E3 Preview: Assassin's Creed 3 Hands On

[Karma168]

As long as it doesn't go down the all American good guys road I'm happy. If I have to kill the British I better get to kill colonists.

And the British better not all sound like Del Boy, there were regiments from all over the UK, so there should be a decent range of accents.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I am so confused... America was supposily founded by the Freemasons. There is proof that most of the founding fathers were masons. The masons are believed to be offshoots of the Templars. Therefore is Connor teaming up with Templars?!?! I think it would have been far more interesting to have him be English and fighting the American rebels. Of course he would fail assassinating Washington, but use that as a way for the assassin brotherhood to lose power and explain why obstergo is has the current day upper hand.

This is why I fully expect Washington to be conning you into doing his dirty work for him before he betrays you, just like Al Mualim in the first game. I mean seriously, look at the face he pulls at the end of the CG trailer. If that isn't a 'I'm secretly evil' face, then I don't know what is.

"We made washington evil and for some reason, no one in the US bought AC:3"

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I am so confused... America was supposily founded by the Freemasons. There is proof that most of the founding fathers were masons. The masons are believed to be offshoots of the Templars. Therefore is Connor teaming up with Templars?!?! I think it would have been far more interesting to have him be English and fighting the American rebels. Of course he would fail assassinating Washington, but use that as a way for the assassin brotherhood to lose power and explain why obstergo is has the current day upper hand.

This is why I fully expect Washington to be conning you into doing his dirty work for him before he betrays you, just like Al Mualim in the first game. I mean seriously, look at the face he pulls at the end of the CG trailer. If that isn't a 'I'm secretly evil' face, then I don't know what is.

"We made washington evil and for some reason, no one in the US bought AC:3"

I think we can probably give the Americans some credit. I doubt they're all so wrapped up in patriotism that they can't even handle the thought of Americans being bad guys in one fictional videogame. Like erttheking said, the main bad guy in MW2 turned out to be a US general, and you spend the last hour or so of that game gunning down US special forces troops, and nobody (that I know of) threw a huge tantrum about that.

Admittedly, using real historical figures as prolific as George Washington might cut things a little closer to the bone for some, but at the end of the day, I think we can trust that the majority of people will realise that, at the end of the day, it's a story, so they can just get over it. The Fox News crowd will doubtless be up in arms the moment they get wind of it, but who cares about them as they would probably have never bought the game in the first place.

 

[MDSnowman]

Hehe I doubt they'll make Washington evil, if only because that'll be hard to swallow. Then again he's a busy fellow during this period, so I doubt he's going to be omnipresent always giving you missions. That way they don't have to break their backs making him a three dimensional character.

Also... an end to Desmond?!?! Hooray! The series losing its weakest link!

I believe Brotherhood and Revelations was them attempting to tred water so they could avoid making the inevitable Desmond game. If they have a way of dumping him entirely then we can have AC games for a long time without Worthless (meta-plotwise) games.

 

[Kargathia]

It would be pretty far out of character for them to make Colonials incorruptible good guys and the British baby-blending demons. Remember in the first AC? The Crusaders were twats, the locals were twats, the Templars were twats, and even the Assassins were twats. Here's hoping we can return to that golden age of universal moral ambiguity.

Complication here being that there's a bit more popular sentiment surrounding this in what undoubtedly is their largest fanbase. There's undoubtedly going to be idiots complaining the moment they don't depict 18th century US rebels as anything less than angelic.

Here's to hoping they don't chicken out.

Oh come on, even Call of Duty didn't have any problems making a US general one of the bad guys. I don't see why ubisoft would.

There's a bit of a difference between "an US general" and "one of these guys regularly toted as the pinnace of perfection".

