i think its actually because of the scepter that caused him to lose his marbles, but it was everyones jimmies that got rustled around the sceptor not just hulk. So yes he always has control until an external influence like the scepter had comes around

Pain is also one of the Hulk triggers, I would imagine getting thrown around like that from an explosion would hurt like hell

Got mad and lost his cool and transformed. I dont think he has full control of it when he turns, but he has some say in when he does turn

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq1syh0nUzc

Replace video gaming with WBC and there you go

We internet know they are, but the rest of the world/media will still pay 100% attention to them when ever they make a big deal, beside I would be majorly pissed off/hurt if anyone was being insulted at their funeral

Taste of own medicine is sometime the best cure

And sitting here twiddling our thumbs acting smug and pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to change anything either

no but we all know they are retarded. why should we feel hurt by these people? we dont need to make ourselves like them in order to teach them a lesson

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq1syh0nUzc

Replace video gaming with WBC and there you go

We internet know they are, but the rest of the world/media will still pay 100% attention to them when ever they make a big deal, beside I would be majorly pissed off/hurt if anyone was being insulted at their funeral

Taste of own medicine is sometime the best cure

Sometimes people need a taste of their own medicine.

why? thats not going to change them. the way to deal with these people is to complete discredit them. they are brainwashed people. they are sick, not evil.

And sitting here twiddling our thumbs acting smug and pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to change anything either

no but we all know they are retarded. why should we feel hurt by these people? we dont need to make ourselves like them in order to teach them a lesson

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq1syh0nUzc

Replace video gaming with WBC and there you go

We internet know they are, but the rest of the world/media will still pay 100% attention to them when ever they make a big deal, beside I would be majorly pissed off/hurt if anyone was being insulted at their funeral

Taste of own medicine is sometime the best cure

I really liked 3 and 4 looks amazing. But I would like to hear why you don't like it

i really enjoyed the first one. the second one blew me away. brotherwood was also awesome, not the same leap from 1 to 2 but still good. revelations things started getting bad. there was no story plot. nothing interesting happened. they didnt add anything to the gameplay apart from a hook. assassins creed 3 i cant stand. i appreciate the attempt to change in fight style, but not at all the way the changed it. it seemed as if they made it to fit gamers that were new to the series. it wasnt easy to get in to. and connor oh my god. such a boring character. the assassins creed series taught me that they didnt need to kill everyone to get what they wanted. connor goes round and kills EVERYONE. some merciless murderer. he became nothing better than the templars. stealth was impossible. then, after all the debates that the trailers before they released showed connor only killing british soldiers. they then released a trailer with connor killing some revolutionaries which held promise. in the game there was absolutely NO opportunity to kill the revolutinaries. the only time you could was at the end after you had liberated all the cities. and the naval side story was alright. but there was no variety. i am worried that they are turning the assains creed series in to a call of duty, yearly relases with no change to the gameplay or engine. oh and dont get me started on the desmond story. unreal. it was the most boring thing ever. and it went nuts. the whole thing with minerva and juno. it made the whole thing so unrealistic. which i felt was an important element in the assassins creed series. i still hope that when they move on, they can change. but we shall see

How

As a game, it was pretty, the scenery was nice, the combat was what I expected, and there was A LOT to do. The big problem with that was that everything available for you to do didn't really tie together at all...it was just kind of there. And another thing, there was hardly any assassinating. In the first game, you go sneaking about trying to find a stealthy way to carve out your targets throat/gut/whathaveyou and there were some flags you can collect. By the time 3 rolls around, I'm trying to find a feather on a tree in the woods while I wait on the money from my pelt sales to get back and sending recruits to take over the rest of the new world while I CAN HARDLY MANAGE TWO FUCKING CITIES.

Oh, and now to get a certain gun or maybe the dual holster, I have to spend a few hours in their poorly executed economy system instead of JUST FUCKING BUYING ONE.

I guess what I'm saying is that the games have gotten way to fluffy to stand on their own. Maybe IV won't disappoint me as much a 3, but I won't hold my breath.

But you also have to consider the pioneer life style blended with the city life style, so things arent always going to blend perfectly together. One thing i liked was how they changed the battle style. It was tougher in a sense but also more realistic than the other games.

For me, it was mostly desmond's story. It was shaky at best by the end of revelations, then at the end of AC3, I was just fucking baffled as to why he chose what he did, not to mention how the fuck all of it even came to that anyway. I mean they set it up to be kind of cool with the first and second games, but it really flopped at the end.

