If I've said it once then I must have said it a hundred times, Assassin's Creed Revelations was awful. It's gameplay tweaks were good but they were not enough to carry the game, this meant that the game's real reason for being made was to a) satisfyingly conclude Altair and Ezio's story and b) explain most, if not all, of what Desmond had been doing/going through in the games so far. Since it did neither of these things it was terrible because it had no point.
This has led me to doubt whether Assassins's Creed 3 can succeed, Desmond needs a full campaign and Ubisoft seem unwilling to give him one and they have yet to give us a satisfactory conclusion for a historical character. So can 3 succeed? Ill let you know in my review.
Normally I will review a game after spending hours with it but not necessarily having completed it, this is because, apart from the story, you can have a full grip on what a game is without finishing it. I love story, my favourite games have great stories, but in most games it takes a back seat for me so I can judge a game fairly without knowing how a story ends. Its the gameplay and graphics that make most games (not games Like Metal Gear etc.) what they are, not the story. This is not the case with Assassins's Creed however as Revelations showed me that by not ending the game's story well everything good that the game did (and it did so much good stuff!) was undone and made terrible.
It is for this reason that I will not be posting a review for Assassins's Creed 3 until I have finished the story, I will post some first impressions later on and will also do a post early next week with some thoughts on the game but for the full review I'm afraid it will be one to two weeks rather than the usual one week that I like to stick to. So check back later for my first impressions and hopefully late next week for a full review but ill let you know when that will be!