Image of Assassins Creed III's main character leaked

[Korten12]

Here's a couple of supposed pics from neogaf forums. Looks cool if they are not fake.

Those look really badass... I love how it isn't in a City for once. No doubt there will be one, but having a bigger country side could be awesome.

 

[GiantRaven]

I was a little skeptical but holy crap those screenshots look good. Climbing and jumping through the trees with a bow and arrow seems like it could be a lot of fun.

 

[Zydrate]

Damn those look pretty cool, though the white robe kinda looks outta place for that time period...

But hes got like a mix of Ezio and Altair

They're not THAT robe-like. They certainly do have a more colonial twist to the look, specifically of the lower flaps.

 

[go-10]

there weren't any skyscrapers or tall buildings in the American Revolution era so won't this end up becoming Red Dead Redemption with Ass Creed elements?
and sure there were a bunch of forts but even then they weren't all that tall :/
and what big city existed back then? as far as I know it was all small village/towns that weren't really all that big when looking back

 

[Zydrate]

there weren't any skyscrapers or tall buildings in the American Revolution era so won't this end up becoming Red Dead Redemption with Ass Creed elements?
and sure there were a bunch of forts but even then they weren't all that tall :/
and what big city existed back then? as far as I know it was all small village/towns that weren't really all that big when looking back

Maybe Sync-towers will be in the form of wooden watchtowers?
Like in AC2, where most of the Sync-towers were pretty much all the same thing.

They're called ideas! Everyone is so cynical when it comes to some series. I've enjoyed all of them so far (Even if Ezio's story dragged a little)

And I found this while re-watching all the videos:

 

[CrazyBlaze]

Here's a couple of supposed pics from neogaf forums. Looks cool if they are not fake.

Those look really badass... I love how it isn't in a City for once. No doubt there will be one, but having a bigger country side could be awesome.

Hehe. That's funny that you like how its not in a city Korten. hehe.

 

[Korten12]

Hehe. That's funny that you like how its not in a city Korten. hehe.

Funny none the less. XD Good one.

 

[hutchy27]

I prefer the other picture of him, when he's assassinating some British solider. I think the setting will work, because they still need the password for the SPOILER so it would make sense why he's going back into the animus.

 

[willofbob]

snip

Well based on your post it does kind of scream "Americuh sux" due to the oversimplification (and factually wrong) statement. You fail to mention the many petitions sent, or the martial law, or the quartering of troops without consent, or the closing of Boston harbor, or the fact that the Brits basically didn't allow the colonists to trade with any other nation. The mindset of the colonists was that they were British citizens, and were entitled to the same rights. The Brits did not fight "as a matter of principle," they had just gotten out of a war and were not looking to run up more of a debt for "principle." They fought to keep their colonies and the money they brought in. As for "really weren't all that into it" well if you're referring to the fact that their entire military wasn't in the colonies you'd be right, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the massive transport time for troops and resources along with the numerous other nations they were dealing with. In fact about two lines were correct there; "they sank a British ship" and "Britain pulled out because America was far more trouble than it was worth." Well, an American and French alliance was far more trouble than it was worth anyway. Oh and the numerous other nations trying to take the British empire down. Nah let's just pretend the only thing they were dealing with was a bunch of colonists.

OT:Come to think of it if this is true I wouldn't be surprised if you play a part in the Gaspee...

Oh and as for your P.S. I have no idea, since I tend to have access to games made in or for America. Seriously though, and this is to everyone, the "AMERICUH SUX!!!!11!!!11!" Is just as bad as "GO AMERICA!!!!"

Yes, an oversimplification, no, not factually wrong.
Your version of events is mainly from a biased American perspective, while mine is an outside (admittedly very slightly biased) perspective. The colonies, while a source of income, barely justified the expense, it was mainly because they didn't want to lose territory, no matter how unprofitable. Also, I'm not going on about how AMERICAH SUX!1!!, I'm pointing out that foreign made games set in America tend to take on a GO AMERICUH perspective to sell their games. I don't actually believe American arrogance is anywhere near as strong as the DEATH TO AMERICA guys believe. Like I said, I was mad when I made my first post, my computer wasn't working, I was behind on everything, I had to deal with some family matters, etc. And I just took it out on the first thing I didn't agree with: the setting of the new game.
Yeah, there was martial law, but martial law was in most nations at the time, especially the colonies. The settlers here in the Merry Old Land of Aus had it pretty bad as well, and NO, we weren't all brutal murderous bastards, most of the settlers were just petty thieves and pickpockets trying to make a living.

P.S. What's the Gaspee?

 

[WoW Killer]

I'm in two minds about the wilderness areas. Those were the worst bits of the first game. But then jumping through treetops will be sick if they pull it off.

