Alleged Assassin's Creed III Dev Calls Game a "Wreck", Discusses Reasons Why

Alleged Assassin's Creed III Dev Calls Game a "Wreck", Discusses Reasons Why

Lee Bradley

An anonymous person claiming to be a former developer on Assassin’s Creed III has offered some explanations regarding the relatively low standards of the game at release.

Citing poor communication between the numerous Ubisoft studios working on the title, problems with the brand new engine and an annual release schedule, the source claims development was “a mindfuck of an experience.”

Now, before we get into this there are a few things to consider. The first is that this is an anonymous source posting on Reddit, unwilling to share his or her name, and therefore impossible to confirm as legitimate.

The second comes from the words of the source itself, who added as a postscript, “Ok so I blatantly exaggerated some of my points, but keep in mind I typed this up in a fit of frustration in like 2 minutes. It's not a highly formulated, scathing critique on anybody. Take it with a grain of salt I suppose.”

Bear all that in mind as you read the rest of the dev’s words.

“I only worked on the Single Player module and never touched Multiplayer,” begins the post. “Also, I cherished my time at Ubisoft, and despite my following complaints, working there was a great experience despite the bullshit.

“So why was AC3 a wreck? Without going into too much details, basically because of ridiculously unrealistic expectations and constantly tacked on features by producers / the creative team, it became literally impossible to get everything done with just Ubi Montreal. 

“In order to get everything in the design doc completed in time for the annual release (ugh!), team size was constantly fluctuating. The game was worked on by large majority of the Montreal team, as well as Ubi Quebec, Ubi Annecy, Ubi Bucharest, and Ubi Singapore. Between 500-600 people touched the game before it's release. Contrast that with teams like Naughty Dog or Sony Santa Monica, who operate with 80-100 (maybe 200 during crunch).

“The coordination of resources between all of these teams separated by thousands of miles and differing time zones was a damn joke, and at the same time studio resources were constantly stolen for work on Watchdogs and Far Cry 3 (AC4, Splinter Cell and Rayman tended to be a little more isolated for the most part though).

“Almost everybody on the bottom knew that the Desmond missions were a disgrace. Why? Because a B-team filled with new hires and the least talent handled all production of the Desmond content, and they were rarely in communication with the main gameplay teams. But we couldn't really say anything, and the higher ups basically stuck their fingers in their ears and convinced themselves that they were amazing.

“Dissemination of information between individual employees was also pretty bad. A disturbingly large portion of team members had no idea about the majority of the Homestead, Caravan, and assassin crew side missions. There was basically so much content that even approaching release, plenty of grunt workers like myself on the ground were finding new features they didn't know existed that needed more attention. 

“Upon completing the story, there's an origami-crane node collecting mini game that unlocks that I've NEVER seen covered or mentioned in any gaming blogs, reviews, or fan vids. Most of us didn't even know it existed. That's how random and disjointed the design was. Everything was documented on the company wiki of course. The impenetrably deep, confused, several-thousand page wiki.”

The developer later added, “So I apparently got the unlock conditions wrong for the origami node hunt. Forgive me, it's been a while, and again - it was an often ignored feature.”

Continuing, the dev said, “Stuff like the homestead economy, weapon crafting, hunting, board games, and the late-game set pieces were all heavily ignored til the very end of development, and no time was given to polish them or make them cohesive. Getting 100% went from something fun for the diehard fans, to a herculean task of tedium and dumb-luck. A large action set piece near the Haytham boss fight was entirely cut ~2 weeks before we went gold. 

“On top of that, some vital cutscenes anims and audio weren't implemented until right befoe gold. So the (massive and disjointed) test teams were often sitting on their laurels waiting for more content while the thousands of issues they had already flagged were marked as "Won't Fix" due to time constraints.

“Also, the Tyranny of Washington DLC was completely in Quebec's court, and no one outside of Quebec city knew what was going on with it or how it would be integrated/implemented until the last possible second. There was also some ocnfusion on the implementation of the PS3 exclusive missions for quite a while. It's a shame, because I thought Tyranny of Washington was the best work we did. I almost wish it was released as a standalone like Infamous Festival of Blood, or Red Dead Redemption Undead Nightmare.”

As a postscript edit on this subject, the developer added, “Tyranny was in development for longer than I said, a decent amount of people knew how Homestead worked.”