Then there was Connor. Imo, he had a lot of potential to be a badass, but just ended up flopping because his character didn't have a firm base. Okay, Lee tried to burn out your village, killed your mom, it was really predictable. All of a sudden, he's a whiny, hot-headed teenager out for revenge. Then he meets Achilles (one of only two characters from the game that I liked) and in a few cutscenes he's suddenly supposed to be an adult assassin ready to kil all da templrs. There was no in-game build up of his skill or knowledge, he was, at this point, as skilled as he was going to get.

Also, any sense of him maturing after this point was spread out over the homestead missions as well as the main missions, and if you didn't play them in the right order you had him switching between whiny-cunt-teenager Conner to calm-competent-adult Conner constantly, making his development even choppier.

Then there's the naval system. This aspect was cool at times, but was more of a novelty than anything, and got very repetitive very quickly. Maybe that's my own fault for not spreading them out. I did about 15 in a row after I was done with the story, but I didn't see the point before then outside of being able to safely trade honey with the caribbean, so I didn't bother. It will probably be a major mechanic in IV too, which I am already loathing. Hopefully it will have a bit more variety to it come october

Overall though, my problem is with Conner. He felt like a half-baked character. I liked his father a lot more. The only problem with Haytham is that he had the idea that everyone that wasn't a templar was too incompetent to manage themself.

I agree with the Conner part, but disagree with the ending and naval part. I liked the ending because they constantly hinted at the futuristic society and Greek Gods in the previous games, and since there was supernatural beings in it, there had to be some type of global catastrophe and i wasn't that shocked with his decision. This also left plenty of room for the next game to have a new present time character because Desmond was pretty used up.

The naval sides gave the game a sense of progress, other than the main story, because you have to actually save up your money to buy upgrades for the ships, and i think that its a fun time waster. You're right that your problem was that you didn't spread the missions out, so it felt repetitive, but the way i did it, it was fun.

Personally i think people hate AC 3 because each game from 1 to revelations was a huge step up from each other, and this one just kind of leveled off in a sense, it didnt get worse. Although Connor's character could have had more of a brighter attitude like Ezio and Altair because hes apart of the brotherhood, its also nice to see that not every one of the main characters have the same type of personalities. This also blends into his background nicely as half native/half white growing up without a dad and being traumatized at a young age.

People might be scared that the same thing will happen with 4 because there is going to be such a drastic change to the story, but its definitely better to add this as to avoid repetition. This is all my opinion, so please dont go crazy.

You're right, it hinted at the catastrophe all the way through. The problem, though, was that I fucking scrutinized the first game, especially the end with all the writing on the wall, so I knew it was going with the theme of doomsday by the time 2 was released. After 2, I had the gist of where the first civ thing was going, so the rest was just filling in minor details.

I lost interest in desmond by the end of brotherhood. the only thing I really cared about from 2 through Revelations was Ezio's story, which I liked when it wasn't trying to show off how he knew every important political figure from his time period (which is also one of my biggest peeves with ac3). And his choice felt like a templar move to me. "Humans are incompetent, let's let the magic hologram lady take over. That couldn't possibly go wrong." As opposed to giving the human race CENTURIES of peace until they fall back into their unavoidable path of strife and hatred again. Honestly, if it was me, I'd let the damn world burn, be done with it. If for no other reason than to stop Ubisoft from milking this series anymore.

My idea for the entire game would be for the series to be about the history of great assassin's and their battle with the templars. You follow them without all of the animus bullshit, there would be so much less clutter. But that's really irrelevant, desmond's story just comes down to opinion.

I can appreciate making sequels a change from their predecessors, but to me it feels like the developers forewent actually changing anything in favor of just adding so much shit to the point that the game can't support its own weight and just ends up being a conglomeration of different, unconnected game mechanics.

Honestly, I've got pretty high hopes for the protagonist in IV. I liked haytham, and his father looks like a total badass. Without it being set in revolutionary war times, it shouldn't be as muddled with historical references. If it isn't packed full of fluff, it may succeed.

Its my favorite game series (besides for maybe pokemon) and have a great time playing the games. I think people are going to hate them becasue they are "turning into COD" but the only reason why COD should stop making games is because they are the same thing over and over.

Inb4 AC is like that, they always add extra game play and advancements in the story line during each game. Example? AC3 (possible spoiler) captaining, fighting, and upgrading your own pirate ship. These type of extra features are great. Not saying other games dont do it, just you cannot count AC doesn't.

WHy did I reply to you?

That's just like...your opinion man.