Just compare the amount of movies that portrayed the US army / government / intelligence services negatively, versus the amount that portrayed the founding fathers as a bunch of cunts.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I am so confused... America was supposily founded by the Freemasons. There is proof that most of the founding fathers were masons. The masons are believed to be offshoots of the Templars. Therefore is Connor teaming up with Templars?!?! I think it would have been far more interesting to have him be English and fighting the American rebels. Of course he would fail assassinating Washington, but use that as a way for the assassin brotherhood to lose power and explain why obstergo is has the current day upper hand.

This is why I fully expect Washington to be conning you into doing his dirty work for him before he betrays you, just like Al Mualim in the first game. I mean seriously, look at the face he pulls at the end of the CG trailer. If that isn't a 'I'm secretly evil' face, then I don't know what is.

"We made washington evil and for some reason, no one in the US bought AC:3"

I think we can probably give the Americans some credit. I doubt they're all so wrapped up in patriotism that they can't even handle the thought of Americans being bad guys in one fictional videogame. Like erttheking said, the main bad guy in MW2 turned out to be a US general, and you spend the last hour or so of that game gunning down US special forces troops, and nobody (that I know of) threw a huge tantrum about that.

Admittedly, using real historical figures as prolific as George Washington might cut things a little closer to the bone for some, but at the end of the day, I think we can trust that the majority of people will realise that, at the end of the day, it's a story, so they can just get over it. The Fox News crowd will doubtless be up in arms the moment they get wind of it, but who cares about them as they would probably have never bought the game in the first place.

Well I actually work for News Corp, and look at us, having a nuanced discussion about patriotism and the reasons for buying games. My OP was mostly a joke, but I think it's down to focus testing amongst all things, that we haven't seen many US based villains of late, with the most notable exception to this rule not being the bad guys in Modern Warfare, but the Enclave in the Fallout series.

And for the record, yes, I am getting Assassins Creed 3.

 

[Hazzard]

I'm of Italian descent and I'm not at all conflicted by this game. Years of having to hear "Itsa me, aMaaaaaaaaaaario!" gives me little pity for your situation. ;D

I'm hoping they make things realistic and don't paint the Colonials as pure little goody goodies who were just throwing off the yoke of tyranny. As easy as it is to say the British were tax-loving taxhounds, the Colonies were petulant little turds in their own right.

History is written by the victors, I guess, right?
[/quote]
There wasn't really a victor there, Britain lost the ability to tax a group of people, at the time, America was "Just another colony." I am hoping the assasin remains nuetral after fighting for one side and discovering templars are on both sides, I can see that happenening.

And Everyone being a twat isn't moral ambiguity, you can have Twatty Good people and Twatty Evil people, it just makes you less inclined to pick a side.

 

[Farther than stars]

The eagle's a nice touch; if a little overwritten. Also why do Desmond's forefathers seem to be taking out entire armies in the trailers these days? Not that I'm complaining - it looks cool as hell - but aren't assassins supposed to be precision killers as opposed to full-on tanks?

 

[llafnwod]

The problem with setting the AC games more and more recently is that history is better and better documented as time goes on. It's getting pretty hard to stomach that there was one guy killing hundreds and hundreds of people in full view of the public in a highly distinguishable outfit only we never heard about it.

Also, it'd be "but for whom. You are half English, Connor.

 

[Immsys]

Good to see that they've kept up with abandoning that whole "assassin" business, it might get in the way of charging down lines of men armed with smooth bore muskets single handedly, not getting hit by a single bullet.

Seriously, Native American gorilla warfare was incredibly effective and it'd be hugely gratifying to actually experience setting up large-scale ambushes in the dense forest, or any other typical tactic or strategy. So why is it that Mr. Assassin is just charging dudes down on a horse wielding a fucking hatchet when there's 50 guys shooting at him?

But hey, he can fire perfectly accurately in mid air with a bow, but since he's native american that's ok, i mean they can all do that right? Just as disappointing as when Ezio decided to screw the whole assassin business in the last trailer and just walk into the hundreds of enemy soldiers.

