Assassin's Creed III DLC Introduces King George Washington
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
I really dont have a problem with this Lore-wise, hell in the series its already well established that George Washington was a Templar. I was worried this game was just going to be an independence day circle-jerk (and im American!) glad to see im wrong (I HATE one sided history.)
The problem I have is....WHY ARE YOU ALREADY PLANNING DLC UBISOFT?! ಠ_ಠ
The problem I have is....WHY ARE YOU ALREADY PLANNING DLC UBISOFT?! ಠ_ಠ
Oh this is neat. I recall hearing that after the Revolutionary War when Congress was doing a pretty shit job, some people wanted Washington to start a new rebellion and take his place as dictator of the county. He responded with, "Do you really think I fought a war with King George III just so I can become King George I?"
Kinda interesting to see what might have happened if Washington didn't have such good restraint.
Kinda interesting to see what might have happened if Washington didn't have such good restraint.
Meh, my first reaction is to to actually start screaming about the DLC already being planned and hyped for a game that isn't even out yet. This is the kind of thing that enrages me about the industry.
As far as the idea of having George Washington as a bad guy, well it's not like it hasn't been done before. They kind of ran with the idea of him being a ghoul/cannibal for the movie "The Washingtonians" (it's on Netflix I believe).
It's doubtful there will be a fox news/right wing outcry since alternative history has been done so many times before accross a wide spectrum of sources. Guys like Harry Turtledove or George R.R. Martin (for what was done with more recent history in "Wild Cards") would have gotten huge amounts of flak if it was going to be an issue, and with no offense to Ubisoft or Assasin's Creed fans, I doubt this will be around as long or have the enduring fanbase (over decades) that certain other alternative history creators have enjoyed.
The only bit that's dubious about it is the timing. Right now I'm a bit more sensitive to US bashing than I have been in the past, in part because of the demands that the US not "belittle or disrepect" other cultures and their history, which we pay a lot of attention to. We've taken France to the cleaners on a lot of levels in the creative media, so turn about would normally be fair play, but right now with Halloween approaching and people getting all upset about "offensive" or "insensitive" costumes via that whole "it's a culture, not a costume" thing, my tolerance is somewhat limited.
I guess what I'm saying is that when Victoria's Secret gets backlash for selling Geisha themed Lingerie:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/victorias-secret-geisha-outfit-photos_n_1909366.html
Geisha's being, all romantisism aside, high class escorts (yes they can do more than have sex, but so do a lot of hookers nowadays, as you find out in a lot of those exposes on the brothel industry in Vegas and such...
It gets my goat a bit when people think dissing George Washington is something to let go. I mean even in the worst case scenario my basic attitude is that if we're going to let other cultures do this kind of thing (as was mentioned, Ubisoft is French), then we shouldn't take it seriously and start boycotts/pressure and tolerate people creating platforms over crap like Geisha Lingerie, or someone wanting to dress in an iconic fashion of someone from another country for Halloween or whatever.
In the end though I guess you could say I'm more irritated with the left wing, than I am with the people actually creating things like this. I also mean "irritated" as it sounds, it's not something I think needs to be stopped, or think is that big deal... it's just an irksome dual standard that comes from political correctness, where the US can be ranked on and see things like this done without any problems (or kudos) but it's a bad thing for Americans to do the same thing.... in my mind everyone is fair game (so to speak).
As far as the idea of having George Washington as a bad guy, well it's not like it hasn't been done before. They kind of ran with the idea of him being a ghoul/cannibal for the movie "The Washingtonians" (it's on Netflix I believe).
It's doubtful there will be a fox news/right wing outcry since alternative history has been done so many times before accross a wide spectrum of sources. Guys like Harry Turtledove or George R.R. Martin (for what was done with more recent history in "Wild Cards") would have gotten huge amounts of flak if it was going to be an issue, and with no offense to Ubisoft or Assasin's Creed fans, I doubt this will be around as long or have the enduring fanbase (over decades) that certain other alternative history creators have enjoyed.
The only bit that's dubious about it is the timing. Right now I'm a bit more sensitive to US bashing than I have been in the past, in part because of the demands that the US not "belittle or disrepect" other cultures and their history, which we pay a lot of attention to. We've taken France to the cleaners on a lot of levels in the creative media, so turn about would normally be fair play, but right now with Halloween approaching and people getting all upset about "offensive" or "insensitive" costumes via that whole "it's a culture, not a costume" thing, my tolerance is somewhat limited.
I guess what I'm saying is that when Victoria's Secret gets backlash for selling Geisha themed Lingerie:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/victorias-secret-geisha-outfit-photos_n_1909366.html
Geisha's being, all romantisism aside, high class escorts (yes they can do more than have sex, but so do a lot of hookers nowadays, as you find out in a lot of those exposes on the brothel industry in Vegas and such...
It gets my goat a bit when people think dissing George Washington is something to let go. I mean even in the worst case scenario my basic attitude is that if we're going to let other cultures do this kind of thing (as was mentioned, Ubisoft is French), then we shouldn't take it seriously and start boycotts/pressure and tolerate people creating platforms over crap like Geisha Lingerie, or someone wanting to dress in an iconic fashion of someone from another country for Halloween or whatever.
In the end though I guess you could say I'm more irritated with the left wing, than I am with the people actually creating things like this. I also mean "irritated" as it sounds, it's not something I think needs to be stopped, or think is that big deal... it's just an irksome dual standard that comes from political correctness, where the US can be ranked on and see things like this done without any problems (or kudos) but it's a bad thing for Americans to do the same thing.... in my mind everyone is fair game (so to speak).
