The Assassin’s Creed franchise has come a long way since it’s inception with the original game set in the Holy Land back in 2007. We already have taken a look at each of the four canonical titles (and AC3) in our retrospective series, in terms of what they brought to the series, but just how different will the latest game, Assassin’s Creed 3 be from the previously-latest game in the series, Assassin’s Creed: Revelations? How different will the game be visually? 

In this feature, that is our main concern – how much Assassin’s Creed 3 bring to the table when it comes to the visual department, but we will also be looking at other things.

Below, we will be comparing Assassin’s Creed 3 with Revelations via visual comparisons and determine how different the two are from each other.

So let’s begin!

The images on top are from Assassin’s Creed 3 while the ones on bottom are from Revelations. Click on the images to view them in full size.

Combat

We all know Assassin’s Creed 3 uses the AnvilNext engine, an engine built from the ground up especially for Assassin’s Creed III itself so that the game could look much better than its predecessors. Of course, seeing gameplay in motion is one thing, but from what we see here, the improvements aren’t exactly very noticeable.

As soon as you look at the two images, you can see that both the games, Revelations and AC3, look great. However, what’s surprising is that Assassin’s Creed: Revelations seems to have larger focus on the environments and how detailed they look, while the character models and the weapons in AC3 have been crafted very meticulously. It’s also noteworthy how excellent the grass looks in the top image.

Let’s have a look at another image for combat:

Now, in this image, Assassin’s Creed 3 clearly looks better. The city in the background is better detailed and less pixelated, the character models are- once again- very well crafted and it just looks all around more polished than Revelations.

In the visuals department, it seems as if both the games are almost neck and neck, but Assassin’s Creed 3 nicks it by a very small margin.

As far as playing it goes, Ubisoft has already confirmed that the combat system will be overhauled in AC3. The control scheme is supposed to be entirely different, you can use different kinds of weapons while countering and the basic aim is to keep your chain going without being hit. The combat looks brutal and enjoyable in AC3, but it looks like Ubisoft may not have been able to do anything about the stupid AI that has bee rampant in AC games during combat ever since 2007.

Now, let’s move on to…

NPCs

Assassin’s Creed: Revelations had plenty of great NPCs. It might have been missing the memorable Da Vinci, Machiavelli and Bartolomeo from Brotherhood and AC2, but it did have the likes of Yusuf, Suleiman and Sofie. In the NPCs department, AC3 seems to be going all out- George Washington, Ben Franklin and the infamous traitor, Benedict Arnold are just a few of the names that will feature in AC3. But how do they look?

With Revelations, the engine the AC franchise had been running on started showing its age, and the character models, while great, had a few rough edges… literally. In the image above, The character model of the NPC has been created very well, and it’s certainly an improvement. Yusuf’s character model has some rough pixels, and his features are not as clearly defined as the former’s.

Locations

The Assassin’s Creed franchise is hugely famous for its great settings, realistic ally and authentically recreated cities and the fun you have while exploring those aforementioned cities. Now, Constantinople is the largest city the series has ever visited, so we won’t be comparing the sizes of New York and Boston to Constantinople here (enter generic penis joke). rather what they look like.

Assassin’s Creed 3 seems to be focusing more on the forest area- the Frontier- but the cities look excellent too. They’re as perfectly created as you would expect in a game of this franchise. Not only do you see everything you used to in previous games, now you also see carts rolling down mud-streets, children running about, houses with their windows open, dogs and pigs roaming about the city. It’s a fantastic recreation, and it looks excellent as well.

Constantinople from Revelations is definitely one of the best cities the series has ever featured, and it looks excellent, and it’s size and scope are breathtaking. But it’s important to note that due to an ageing engine, Constantinople didn’t look as good as Venice did back in 2009 or as good as Boston does now. That is not a bad reflection on Constantinople in Revelations, just a good reflection on AC3’s visuals. Constantinople still looks awesome.

Free Running

Now this is a close one. The attention to detail in both the games is amazing- the city in Revelations look great, the draw distances are commendable and the tiny little details make it all look excellent. On the other hand, the forest in AC3 looks excellent oo- the snow looks great, the trees seem to be looking organic and natural and the animals in the background make it all look authentic.

As far as artistic style goes, it would definitely be a tie here, as both look excellent, but AC3 has the edge in technical terms. The pixels are smoother in AC3, as mentioned before, and again, the character models and the all round visuals seem more polished, with the new engine. The difference isn’t striking at the very first view, but it sure it noticeable.

