Not just 3. I didn't really liked any of them. I tried but found them too boring and repetitive.

I hated the first one so much that I didn't pay attention to the sequels

I haven't played it, but if it follows the same formula, I wouldn't like it anyway. The AC series has always been about QTE, animated sequences and minimal input. Also repetitive gameplay. At first the possibilities are really impressive, but after an hour of gameplay the game doesn't offer anything new. Climb one tower and it's as if you've climbed them all. Tomb exploration always follows the same spiel. Rooftop chases all seem alike. You always fight very similar groups of enemies, and it's no challenge since you hold block (making you invincible) and pres counter-attack at the right moment for the insta-kill.

Just skip it, the later games are much better. I haven't played AC4, so I don't know about that one, but the rest of them were pretty good.

But, if you play AC2 and still don't like it, you're probably best skipping the rest of them.

Thanks for all your replies. It seems that all the things that bothered most people I was able to look past.

I think sometimes, it depends on playing the game at the right time, when you are in the right frame of mind. For example, if I load up a complex RPG when I'm busy and stressed from work and just want a quick gaming fix, then I am bound to not like it.

And yes, definitely if you didn't like the first assassin's creed then you should at least give number 2 a go. I found the first one tedious but the second was one of my favourite games ever.

I laugh whenever I see the abbreviation "Ass Creed"

*** Major Spoilers***
*** Major Spoilers***
*** Major Spoilers***

I didn't hate Assassins Creed III. I played every single game up till then too and also through IV this past Fall, and all the way through, often getting lots and lots of extra content covered. But AC III did feel short and choppy in areas, and the main protagonist, Connor, just wasn't as likeable as he was a lot more vengeful and immature than Altair, Ezio, or eve Edward (who was pretty daft for a while himself); Altair was sort of quiet and reserved, albeit ignorant, from the beginning; Ezio started off as only a ladies man with a huge ego, often involving his fists, but he had the deepest character development of all the Assassins Creed characters; Edward was also very cold and vengeful for a while, but a bit of the ways into the story (too far to be honest) he started to actually get the hint that he needed to change before he completely fell apart due to some serious turns. Connor came to that realization too, but he still seemed to be very much in the dark about many things and in some ways he was the most lonely of all protagonists thus far in the series in that he just didn't have all that many friends, he lost his family, and he killed his best friend as well as his father and fulfilled his vengeful quota, to a point, which probably just made him feel empty. It didn't help though that Connor only had a very old mentor for guidance and support with no other Assassins, and a Templar daddy who couldn't care less for his sons side of the story. So Connor had a very sad story, but how it was presented just didn't rub off well onto many gamers, especially me. I probably won't pick AC III back up, but I'd play AC 2, Brotherhood, or Revelations again (especially AC 2), just because I love the main character and the setting a bit more, and even the music for that matter.

If AC III was longer and the protagonist more likeable, many more people would've enjoyed the game. He whined too much, but that didn't detract me from enjoying the core components of the game.

That said, I have to wonder why my weapons in Renaissance Italy (the firearm respectively) and even on the Carribean high seas were more powerful and in some ways had a faster reloading time than what Connor used many years later. The combat in AC III felt a bit slow because of this, even if it was at it's core the same exact game.

I didn't hate it but it was the easiest Ass. Creed game by far. I rushed through the story campaign and it took my about 16 hours and I never upgraded anything and yet it was still very easy. Connor was kind of annoying and dull and the stealth sections was kind of lame due to not having a proper stealth system.

Still a decent game though and better than Revelations by far.

I liked Assassin's Creed III overall and I loved the implementation of firearms and the open wilderness spaces. The trouble was it didn't feel as smooth as Assassin's Creed II and in some ways, didn't feel as big. Also, I felt there were things they could have done to make it less glitchy but the glitches were not game-breaking for me.

Overall it was a good game for me and I liked how they tied it in with the American Revolutionary War. Also, Connor was actually a decent character in my opinion and I think the reason people didn't like him was because they were expecting another Ezio even though they're two different characters from two different upbringings.