I did not expect AC III's cover to look anything like this.
The storyline for the AC series is framed Desmond, who is linked to all the MCs of the individual releases. Desmond relives the stories of his ancestors through a device that taps into a latent memory stored in his DNA. Very cool idea. So, to recap:
The first game is in the perspective of Altaïr, set in Third Crusade Masyaf, Acre, Jerusalem and Damascus. Lots of Old buildings and castles to climb.
The second and two following games were through the eyes of Ezio Auditore. Game two, and game two and a half, were set in Italy. We all loved it. Game two and three quarters was in Istanbul, but really just felt like Italy with a few costume changes. Again, lots of castles and neat old buildings.
The "third" game is in the perpective of a new character, set in the American Revolution? That's a big change - as in change continents, and fast forward. The main character, Connor, is part Native American, part British. It looks like he takes the eagle theme even futher into shape changing. No chance for castles here, folks. I'll definitely be buying it, but -
What about the world that we enjoyed in the past versions of this game? There's a reason the whole AC II ++ was in a similar setting. Are we ready to move on? Maybe.
This is a question I ask myself about the books I read and the manuscripts I write. If book one does a good job immersing us in a specific world, why change it? Most readers aren't ready to move on yet either, which must be why there's a whole trilogy trend. But-
When we get past book three, aren't we ready to move on?
For me, I find that three books in a series is adequate. Lots of times I won't even read whatever follows. I don't have time. It's like travel. How many times should I visit Italy, when there are so many other destinations in the world I still have to see?
What do you think?