I went with "I don", because I'm assuming it's short for "I don't know". Which is the ONLY reasonable option in the poll because NONE OF YOU HAVE ACTUALLY PLAYED IT.
Poll: The Latest AC controversy
- Thread starter Stew Coard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Exactly. They all often rebel against that process, doesn't mean the parents should create their own state.Nielas said:
Also the trailer that opened with the bald eagle looking upon the Americans being routed by a superior British force was a bit ridiculous. I know birds of prey are associated with the assassins but nonetheless it felt far too hammy.
I think we're missing a crucial point, and that is that all of the parties that could possibly be offended by this "bias" have been dead for hundreds of years. I really don't think that there is anyone to be bias towards.
Hey guys, remember how in the original you ended up killing droves of guards not at all related to the Templars? Or how in AC:Revelations even though the primary enemy is the Byzantines you still kill about a million Ottomans?
For the situation where Connor is going to be in a Colonial controlled area, who do you think he'll be killing to get around the place?
This is a French Canadian game about a Native American/Brit who's fighting TEMPLARS. Not the Brits, the clear and defined group of people walking around in Red Coats, but an amorphous group who has infiltrated the Papacy, taken control of the Holy Crusades, and had their own Empire. They are everywhere, have a hand in every pocket, a finger in every pie. They are going to be on both sides in the same way they were both Axis and Allies in WWTwo and we've friggin' SEEN PICTURES OF GEORGE WASHINGTON WITH AN APPLE OF EDEN IN HIS POCKET.
Do you seriously believe that the game is going to be a Patriotic American's wet dream? They've shown the Ottomans in a negative light, the Byzantines in a negative light, the French side of the Crusade in a negative light as well as those who fought the French in that same crusade, the Catholic Church in a negative light. Every mainstream AC game to date has had assholes on both sides of the fence and both have acted negatively to the Assassins in some way or another, why do you think this will be any different?
Off Topic: I totally expect the true nature of Benedict Arnold to be showcased to show how dickish the Colonials were.
Did you know he was far more competent than George Washington, but was essentially the butt monkey of the Colonials to the point where he just said "Screw you guys, you're all assholes, I'm going to fight for the guys who appreciate all my kickassery."
For the situation where Connor is going to be in a Colonial controlled area, who do you think he'll be killing to get around the place?
This is a French Canadian game about a Native American/Brit who's fighting TEMPLARS. Not the Brits, the clear and defined group of people walking around in Red Coats, but an amorphous group who has infiltrated the Papacy, taken control of the Holy Crusades, and had their own Empire. They are everywhere, have a hand in every pocket, a finger in every pie. They are going to be on both sides in the same way they were both Axis and Allies in WWTwo and we've friggin' SEEN PICTURES OF GEORGE WASHINGTON WITH AN APPLE OF EDEN IN HIS POCKET.
Do you seriously believe that the game is going to be a Patriotic American's wet dream? They've shown the Ottomans in a negative light, the Byzantines in a negative light, the French side of the Crusade in a negative light as well as those who fought the French in that same crusade, the Catholic Church in a negative light. Every mainstream AC game to date has had assholes on both sides of the fence and both have acted negatively to the Assassins in some way or another, why do you think this will be any different?
Off Topic: I totally expect the true nature of Benedict Arnold to be showcased to show how dickish the Colonials were.
Did you know he was far more competent than George Washington, but was essentially the butt monkey of the Colonials to the point where he just said "Screw you guys, you're all assholes, I'm going to fight for the guys who appreciate all my kickassery."
Hah. That was a pretty good joke. You almost got me to believe that you didn't know that Ubisoft is primarily a French company [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft] and that Assassin's Creed is developed primarily by French-Canadians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft_Montreal]GiglameshSoulEater said:
OT: Another controversy? Already? Aren't we still getting over the Tomb Raider thing? Have we finally gotten over Hitman: Absolution? What about Diablo III and Mass Effect 3? Let's see, what other controversies have there been lately... how about the XCOM: Enemy Unknown limitation of how many soldiers the player gets? Oh, the new Devil May Cry that nobody can get over, and Metal Gear Rising being a completely different direction than Metal Gear Solid. How about Dead Space 3 and how EA wants to "broaden the target audience" or something? Or the "controversies" that surrounded Katawa Shoujo and Catherine? Or the earlier Dragon Age 2? Or the "controversy" that got kicked up by CD Projekt Red for making "hypocritical" statements because of what they did with sexuality in The Witcher? Or the (non-strictly-gaming) controversy whirled up by the Destructoid intern's comments to Felicia Day? Or the controversy over Tera that everyone has apparently forgotten now?
In case my point is getting muddled up with that block of text...
[HEADING=2]Why does everything need to be a controversy these days?[/HEADING]
Anybody else remember the days when you could just sit down and play a game and have fun, without worrying about being called sexist because you didn't violently oppose the game's portrayal of a female character? Did people call Candy Kong "sexist"?
