Image of Assassins Creed III's main character leaked

[Lethos]

This seems a little odd. During the American Revolution most native Americans fought against the US, so a apparently native assassin in front of an American flag seems out of place. And, frankly, I don't think it will be about killing American revolutionaries as that would probably get a lot of opposition. Also what's with all the male protagonists, I get the entire author/player insertion thing that you all like to do, but surely you have to realize that a strong female protagonist is a selling point right?

actually, not quite, the natives were for the most part neutral because the British treated them worse than the french and Spanish, really more fought AGAINST the British.

Most Native Americans east of the Mississippi River were affected by the war, and many communities were divided over the question of how to respond to the conflict. Though a few tribes were on friendly terms with the Americans, most Native Americans opposed the United States as a potential threat to their territory. Approximately 13,000 Native Americans fought on the British side, with the largest group coming from the Iroquois tribes, who fielded around 1,500 men.

It would seem you're actually wrong.
After finding out this information my hope for this game not portraying the British as characteristically evil has gone up.

I'm expecting a mix of both. It's been confirmed in past games that there were Templars on both sides. It's not about which country is evil, it's about which prominent figures of that era were evil.

Yeah I guess.
I'm probably just being unnecessarily cynical about this game due to the history with how this era is handled. I Should probably wait till more information comes out before I condemn it for presenting bias history.

 

[JdaS]

snip

If it's any consolation, it's a (mostly) French group of people who're making the game. They have equal disdain for both parties, thus, no bias

 

[ZeoAssassin]

personally i would have preferred the French Revolution but i guess this works...at least its not WW2.

Honestly while i am concerned about the milking of the franchise are people really surprised that there's a new ancestor? Of course there would be different time periods has always been what AC was about. I dunno...unless the story really doesn't finish after AC3 i don't think its worth going crazy over it.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Actual cover art here

So yeah, looks like the Brits are the bad guys. But in all reality, England was sort of a dick back in the day, so I'm gonna go ahead on not caring that people here are pissed about that.

And I'm sensing a bit of "Last of the Mohicans" in this too.

Edit: Now where did I put my Patriots jersey and Confederate flag...

 

[StBishop]

I wish I had my facebook profile picture as my avatar so I could "<< MFW"

But oh well, =0 will do I suppose.

=0 =0 =0 =0 =0

OH MY FUCKING GOD YES. YES. JUST, YES!!!

HNGWAHHH!

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I am no longer purchasing the third game.

/Signed. Thrice.

Seriously, I know everyone here seems to be going fap-crazy over this new 'instalment' - but when I first read about the game being set in America, my jaw dropped.

How the hell can Ubisoft, by any stretch of storytelling imagination, shoehorn the Assassin's Creed hashashin lore (which is middle-eastern - Syrian/Persian) into Native American lore - down to the sodding costume design?

It.

Is.

Retarded.

Ah well. One less sale.

The fact that Desmond is American didn't really ring any bells?

 

[captain awesome 12]

Hmmm, I'll break my long silence on this forum for this particular thread. This honestly looks pretty interesting to me. The American Revolution hasn't been touched much by games to the best of my knowledge, and there are many interesting ways they could take this. The art is evocative of The Patriot, particularly Mel Gibson's Tomahawk wielding, white shirt wearing, red coat murdering, militiaman. I'd love to see Ubisoft re-invent a bit and go for gameplay centered around setting ambushes, moving through the forests and undergrowth, climbing trees instead of buildings, infiltrating camps/towns, etc. It would be a nice break from the monotony of the classic urban free running which has defined the series so far. Granted, that's what made the series so popular, and it's an insane amount of fun, but we've done it for 4(?) games so far. Adding a new dimension of small scale militia-ish fighting, perhaps as a scout for the Colonials (or even a neutral party) sounds like a pretty cool direction to go. I just keep imagining a combination of Last of the Mohicans and The Patriot, picking off patrols while working towards a larger conspiracy that could involve figures like Washington.

Anyway, just my two cents. I think it's difficult to dismiss something when there's so little information out about it.

 

[Astoria]

I knew they wouldn't do it. I had a slight hope that they'd drop the whole animus thing and go have the expected game about Desmond and the world in 2012 but I doubted they'd try it.

It was probably the original plan before they realised that Desmond is one of the most boring characters ever made.

I'm really disappointed by this but somehow knew it would happen. I have no problem with a game set during the American revolution, I have a problem with it being this game. It makes no sense at this point in the series when all hints seem to have been leading to the French revolution or ancient Egypt. I hope Ubisoft knows what they're doing because if this game is another disappointment like Brotherhood and Revelations I doubt I'll be buying the next one.