 

[Raiha]

i was hoping for a girl voiced by the same va as femshep but this sound good enough

that is a good point. i would really like to play as a female assassin as a main character.

 

[Micromyni]

Awww, I was hoping for a jungle setting. Maybe Aztec Empire-era assassins. Climb the ziggarats, witness someone's heart cut out with an obsidian blade, and have a different villain besides the damn Knights Templar.

 

[NeuroticDogDad]

And in terms of how history goes down, it is one of the few great and noble things that this country can feel proud of. It marked the downward spiral of the British Empire throughout the world, and was one of the few countries to be formed without a bloodline or ridiculous Government type.

Seriously, this is the reaction you get to the time period? It's... ridiculous.

Not to focus on the details or anything and I'm sorry for this but that's just not correct. The American Revolution in 1776 and the subsequent war in 1812 actually came just before a period of greatness in the Empire. After Napoleon was defeated in 1815 there was no one else on the world stage that could compete with the Empire in a period referred to as Pax Britannica, "British Peace" because of this lack of competition, and they added 10 million square miles of land and hundreds of millions of people as well as dominating the world economy until the end of the 19th century. The downward spiral of the British Empire began with WWI.

Either way, I agree that willofbob's reaction is ridiculous but there is a truth to it. I don't know about him and Australia but when I was at school I spent my last couple of years of history learning about 20th century America and very little to none about Europe (even more so with regards to the Crusades and Constantinople). So we were given games that explored new cultural territory and a rich history that receive little focus in modern media and then we're in America again. I know there hasn't been any games about the American Revolution but with big blockbusters such as the Patriot and National Treasure it still feels like it's been done before.

I'm not actually saying not to do it. I think with the ideas of colonialism, multinational warfare and native combatants that this concept is very interesting. However, you still have to understand that for most of us we didn't expect to end up here and we think that there were better options.

(P.S. Being a ninja in Feudal Japan or an assassin in China were not one of those better options in my opinion and I think that would change the game beyond recognition. Overall I think those ideas are just terrible.)

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Either way, I agree that willofbob's reaction is ridiculous but there is a truth to it. I don't know about him and Australia but when I was at school I spent my last couple of years of history learning about 20th century America and very little to none about Europe (even more so with regards to the Crusades and Constantinople). So we were given games that explored new cultural territory and a rich history that receive little focus in modern media and then we're in America again. I know there hasn't been any games about the American Revolution but with big blockbusters such as the Patriot and National Treasure it still feels like it's been done before.

So I'm assuming you're an American as well?

And yes, I absolutely agree with you. I went through three years of American History, and only one year of World History. It was idiotic. Not to mention that the last year of the American Government class was completely unnecessary.

I'm not actually saying not to do it. I think with the ideas of colonialism, multinational warfare and native combatants that this concept is very interesting. However, you still have to understand that for most of us we didn't expect to end up here and we think that there were better options.

(P.S. Being a ninja in Feudal Japan or an assassin in China were not one of those better options in my opinion and I think that would change the game beyond recognition. Overall I think those ideas are just terrible.)

Which is what I'm saying. This concept of having a game set in this time period is amazing to me. The only game that I can think of is the Total War game, and that has a completely different mechanic from this title.

 

[NeuroticDogDad]

So I'm assuming you're an American as well?

And yes, I absolutely agree with you. I went through three years of American History, and only one year of World History. It was idiotic. Not to mention that the last year of the American Government class was completely unnecessary.

I'm not actually saying not to do it. I think with the ideas of colonialism, multinational warfare and native combatants that this concept is very interesting. However, you still have to understand that for most of us we didn't expect to end up here and we think that there were better options.

(P.S. Being a ninja in Feudal Japan or an assassin in China were not one of those better options in my opinion and I think that would change the game beyond recognition. Overall I think those ideas are just terrible.)

Which is what I'm saying. This concept of having a game set in this time period is amazing to me. The only game that I can think of is the Total War game, and that has a completely different mechanic from this title.

Actually, I'm English, but we still ended up studying what you've been up to for the past 100 years despite having over a millennium of our own history. Bizarre.

And the most important part was the bit I've highlighted in bold: this setting is a good idea, but there were so many other options that a lot of people think would have been better and distinctly more interesting so to do this one feels a bit like settling (or as some people have put it, pandering, although I'm not sure that is the right word.)

 

[twistedmic]

Ok, the big white coat sorta blended in with the christian, muslim crowds of the middle east and the fashionable fancy pants of renaisance italy but how the hell are you gunna blend in with the americans when their all wearing blue and all of the enemy are wearing red (mostly) and the only non combatant characters are rag tag peasents or powder wig wearing politicians.

But fuck it, you get a tomahawk, that makes the game awesome by default.

