Assassin's Creed 3: Again, Ubisoft?

[TheDrunkNinja]

But this is the Rev war. This isn't America during Vietnam and the Middle East. Honestly you would have really stretch it to make America be evil and the Brits being good during this war. Imo it was basically as black and white as World War II was.

"History is written by the victor" has never been more relevant. No war is black and white, the revolutionary war was certainly far from a simple battle of good vs evil. Both sides did things we'd sooner rather erase from history. Hell, WW2 certainty wasn't black and white. I mean, there was that whole thing with American nuking those civilians and the bombing of Dresden.

Aside from the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombing of Dresden. I was talking overall. Could you make an arguement that Hitler and the Nazi's weren't almost essentially cartoon bad guys. Now granted, doesn't mean all Nazi's were racists, but the overall conflict was black and white.

I don't consider specific actions make a conflict black and white. Hell, I would be angry if they didn't show Americans doing some bad shit in AC3, but the overall conflict they can't possibly make the British look like good guys and the Americans as evil.

But this is the Rev war. This isn't America during Vietnam and the Middle East. Honestly you would have really stretch it to make America be evil and the Brits being good during this war. Imo it was basically as black and white as World War II was.

Don't be too hasty there.

The redcoats weren't attempting any genocides on the side.

Try WWI as a better comparison, though still rather inefficient. Actually, let's try to not look silly by comparing wars here.

I wasn't talking about specifics of the war, I was just talking about the overall conflict. Like I said with the British during the Rev would you would really need to stretch it to make the Nazi's during WW2 be actually be the good guys or not that bad. Note, I am talking about overall not specific people.

Okay. Here's how I will interpret your notion of "black and white": That history and the people of that time would have been worse off if one specific side won over the other. Which, yes, in that context and without any true idea of the full effects of changing history in such a way, I will concede to that notion, and I'm giving you a lot of leeway with that one. Just be careful with how you word that in the future, or people might take it pretty badly.

 

[omega 616]

As a Brit.

To be honest I couldn't give a shit if Connor was totally "AMURICA! FUCK YEA!" let me slay thousands of English .... I have slain millions of Russians and I have never read an article in which Russians complain about always being the baddies.

What Happened to the British stiff upper lip? We are starting to get like stereotypical America "WAAAAH! Somebody did something mean to me! I am sooo offended! I will sue!" just get over it.

I wouldn't even care ubi said "Connor will be totally neutral" then proceeded to be the biggest killer of British ever, while no so much as giving a dirty look to an American. Even if they made the British look like bloodthirsty, baby killers and Americans to be the right hand of god, who never did a wrong and instead of killing us, they led us to the righteous path ....

The accent the people I am killing has no effect on my enjoyment of me massacring them.

Thing is, when was the last time America was the baddies? It seems that we forget America has been a villian as often as it has been the good guy. You know, Vietnam, that whole thing in the Middle East, that thing with the atomic bombs... yet, nope. America are never the bad guys! Variety is the spice of life, folks.

[sup]Plus, from what I saw in that trailer, they gave the English guys reeeeally bad accents. I mean, christ they were bad.[/sup]

Well that is too be expected, for a start I doubt America teaches it's kids all the bad stuff it did ... just as much as WW2 isn't taught in German schools (I would assume).

Secondly, isn't most of the media the 1st world absorbs from America? Most movies are made there and I would bet most game devs and publishers have there HQ's in America, so them not wanting to make themselves look like dicks is predictable.

Although there was Battlefield Vietnam but isn't that just about the only AAA game involving that war?

As for the accents I bet my bottom pound that they hired cheaper American voice actors to do there best English accent ... which is always either commoner speak from about the same time Jack the ripper was knocking about or some upper class snob ... of the same era AKA "alright there guvnor!" or "why I say, jolly good show old fellow!".

There will never be a Manc or scouse accent, let alone Scottish or Welsh....

 

[nasteypenguin]

I'm not particularly averse to killing Englishmen myself, being a Scot. I do think this is Ubisofts chance to prove themselves. If they can pull this off by creating effective villains in the backdrop of a morally gray war and not affecting the morality of the war itself, I will have great respect for them.

A lot fewer people died in the bombings than would have died during an invasion.

I would agree it was the lesser of two evils in a utilitarian sense and I don't think the motivation behind it was in any way evil but they were sparing the lives of soldiers by sacrificing innocent civilians. I don't think you can say it had no moral implications.