Conclusion

While the AnvilNext engine is not the radical, drastic change we hoped for, it does bring the Assassin’s Creed franchise to a new visual high. Assassin’s Creed 3 is not the best looking game, but it looks great. In comparison with Revelations, it’s often tough to say which looks better, bothbeing such artistic games in their visual style, but AC3 has the better technical visuals upon scrutiny.

What do you guys think? Which looks better? Tell us in your comments.

Also keep checking back to GamingBolt, our very own review of AC3 will be up in a few hours.

Little did they know that this little ambitious adventure would go on to sell more than they could have imagined, moving into double figures and even competing against authoritative names such as the likes of Call of Duty and FIFA (of course, these weren’t very “authoritative” back then, but that’s besides the point), even replacing the heavyweight Prince of Persia and Tom Clancy games as their flagship franchises.

For those of us who’ve stuck with the series since the days of Altair, we know how much the series has progressed, but with Assassin’s Creed 3, the final game in the series, releasing in less than a month, we thought this would be a good time to look back at what we began with, and where we’ve ended up.

In this four part series, we will post an article every week detailing the history of Assassin’s Creed and how the series got to where it is now, and finally talk about what the future has in store for us, all in good time for the much anticipated released of Assassin’s Creed 3. In today’s article, we talk about the first game of the series released back in 2007- Assassin’s Creed (no surprises here).

Let’s begin!

2007- The Year of the Assassin

Assassin’s Creed- E3 2006 Debut Trailer

The hype for Assassin’s Creed- the first one- was unbelievable. Ubisoft had impressed everyone unanimously with the footage and the details they had released on the game, and the stealth action adventure title was on the top of everyone’s to-buy lists. However, when it actually hit the stores, the reception to the game was somewhat less better off than what you would have expected at the time.

No, it wasn’t bad. It was lukewarm. Mixed. Assassin’s Creed 1 was disappointing in a lot of ways, and it did not deliver on the promise and the hype it had garnered in the build up to its launch. The game had a lot of potential, but like Peter Molyneux’s titles, a lot of it was squandered.

To think something so flawed yet wonderful could kick off such a massive franchise.

The biggest and most noticeable issue in Assassin’s Creed was the repetitive nature of the game. There was one specific pattern that the game followed over and over again, and there was not enough variety in mission structure, side quests or anything else to break the monotony. Fundamental stealth mechanics of the game were broken, and the A.I wasn’t up to scratch. Especially not in the combat sections. Your enemies just stood around, waiting for you to take them down one by one.

But the game had a lot of positive aspects as well. For one, it was addictive as hell. Secondly, it had the most living, believable world any free roaming game had had at that time, even competing with the likes of The Elder Scrolls and Grand Theft Auto. The Holy Land was perfectly recreated, with citizens that actually felt like citizens, guards that actually felt like guards (well, not always), and an atmosphere that captured the tension of the Crusades perfectly. Not to mention that the visuals, at that time, and even today, were drop-dead amazing. Altair’s animations were fluid and graceful, and jumping across the rooftops of Jerusalem and Acre was the best feeling in the world.

One could just roam all around the cities, collecting the collectibles, killing Templars, doing side missions, killing Templars, climbing viewpoints, killing Templars, performing leaps of faith, and, lest we forget, killing Templars for hours at end. You could spend literally dozens of hours playing Assassin’s Creed and not even touch the main story at all. And I’m not just saying this. Seriously. I say this for a lot of games, but rarely do I mean it. Unrelated topic- next time you see my saying this for a game in a review, forget I ever said any of this.

Moving on, the story was deep, complex and engrossing, and definitely a source of intrigue for history- and more importantly, Crusade- fanatics.

Taking a leaf out of Dan Brown’s books, Ubisoft mixed the stories of the order of the Hashashin (better known as Assassins), the Knights Templar, the Pieces of Eden and mixed them all together in a tale of political, fantasy, historical and science fiction overlays.

And of course, who could forget the ever so unbelievable, confusing and abrupt ending of the game? I, for one, had no idea what it meant until I played through the game a second time, which was right before the release of Assassin’s Creed 2.

Assassin’s Creed had a ton of potential, but much of it was wasted. Ubisoft hadn’t gone over their notes as thoroughly as they should have. If they were to create a new Prince of Persia, which Assassin’s Creed was pegged as by many, they would have to work harder. Much harder.

And they did.

In Part 2 of our retrospective series, we look at what is regarded as the best game of of this generation by many- Assassin’s Creed 2- and how it improved upon its predecessor in almost every way possible. Stay tuned. 

Check out 9 minutes of Assassins Creed: Revelations footage from GamesCom. Tell us what you think in the comments section below.