In regards to the game’s “shitty performance,” the dev said, “it was the first project ever used on the new AnvilNext engine, which was pretty much designed with next-gen consoles and future pc tech in mind, so it was super inefficient on PS3/360. It was a widespread opinion that AC3 was just a massive tech demo for AnvilNext, in anticipation for AC4 and future projects. Took a while for the some programmers to get used to the engine given the processing constraints.

“In conclusion, while the Ubisoft work atmosphere is actually quite calm and respectful in comparison to other larger devs in the industry, the time constraints of an annual release, too many teams to coordinate, and new engine all created a perfect storm of bullshit.”

  • I honestly didn't mind AC3. I didn't encounter any game breaking bugs. And for the most part enjoyed the game in its entirety, except for the *yawn* storyline itself. But I'm done with the franchise, haven't been bothered to pick up AC4 and doubt I ever will. RIP Assassin's Creed.
  • Whether it's legit or not, this would appear to make perfect sense.
  • I liked AC3, it wasn't as good as I hoped for. But it was a step up from previous entries in the franchise, looked great. AC4 is the tits though, loving that game
  • The Assassins Creed story within story was always a little sketchy but 3 is definitely where it got the most ridiculous.
  • @1 I was in the same boat until I picked up AC4 on sale. It's actually very good and more than makes up for how lackluster the AC3 story and missions were. It's probably my favorite AC game since AC2. You should give it a shot, specially if you have a next gen console.
  • I really love Assassin's Creed III. It is fun and great. But only problem is too much glitches and bugs before I complete game and done almost everything before trade in it and after traded in it and they released patched for fixes almost everything AC III had problems. Gameplay felt same as many AC series before AC III released. It is only complaints AC III I had really. AC II is best of Assassin's Creed series. Amazing game, amazing story, gameplay is great improved from AC 1, better contents, great characters and personals and many more about AC II. AC IV is only best thing in the series is graphics. AC II is almost best everything into series. AC III is only series for Assassin's Creed got tons of glitches and bugs. But rest of Assassin's Creed series after AC II released and they all had gameplay same repetitive. I will love to see Ubisoft have better idea for gameplay. Not too much same combats over and over when fighting guards and enemies. I love some stealth gameplay in AC III and AC IV. They can keep it for AC V with added more stealth gameplay and we never seen before. Maybe allow character able crouch into stealth anytime we want and crouch behind of cover system like Splinter Cell series. For combats, I want to see big changes not keep recycle combats from AC Brotherhood to AC IV after AC II had massive better combats after AC 1 had problems with combats. AC V need have new and better. I like combats from AC II to IV but they kinda same and nothing new. This is why I want to see new combats and feel heavy and better. I love open world in AC IV it is great start ahead for AC series. I will like see like that into AC V but combats need to changes and better without feel too much repetitive. :) AC series is not wreck. But AC series became yearly releases since AC II. So I think Ubisoft might need to think about it and release it per 2 to 4 years and help their developers take time and add more ideas, polishes and other things when developing new AC series. It is not wreck. No way because they released every AC series without bad or medicore anyway. But I think AC series need to calm down now and release per 2 to 4 years and let other Franchises from Ubisoft is more forces. :)
  • The DLC is what screwed it up for me, all those animals you change into just ruined it for me.
  • @5 totally agree with you ac4 is amazing, 3 was a bit of a let down
  • Yeah I always hated the caravan/"crafting" shit. Never did it properly, was entirely confusing and just such a weird draw. I liked the game for what it was but definitely felt it was a step back for such an amazing franchise. Good thing black flag absolutely blew this out of the fucking water though.
  • Always been a huge fan of the AC series, well up to the point where they bolted on the multiplayer and RTS elements! From there it seems to have gone downhill focusing more on those aspects than the actual campaign, although that said AC IV's fun once out at sea! I tried out AC III but I just found it soo slow going! At least it's predecessors were well paced, and you actually liked the protagonist!
  • I lost interest after AC2, which I thought was a nice upgrade over AC1, but the series took a dive when they added MP and tower defense and those useless Desmond missions. I agree with #1, RIP AC.
  • i honestly loved AC3. for sure, the main story was relative short, many players had bugs and players didn't like Connor that much. But Connor as character is much deaper than Edward (for example), he maybe didn't show his emotions open to everyone, but he developed as character in the story. Also AC3 came with lots of different Side missions and the multiplayer felt really good. Overall, AC3 was a good game, and after Revelations they delivered something you wanna play maybe for a longer time.