 

[Vitagen]

we are now getting angry about the out of character behaviour of a character from a novel that doesn't exist yet based on a videogame that doesn't exist yet.

No sane individual is angry about whether or not the behavior is "in character" for Connor. The discussion here is about the portrayal of the British in the game. Watch the Independence Day (American Independence day, that is, July 4) trailer to see what we mean.

[sup]Although the discussion has quickly deteriorated into a debate about the morality of the use of atomic weapons in WWII, which I will be withholding comment on for fear of making a fool of myself.[/sup]

 

[socialmenace42]

-snip-

But this is the Rev war. This isn't America during Vietnam and the Middle East. Honestly you would have really stretch it to make America be evil and the Brits being good during this war. Imo it was basically as black and white as World War II was.

To be fair, WWII was anything but black and white, certainly the motivation surrounding the figureheads can't be condoned or even considered, but the war itself fluctuated all over the place: you have the small European arms race that preceded it, the lingering bitterness over the Treaty of Versailles which had a heavy hand in starting the war, the appeasement, the untimely rise of Mussolini, the Betrayall on the russian front, the siege of Stalingrad (which gave birth to guerilla warfare), the Campaigns through Egypt and Lybia, the carpet-bombing of entire cities (on all sides I might add) the ultimate involvement of America and Canada and the Pacific Campaign, I'm just scratching the surface and none of it is black and white.

Ah, that was a good rant. But i guess my point is that I hope they show in the game that war, for whatever purpose, with wahtever intention and with whatever means it is fought, if you are invader, liberator, defender or revolutionary; war can never be fully justified. the fact is that innocent people die for a future they will never see and may never have even wanted, and no matter how connected they are to the events, whether on the front lines or praying in a shelter, the offence or defence of the battle can cost them their life.

So please Ubisoft: show us the horrors of war. show s how it drives men to commit unspeakable acts in the name of freedom and liberty. I feel sure everyoe, even those who will disagree with what I have written, will be able to appreciate that.

also: catcha = karma points. nice.

 

[Korten12]

Okay. Here's how I will interpret your notion of "black and white": That history and the people of that time would have been worse off if one specific side won over the other. Which, yes, in that context and without any true idea of the full effects of changing history in such a way, I will concede to that notion, and I'm giving you a lot of leeway with that one. Just be careful with how you word that in the future, or people might take it pretty badly.

No, Black and White would be like this: I was home alone and some robber comes in and begins to assault me and I fight back. That is black and white.

The situation for the Rev war: The colonies were part of the British Empire and existed for many reasons, but they also eventually became simply there to benefit British with taxes and such. So the newly found Americans (who at the time were also essentially British) decided to rebel back so they could become an independant nation.

That is black and white situation, they had all the rights to rebel and fight for their freedom. Unless your going to tell me that it was horrible and the Americans are evil for wanting to be seperate from the British empire.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

we are now getting angry about the out of character behaviour of a character from a novel that doesn't exist yet based on a videogame that doesn't exist yet.

No sane individual is angry about whether or not the behavior is "in character" for Connor. The discussion here is about the portrayal of the British in the game. Watch the Independence Day (American Independence day, that is, July 4) trailer to see what we mean.

[sup]Although the discussion has quickly deteriorated into a debate about the morality of the use of atomic weapons in WWII, which I will be withholding comment on for fear of making a fool of myself.[/sup]

The point still stands though, no one knows how that will turn out since the game and book aren't out yet.

Also, I'm just guessing, but the trailer was trying to stay with the theme of fight of independence for the US since it was released on the 4th of July, a little appropriate, no?

 

[The Last Nomad]

I imagine he will start off fighting for one side, then get pulled into the Assassin's verses Templar's war instead, which will make him more or less neutral in the war of independence. Bigger fish to fry and all that.

 

[Wargamer]

So let me get this straight...

Connor, a Half-British, Half-Native Assassin, is dedicating his life to fighting on behalf of a people who want to steal a country from the British, and commit genocide against the Natives?

Nice one, Ubisoft. You're now no better than the CoD writers!

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

anc[is]Ubisoft is letting a glorified fan fiction writer make them a couple bucks. That's it. Don't take it as canon for the entire series.

Ah, the whole "the part I like just isn't canon even though it's an officially licensed work" angle. Always the epitome of reason.

If you thought it was the greatest thing ever, you'd be screaming at the top of the damn rafters that it was canon as shit the second someone said otherwise.

 

[Vitagen]

we are now getting angry about the out of character behaviour of a character from a novel that doesn't exist yet based on a videogame that doesn't exist yet.

