Assassin's Creed Devs Don't Hate the British

[Risingblade]

I thought the French were suppose to be the whiny ones not the British...oh well you learn something new everyday.

 

[WanderingFool]

Spoiler

That's a picture of our AC3 Assassin riding horseback with George Washington.

Not about Britain vs. Colonies. Totally you guys.

Considering that Washington is likely the head of the Assassins (one of the previous games set him as possessing the Apple, so he's either that or a high Templar) it's not surprising to see him being a major player in the game.

However, that doesn't mean it's going to be a purely Brit-slaughter. There's plenty of room for a storyline where the Templars are both trying to fan the flames of war and also insinuate themselves into the brand-new America. Early America was full of traitors, cowards, skulks and genuinely bad dudes ripe for the stabbing.

For example: you might have to do a mission where Washington actually has you assassinate one of his subordinates, who he discovered is a Templar plant. This doubles the necessity of stealth, because Connor won't want to kill people he is technically allied to.

Consider the there were several founding fathers that were part of the Freemasons, whos to say the freemasons arent part of the Templar. Hell, thinking about it, a nation succeding from another, with no real government set in place... wouldnt it make sense that a number of the Templars will be on the American side?

Maybe it would be cliched, seeing as it was already done in AC1, but I would like to find out at some point near the end game that some of the Templar are actually the guys that have been giving you orders, for their generally dick-ish purpose.

 

[ExileNZ]

As a member of the British Commonwealth, I couldn't really give a shit. But then I spent a lot of time in AC1 killing Crusaders for fun...

In all fairness, I spent a lot of time killing Saracens for fun too.

Point is, AC can be in any time period you like - there's always going to be a war and the hero doesn't necessarily have to pick a side. Well, less so in AC1 than 2, to be honest (you're clearly on the side of the Medici for the majority of the game).

 

[Khanht Cope]

Consider the there were several founding fathers that were part of the Freemasons, whos to say the freemasons arent part of the Templar. Hell, thinking about it, a nation succeding from another, with no real government set in place... wouldnt it make sense that a number of the Templars will be on the American side?

Maybe it would be cliched, seeing as it was already done in AC1, but I would like to find out at some point near the end game that some of the Templar are actually the guys that have been giving you orders, for their generally dick-ish purpose.

There will be Templars on both sides, that's a given; the handling will still be an issue. GW was hinted strongly to be a Templar, and it's likely several of the founding fathers aswell; since the series established post-revolution modern America as a hotbed of Templar control, they'll probably set the revolution as their breaking-out point... maybe as a key fracturing between the Templar ranks.

However, GW will be an ally for most of the game regardless; and the time will shift across the Assassin's life as it did for Ezio. So it's likely there will be a time frame in the story set after the revolution. Connor may have a late game rebellion and get a few minor Templar ranks in the new order; but after having spent say: 90% of the game bathing in British blood.

 

[Kiardras]

I don't mind the Brits being shown as bad guys, but I don't want British=Templar, American=Assassin situation.

AC is about Assassins vs templars, both vying for the control of the world. This, set at the backdrop to the civil war is great - but they will ruin the game if they make it so cut and dried as the example above.

I'm willing to give them benefit of the doubt thought, fuck it, AC1 and 2 were great games.

 

[Gecko clown]

It does not annoy me that British are enemies. In AC1 there were British enemies. what annoys me is that in a game series where the protagonists have generally ignored all the "teams" in a war that was happening and have killed templars regardless of what side they're on, the writers have suddenly up and decided that the Assassins are not neutral anymore. I think its less to do with anti British sentiment and more to do with, "a vast majority of the gaming market is American, so if we make a game about stabbing Americans and equating revolutionary heroes to'tyranical' British monarchs, the game might not sell so well.'

Also, Conor wanting to get revenge on British colonists doesn't make any sense as this war was colonist vs colonist.

 

[Khanht Cope]

It's pretty easy to say he's being neutral, and that it's only about getting Templars; but still pussy out by pitting most of the Templar targets on the British side and have him going after them.

 

[Coldster]

I don't really care which side the assassin takes, but the fact that he is a Native American makes it very suspicious as to why he would be on the American side, since all the other native Americans were on the side of the British. Probably something to do with their similar goal to kill the British to get something they want.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Irish eh? Well both of my countries have screwed yours

The facts remain

#1 People love the irish
#2 People don't like the french or english

I think that's a clear win for me.

Ok shut up now

 

[Terminal Blue]

On the other hand, given that Connor is partially Native American, he might not have all that much loyalty or fondness for the colonists that oppressed and murdered that side of his family.

This is where I have to point out the majority of Native American communities involved in the war were firmly in support of the British.

In fact, one of the causes of the war in the first place is that the British had placed restrictions on American settlement to avoid upsetting the native allies who had fought with them in the French and Indian wars. American colonists saw this as affront to their self-determination.

I'm not saying the British were nice to the native Americans. Honestly, I suspect most of the people responsible didn't give a damn about them (something they showed perfectly when they sold out their native allies living in American territories at the end of the war) but the patriots were the ones explicitly and openly fighting for the right to expand their country and give the middle finger to any dirty savages in their way. Why would a character being partly native American incline him to support the cause would clearly (and historically did) lead to incredibly bad consequences for Native Americans?

Honestly, speaking as a British person. Forget any minor "offence" to British people here, it's nothing we haven't seen before in a million tired, stereotypical ways and after a while I think most of us learn to laugh at it. I'm far more interested in the portrayal of the relationship between native Americans and American colonists.

 

[blackrave]

There will be game in which you mainly kill brits?
I might suddenly give a crap about AssCreed series.

