Americans die in the new Assassins Creed 3 trailer
- Thread starter superdelux
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How do you know they aren't just Brits in disguise as Americans? aaaaahhh.... /sarcasm
Finally a AC3 trailer that isn't "America, Fuck yeah!". Still a bit silly, but now I can be safe in my new assumption that the marketing department is just wack. The game looks good.
But will the mechanics make Connor smarter than Ezio and Altair, like jumping off the other side of the ledge and to his death when I attempt to reach another ledge?
Finally a AC3 trailer that isn't "America, Fuck yeah!". Still a bit silly, but now I can be safe in my new assumption that the marketing department is just wack. The game looks good.
But will the mechanics make Connor smarter than Ezio and Altair, like jumping off the other side of the ledge and to his death when I attempt to reach another ledge?
Aha! Thanks, that really helps!GoaThief said:You've got it the wrong way around, the colonists/patriots were the greedy evil ones who claimed the land and butchered the natives, which is why the overwhelming majority of Indians supported the British.royohz said:
I hope so, but I have a gut feeling that some of the Redcoats will be mustache-twirling Saturday morning cartoon villains. Like Vieri de Pazzi's fairly Joffrey-worthy behavior in Assassin's Creed 2.PedroSteckecilo said:
If the game manages to juggle being PC and still avoiding to turn out into something like an interactive Roland Emmerich flag-fest, I'll be happy. If it turns out that 'muricans are the BEST GUYS EVER, FUCK YEAH, then I'll be disappointed.
I'm Canadian. Some of my buds are American. Every once in a while, a bit of patriotism comes out from their skin pores, and they start questioning why I don't really care where I live. I tend to retort that yes, while the United States are a privileged country where people are generally agreed upon as being safe and able to pursue interesting life goals and career opportunities, it's got its fair share of problems. So does Canada, to be honest.
Comparing First World countries, in my perspective, feels like comparing apples with other apples. Most have the same basic human rights, the same basic amenities, and some have more specific problems that require societal discussion or political change. Overall it's a pretty slim range of differences.
My friends reply that America is still better than any famine-ravaged country. To which I have to say it's not what I'm disputing. What I *am* disputing is the notion that one country is arbitrarily "special".
If Assassin's Creed 3 manages to steer clear of nationalist dick-stroking and can dish out decent reasons as to why one country's creation needs to be celebrated in a focused form over any other, I won't mind. From a game design and narrative perspective, though, I do understand Ubisoft's choice. Any historical military conflict is bound to offer decent-to-excellent story elements for a game where your primary occupation is looking awesome whilst killing dudes.
I don't play Assassins Creed games so I do not know much about the lore, but is the gist of it is an order of Assassins fighting a war Against the Templars over the centuries? If it is wouldn't Conner also be targeting the Founding Fathers? Most of them where Freemasons and the history of the Knights Templar and the Freemasons are inextricably (and mysteriously) linked.
Unless the wider story is going to be something like a schism or feud between the Templars and the Masons being a secret subtext to the Revolutionary war. That would be pretty cool.
Unless the wider story is going to be something like a schism or feud between the Templars and the Masons being a secret subtext to the Revolutionary war. That would be pretty cool.
They don't look to be at attention, the Assassin's Creed games are rarely about stealth just about making that one dude in the white hood not stand out in a crowd, if they both think maybe that Native American skulking around with a musket is supposed to be there then no one is going to bat an eyelash till he stabs them in the back and shoots the other one with the gun, then its just a matter of finding a conveniantly similar looking group of friendly monks to go hang out with.TheKasp said:
I don't like this. I think they should have had the balls to pick one side or the other for the purpose of making real world events tie into the Assassin's Creed story in a compelling (non-incidental) way. It would have been perfect to tie the struggle against the Templar Order into the Revolution that began the world anew. Or, they could have put the Assassins on the side of the British and created a story with some life-like moral complexity to it. Not picking a side is the easy and boring way to do it.
I really could not care less if some Francophiles just hate it when America is the good guy. Or, you know, if the people making it are French.
I really could not care less if some Francophiles just hate it when America is the good guy. Or, you know, if the people making it are French.
They are wearing the blue coats given to the Americans by the French, so it must be after July 4th, 1776. That makes them Americans.Diplian said:
More likely though, Ubisoft just doesn't give two donkey shits about historical accuracy, hehe.
Americans are sucking it up and letting themselves be the bad guys for once? I don't believe it at all.
Good to know. If it's handled in much the same way as the Crusades for the first game, it won't bother me at all.GunsmithKitten said:
Huzzah! It apparently won't be a one-sided affair. Right, seems the only thing I was on the fence about it fixed, time to grab the game!