No sane individual is angry about whether or not the behavior is "in character" for Connor. The discussion here is about the portrayal of the British in the game. Watch the Independence Day (American Independence day, that is, July 4) trailer to see what we mean.

[sup]Although the discussion has quickly deteriorated into a debate about the morality of the use of atomic weapons in WWII, which I will be withholding comment on for fear of making a fool of myself.[/sup]

The point still stands though, no one knows how that will turn out since the game and book aren't out yet.

Also, I'm just guessing, but the trailer was trying to stay with the theme of fight of independence for the US since it was released on the 4th of July, a little appropriate, no?

I happen to agree with you. I don't think the advertising so far is necessarily indicative of the ultimate game, but (as I said in a previous post) it does make me nervous.

I still hate that trailer though. "Refusing to learn the history of a country you will never see" doesn't make that kid a patriot. It makes him a willfully ignorant jackass.

 

[nasteypenguin]

They picked the industrial centers, not the population ones. Hitting Osaka, Kyoto, or Tokyo would have done a lot more civilian damage. The intent was to annihilate the ability to produce weapons in response, not necessarily to target civilians.

I don't want to turn this thread into a WW2 morality thing but I just want to clarify my point. I'm just pointing out the moral implication of targeting people who had no part in the war as opposed to those that did, regardless of any amounts of numbers. I'm not challenging your opinion, in fact I agree with the necessity for the most part but the action taken was morally gray, nuking civilians regardless of reason or necessity is never going to be a good thing.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

we are now getting angry about the out of character behaviour of a character from a novel that doesn't exist yet based on a videogame that doesn't exist yet.

No sane individual is angry about whether or not the behavior is "in character" for Connor. The discussion here is about the portrayal of the British in the game. Watch the Independence Day (American Independence day, that is, July 4) trailer to see what we mean.

[sup]Although the discussion has quickly deteriorated into a debate about the morality of the use of atomic weapons in WWII, which I will be withholding comment on for fear of making a fool of myself.[/sup]

The point still stands though, no one knows how that will turn out since the game and book aren't out yet.

Also, I'm just guessing, but the trailer was trying to stay with the theme of fight of independence for the US since it was released on the 4th of July, a little appropriate, no?

I happen to agree with you. I don't think the advertising so far is necessarily indicative of the ultimate game, but (as I said in a previous post) it does make me nervous.

I still hate that trailer though. "Refusing to learn the history of a country you will never see" doesn't make that kid a patriot. It makes him a willfully ignorant jackass.

I just took that line to mean, 'why should I care about learning about these guys since they're being such dicks to me?' I mean, that's typically the attitude of people when people from other countries and the like do that sort of crap, and besides, hindsight is 20/20, and we may know that, but they probably didn't. Plus, it's a kid, probably like a 10 year old, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to him since they would probably have that sort of attitude if something like that is happening to them.

I'm more concerned about the whole 2012 thing that they've made a big deal about from the previous games than this.

 

[CD-R]

But this is the Rev war. This isn't America during Vietnam and the Middle East. Honestly you would have really stretch it to make America be evil and the Brits being good during this war. Imo it was basically as black and white as World War II was.

"History is written by the victor" has never been more relevant. No war is black and white, the revolutionary war was certainly far from a simple battle of good vs evil. Both sides did things we'd sooner rather erase from history. Hell, WW2 certainty wasn't black and white. I mean, there was that whole thing with American nuking those civilians and the bombing of Dresden.

I like how say that like that's not what everyone else was doing during WWII. Seriously that's how wars were fought back then. It was whoever could blow up the most stuff and kill the most people was the winner. There was no UN or Geneva Convention to say you couldn't do that.

 

[dunnace]

I don't think this is a game ruiner, but it is a disappointment. Assassins Creed for all its sins is at least strikingly original in gaming. To see them back down on making an interesting switch of villain is disappointing.

 

[Wargamer]

Actually, you know what game series has done this whole conflict a thousand times better than Ubisoft will? Total War.

Here is, according to my British Grand Campaign, how the American Revolution took place.

First, the Thirteen Colonies called out for someone to rid them of the filthy Spanish and French.
Britain did nothing because its military and naval power in the Americas was pitiful. The Royal Navy spent all its time trying to blockade enemy shipping, and running like hell when the pirates rolled in.

