Trailers: Assassin's Creed 3 - Reveal Trailer

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Urgh, and they stayed away from America as a central setting for so long. Just don't find this especially interesting. All the cool conflicts and possibilities, and its off to the war of independence.

Mixing the assassin outfit with some American identification (blue and white) with a seemingly Indian character, no no no no.

 

[Trekkie]

I was hoping Ubisoft would keep the game apolitical like they did with the others but sadly not by the looks of it. the blue coat under the white robes said it all. and the speech from the american commander didn't help. The american people kept as slaves? my arse!

I just hope Ubisoft have just made us look at this out of context and aren't making a game to make more sales over in the US whilst whitewashing over 4 games worth of back story.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

I have a very bad feeling about this. Assasins Creed should be set in a city, not a forest.

 

[Azzeron]

I really hope they don't wimp out and rewrite history by making the Americans angelically good.

As long as they avoid doing that, guaranteed rental from me.

You will fight the Brits to begin with because they will kill your family but later will learn the founding fathers were evil and Templars. The game's set over thirty years this is clearly the plot and I will eat my considerable collection of expensive ties if I'm wrong.

I'm with you two.

I mean seriously, If the 'screed series suddenly starts having something to do with unwavering patriotic loyalty to a nation's flag and decides that every British person of the era was a templar servant, then the game will honestly be straying from what made it appealing in the first place. Declaring loyalty any kind of banner - isn't that diametrically opposed to the ethos of the Assasin's order? And I'm not just saying that because it's my former ancestors that he's murdering in that video.

Hey, his use of a tomahawk may mean he's a Native-American character. I think that could work - a native American would be rightfully furious at both sides of the conflict.

On a lighter note, thank god we're rid of Ezio. I refused to buy Revelations simply because giving him a third installment stank to high heavens of profit-centric stagnation. I hope that they cram some exposition into 'screed 3 just so I don't have to go out and play as a once-likeable character I got well and truly sick of.

Also, does anyone else wonder why the Assassins can't do their jobs properly anymore?

I mean, who remembers Altair? Y'know, the quiet, inconspicuous guy who would canonically assassinate only his target and then slip away into the crowd, flummoxing the guards by hiding in plain sight? y'know, the guy who actually understood what his own mission statement and optimum strategy was?

Why is it that ever since then, the Assassins have decided to abandon the very approach that made them so fucking cool to begin with? Altair's exploits were almost harrowing to play, but ubisoft Montreal decided to "fix" what made the game so interesting. In 'screed 2 for instance, you'd challenge yourself to get in, Assassinate, and get out while causing minimal trouble. In the first game, you just wouldn't get a choice.

I remember that particularly moronic trailer for Brotherhood, in which Ezio decides that the best way to get at his target would be have his rooftop archers infiltrate the place, and then brazenly walk right on up to the guy's guardsmen with his sword out and his own little backup team. Apparently, disguising himself as one of the heavily armoured guards would have been far too difficult for a supposed master of stealth. And then the game spent most of it's time kicking you headlong into showy, violent duels. They were pretty cool, but completely unchallenging! they completely rubbed out your incentive to be sneaky, and defied their apparent belief that unnecessary killing is a bad thing.

I remember doing one mission where I had to assassinate one guy who was standing in a corner beneath an archway-thing with two entrances, both of which had two guards each standing watch. With no way in, I drifted along amongst the crowds until I was close, then pointed the poison dart launcher at him, fired it as soon as the throng cleared for a moment, and the strode off amongst them while my target slowly went mad and the guards were completely bewildered.

The game penalised me for that by telling me it wasn't the "preferred" method. What I was supposed to do for the full reward was put two of my recruits at unnecessary risk by having them goomba-stomp the fucking guardsmen, resulting in the slaughter of four men, all so I could chase my newly-alerted target through the crowded streets and brzenly run him through with my sword in full view of everyone in Rome.

uh, yeah. Back on-topic: I hope there's less of that bullshit in this upcoming installment of a series that used to be about stealth and infiltration.

Damn right! Ubisoft needs to stop trying to rake in the casual market and instead focus of the core stealth genre. It really breaks the immersion when I can run up to a group of guards, stab all of them and proceed to bomb a horde of civilians for no apparent reason.