WTF ... the game isn't even out yet. It's still a month away, and we've already got a three-pack of DLC lined up?
No. Just fucking no. If it's part of the game, include it with the game. If it's a completely separate story worth the $10 or whatever, then it should take you longer than NEGATIVE one month to create.
But this is UbiSoft. They'll probably charge $10 per installment. In which case they just jacked the price of a new game up to $90, and people are clamoring for it.
No thanks. I'll catch it on Steam Sale this winter. Maybe it'll actually be done by then.
No. Just fucking no. If it's part of the game, include it with the game. If it's a completely separate story worth the $10 or whatever, then it should take you longer than NEGATIVE one month to create.
But this is UbiSoft. They'll probably charge $10 per installment. In which case they just jacked the price of a new game up to $90, and people are clamoring for it.
No thanks. I'll catch it on Steam Sale this winter. Maybe it'll actually be done by then.
Maybe for DLC. The Assassin's Creed timeline stated that Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, & I think FDR were Templars, & maybe Hitler (or as they called him, H) had a Piece of Eden with him to take power, but was killed in his bunker. By an Assassin. I think an Assassin also ganked Stalin, too.poiumty said:
I'm intrigued by this alternate history approach in the DLC, even though it sounds so early. This is a different approach to ACII's DLC, which were based on real events, but I'm not sure about Brotherhood's and Revelations' bonus missions.
This only stands if it is day one DLC (or within a couple of weeks of the games release). The Dev team have completed the game, they have no reason to not start DLC.lowkey_jotunn said:
I probably will buy this, when all the instalments are out; but I don't see why any publisher would consider it a good idea to charge for a season pass that adds over £10 to the cost of the game at release, which is going to put quite a few people off that would have otherwise bought the game.
After all would Undead Nightmare been as successful if they'd announced it before the release of Red Dead Redemption?
It's basically pre-ordering DLC; unless the proceeds of the season pass go towards development of that DLC, it plain sucks.
After all would Undead Nightmare been as successful if they'd announced it before the release of Red Dead Redemption?
It's basically pre-ordering DLC; unless the proceeds of the season pass go towards development of that DLC, it plain sucks.
This would restore my faith in the franchise and actually convince me to keep buying the games.Fanghawk said:
Who thought it would be a good idea to pull the "season pass" card and announce the plot of a DLC before game release?
Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly fine to work on DLC once the game is finished. But if you announce it before the game is released, you're just asking for trouble. Also: Why do we need DLC instantly? How about actually making DLC that extends the game as opposed to "fits in somewhere in that pile of stuff and gives a new piece of content"?
Anyways ... I'm still intrigued, but AC3 is definitely not one of my day-one purchases this year. (Actually, with the loss of ME3 and Sleeping Dogs from that list, I'm not buying a single game on day one this year ... hmm ...)
Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly fine to work on DLC once the game is finished. But if you announce it before the game is released, you're just asking for trouble. Also: Why do we need DLC instantly? How about actually making DLC that extends the game as opposed to "fits in somewhere in that pile of stuff and gives a new piece of content"?
Anyways ... I'm still intrigued, but AC3 is definitely not one of my day-one purchases this year. (Actually, with the loss of ME3 and Sleeping Dogs from that list, I'm not buying a single game on day one this year ... hmm ...)
Dozens or hundreds of people they could have picked to go crazy and turn on the nation they helped found, and they pick the one guy who actually specifically turned down people's attempts to make him king? They really couldn't have picked someone else other than the one person who makes the scenario the least believable?
Two complaints I kinda see
1. It's so unrealistic!
2. Ubisoft is already milking this damn thing.
To which I respond.
1. THAT'S THE POINT! It's supposed to be a completely opposite of reality alternate timeline...and to be honest even then it's not that unrealistic. Several people have already pointed out many people wanted George Washington to become King and all you would have to change about him is his hatred of the throne. After all, he wouldn't be the first rebel to become a tyrant.
2. Eh, not really. First of all, this is an alternate timeline and non-canon, so it's not a part of the main Assassin's Creed 3 story, it's like Undead Nightmare. You can't say that they ripped it out of the game. Also I'm pretty sure Ubisoft is done with the game at this point and considering that they only have a single concept art for this so far, I would say that they haven't actually started working on this yet, especially considering that it's supposed to be a full campaign on it's own and in three separate DLC packs (in other words, probably like the Lost and Damned or the Ballad of Gay Tony)
So yeah, I don't see the problem here.
1. It's so unrealistic!
2. Ubisoft is already milking this damn thing.
To which I respond.
1. THAT'S THE POINT! It's supposed to be a completely opposite of reality alternate timeline...and to be honest even then it's not that unrealistic. Several people have already pointed out many people wanted George Washington to become King and all you would have to change about him is his hatred of the throne. After all, he wouldn't be the first rebel to become a tyrant.
2. Eh, not really. First of all, this is an alternate timeline and non-canon, so it's not a part of the main Assassin's Creed 3 story, it's like Undead Nightmare. You can't say that they ripped it out of the game. Also I'm pretty sure Ubisoft is done with the game at this point and considering that they only have a single concept art for this so far, I would say that they haven't actually started working on this yet, especially considering that it's supposed to be a full campaign on it's own and in three separate DLC packs (in other words, probably like the Lost and Damned or the Ballad of Gay Tony)
So yeah, I don't see the problem here.