Only the American/Colonial regular armies wore the blue uniforms. The militia of the various colonies and cities wore whatever the same things they wore every other day (meaning they didn't wear bright/obvious blue).

 

[Xangba]

snip

Well based on your post it does kind of scream "Americuh sux" due to the oversimplification (and factually wrong) statement. You fail to mention the many petitions sent, or the martial law, or the quartering of troops without consent, or the closing of Boston harbor, or the fact that the Brits basically didn't allow the colonists to trade with any other nation. The mindset of the colonists was that they were British citizens, and were entitled to the same rights. The Brits did not fight "as a matter of principle," they had just gotten out of a war and were not looking to run up more of a debt for "principle." They fought to keep their colonies and the money they brought in. As for "really weren't all that into it" well if you're referring to the fact that their entire military wasn't in the colonies you'd be right, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the massive transport time for troops and resources along with the numerous other nations they were dealing with. In fact about two lines were correct there; "they sank a British ship" and "Britain pulled out because America was far more trouble than it was worth." Well, an American and French alliance was far more trouble than it was worth anyway. Oh and the numerous other nations trying to take the British empire down. Nah let's just pretend the only thing they were dealing with was a bunch of colonists.

OT:Come to think of it if this is true I wouldn't be surprised if you play a part in the Gaspee...

Oh and as for your P.S. I have no idea, since I tend to have access to games made in or for America. Seriously though, and this is to everyone, the "AMERICUH SUX!!!!11!!!11!" Is just as bad as "GO AMERICA!!!!"

Yes, an oversimplification, no, not factually wrong.
Your version of events is mainly from a biased American perspective, while mine is an outside (admittedly very slightly biased) perspective. The colonies, while a source of income, barely justified the expense, it was mainly because they didn't want to lose territory, no matter how unprofitable. Also, I'm not going on about how AMERICAH SUX!1!!, I'm pointing out that foreign made games set in America tend to take on a GO AMERICUH perspective to sell their games. I don't actually believe American arrogance is anywhere near as strong as the DEATH TO AMERICA guys believe. Like I said, I was mad when I made my first post, my computer wasn't working, I was behind on everything, I had to deal with some family matters, etc. And I just took it out on the first thing I didn't agree with: the setting of the new game.
Yeah, there was martial law, but martial law was in most nations at the time, especially the colonies. The settlers here in the Merry Old Land of Aus had it pretty bad as well, and NO, we weren't all brutal murderous bastards, most of the settlers were just petty thieves and pickpockets trying to make a living.

P.S. What's the Gaspee?

Gaspee is the the ship that was sunk that is more considered the true start of the Revolution before Lexington and Concord, which I thought is what you were referring to in your initial post. As for a biased American perspective I really do like to try and find all sides of something (the American Civil War being my favorite to do that with) to try and avoid wrong information, though of course there's only so much that be done about it. Before continuing, to ensure no bad feelings or anything nothing is meant to be said as rude or calling you an ass, I just become rude when there is the appearance of the "AMERICA SUX!" in someone's view. Anyway, I'm honestly not even sure why I said factually wrong when it pretty much was a gross oversimplification, probably due to the "AMERICA SUX" vibe coming from it. Back with the American perspective, well that's basically how the colonists viewed it, not just how we view it today. The colonists were British citizens, and wanted representation in policies regarding them. After several messages to the King were basically ignored (not just the King obviously, but this is getting long enough as it is) so tensions kept rising until the war itself. Anyway the colonies were pretty profitable. Another reason for keeping them was that Britain didn't want to give other European powers control in the Americas, they wanted their own dominance. The end of the war really does boil down to Britain was dealing with WAY too much at the time, and felt it was wasting too many resources against a combined force of colonials, French, Spainish, and more when they needed those resources elsewhere. Between fur, lumber, cotton, tobacco, and more, Britain was making a good profit, so it certainly wasn't anything to do with that, it just happens that afterward free trade between the two ended up being more profitable.

P.S. Never had that view of Australia lol, if I did I'd have to have the same view of Georgia.

 

[direkiller]

why do people keep bloody suggesting the damn french revolution over the american revolution? The American revolution happend first, in 1776ish and ended around 1781 while the french revolution started in 1789 and ended in 1799. So timewise it makes more sense and also its more intresting. The french revolution really only involved french, but as others have mention the american revolution included americans, brits, french, germans, spanish, native americans and african americans, im sure we'll get more variation out of that.

and those suggesting japan or china? thats too different! Besides, doesnt the game revolve a lot around western politics and christianity, so it wouldnt really fit much with the story fighting ninjas and samurais in japan or warrior monks in china for not much reason.

there were Christian revolution in china that whould be interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion (for one example)

however this still has to tie back to Desmond, Who is american, So it has to get here at somepoint