Crush Visual is a design team whose members have worked for clients like Ubisoft and EA, as well as Hollywood studios like Legendary and Columbia.
You can see more of Crush’s work at their studio site.
Fine Art is a celebration of the work of video game artists, showcasing the best of both their professional and personal portfolios. If you’re in the business and have some concept, environment, promotional or character art you’d like to share, drop us a line!
Comments
14 responses to “If Only Assassin’s Creed III Had Played As Good As The Art Looked”
“Played as Good”
I sometimes wonder if there’s a Frank Grimes at Kotaku to match Plunkett’s Homer Simpson.
Someone who logs into the website everyday and is horrified that somebody so inept has ended up in the same role as them.
“Look at me, I’m Luke Plunkett and I’m going to post a gif without any text!”
“What’s this? Gamers Gate? Oh I don’t need to read up on this topic because I’m Lu-“
that would be serrals and junglist
edit: as the opposites to luke
I still don’t understand all the hate for AC:3. I genuinely thought it was better than Black Flag, which I also enjoyed.
Really? AC3 is the only AC that I actually fell asleep playing and I actually stopped at one point because it was so boring. I finished it because I had to start black flag
AC3 is the only game I ever got bored with before I finished. The only game.
Try Dragon Age 2 sometime, it’s the best cure for insomnia…
Perhaps I am destined to be different. I quite easily looked past DA2’s (massive) pitfall in the limited zones and enjoyed it also. DA:O still beats the piss out of it, but yeah..
Tiny ‘zones’ that took ages to load, boring combat, yawnsome characters, an intro that went on and on and on then switched characters on you from someone interesting to someone with all the charisma of a plank… the fact half your missions couldn’t be failed if you *tried* and then ultimately the fact the option to be another culture in the game and they cop out with being half white anyhow. It was a tiresome exercise in ego and it didn’t pay off. AC4 stripped the fat, made it fun and brought back what the game was meant to be about.
And after all those ludicrously easy missions there was that horrible horseback chase. Unless my game was bugged in some way.
In every discussion about AC3 (the low point of the series for me), there’s always one person who seems confused at why people don’t like it.
I am in no way saying the majority are incorrect, but as you said – I am just confused as to why it is hated. People bring up all of these points that should make sense, but I genuinely don’t see most of it. Perhaps it is because I persevered through the first AC game, even though I thought it was horrendously repetitive.
AC2 and Brotherhood were by far the high points for me. At least I seem to agree with the majority on those.
I wouldn’t say I hated it, I was just incredibly let down because the franchise had set the bar high. There were tonnes of annoying little glitches that made it feel like it lacked the polish of previous games. It literally was buggy from beginning (the animus descriptions spoiled Haythem’s true Templar identity before actual twist in the game), middle (baffling mission fail conditions) to the end (Connor’s bloodied clothing being clean in one scene and then bloodied again the next) just smacked of it needing more development time.
But I understand that you like it. I think we all have games that’ve been bashed that we somehow seem to love more than the majority (Mass Effect’s conclusion satisfied me). Perhaps it’s personal chemistry, who knows. When people enjoy a game that let me down, ultimately it’s me who’s jealous of them.
On a sidenote, I am right there with you on ME3 also. I liked the original ending and was not overly happy when BW caved under pressure and redid it.