King Washington the Wicked

[crimson sickle2]

For further dlc, they should take other funny liberties with history.

 

[Albino Boo]

Very valid point, in regards to the comment you were replying to, but the article isn't about national involvement. The French did indeed play a role that very much Decided the war because of it's support, but the article isn't about that. It's about the person Washington and about early American politics. It's showing the American perspective of Washington and the early government because it's an American affair. France had a great deal to do with our founding by supporting us financially and as allies, but they had no hand in our internal development and infighting.

snip

None of these things were mentioned because they weren't relevant. The article was about Washington as a person; specifically, how he handled his power.

None of these things were mentioned because they weren't relevant. The article was about Washington as a person; specifically, how he handled his power.

The point I'm making it wasn't his power, the power the he wielded was only existed because of the much wider political situation. You can't have a discussion of about the about Ho Chi Minh and the balance of power inside the North Vietnamese communist party without mentioning the wider context of the cold war and the split between China and Russia. Neither can you write a history of modern Israel without mentioning the role of the US. US domestic politics today rests in vacuum sealed off from the rest of world, this was not always the case. At the time the US only existed by under the protection of a world power and this limited the options available to anyone in power at the time. France was perfectly capable of doing what the US did to Britain, France and Israel during the Suez crisis.

During the war of 1812 only reason was the British did not hit the US with all the force that it could after 1814 was concern over Russian intervention. In the case of lesser powers you cannot compartmentalize between domestic and foreign.

 

[guitarsniper]

Am now even more amped for this game. Sadly, I play PC so I have to wait just under a month for it.

 

[Norix596]

The AC series, beginning to run out of time period where assassins stabbing and sword-fighting would make any sense probably went in a very clever direction - alternate history can work just as well. I mean, they've already got secret societies bouncing all over the place.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Times like this help remind everyone why America has a thing for the world wars: they are some of the few times in American history where everyone in the country was the on the same page (+/- 5% of course).

1781-1812 Pro-French vs Pro-Federalist
1812-1861 Pro Slave vs Pro Free
1866-1899 Pro Punish vs Pro Absolve (the rebuilding of the South)
It abated for a time, then the World Wars then
1950-1975 Pro War vs Pro Peace (Korea and Vietnam)
1976-Present Pro Liberal vs Pro Conservative

Honestly, our country has never really gotten along.

I assume you've heard of the phrase, "divide and conquer", correct?

besides, people love dualities, it makes it way easier to imagine your political opponents as the unquestionable "bad side" when there are no other factions/parties involved.

You hear that storm coming?

It's the right wing portion of the media who get's one look at the premise of this and immediately start a Mass Effect style hellraising on Fox News and talk radio.

Brace yourselves. This one is gonna get stupid...

awww yeah!
who's got popcorn?

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Sounds interesting, I'll have to keep an eye out for it. I love alternate takes on history... though this one might not be too far from the truth...

Times like this help remind everyone why America has a thing for the world wars: they are some of the few times in American history where everyone in the country was the on the same page (+/- 5% of course).

1781-1812 Pro-French vs Pro-Federalist
1812-1861 Pro Slave vs Pro Free
1866-1899 Pro Punish vs Pro Absolve (the rebuilding of the South)
It abated for a time, then the World Wars then
1950-1975 Pro War vs Pro Peace (Korea and Vietnam)
1976-Present Pro Liberal vs Pro Conservative

Honestly, our country has never really gotten along.

I assume you've heard of the phrase, "divide and conquer", correct?

besides, people love dualities, it makes it way easier to imagine your political opponents as the unquestionable "bad side" when there are no other factions/parties involved.

Ya' see, this kind of thing is part of the reason why I dislike politics....

You hear that storm coming?

It's the right wing portion of the media who get's one look at the premise of this and immediately start a Mass Effect style hellraising on Fox News and talk radio.

Brace yourselves. This one is gonna get stupid...

awww yeah!
who's got popcorn?

I'll get the sodas! Any preferences?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

 

[Trivun]

This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

Don't forget, this is only DLC. Ubisoft have already made it clear throughout the promotional campaign that Washington is a main character, a good guy, and at least allied with the Assassins in the main game, if not one himself. He supports Connor through the game. This has been said multiple times. The DLC is specifically designed as an 'alternate history' story, and judging by the effort Ubisoft have gone to in the past to match the multiplayer parts of the games and all the DLC to the main ongoing story, it makes sense that they'll have a valid explanation in-game for the DLC campaign. It will be clear which side Washington is on, don't you worry about that .

That's also one of the reasons why I still like Ubisoft, by the way. Their DLC may be stupid and their business practices questionable, but damn if they don't make a great game (I even liked Revelations, believe it or not), and keep an amazing story well-told within them .

Back to the main topic, as well, I found this to be really interesting. It was cool learning more about American history, particularly about such a cool guy as George Washington, despite the fact that I'm as British as Doctor Who and the 2012 Olympics . However, I have a serious question, and I want people to answer truthfully.

Was I the only person who read most of that article in the voice of Shaun Hastings, the historian from the AC games?

 

[Rednog]

This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.

Spoiler

I seriously don't know how people are always up in arms over what Assassin's Creed portrays in terms of history and historical figures....maybe people just aren't completing all the parts of the game or something. I mean honestly Assassin's Creed has pretty much written every major world event/innovation as a part of the Templar/Assassin war.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.

