here who at least sometimes asks "Hey, is this useful?" or "Have we tested how good this is as a mechanic?" but apparently no one at PDX has learned from I:R and the various terrible EU4 DLCs that certain people ("visionaries") should not be left to their own devices when it comes to a project as large as a game. The outcome is this half-baked mess that is continuously being fixed which brings me to my next point:
  
• Even worse than with other titles, the community is just assumed to be responsible for QA testing this game. This week alone there have been three (!!) updates, which, along with the usual post-release fixes, have changed parts of the game balance (trade expenses, levy sizes and combat power) that have evidently not been tested at all since the next patch partially or even largely reverted the previous changes again, which have, judging from forum and Reddit posts, ruined quite a few saves. If any complaint about this is voiced on the forums, Johan (again!) throws a tantrum about how people hate his masterpiece and sees it as a personal attack.
  
• Somehow, they decided against allowing achievements if you have mods enabled or play the tutorial (which by the way does not give you any modifiers that make the game easier). This is despite the fact that after years of this policy Paradox has changed their course on this to basically always allow achievements, which was a huge success for more recent titles (like, after Johan was gone, Imperator) and was likely a factor in saving Vicky3 from being dead on arrival. There is no obvious reason for this step back as achievements are still not tied to any real world value and, if you really want to, modifying the executable would actually allow you to do this anyways.
  
• I like that they followed the more modern style of having rebellions be actual countries and not just easily wipeable stacks of peasants but has anyone tested this on a larger scale? Sometimes rebellions are so big you literally cannot put them down. I don't mean because their armies are too large - that would be fine - but because they didn't account for too high warscore cost; independence does not allow you to full-annex the rebelling country, so selecting all provinces individually might prevent you from annexing a rebellion. Probably more of a minor issue but just the fact that no one apparently thought of this case is ridiculous.
  
• If you care about these things, the graphics are a major step back. When I first started a game and zoomed in I was quite confused as I had the settings at max. These graphics are worse than both those of Vicky3 and CK3 and look like they came from the last decade. There is no charme in the graphic style either to remedy this, it's literally just the bare minimum all across the board.

That being said, there are a few things that are good and which probably could lead to this game at some point being recommendable.

• It is much more fun than EU4. In that game, much of the time you spent between wars was simply boring and consisted of nothing to do. Here, you can actually micro-manage your economy and general infrastructure and have actual internal politics to worry about. This translates to war too; you generally don't want to sacrifice your largest city's population to a Siberian fort as that unnecessarily destroys your economic base.
  
• This game is a much more enjoyable medieval state simulator than CK3, which is basically just a shell of a game around a huge map at this point.
  
• The game is good enough to enjoy if you're already into Paradox games and know exactly what to expect. If not, you are likely to be disappointed by the grandiose marketing material.
  
• Performance is actually quite good. Granted, I have yet to play beyond the 15th century on it (mostly due to how much I tend to micro-manage here), but my Steam Deck runs this just fine at basically all speeds. If you complain about bad performance, it is likely time for an upgrade anyways; a ten-year-old CPU isn't cutting it anymore.

So, should you buy this game? Right now, no. Wait at least a few months until the very rough release is over and maybe we get another lead developer.

It's basically retro. Don't expect a modern, enjoyable game; Some parts of it are rather clunky and you will notice that it hasn't gone through many of the more modern innovations new RPGs have to offer. But it is still fun and if you get yourself to play through it, you will get a really good story and just a little bit of a grind.

You can use tanks and flamethrowers to fight against French soldiers carrying basically sticks. 10/10 would genocide more.

Also, it gets much better with every update after the wonky release.

TL;DR: This is a good game, at least if you like pirate games. If you want to play an Assassin's Creed where you really feel like an assassin, this game is not for you.

But first things first. The gameplay is great. The controls have slightly improved from ACIII and the ship mechanics feel as natural as they could be. Naval combat is fun, even when fighting multiple ships and a fortress together and the travels between islands or cities are incredibly atmospheric mainly due to the chanties of your crew.