Then the Thirteen Colonies wanted help against the Natives.
Britain, by then, had a strong Navy. She began to amass forces to crush the Pirates, and thus allow free movement of trade goods into and out of the Americas. This was to fund the military push to take Florida from the Spanish and thus secure the Colonial southern flank.
It never happened; open war with Spain and France demanded that Britain invest heavily in protecting her own shores. Anti-piracy operations continued, but with so little resources available any hope of a military operation on the mainland died on the vine.

So the Thirteen Colonies began to lose ground, and as more Native tribes joined the war they again asked Britain for aid.
This time, Britain raised an army, rallied a fleet, and set sail for the Americas. As it passed Iceland, Denmark declared war. The army was diverted to take Iceland, and reinforcements intended for the Americas were likewise diverted. Once again, the threat of war at home meant the Colonies went unheeded.

And so, approximately thirty three years after they first called for aid, the military governor of the Bahamas finally saw his forces land on Florida's eastern shore. Of the Thirteen Colonies there was no sign; what hadn't been taken by the Cherokee now swore allegiance to the United States of America.

When I invade the USA, I won't do so with any malice. In fact, I'll regret having to do it at all. I failed these people; they called out for my aid countless times, and no aid ever came. When the war comes, when the redcoats storm up the east coast and relcaim their now lost Protectorate, it will be for one simple reason; because, left independent, the USA may one day become my enemy. Britain cannot afford that. Without the wealth of the Americas the British Empire would be crippled. Trade flows now, but will it continue to flow tomorrow?

That is a war I can get behind. That is a setting where I can find myself supporting the Americans. It's not because they're fighting for some grand ideal, or because Britain is evil and selfish and they're so damn perfect they fart angel dust. In my American Revolution, both nations are victims, their fates dictated by powers beyond their control. In my Revolution, neither side wins; it's just a question of which side loses more, and whether the people as a whole will be better off when the guns fall silent.

 

[pumuckl]

No, Black and White would be like this: I was home alone and some robber comes in and begins to assault me and I fight back. That is black and white.

The situation for the Rev war: The colonies were part of the British Empire and existed for many reasons, but they also eventually became simply there to benefit British with taxes and such. So the newly found Americans (who at the time were also essentially British) decided to rebel back so they could become an independant nation.

That is black and white situation, they had all the rights to rebel and fight for their freedom. Unless your going to tell me that it was horrible and the Americans are evil for wanting to be seperate from the British empire.[/quote]

Just so you know, the british taxed themselves more then they taxed the colonies for the vast majority of americas existance. and the raising of taxes only occured after britain had to help protect the colonies. say what you will about how british handled it's other colonies, but america was treated damn well. Our founding fathers mostly wanted power, that is not black and white at all.

 

[Sparrow]

But this is the Rev war. This isn't America during Vietnam and the Middle East. Honestly you would have really stretch it to make America be evil and the Brits being good during this war. Imo it was basically as black and white as World War II was.

"History is written by the victor" has never been more relevant. No war is black and white, the revolutionary war was certainly far from a simple battle of good vs evil. Both sides did things we'd sooner rather erase from history. Hell, WW2 certainty wasn't black and white. I mean, there was that whole thing with American nuking those civilians and the bombing of Dresden.

I like how say that like that's not what everyone else was doing during WWII. Seriously that's how wars were fought back then. It was whoever could blow up the most stuff and kill the most people was the winner. There was no UN or Geneva Convention to say you couldn't do that.

I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying even the good guys did bad things.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

anc[is]Ubisoft is letting a glorified fan fiction writer make them a couple bucks. That's it. Don't take it as canon for the entire series.

Ah, the whole "the part I like just isn't canon even though it's an officially licensed work" angle. Always the epitome of reason.

If you thought it was the greatest thing ever, you'd be screaming at the top of the damn rafters that it was canon as shit the second someone said otherwise.

I like how you sarcastically call me the epitome of reason while getting incredibly butthurt and aggressive yourself.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Just so you know, the british taxed themselves more then they taxed the colonies for the vast majority of americas existance. and the raising of taxes only occured after britain had to help protect the colonies. say what you will about how british handled it's other colonies, but america was treated damn well. Our founding fathers mostly wanted power, that is not black and white at all.

It wasn't the taxes themselves, its that the taxes were created and levied without giving the Americas any representation in Parliament. Considering many of the Americans at the time were first or second generation British (or at least identified as such),it was quite a slap in the face. It would be like the U.S. Govt. creating laws and taxes and applying them to states with no senators or representatives.

They were treating America, like all their other colonies, in a "You are only British when its convenient, or you owe us money." way.