 

[Immsys]

Good to see that they've kept up with abandoning that whole "assassin" business, it might get in the way of charging down lines of men armed with smooth bore muskets single handedly, not getting hit by a single bullet.

Seriously, Native American gorilla warfare was incredibly effective and it'd be hugely gratifying to actually experience setting up large-scale ambushes in the dense forest, or any other typical tactic or strategy. So why is it that Mr. Assassin is just charging dudes down on a horse wielding a fucking hatchet when there's 50 guys shooting at him?

But hey, he can fire perfectly accurately in mid air with a bow, but since he's native american that's ok, i mean they can all do that right? Just as disappointing as when Ezio decided to screw the whole assassin business in the last trailer and just walk into the hundreds of enemy soldiers.

 

[irmasterlol]

It would be pretty far out of character for them to make Colonials incorruptible good guys and the British baby-blending demons. Remember in the first AC? The Crusaders were twats, the locals were twats, the Templars were twats, and even the Assassins were twats. Here's hoping we can return to that golden age of universal moral ambiguity.

Complication here being that there's a bit more popular sentiment surrounding this in what undoubtedly is their largest fanbase. There's undoubtedly going to be idiots complaining the moment they don't depict 18th century US rebels as anything less than angelic.

Here's to hoping they don't chicken out.

But everything will be ok, because the game is developed "by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs."

 

[PiercedMonk]

This is why I fully expect Washington to be conning you into doing his dirty work for him before he betrays you, just like Al Mualim in the first game. I mean seriously, look at the face he pulls at the end of the CG trailer. If that isn't a 'I'm secretly evil' face, then I don't know what is.

I suspect that was probably Marquis de Lafayette [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier,_marquis_de_Lafayette] -- whom the trailer quotes -- as opposed to Washington at the end.

The trailer is cool, but the whole one dude against an entire army thing seems a bit much. Also, while Connor is taking his time with the British commander, where were the rest of his men? It kinda looks like one of those final moments whenever Altair or Ezio scored a big name kill and listened to the dude's final words, but there's still a whole battle going on around them.

 

[Druyn]

I expected awesome action sequences. AC offers that regularly in their trailers. What sold me on this right away was Washington's/Lafayette(?)'s reaction at the end. I've been wondering how Ubisoft would play with the Templars and picking sides since its been established that several of the founding fathers (including, I think, Washington) were Templars themselves. I was wondering if they would make him a Loyalist (a ballsy move, to put the protagonist on the losing side of a war, bound to history, from a French studio playing to a mainly American audience).

If it's got the deception that the first story did instead of this totally justified crusade of the past three, I'm game. Really looking forward to this.

Huh, that brings two franchises that I'd thought I'd ignore back into my house. This, which I've ignored after 2, and Halo. I guess this is a good year.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Well I actually work for News Corp,

If I respond to your post, do you promise not to get annoyed and have my phone hacked?

My OP was mostly a joke, but I think it's down to focus testing amongst all things, that we haven't seen many US based villains of late, with the most notable exception to this rule not being the bad guys in Modern Warfare, but the Enclave in the Fallout series.

Sure, but in the Fallout series you don't really have many out-and-out bad guys or good guys, beyond the player. Everyone is at least a little bit shady. Also, given where and when it takes place, it would be pretty damn difficult to have non-American villains. Unless you go back in time through VR and kill the eeeeeeevil Chinese.

It does seem like a strange thing that Americans are so infrequently portrayed as the villain in video games. Are they, as a nation, really that sensitive that they'd refuse to play a game which made them look less than perfect? Perhaps it stems from subconscious reaction to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; those were sold on the idea that the US and its allies were the White Hats, riding in to save the day, and people are having trouble facing up to the fact that they aren't actually the heroes in this story, because life doesn't really work that way.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Think I'm gonna play ACIII but not as a launch day thing. Gonna wait and scan wikipedia to see if Connor actually kills any colonials (haven't seen any sign of it yet, I'll take Ubi at their word when I see a single trailer where he it happens). I want to believe in Ubisoft but it looks pretty 'Murica right now :-/ least where I'm sitting.