Slightly worse is the storyline. The missions oftentimes feel disconnected and in an arbitrary order; it nevertheless offers an immersive view into the life of an 18th century pirate. Then again, many characters feel like they're only there to show off some of the most famous pirates of the period and how they die . Captains are introduced and immediately Edward seems to be best friends with them, sharing secrets freely. Still, the build-up to the climax in the finale is great. More and more throughout the playthrough, the Assassins-Templar-Conflict shines through and washes away the pesky, squabbling botherings of pirates and colonial empires. This reflects back on the main character Edward, whose character arch is one of the best I've seen in the series.

Do I recommend this game? Absolutely. Even when you've played through the story, it offers a lot of activities such as special (very strong) ships, side quests about the assassins, fortresses or simply atmospheric shots to grip you for quite some time.
Is it a traditional Assassin's Creed? No, definitely not - in many places, the "Assassins" part seems merely like an afterthought. Still, the game is very enjoyable and does offer very interesting insights into the Templar-side of things (modern-day-parts of the game) and the Isu.

This review includes AC Liberation at the end.

ACIII is not as bad a game as you might have heard.

First of all, the Remastered really only has better graphics than the original, so don't buy this if you've played it.

I personally don't think that this game is a bad game or a bad Assassin's Creed. The story is good and has a few very interesting turns - it also presents the finale to the first trilogy of games because it's the last game with Desmond and makes that enjoyable and worthy of the previous games.
You are guided through two very important cities of the American Revolution: New York City and Boston, as well as the uncolonised lands in the west and - of course - a place for you, the player, to build up from scratch. Unfortunately, Ubisoft has reworked the viewpoint-system and these now don't reveal the entire map anymore - instead, you have to run through the dark areas now if you want the entire thing revealed because the big circles around the points leave quite a few spaces. This was probably meant to encourage exploration, but quickly deteriorates into senseless running around, only staring at the map.
The story introduces multiple important characters of the American Revolution and makes Connor participate in or lead many events you might have heard of. Next to that, he tries to get revenge on a Templar who had burned his home village in his youth - yes, a typical revenge story, but it's very well done and atmospheric.

The controls have definitely improved from the ACIIs. Running and climbing feel a lot more accurate and good. Additionally, a ship has been introduced, which allows for some exciting naval missions where you fight pirates or Brits or just good ol' Templars. This doesn't feel as good as in Black Flag or Odyssey, but good enough for the first AC where this was tried out.

So, the base game is good, but there is a DLC: The Tyranny of King Washington. This play in an alternate universe where George Washington got a hold of an Apple of Eden and instituted a monarchy in the United States and now has plans for world domination - and Connor naturally has to stop that from happening. They actually introduced new mechanics here: abilities you gain from psychedelic drugs which make you imagine animals. These are quite cool and allow you to become invisible, fly or stamp your feet at the ground. The downside is that they cost health which devolves a lot of fights into "ability, ability, run around until health has recovered, ability"-repetitions; the game spawns too many enemies to allow for normal combat. And there comes a big critique: because you have these abilities, it is assumed that you want to use them all the time and so you don't actually get a choice here, the game just spawns endless enemies. Even if you're not in combat. I'm not making things up here: sometimes when running (or flying) to the next mission and closing in on it suddenly a group of enemies was spawned out of nowhere. And because within a certain range all soldiers are automatically drawn into fights, this prevented me from beginning the mission for quite some time. Additionally, some climbing mechanics somehow are made worse in the DLC. I don't know how or why, they just feel more cluncy than in the base game.
Other than that, the DLC isn't too bad. It isn't as good as the base game but good enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now to AC Liberation.

Mechanically, both games are quite similar, although one aspect was added here: the ability to switch costumes. This allows the player to become a lady, assassin or slave depending on what's necessary or what is needed for the mission. All costumes have their up- and downsides, the lady for example can't climb while the assassin will always be investigated by guards on sight. This feature sounds fun, but quickly becomes annoying because missions sometimes switch costumes automatically and running around the world as a lady is just not enjoyable.

The game is set in New Orleans, the surrounding swamps and Chichén Itzá. The world feels a lot smaller than in other ACs, but that may be due to the fact that the game was originally developed for the PS Vita, which arguably isn't as powerful as a PC or modern console.