 

[DrunkPickle]

Uhhh, I'm a little disappointed honestly. I was never a big fan of the American Revolution time period. I would much rather see Assassins's Creed take place during the Russian or French Revolution, which I find more interesting. This game is probably going to endorse in all that "Home of the Free" and "The American Dream" stuff because the Devs want to "suck up" to a larger audience. I really hope this picture isn't real...the main reason I like Assassins's Creed is because the setting is a little different from the other games I play on a regular basis...

 

[WeAreStevo]

-snip-

There were two things about your post I wanted to comment on:

At least it isn't Ezio AGAIN. (I did like Ezio, however.)

I couldn't agree more with this statement. I liked Ezio in AC:II. When I saw he was in Brotherhood, I thought "well....ok....I guess..." By the time that he was in Revelations I had given up. It's too much. Especially because I liked Altair (sp?) and I was hoping for a new Assassin with a new background story. As cool as Ezio is, I am sick of his adventures.

I do however hope for the ability to actually aim and fire my gun. And before I am called out saying "Don't turn it into a shooter!" I am not suggesting a shooter, I would however like to pick off enemies with my gun without having to be within 20 feet of them. To compensate and not make it a shooter, add a noise aspect or make reload times take forever.

From a historical perspective, this shouldn't be an issue. I am reminded of the painstakingly long reload process of a period rifle (poweder horn, flint, musket ball, ramrod etc), not to mention their horrible aim and unreliability. I hope this game will rely more on tomahawks and bow/arrow type of weapons over guns.

 

[scarecrow350]

Well there goes my hopes of a victorian england game, the only problem i have with this is that as far as i can remember there werent any major cities during this time (at least not on the level of past gsmes), so i dont really see how you can fee run with this, unless its over rocks and naturey type stuff

 

[Individuo]

I liked the consent of setting it around Victorian England better. Jumping around the roof-tops Victorian London during the prime of the Industrial Revolution. Meeting influential people such as Charles Darwin, Jack the Ripper, Queen Victoria, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Dickens and Florence Nightingale just to name a few.

That or the fall of the Tzar in Russia, just so I could meet Rasputin.

 

[sumanoskae]

Kay... This is all well and good, but isn't there a main storyline involving a boring protagonist to deal with?.

I like the new direction, but I'm starting to think Ubisoft has contracted Lost syndrome, not even they know where they want the story to go, so they just keep thickening the plot hoping to run into a plot thread that will work for a finale.

 

[Captain Booyah]

Two thoughts.

1. Ezio, I like you, but thank God you've finally buggered off.

2. The excitement I feel for an AC3 is still thoroughly dampened by the fact that it's not going to be set during the French Revolution. Seriously, it fit so perfectly in so many ways that I'm baffled how another time period could have ever topped it.

EDIT:

i will buy this if they drop everything relating to desmond, that bullshit space conspiracy, and anything that isnt about a gang of assassins ruining people shit.

but i know it wont so...fuck it. this series jumped shark long ago.

Jumped shark as in some guy in the somewhat future is reliving the memories of his ancestor because his genetics is a grand tapestry of recorded information?
You mean the first ten minutes of the first game?

Probably more in the sense that the "plot" steadily sounds like it was pieced together from extracts the developers found when they were rummaging about in Dan Brown's garbage bin one night.

 

[Smeggs]

It appears that the next game in the series will take place during the American revolution and will star a Native American ancestor this time around.

Did Ubisoft themselves actually put this up somewhere?

Because I have a difficult time believing that isn't just fan art.

 

[superdelux]

It appears that the next game in the series will take place during the American revolution and will star a Native American ancestor this time around.

Did Ubisoft themselves actually put this up somewhere?

Because I have a difficult time believing that isn't just fan art.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/03/01/april-cover-revealed-assassin-39-s-creed-iii.aspx

Its official, this proves it

 

[superdelux]

Wait.....This is a joke right?

Cause I swear if I have to play through another entire game that doesn't finish the fucking storyline, I'm gonna kill the developers.


At the end of Revelations I thought to myself: "Finally the last part of the game is next".

I love the games but they really seem to be dragging on now.

Ubisoft said that the storyline will conclude this year, they believe that if the climax of the series is supposed to happen in December 2012 you should finish the story before then.

 

[Jegsimmons]

i will buy this if they drop everything relating to desmond, that bullshit space conspiracy, and anything that isnt about a gang of assassins ruining people shit.

but i know it wont so...fuck it. this series jumped shark long ago.

Jumped shark as in some guy in the somewhat future is reliving the memories of his ancestor because his genetics is a grand tapestry of recorded information?
You mean the first ten minutes of the first game?

yep. also the near future will be awkward when we actually hit that year and the series is still going.

 

[Jegsimmons]

This seems a little odd. During the American Revolution most native Americans fought against the US, so a apparently native assassin in front of an American flag seems out of place. And, frankly, I don't think it will be about killing American revolutionaries as that would probably get a lot of opposition. Also what's with all the male protagonists, I get the entire author/player insertion thing that you all like to do, but surely you have to realize that a strong female protagonist is a selling point right?

actually, not quite, the natives were for the most part neutral because the British treated them worse than the french and Spanish, really more fought AGAINST the British.