  • and people gave me shit for saying the game was crap when it came out lol...
  • Makes sense to me. I just finished Black Flag yesterday (after tkaing 2 breaks along the way to play other games) and have to admit while gameplay is as fun as ever, story is too long and too boring. Doesn't seem like they have any idea where they want to take it instrad giving us random events from "present" with diaries and stories from past to uncover... I had the same feeling about ACIII and while MP is still a pleasant romp that I can sink good few hours into, they really need to cut on story length in AC. I said that year ago and held true, I will not buy another AC game on release (Black Flag was Christmas gift actually LOL) unless they overhaul system instead of just adding new features. CoD can get away with it and is better for it, but it is entireily different genre...
  • 3 words. Rounding up pigs. AC3 was a let down. It did bring some new ideas and not to mention the awesome naval missions. But the characters were bland and boring (minus Kenway), not to mention those pointlessly stupid missions (you know what I'm talking about)and the bugs and glitches did not help. AC: Black Flag fixed up where 3 went wrong, the characters were interesting, and setting was exciting - and while gameplay may have been pretty good, it has started to really show it's age now. Still, nothing will top AC2.
  • Honestly, AC3 quickly became one of my favorites in the series, second only to AC2. I really dug the survival element of the game, especially.
  • AC3 was a disappointment but regardless I enjoyed the game because after AC Brotherhood I never really paid much attention to Desmonds story because I think it was started in AC1 with no intention of a sequel and as such an end was never written until last minute. I've enjoyed each installment as a separate story for each character and just ignored the present day things as that one niggle that annoys everyone about any game they buy because no game is perfect. AC3 didn't suffer when I played it in fact I've never spent so much time playing a Creed game because there was so much to do. I never suffered any game breaking glitches and I enjoyed the MP on the side also. I really enjoyed the DLC episodes to. I'm currently chewing through the MP for AC4 because I've completely exhausted the SP, though I expect to revisit it at some point to grab the last of those Animus fragments for the completionist in me. This whole thing strikes me as a tale that could be said of pretty much any game that's had a troubled reception.
  • I have yet to play AC4 on my One but AC3 is my favorite. The homestead was amazing!
  • Why do we listen to disgruntled former employees? Yeah, we get it, your job sucked. Sorry you got fired. We already have opinions on AC3, there's no reason for this little dude's mudslinging.
  • Previous games were way better. Sure the engine was impresive but AC 3 lacked the scaling of large famous buildings the others had. Not saying the game should not progress but I just didn't enjoy colonial America as a backdrop for assassins creed. The forest area was entirely to big with not much to do and not enough synch points, making you explore the whole area for endless unexciting hours. The problems with the homestead achievements were frustrating. Again I want to assassinate fools in an assassins creed game not wait endless hours watching the doctor pick flowers animation to happen for an achievement. And the whole synching the animus post game thing is a pointless uneccessary joke. I still can't get this achievement since my last synch point is glitched in a building for the past several months. Thanks ubi for not patching this.
  • Makes sense. AC3 is the straw that broke the camels back for me and this series. Everyone says how great 4 is, but I'm not paying money for it. After AC2 they've gotten steadily worse and filled with more and more worthless features. I loved 1 and 2, Brotherhood and Revelations were ok, but 3 was downright terrible. If one of my buddies wants to give me 4, then I'll play it, but I'm not giving them one more cent of my cash.
  • I played AC3 quite a while after it was released. I didn't think it was up to much in terms of SP (I don't like the MP). It took so... god... damn.... long... to... start... It was like Chapter 5 or 6 of 12 before you really get going. Then the game climaxed before the end as the Haytham stuff was more interesting than the actual finale. I think another think, and it plays into what the article says, yearly releases are a bit much. I liked CoD and AC and F1 etc but I haven't bought the latest installments of any of these titles. I'm just burnt out on them after a long period of yearly releases. Then again, CoD usually sells by the bucketload, so I'm clearly not representative of gamers across the planet.
  • I liked AC3. AC4 is easily my favorite in the series. Revelation and Brotherhood were easily he worst and most pointless.