Because I'll bet that they would if that had been released today instead of thirteen years ago.
Regardless, I reserve any judgement because I haven't played the game and trailers practically never actually show off what the game is going to be like anymore.
You really can't count the newest one, as it was specifically made for the American Independence Day, but other than that one, I agree. I've never actually played the games, but the story has intrigued me, and I'd hate to see them fuck it up just to pander to us Americans.Daystar Clarion said:
The British are some of history's worst tyrants. You can't keep hiding your past behind Shakespeare and proper pronunciation. I don't mind if they get their asses kicked a little bit.
I think this whole thing is stupid and I can't wait for this to blow over.
Jeez, we always have to find something to complain about don't we?
Jeez, we always have to find something to complain about don't we?
i dont understand why so many people have become butthurt over killing british in AC3 ?.. i dont get it... for how many YEARS have we been killing germans, russians, middle-eastern people? i dont get it.. :/
I'm not a "Cause 'Merica, fuck yeah!" type person at all. I just have that avatar because I'm a firefighter and that is on the side of my engine.Daystar Clarion said:*looks at avatar*dfphetteplace said:
I bet you're completely unbiased
erttheking, I could tell you that I love you, that I want to marry you, that I want us to run away together and live in a small Devon cottage by the sea, that I want us to have seven beautiful blonde children, two dogs, and some chickens, and that I want to grow old with you and die in your arms, but I don't think that would quite do justice to just how much I agree with your sentiments here, so I will just say "Thank you, erttheking. Thank you."erttheking said:
ahem... so, yeah. What this guy said. Or, you know, whatever.
Exactly. There's no need for the marketing department's tongue to be so far up America's arse hole.Daystar Clarion said:
I wouldn't even give a shit if it were being marketed like this and it were from the point of view of an average revolutionary, but it's not, it's supposedly from the view of an independent third party, within a series which is all about another independent party which manipulates all sides of various conflicts. I'm sure the game will be like that, which just makes it rather embarrassing and silly and irritating when the marketing isn't.
It's not a major controversy, it's just annoyance at seeing a developer pussy out quite so abruptly.
See above. And yes, plenty of people moan about the Russians and anyone with brownish skin being constantly used as villains.EvilMaggot said:
I find that in most AC games its pretty much 'assassins good! templars bad! other guys... neutral'. The generic guards and soldiers and other people just seem to kind of be there while only the assassins and templars get any real recognition and development. That said, I don't think there is any good side in the conflict. Both the templars and assassins use the exact same methods and the onyl difference is that assassins fight for liberty and democratic ideals while the templars fight for... I'm going to go with Oligarchy and enforced happiness. Both are trying to make the world a peaceful place free of crime and such but they have different ideas of how to reach it (and both will murder you without a thought if you get in their way). Of course it gets complicated when you factor in the space aliens... spoilers!
We all know that the protagonist is partly native American right? Meaning that he fights on both sides.
And a game is being judged based on its marketing, and by now we should know that the marketing departments for any game are essentially staffed entirely by morons.
So, yeah the game is being made to look more appealing to Americans, or at least what they think Americans want to see, me personally I wouldn't at all care if I saw a trailer where blue coats got massacred left and right. I don't think the marketing will be indicative of the final product, but, hell I could be wrong.
And a game is being judged based on its marketing, and by now we should know that the marketing departments for any game are essentially staffed entirely by morons.
So, yeah the game is being made to look more appealing to Americans, or at least what they think Americans want to see, me personally I wouldn't at all care if I saw a trailer where blue coats got massacred left and right. I don't think the marketing will be indicative of the final product, but, hell I could be wrong.
Also this. No, wait, especially this.erttheking said:
Oh come on, the British Empire spent entire centuries stomping all over the globe, gleefully wrecking everybody's shit, to the degree that there is a direct correlation between being a third world country and a former British colony (except for the US and Australia, but they both benefited from being as far away from Britian as possible).Daystar Clarion said:*looks at avatar*dfphetteplace said:
I bet you're completely unbiased
And that's not even taking into account the British Empire's penchant for dropping settlers into hostile environments and sitting idly by while they go batshit insane and torture, enslave and/or massacre the local populace.
I never said the British were saintsJames Joseph Emerald said:Oh come on, the British Empire spent entire centuries stomping all over the globe, gleefully wrecking everybody's shit, to the degree that there is a direct correlation between being a third world country and a former British colony (except for the US and Australia, but they both benefited from being as far away from Britian as possible).Daystar Clarion said:*looks at avatar*dfphetteplace said:
I bet you're completely unbiased
And that's not even taking into account the British Empire's penchant for dropping settlers into hostile environments and sitting idly by while they go batshit insane and torture, enslave and/or massacre the local populace.
But neither were the Americans.