Related note, really hoping they mention how Britain fought a war against the French on behalf of America a few years before and how America then teamed up with France.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Well I actually work for News Corp,

If I respond to your post, do you promise not to get annoyed and have my phone hacked?

My OP was mostly a joke, but I think it's down to focus testing amongst all things, that we haven't seen many US based villains of late, with the most notable exception to this rule not being the bad guys in Modern Warfare, but the Enclave in the Fallout series.

Sure, but in the Fallout series you don't really have many out-and-out bad guys or good guys, beyond the player. Everyone is at least a little bit shady. Also, given where and when it takes place, it would be pretty damn difficult to have non-American villains. Unless you go back in time through VR and kill the eeeeeeevil Chinese.

It does seem like a strange thing that Americans are so infrequently portrayed as the villain in video games. Are they, as a nation, really that sensitive that they'd refuse to play a game which made them look less than perfect? Perhaps it stems from subconscious reaction to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; those were sold on the idea that the US and its allies were the White Hats, riding in to save the day, and people are having trouble facing up to the fact that they aren't actually the heroes in this story, because life doesn't really work that way.

Here's one reason, Paddy of AAT, it's because most game devs are American, and they're probably loath to cast themselves as the bad guys.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Here's one reason, Paddy of AAT

You make me sound like a Game of Thrones character! Just FYI, it'd probably be 'Paddy of the AAT', as they're a professional body (of which I am a member in practice) rather than a company. If I'm going to be given purple-prosey honorifics, I'd like them to be accurate

it's because most game devs are American, and they're probably loath to cast themselves as the bad guys.

Why would that be? I mean, it's a fairly artifical line to draw. I'd hazard to say that most game devs are also male, and yet they have no problems casting men as their villains. Come to that, they have no issues making human beings the bad guys, despite being one themselves. Why would nationality be the hot-button rather than, say, sexuality or eye colour?

Besides, I doubt this is about the developers. There are studios all over the world producing games, it's not limited to the USA, and many major games have been developed either outside of the US or multi-nationally. I'd place my bet on the notion that, true or not (I'm not going to go digging around for hard numbers, since they don't matter much in this example) the perception is that US consumers the biggest market for (Western) games. Ergo this seeming inability to show America as the villain of the piece is most likely due to an unwillingness to upset those valuable consumers by showing them as less than saintly.

So the crux of the issue remains the American consumer rather than the developers. Are they really as sensitive as this would imply about how the world perceives them, and they perceive themselves? Or are developers reacting to a problem that doesn't really exist? It's no secret that the United States and her citizens often tend more towards blind patriotism than most other developed nations, and certainly an "America, love it or fuck off" mentality exists within a reasonably large segment of the population, but the question is whether that mentality extends into fiction and if it does, whether it should be pandered to.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

I'M BRITISH AND FEEL CONFLICTED BY THIS GAME.

OT: Was the sea-based stuff really working? The videos do look good but it's a totally revolutionary direction for them to take the game.

Then again, this is a revolutionary game. Huh? Huh?

I'm of Italian descent and I'm not at all conflicted by this game. Years of having to hear "Itsa me, aMaaaaaaaaaaario!" gives me little pity for your situation. ;D

I'm hoping they make things realistic and don't paint the Colonials as pure little goody goodies who were just throwing off the yoke of tyranny. As easy as it is to say the British were tax-loving taxhounds, the Colonies were petulant little turds in their own right.

History is written by the victors, I guess, right?

If the trailer is any indication, the main character is at least pretty conflicted about it. But come on, it's not like he's going to side with the brittish. The colonials were assholes but they were still pretty much in the moral right, however bloody slightly. (it feels weird to say "on the moral right" of people who practised slavery doesn't it?)