  • After Revelations turned out to be quite a let down and it became pretty obvious their only concern was making the multiplayer more successful and not giving a shit anymore about what mattered most; the single player, I've given up on the series especially when they really ruined the series with what they did in ACIII. If anyone doesn't already know I won't say it here but the ending of the game pretty much destroys what I loved most about the series, the story, the characters and everything.
  • Either way the series was heading to the graveyard after they abandoned what made the game fun to play, the story. Fixing too many problems that didn't need fixing while adding too many things that didn't need adding. The series is now the CoD of third-person. All the fails aren't surprising, after all we live in the age of mediocrity where sub-par is the new standard. Why take your time and release a quality product/game when you can half-ass it and release a series of patches to fix what should have fixed to begin with. This person's job/work environment is no different than any other. Three hundred bosses (whom have no clue about what's going on), no communication (but held accountable for information you never knew/told about), given deadlines (with no ability/resources to achieve them), while forced to the endure the apathy of co-workers (whom don't try or even pretend to do their job(s)). But most importantly, a complete lack of incentive to achieve said goals.
  • I played ACIII and launch and never had any technical problems with it. The problems with that game were the storyline itself, the protagonist, and the gameplay. Connor is easily the most naive, bitchy, annoying, protagonist I have ever encountered. The storyline was just utterly boring, as was the setting. The gameplay was atrocious. Tailing missions, the combat, everything else. Naval combat, too. It wasn't good at all. It's a shame when the game's only highlight is its supporting cast. Like others have said - ACIII was the worst installment in the series and despite everyone saying how good ACIV is, I refuse to give Ubisoft a dime.
  • I think the AC series would be in good shape if it was at the very least, semi-annual and didn't contain $20+ of worthless DLC after every release. I see the same thing happening to Watch Dogs; if that hasn't already been counted as an AC title in some shape or form.
  • I find it amazing someone can type all that up in 2 minutes... I gor AC2 from free with gold. I enjoyed the heck out of it. Always thought about getting the others and now I am glad I didn't. I tried the demo of AC HD and found it boring and repetitive, and consider it a half hour wasted.
  • I really love the franchise it's in top of my list; but, they should release one game every 2 years. I think it's better for them and for us to get excited, I don't even know how they expect us to buy their limited editions that they release every year (they usually release 4 or more limited editions per game).
  • "It's a shame, because I thought Tyranny of Washington was the best work we did." Ahahaha, good one. I notice none of the blame ever falls at the Creative Director AKA the same guy behind the first two Army Of Two games. My experience with AC3 was okay, relatively bug free. It's a decent game. don't feel too strongly about it either way. It was my 13 year old cousin's favourite game until I showed him Uncharted 3. He's ginger and his palms sweat, can he be trusted?
  • People be writing novels in this article!
  • I really enjoyed AC3. It has flaws absolutely, and I understand people who can't get past them. I think AC4 is to AC3 what AC2 was to AC1. AC4 and AC2 both took things that worked in the previous game and improved upon them, whilst ironing out key problems.
  • "Getting 100% went from something fun for the diehard fans, to a herculean task of tedium and dumb-luck." Yup. I got all the achievements in AC1, AC2, AC: Brotherhood (with DLC) and AC: Revelations. I was a die hard fan of the franchise. Getting 100% in AC3 was so annoying that afterwards I didn't buy any of the DLC AND I didn't buy AC4 or the recent Liberations HD Arcade release. Just the thought of playing an Assassin's Creed game now reminds me of boredom and monotony.
  • AC3 was shitty because of the missions. Never got the 100% because of naval missions, on which I never learned how to get the enemy ships' weak point without destroying them. Besides, the story was boring, i never understood how to make the Encyclopedia Of Common Man and Boston and NY were the worst cities to explore (the underground part was also a shit). AC4 was better, not on its plot, but on its gameplay. I really enjoyed it, because I first thought the ships would be harder to move, as on AC3. But they were softer and easier to move and attack. And the cities are move explorable, using the parkour moves.
  • Yep, I had a ton of fun getting 100% in AC2, Brotherhood, and Revelations. When it came to AC3, no, it is not fun, it is a massive pain in the rear. From broken gameplay to the insanely annoying naval combat, I just do not want to try it. And that was another thing I couldn't stand, the naval combat. It was pointless and useless, and the main reason I didn't buy AC4. I want to play as an assassin, not a pirate/boat. It's pretty sad when Disney pulls off naval combat better than Ubisoft with the Pirates level in Disney Infinity. THAT was fun and I enjoyed it.