Spoiler

I think those were just examples of people unwittingly stumbling onto a Piece of Eden and using its power in whichever way they see fit. Ghandi used his to try bring peace, Houdini used his to enhance his escape artistry. Doesnt really make them bad guys

 

[Rednog]

This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.

Spoiler

I think those were just examples of people unwittingly stumbling onto a Piece of Eden and using its power in whichever way they see fit. Ghandi used his to try bring peace, Houdini used his to enhance his escape artistry. Doesnt really make them bad guys

I don't know about that, considering the apple has pretty much only been shown to be a mass mind control device. And I think one would have a hard time arguing that anyone using the pieces of eden to control people is doing it for the sunshine and rainbows.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.

Spoiler

I think those were just examples of people unwittingly stumbling onto a Piece of Eden and using its power in whichever way they see fit. Ghandi used his to try bring peace, Houdini used his to enhance his escape artistry. Doesnt really make them bad guys

I don't know about that, considering the apple has pretty much only been shown to be a mass mind control device. And I think one would have a hard time arguing that anyone using the pieces of eden to control people is doing it for the sunshine and rainbows.

Well I guess I did pick the two that were easiest to defend. Houdini's really just looked like he wanted to be the greatest magician/escape artist, and was using the Apple as part of the illusion. Ghandi on the other hand, I can only assume thought he was doing the right thing by using the apple, the end justifying the means.....

Ok nevermind Ghandi sounds exactly like a Templar, still no real evidence that Houdini was a bad guy

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

Washington was a royalist like Obama is a socialist? Yeah...not quite. If you've spent your entire life hanging out with communists and your long-time mentor and close personal friend (Frank Marshal Davis) is considered so dangerous that he has an FBI dossier a mile long and had a shooting war started with the Soviet Union, he would have been summarily locked up as an enemy of the state, to say nothing of telling people that they're not responsible for their own success but the government because the government provided your business with roads (which is funny, because I do believe there were businesses created before there were paved roads), then I think we 'might' just be heading into socialist territory... I'm just saying. I eagerly await the calls of racism.

 

[Rednog]

This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.

Spoiler

I think those were just examples of people unwittingly stumbling onto a Piece of Eden and using its power in whichever way they see fit. Ghandi used his to try bring peace, Houdini used his to enhance his escape artistry. Doesnt really make them bad guys

I don't know about that, considering the apple has pretty much only been shown to be a mass mind control device. And I think one would have a hard time arguing that anyone using the pieces of eden to control people is doing it for the sunshine and rainbows.

Well I guess I did pick the two that were easiest to defend. Houdini's really just looked like he wanted to be the greatest magician/escape artist, and was using the Apple as part of the illusion. Ghandi on the other hand, I can only assume thought he was doing the right thing by using the apple, the end justifying the means.....

Ok nevermind Ghandi sounds exactly like a Templar, still no real evidence that Houdini was a bad guy

According to the Assassin's Creed wiki Houdini was murdered by the Templar for the apple, so yea I guess the apple has fallen into the hands of some randoms, but I still think a good chunk of historical figures who used the pieces are meant to be viewed negatively.

Edit: Apparently there are several apples, so I don't know what conclusion to come to.

 

[Tsaba]

He may not have openly wanted to take power for himself, but in that quote he did refer to America as "my" country.

Your more likely to take care of something that is yours than something lent to you. It's a very traditional way of thinking in the US military today.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.

Spoiler

I think those were just examples of people unwittingly stumbling onto a Piece of Eden and using its power in whichever way they see fit. Ghandi used his to try bring peace, Houdini used his to enhance his escape artistry. Doesnt really make them bad guys

I don't know about that, considering the apple has pretty much only been shown to be a mass mind control device. And I think one would have a hard time arguing that anyone using the pieces of eden to control people is doing it for the sunshine and rainbows.

Well I guess I did pick the two that were easiest to defend. Houdini's really just looked like he wanted to be the greatest magician/escape artist, and was using the Apple as part of the illusion. Ghandi on the other hand, I can only assume thought he was doing the right thing by using the apple, the end justifying the means.....

Ok nevermind Ghandi sounds exactly like a Templar, still no real evidence that Houdini was a bad guy

According to the Assassin's Creed wiki Houdini was murdered by the Templar for the apple, so yea I guess the apple has fallen into the hands of some randoms, but I still think a good chunk of historical figures who used the pieces are meant to be viewed negatively.

Well negatively might not be the right word, it all depends on how you view things. The Assassins, often touted as the "good" guys, arent actually all that good when you get down to it. Shaun even states himself that they arent necessarily the clear cut good guys in AC2. Templars believe they can make the world a better place by subjugating it, Assassins believe in freedom of choice. It all comes down to what you think is right or wrong.

Of course I do love me some freedom though

 

[Codeman90]

If you read the Altair's Codex in Assassin's Creed II, Altair begins questioning whether the Assassin's are all that good. They celebrate freedom by taking the lives of others. All that seperates them from the Templars is their creed, but Altair wonders if that is really enough justification sometimes.

 

[ChaplainOrion]

One thing I hope is brought up in the later game is Washington's title amongst the Iroquois, "Town Destroyer" after he sent an expedition into Iroquois land in 1779 and destroyed at least 40 Iroquois villages. On the other hand Handsome Lake, a Seneca religious figure, said that Washington was the only white man allowed on Iroquois land. So I really wonder if they'll include it in the game and how Connor will react. It'll be interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Destroyer