 

[whiteshark12]

I wouldn't mind as much if it wasn't for the fact that it seems from the trailers the British are evil demons while the other British who don't like being British (no Americans yet) will be shitting bold eagles and halos wherever they go.

 

[whiteshark12]

I'm not even bothered that the game is all about killing British soldiers, I'm bothered they're pretending it isn't.

This right here sums it up for me. If it was clearly set from the point of view of a colonist soldier I wouldn't mind, but for a Templars vs Assassins battle it seems to have a lot of dead redcoats and awfully chummy with american presidents...

 

[Absimilliard]

First of all, I'm really looking forward to the game, as I love the series, but yeah, I have worried a bit about the story. The thing is, Ubisoft keep saying it's not going to be one-sided when they're asked about it, but so far they haven't shown even a single piece of concept art to prove it as far as I know. (Even the figurine you get if you preorder the most expensive version has the American flag on it.) My theory (which I'm fairly certain is many other people's theory as well): they want exactly these kinds of discussions for as long as possible, to get more attention. They keep talking about how they'd like to continue the franchise, and if this one's too one-sided, they will really shoot themselves in the foot if they ever want a protagonist to appear neutral again...

(But has anyone seen the gameplay-trailers? It seems the British heavies wear kilts and use wood-axes... I have no idea if Scottish troops actually wore kilts, feel free to enlighten me here...)

 

[J Tyran]

There's no latent anti-Brit feeling but naturally we're the ones who are siding with the evil faceless Templars hellbent on world domination and kill people to create order

And siding up with the Freemasons that have an agenda noone really knows, who also sheltered fleeing Templars and ultimately initiated at least some of them.

I have no idea if Scottish troops actually wore kilts, feel free to enlighten me here...)

Yes they did and they still do, in ceremonial dress though.

 

[Chappy]

Not so much upset that Colonists are it seems the only people getting assassinated rather I'm confused. In the original game weren't the Templar's from all the different factions and nationalities who worked together Templar's being what joined them not faction or race?

What confuses me is why the Templar's would now be as it would seem from what I have heard of the game so far only on the Colonist side of things? Wouldn't there be Templar leaders you know with the revolutionist forces? Especially if the war is gaining them something they want (A distraction maybe to find a piece of Eden? Profit? Influence by placing Templar's in the war and making sure they win battles to improve their standing within their respective factions to gain control?)

I think I am with Jack and Calumon on this one Templar forces should be on both sides of the wars seeking the manipulate and control both at the same time to increase their grip on events around the world and force the outcome most preferable to them.

 

[Cheesepower5]

Well...I'm only a little bit annoyed at Ubisoft blatantly siding on the American side in terms of marketing. Ubisoft say they are not going to make the British the only villains but all I see in the trailers and gameplay is a fucking ton of British soldiers being killed by the assassin. Yes, there are some comments of neutrality in the trailer, but the actions within the trailer contradict it.

I doubt they are going to make this game one-sided and I don't harbor any negative feelings towards Ubisoft, I'm just disappointed at Ubisoft's marketing of the game.

This. I don't care if a game asks me to kill a few (thousand) Brits, but this game is just so... blatantly stupid about it. You see the Persian horde of English invaders storming the lowly 35 heroic Americans, then shit happens and we see how much ass America kicks while it blazes the words FREEDOM, LIBERTY and JUSTICE. So it's not like I'm defensive about Britain, I'm just sort of sick of America's jingoistic bull.

 

[El Danny]

First of all, I'm really looking forward to the game, as I love the series, but yeah, I have worried a bit about the story. The thing is, Ubisoft keep saying it's not going to be one-sided when they're asked about it, but so far they haven't shown even a single piece of concept art to prove it as far as I know. (Even the figurine you get if you preorder the most expensive version has the American flag on it.) My theory (which I'm fairly certain is many other people's theory as well): they want exactly these kinds of discussions for as long as possible, to get more attention. They keep talking about how they'd like to continue the franchise, and if this one's too one-sided, they will really shoot themselves in the foot if they ever want a protagonist to appear neutral again...

(But has anyone seen the gameplay-trailers? It seems the British heavies wear kilts and use wood-axes... I have no idea if Scottish troops actually wore kilts, feel free to enlighten me here...)

Scottish troops did wear kilts, but I wasn't aware highlanders fought in the revolutionary war. I also agree with what you're saying.

I'm honestly hoping that all my fears of a biased, and plain wrong depiction of the American Revolution where the Patriots (should be calling them Nationalists, but that's just stupid nit-picking)are shown to be fearless brave crusaders of Truth, Justice and Liberty, and the British as storm troopers in Redcoats. I also hope it'll be accurate in portraying France and Spain's massive roles in the revolution, because their aid is often understated or ignored time and time again.

I love the Assassins Creed series, but if this is just a playable version of The Patriot I don't think I will be able to stomach it.

 

[predatorpulse7]

As I said when I saw the first pics, this will be a "MERICA FUCK YEAH" game. Sure, it may be wrapped in a neat assassin versus templar bundle but it is still very pro-american to say the least, even though many said before that Connor will try to be somewhat neutral. We only get to see redcoats being violently killed, in the trailers Connors is helping the blues and the really really stupid bit, the latest trailer where Connor charges HEAD ON at a British line, taking out many many redcoats in a bit to kill their head honcho. It was a ridiculous Rambo sequence that makes overpowered Ezio look conservative.

So far, this looks like Mel Gibson's The Patriot with a hood.

 

[Absimilliard]

Hmmmm.... I just connected some dots...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.378541-Update-Brit-Comedian-Joins-Assassins-Creed-III-Cast
If they've hired Serafinowicz just for the marketing it could mean that the next round of the marketing campaign shows the other side of the conflict.
Or they wanted someone who sounds evil and decided on Darth Maul...