Assassins creed black flag is alot better in every way! Naval combat was a joke in assassins creed three. Assassins Creed black flag has better graphics, better combat, better hunting, and a more interesting story, connor kenway was a boring character, and you could hardly even tell the difference between new York city and Boston, assassins creed black flag had a bigger map, with plenty more side activities that are actually FUN to do
Assassin's Creed 3 was probably one of the most disappointing games I have ever played. Ultimately forgettable characters, a very flawed story, no attempt to make realistic alternative historical scenarios, an irritating main character, mostly boring main missions, one of the worst video-game endings in history, and an unnecessary different perspective on the Templars.
Assassin's Creed 4 was a huge step in the right direction and one of the best in the series. Historically accurate characters (Blackbeard, Stede Bonnet, Benjamin Hornigold, Calico Jack Rackham, Anne Bonny, and Mary Read), exciting and addictive gameplay elements, creative alternative historical scenarios, an extremely likable and charismatic main character, interesting characters, elements from previous games, a present-day setting that is actually worth exploring, a massive environment with many secrets to unlock, a very interesting story, and jumps straight into the action once it begins.
Black Flag is my Favorite game in the gaming history. It has very beautiful sight, lot of things to do, great combat, naval combat, upgrades, hunting, great story and gorgeous graphics. It's a very big game comparing to Assassin's Creed 3. As for Assassin's Creed 3 it has great variety of Missions and very exciting real history scenes like Boston tea party. Anyway Black Flag is better.
The third installment in the Assassin's Creed franchise was a HUGE deal at the time of its release! Its setting is magnitudes more immersive and historically detailed than Black Flag's mediocre Carribean pirate world. AC4's collectibles and side activities were tedious and completing them felt like a chore, and although AC3's weren't AMAZING they at least added to the gameplay experience and felt worthy of completion. Relationships between characters had a lot more weight in AC3, and its antagonists were particularly intriguing. AC4's main protagonist may be more ambitious than AC3's, but his actions and decisions never really seem to matter in the grand scheme of things. I also think AC3's setting was more fit for an installment is an "Assassin's Creed" game. Finally, AC4's present-day side story was executed very poorly as compared to AC3's excellent fusion of the modern-historical aspects of "Assassin's Creed". I believe Ubisoft should produce separate Assassin's Creed games for fans of naval combat and leaves its other installments featuring activities exclusively on land.