This leads to another weakness of the game: The story. Theoretically, it's aspects allow for a good adventure, but because the Vita is a portable console, the story isn't exactly contiguous. Oftentimes, it feels like aspects or scenes are missing: most relationships and some strings of the storyline don't make a whole lot of sense and might require some reading-up. This goes so far that I didn't understand how the ending came to be and how things got the way they are presented. Dialogues also oftentimes seem too short for the content they are supposed to deliver.
But to get into details: The game follows the young assassin Avelin de Grandpré in her quest to... free slaves? Work for the brotherhood? Help smugglers? The game can't really decide between the three and just switches between them, making the character Avelin less sharp and understandable - although it becomes clear that she isn't too certain on who she is and her inner conflict is built up throughout the game, culminating in an epic finale.. Connor also gets a mission, but there he feels weirdly superficial and unlike the master-assassin you got to know when playing ACIII.

All in all, I have mixed feelings on this game. On the one hand, the story presents the player a very interesting Coming-of-Age adventure and - as always - the world is very interesting and exciting to explore. On the other hand, the continuity is kind of missing and the costume-mechanic doesn't feel entirely finished.
I would only recommend playing this if you either picked up the Remastered anyways or if you want to play through the entire series. Otherwise it just isn't as enjoyable as other Assassin's Creeds.

One of the better Assassin's Creed Games.

This game is a spectacular combination of impressive scenery and well written story.

You continue Ezio's journey, now an old man seeking fulfillness in life, into the holy land, Constantinopel and a massive underground city which traces the history of the brotherhood, mixed with flashbacks to Altair's memories.
It presents a well done conclusion to the trilogy of Ezio-Games and also to the first ACs, as it successfully integrates Altair.

The world looks and feels great and I couldn't get enough of the lively and well designed streets of the City of the World's Desire. The combination of Roman and Turkic elements fits greatly into the franchise and reminds you that originally, the Assassins were an islamic brotherhood.

Additional elements are Desmonds (and with the DLC Subject 16's) memories into his past, explaining many things and fleshing out the lore.

The graphics feel like a great upgrade from AC2 and even Brotherhood, even though all three games run on the same engine. Here things feel more realistic and convincing.

All in all, I do recommend playing this game, although you might want to play (or read up on the storyline) of the previous games because it makes it easier to understand what's going on and why it is going on.

This game brings the Brotherhood of the Assassins into Rome, and it's great.

The gameplay hasn't really improved from ACII, but the graphics have slightly and running, jumping and climbing through Rome during the Renaissance feels awesome.
The story isn't as good as in ACII, but definitely not bad and it involves some funny twists with characters you might remember from the predecessor. Speaking of which, it does make sense playing ACII first because Brotherhood is a direct continuation of it and if you don't know the previous story, a lot of things won't make sense and you will have a hard time getting to know the characters, because their introduction is rather lacluster, as might be expected from a game that today would be a DLC.

My biggest critique is the part were you rebuild the city - it's not necessary to complete the game, but it makes things easier as you unlock quick travel possibilities and increase your income to buy better armor and weapons.
It's a nice and immersive feature, but quickly devolves into a repetitive quest of finding the next bank or smith spot, running there, spending the 1000-ish gold of repairing the shop and waiting for the animation to finish. It does give the game a nice touch and fits well into the scenario, but it doesn't become interesting.

All in all, this game is recommendable if you've played the previous game and want to get more story around Ezio and the Assassins, but I can't recommend it if you haven't played that as then many parts won't be fun.

This game is... not good.

The story is awesome and the conflict between Assassins and Templars really shines, including the conflict Altair experiences when killing his targets.
The world also looks and feels great, like in so many other ACs.

The gameplay is aweful though. The controls haven't aged well at all and during the storyline, you have nine targets - and killing each one of them is literally the same - the same buildup of gathering information and then the same procedure of escaping the guards, becoming anonymous and sneaking back to the headquarters. Trust me, this is no spoiler, this has almost nothing to do with the actual story. It's always the same, and after the second target it becomes so repetitive that watching Ben Shapiro trying to come up with an actual argument is less painful.
If you're very resilient/patient/like pain, this is for you. Even if you want to get to know the lore of the universe better, play it, because as I said, the story's nice.

But going through the story is not cool and honestly, I can't recommend playing it.

It's a good game, but not an awesome one.

The story is great and exciting, the world feels good too.
But Assassins Creed II isn't a new game and since 2010, they've made many improvements gameplay-wise. I do recommend playing it, but be warned that the controls aren't always the most accurate and things like stealth aren't possible to the same extent as in later games of the series.

it fun