Assassin's Creed III Limited Edition for Americans Only

[Mouse One]

Gah, I've recently fallen in love with the AC series, but on the fence about the time period (bias alert: US born and raised, but married an English girl). I dig the slightly warped history of the series, but the American Revolution could easily turn cartoonish. There's just been far too many "America F Yeah!" books and movies about what was actually a complex event with good and bad guys on both sides. If you've got the stomach, go watch The Patriot for a prime example of how bad it can get.

I don't mind fractured history in fiction (Rodrigo Borgia as a supervillian, rock on!) But if it resembles overdone propaganda, it's deviating from the whole "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" theme. I want grey characters, lots of backstabbing, and morally ambiguous choices. The betrayal at the end of AC1 was beautiful. If we just have "guy fighting for freedom", it'll be a yawn plotwise.

Personally, I think they'd be better off doing the French Revolution. THAT has a lot of potential for twisted conspiracies. Just so long as the main character isn't a version of the Scarlet Pimpernel.

 

[Bat Vader]

Hopefully Ubisoft releases a limited edition version of the game for the PC as well. I would not be surprised if there wasn't one though.

 

[Lionsfan]

But hey, British people, if any Americans piss you off over this just remind them that they got their asses handed to them in the War of 1812.

But historians agree, British and Americans that the War of 1812 was a draw if anything. As do people who have actually ever studied it.

Historians are clearly divided on that and Canadians celebrate it as a victory. Now I'm not saying it was a British victory because it wasn't, neither side saw any benefit in continuing the war, but the shift in the war after the British ended their Napoleonic campaign and actually turned their attention to it is undeniable. Madison's terrible administration and economic disasterpiece were only tempered by Jackson's victories, the American navy and British apathy once they drove America out of Canada.

Canadians celebrate it as a victory because Canada defended an invasion. In actuality it was a draw though. America's goal was to get Britain to stop screwing around with their trade, which they succeeded in, and while they failed their invasion of Canada they got a bit of "street cred" for challenging the most powerful nation in the world at the time and surviving. And no, historians are hardly divided on it anymore. Most agree it was a draw, because it was. You said yourself they both agreed to stop fighting as it was pointless.

We also had the benefit of "challenging them" while

Spoiler: this guy

was running around all of Europe. Had we challenged the full Empire, it probably would not have been close. Yes, it was a draw, but that's only because Britain just said eh and decided they had better things to do. Really Britain was the winner, since they stopped American advances into Canada while the American's failed at their primary goal (taking Canada)

 

[Drejer43]

I don't care if They are templars, I'm still rooting for the redcoats.

 

[VondeVon]

Well, this news has put to rest my hope that the game would be balanced and not just another YAY-AMERICA fest.

Technically, there's nothing wrong with the story being focused on an assassin, who is himself focused on one side over the other. It's just... weird, I guess, when it involves taking sides in a civil war that had no clear 'in the right' side? Blargh.

Then again, what do I know about another country's history?