Honestly, that untrue, a quick wikipedia search will disprove that claim. It's true that native Americans were officially neutral many did fight in the war, and I can't think of a single citation in which natives fought against the British during the war. Remember one of the causes for the war was that Britain had set out more than half the country for the Natives (they didn't know how much though) and the colonists wanted to go past the line into native territory.

yeah the indians captured a fort right before the 'official' part of the war started and even cooked a guy

though we are both right:
Most Native Americans east of the Mississippi River were affected by the war, and many communities were divided over the question of how to respond to the conflict. Though a few tribes were on friendly terms with the Americans, most Native Americans opposed the United States as a potential threat to their territory. Approximately 13,000 Native Americans fought on the British side, with the largest group coming from the Iroquois tribes, who fielded around 1,500 men.[31] The powerful Iroquois Confederacy was shattered as a result of the conflict; although the Confederacy did not take sides, the Seneca, Onondaga, and Cayuga nations sided with the British. Members of the Mohawk fought on both sides. Many Tuscarora and Oneida sided with the colonists. The Continental Army sent the Sullivan Expedition on raids throughout New York to cripple the Iroquois tribes which had sided with the British. Both during and after the war friction between the Mohawk leaders Joseph Louis Cook and Joseph Brant, who had sided with the Americans and the British respectively, further exacerbated the split.


A watercolor painting depicting a variety of Continental Army soldiers.
Creek and Seminole allies of Britain fought against Americans in Georgia and South Carolina. In 1778, a force of 800 Creeks destroyed American settlements along the Broad River in Georgia. Creek warriors also joined Thomas Brown's raids into South Carolina and assisted Britain during the Siege of Savannah.[32] Many Native Americans were involved in the fighting between Britain and Spain on the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi River?mostly on the British side. Thousands of Creeks, Chickasaws, and Choctaws fought in or near major battles such as the Battle of Fort Charlotte, the Battle of Mobile, and the Siege of Pensacola.[33]

 

[rangerman351]

This seems a little odd. During the American Revolution most native Americans fought against the US, so a apparently native assassin in front of an American flag seems out of place. And, frankly, I don't think it will be about killing American revolutionaries as that would probably get a lot of opposition. Also what's with all the male protagonists, I get the entire author/player insertion thing that you all like to do, but surely you have to realize that a strong female protagonist is a selling point right?

actually, not quite, the natives were for the most part neutral because the British treated them worse than the french and Spanish, really more fought AGAINST the British.

Honestly, that untrue, a quick wikipedia search will disprove that claim. It's true that native Americans were officially neutral many did fight in the war, and I can't think of a single citation in which natives fought against the British during the war. Remember one of the causes for the war was that Britain had set out more than half the country for the Natives (they didn't know how much though) and the colonists wanted to go past the line into native territory.

yeah the indians captured a fort right before the 'official' part of the war started and even cooked a guy

though we are both right:
Most Native Americans east of the Mississippi River were affected by the war, and many communities were divided over the question of how to respond to the conflict. Though a few tribes were on friendly terms with the Americans, most Native Americans opposed the United States as a potential threat to their territory. Approximately 13,000 Native Americans fought on the British side, with the largest group coming from the Iroquois tribes, who fielded around 1,500 men.[31] The powerful Iroquois Confederacy was shattered as a result of the conflict; although the Confederacy did not take sides, the Seneca, Onondaga, and Cayuga nations sided with the British. Members of the Mohawk fought on both sides. Many Tuscarora and Oneida sided with the colonists. The Continental Army sent the Sullivan Expedition on raids throughout New York to cripple the Iroquois tribes which had sided with the British. Both during and after the war friction between the Mohawk leaders Joseph Louis Cook and Joseph Brant, who had sided with the Americans and the British respectively, further exacerbated the split.


A watercolor painting depicting a variety of Continental Army soldiers.
Creek and Seminole allies of Britain fought against Americans in Georgia and South Carolina. In 1778, a force of 800 Creeks destroyed American settlements along the Broad River in Georgia. Creek warriors also joined Thomas Brown's raids into South Carolina and assisted Britain during the Siege of Savannah.[32] Many Native Americans were involved in the fighting between Britain and Spain on the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi River?mostly on the British side. Thousands of Creeks, Chickasaws, and Choctaws fought in or near major battles such as the Battle of Fort Charlotte, the Battle of Mobile, and the Siege of Pensacola.[33]

Plus not to mention many French people married Native Americans, especially out on the frontiers. This new assassin could be a mix and since the French lost to Britain, have a disdain for the British in addition to a few Templar Founding Fathers (My money is on Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, and James Madison being the Templars.)