Also, did anyone else notice that the American forces were wearing blue, while historically they didn't have uniforms until after they gained freedom from Britain. During the Revolutionary War, they simply wore whatever they could and used guerilla tactics, as opposed to Britain's line tactics. Interesting. Either the game actually ISN'T during the Revolutionary War, or Ubisoft just fucked history in the ass.

 

[Azzeron]

I really hope they don't wimp out and rewrite history by making the Americans angelically good.

As long as they avoid doing that, guaranteed rental from me.

You will fight the Brits to begin with because they will kill your family but later will learn the founding fathers were evil and Templars. The game's set over thirty years this is clearly the plot and I will eat my considerable collection of expensive ties if I'm wrong.

I'm with you two.

I mean seriously, If the 'screed series suddenly starts having something to do with unwavering patriotic loyalty to a nation's flag and decides that every British person of the era was a templar servant, then the game will honestly be straying from what made it appealing in the first place. Declaring loyalty any kind of banner - isn't that diametrically opposed to the ethos of the Assasin's order? And I'm not just saying that because it's my former ancestors that he's murdering in that video.

Hey, his use of a tomahawk may mean he's a Native-American character. I think that could work - a native American would be rightfully furious at both sides of the conflict.

On a lighter note, thank god we're rid of Ezio. I refused to buy Revelations simply because giving him a third installment stank to high heavens of profit-centric stagnation. I hope that they cram some exposition into 'screed 3 just so I don't have to go out and play as a once-likeable character I got well and truly sick of.

Also, does anyone else wonder why the Assassins can't do their jobs properly anymore?

I mean, who remembers Altair? Y'know, the quiet, inconspicuous guy who would canonically assassinate only his target and then slip away into the crowd, flummoxing the guards by hiding in plain sight? y'know, the guy who actually understood what his own mission statement and optimum strategy was?

Why is it that ever since then, the Assassins have decided to abandon the very approach that made them so fucking cool to begin with? Altair's exploits were almost harrowing to play, but ubisoft Montreal decided to "fix" what made the game so interesting. In 'screed 2 for instance, you'd challenge yourself to get in, Assassinate, and get out while causing minimal trouble. In the first game, you just wouldn't get a choice.

I remember that particularly moronic trailer for Brotherhood, in which Ezio decides that the best way to get at his target would be have his rooftop archers infiltrate the place, and then brazenly walk right on up to the guy's guardsmen with his sword out and his own little backup team. Apparently, disguising himself as one of the heavily armoured guards would have been far too difficult for a supposed master of stealth. And then the game spent most of it's time kicking you headlong into showy, violent duels. They were pretty cool, but completely unchallenging! they completely rubbed out your incentive to be sneaky, and defied their apparent belief that unnecessary killing is a bad thing.

I remember doing one mission where I had to assassinate one guy who was standing in a corner beneath an archway-thing with two entrances, both of which had two guards each standing watch. With no way in, I drifted along amongst the crowds until I was close, then pointed the poison dart launcher at him, fired it as soon as the throng cleared for a moment, and the strode off amongst them while my target slowly went mad and the guards were completely bewildered.

The game penalised me for that by telling me it wasn't the "preferred" method. What I was supposed to do for the full reward was put two of my recruits at unnecessary risk by having them goomba-stomp the fucking guardsmen, resulting in the slaughter of four men, all so I could chase my newly-alerted target through the crowded streets and brzenly run him through with my sword in full view of everyone in Rome.

uh, yeah. Back on-topic: I hope there's less of that bullshit in this upcoming installment of a series that used to be about stealth and infiltration.

Damn right! Ubisoft needs to stop trying to rake in the casual market and instead focus of the core stealth genre. It really breaks the immersion when I can run up to a group of guards, stab all of them and proceed to bomb a horde of civilians for no apparent reason.

Also, did anyone else notice that the American forces were wearing blue, while historically they didn't have uniforms until after they gained freedom from Britain. During the Revolutionary War, they simply wore whatever they could and used guerilla tactics, as opposed to Britain's line tactics. Interesting. Either the game actually ISN'T during the Revolutionary War, or Ubisoft just fucked history in the ass.