  • Story of Tyranny of Washington was good but gameplay was meh. What' s the point of dotting the map with lootable chests, when every one of them is guarded by a bazillion of guards? Very, very tedious.
  • There was no "treasure hunter feel" like there was in AC:B and AC 2. These missions where you looted famous structures found in history was one of the biggest draws to the series for me. The fluid combat of the first four games was also much better than AC3. Overall, AC3 was just a complete disaster in my eyes, and I hope Ubisoft goes back to its Assassin's Creed roots...
  • This is kind of funny, because AC3 isn't really an industry horror story like Guitar Hero or Aliens: Colonial Marines. AC3 was actually an above-average product. It was probably the most disjointed piece-of-crap AC game I've ever played, but it was still an AC game - and that's kind of a seal of excellence in itself. It's good to know this information, though - and it sure makes a lot of sense, given how muddled AC3 is. The storyline is all over the place and completely lacks the rhythm and longevity of its predecessor. Features are introduced early, but never used in the game again. Hunting is itself purely a token feature, with no higher gameplay purpose. And you could truly get through the game without ever upgrading Connor's weapons. With all that said, I still thought AC3 was a decent product. I will probably give it another playthrough eventually. I just wonder about how AC4 worked if this is how AC3 was. AC4 is clearly the better product.
  • Why you don't pump out yearly titles dumbasses, look at CoD...
  • AC has been a wreck ever since Revelations
  • "But we couldn't really say anything, and the higher ups basically stuck their fingers in their ears and convinced themselves that they were amazing." So just like most major corporations!
  • "“So I apparently got the unlock conditions wrong for the origami node hunt. Forgive me, it's been a while, and again - it was an often ignored feature.”" Didn't know about this either. If they'd made it an achievement to find it, we would have been all over it ;)
  • I'm glad he acknowledged that very few people knew that the "connecting the Animus to the cloud" mini-game even existed. It explains why it was such a poorly thought-through concept. Its purpose was nebulous at best, and by allowing trolls to place the tokens for other players, it is keeping a small but significant population of players from ever finishing the game. Balls.
  • For me AC4 is the best in the franchise (probably because there's a bit less Assassin/Templar fight) The story arc with Ezio was really a pain to play, I really didn't like ezio's character except in AC:Revelations.
  • Makes perfect sense to me, and from his points, he definitely sounds legit.
  • Thought ac3 was horrible. Wish I didn't spend 15$ on it during a sale digital. Now I can't sell it
  • I enjoyed 3, but liked the idea of the setting more than the actual game. It was fun and I didn't run in to any game breaking glitches (I ran in to glitches but only one that kept me from 100% which was patched) but just from hearing about the sheer number of people that did have game breaking glitches proves it could've been done much better.
  • I have yet to play this game (not avoiding it... I just haven't played many games since my father died in Dec 2013, whom I was caring for). I have read comments where people absolutely hated it, and some who thought it was the best up to its release... so I guess it's a matter of how the game happens to grab you (and the alleged dev's comments ARE interesting to read). If the game was enjoyable enough to play through... how difficult is it to unlock all the achievements? I've played games that weren't the best, but what kills a game for me, is if there are impossible to unlock achievements. Is there anything in this game that is deal-killer, other than it not being liked by everyone?
  • AC3 was crap. It felt like the work of lots of independent teams working in isolation and this pretty much confirms it. The worst part was the incoherent story, it basically collapsed in on itself and relied on your own prior knowledge of American colonial history to supply context, something I have none of! Lazy story-telling fronted by a sullen, deeply unlikable character and riddled bugs. Thankfully AC4 seems to of turned the corner.
  • To me, ACII was the peak of the series. I had to force myself to complete ACIII and although a few people have assured me that ACIV is much better, I've still yet to get it. Also, I didn't enjoy the sailing part of ACIII so was actually disappointed that it was a large focus of ACIV.
  • @49 I *think* everything has been patched that broke achievements. I think the thing that was the biggest problem for a lot of people was observing members of your homestead. It also depends on whether or not you care about 100%, there's DLC (that some say is better than the main game) and multiplayer achievements. If you've played any of the other AC games, then you can expect the same effort to get achievements.