 

[Azzeron]

I really hope they don't wimp out and rewrite history by making the Americans angelically good.

As long as they avoid doing that, guaranteed rental from me.

You will fight the Brits to begin with because they will kill your family but later will learn the founding fathers were evil and Templars. The game's set over thirty years this is clearly the plot and I will eat my considerable collection of expensive ties if I'm wrong.

I'm with you two.

I mean seriously, If the 'screed series suddenly starts having something to do with unwavering patriotic loyalty to a nation's flag and decides that every British person of the era was a templar servant, then the game will honestly be straying from what made it appealing in the first place. Declaring loyalty any kind of banner - isn't that diametrically opposed to the ethos of the Assasin's order? And I'm not just saying that because it's my former ancestors that he's murdering in that video.

Hey, his use of a tomahawk may mean he's a Native-American character. I think that could work - a native American would be rightfully furious at both sides of the conflict.

On a lighter note, thank god we're rid of Ezio. I refused to buy Revelations simply because giving him a third installment stank to high heavens of profit-centric stagnation. I hope that they cram some exposition into 'screed 3 just so I don't have to go out and play as a once-likeable character I got well and truly sick of.

Also, does anyone else wonder why the Assassins can't do their jobs properly anymore?

I mean, who remembers Altair? Y'know, the quiet, inconspicuous guy who would canonically assassinate only his target and then slip away into the crowd, flummoxing the guards by hiding in plain sight? y'know, the guy who actually understood what his own mission statement and optimum strategy was?

Why is it that ever since then, the Assassins have decided to abandon the very approach that made them so fucking cool to begin with? Altair's exploits were almost harrowing to play, but ubisoft Montreal decided to "fix" what made the game so interesting. In 'screed 2 for instance, you'd challenge yourself to get in, Assassinate, and get out while causing minimal trouble. In the first game, you just wouldn't get a choice.

I remember that particularly moronic trailer for Brotherhood, in which Ezio decides that the best way to get at his target would be have his rooftop archers infiltrate the place, and then brazenly walk right on up to the guy's guardsmen with his sword out and his own little backup team. Apparently, disguising himself as one of the heavily armoured guards would have been far too difficult for a supposed master of stealth. And then the game spent most of it's time kicking you headlong into showy, violent duels. They were pretty cool, but completely unchallenging! they completely rubbed out your incentive to be sneaky, and defied their apparent belief that unnecessary killing is a bad thing.

I remember doing one mission where I had to assassinate one guy who was standing in a corner beneath an archway-thing with two entrances, both of which had two guards each standing watch. With no way in, I drifted along amongst the crowds until I was close, then pointed the poison dart launcher at him, fired it as soon as the throng cleared for a moment, and the strode off amongst them while my target slowly went mad and the guards were completely bewildered.

The game penalised me for that by telling me it wasn't the "preferred" method. What I was supposed to do for the full reward was put two of my recruits at unnecessary risk by having them goomba-stomp the fucking guardsmen, resulting in the slaughter of four men, all so I could chase my newly-alerted target through the crowded streets and brzenly run him through with my sword in full view of everyone in Rome.

uh, yeah. Back on-topic: I hope there's less of that bullshit in this upcoming installment of a series that used to be about stealth and infiltration.

Damn right! Ubisoft needs to stop trying to rake in the casual market and instead focus of the core stealth genre. It really breaks the immersion when I can run up to a group of guards, stab all of them and proceed to bomb a horde of civilians for no apparent reason.

Also, did anyone else notice that the American forces were wearing blue, while historically they didn't have uniforms until after they gained freedom from Britain. During the Revolutionary War, they simply wore whatever they could and used guerilla tactics, as opposed to Britain's line tactics. Interesting. Either the game actually ISN'T during the Revolutionary War, or Ubisoft just fucked history in the ass.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

I would have left out the "free men or slaves" bit. The massive amount of irony in that statement isn't even funny.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Agreed snakeoilsage, and surely an offensive statement to say, Native/African Americans. Freedom for whitey in America, not freedom for everyone else.

I chuckled to read that moviebob was excited about it. Truly I am not surprised. It is very focused on getting the American audience. For us non-Americans, blergh.