  • It's not the best, certainly not the worst. That title goes to the first one in my opinion because of how repetitive it was. 3 is just bland for the most part. Bland setting, bland characters, bland Conner, even the combat was bland compared to the other games. The best parts were the Desmond missions and cutscenes. I'll never get 100% in that game cause there tons of shit I don't feel like doing. I don't wanna navigate through those needlessly confusing Fast Travel tunnels that defeat the purpose of fast travel. Don't feel like doing all the club challenges, especially the hunting ones. Don't feel like getting all the pelts and whatnot to send out a convoy. I don't even feel like doing the naval missions cause I wasn't really a fan of those. Maybe I'll give em a fair shot anyway. The only thing I probably will do is full-sync every main mission. And some of the more fun side missions like the forts and islands. Overall just a bland game. They should have just finally given us a 100% Desmond-centric game and gave him the payoff he deserved, instead of being a bit player in his own story again.
  • i enjoyed ac 3 tremendously really enjoyed the homestead and frontier as well as the present day missions. i enjoyed ac 4 even more. still have a favorite but ac 3 is up their. looking forward to where ubisoft takes it next
  • i got the feeling that it felt like it wasnt meant for 360 or ps3, as if the graphics were to good for its time.
  • ACIII was one of my least favorite games ever. Mashing the A button but still getting destroyed by firing lines, combat that, at times worked well but other times....just didn't. A brutal crafting system,a fleet management system so impenetrable that I still haven't used it, and a protagonist so stiff, selfish, and annoying that I wanted HIM to die at the end of the game...which I wished had come about 8 hours earlier than it did. Disjointed, clunky refuse. I'm still waiting for an apology from Ubisoft.
  • ...and why was Conner's costume always white in the cut scenes, no matter what costume he wore in the game? And why, when I wasn't notorious, was I attacked in sight by guards. Broken.
  • AC3 certainly was terrible.
  • I thought it was okay. Lots of promising potential but the massive amount of things to do just in that game alone to get 100% was ridiculous. And then tack on that stupid mini-game achievement that ruins me having this entire franchise 100% pisses me off because I can't beat that one mother fucker, Fanorama I think it is, even with the help of online flash games so I just gave up after 35 days of constantly trying. Complete and utter bullshit. At least with things like Gears of War, all that is is grinding. I hate pure luck achievements. So stupid and pointless.
  • I completely hated the 100% missions. I like to complete all achievements for a game (reason I'm on this site), and this is one of the games that sucked balls in that dept. I like playing a mission to have fun and watch the story unfold, what happened instead was a lot of replaying on certain missions that didn't make sense once so ever the way they wanted you to "100%" them. After this release I'm done with them. Let me add, I don't care for their stupid political or cultural beliefs: stick with just making games.
  • I'm really glad I never played this.
  • I really enjoyed ACIII no complaints here
  • ACIII was shit. Shit story. Shit main character. I'd rather have played as Haytham. Black Flag was much better.
  • Haytham was my favorite character in ACIII too.
  • Makes sense to me, and explains why I am suffering the 'bug' in the Tyranny DLC that has stopped me progressing, and no Ubisfot....deleting your save file and starting again and that MIGHT fix it, is not a solution......
  • AC3 was the first I played in the series and I loved it. They probably could have polished it more, etc. But overall I thought it was great. And the Achievement collecting, wasn't really that hard, don't know why a lot were saying how hard it was to get some of them...
  • AC III was so bad it made me NOT buy AC IV at release. I broke down and bought black flag this past week and it's so much better the AC III.
  • Thanks for the feedback, people! I might have a chance to play the game for free... as a friend of mine who finished playing it (in his terms... means he played all wants to play in it), has "threatened" to send it to me, so I might be willing to give it a go - seeing it wouldn't cost me anything. I'll play it on my "testing account" to see if I'll want to commit to the whole game (including DLC - which I'll be fine about paying for), getting a chance to play the game for free. I loved all the Halo games (sans Halo Wars... I'm just not into the RTS games). Not all the Halo games are perfect by long shot (except maybe "Halo CE" - it's what got me to buy an Xbox, after my friend brought his game and console down and got me hooked). This is a great web site. Not just for the info on completing achievements, and news about games... but feedback from fellow gamers. You guys should all pat yourselves on the back. Hearing negative comments are just as helpful positive ones! Thanks, again!!! :-D
  • Playing this game right now. I like it hasn't bored me yet. However the bugs man..the bugs...(Not game breaking, just feels rushed/low quality)
  • You need to register before being able to post comments

Game navigation