I don't really care. Bets the limitless bias against Middle-Eastern people and Russians that plagues AAA games today.
Poll: The Latest AC controversy
- Thread starter Stew Coard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
why should ubisoft care? for them its like: lets throw a bunch of tea-drinking barbaric buck-toothed inbred bastards for the player to slaughter.
they show the trailer so more people would want to buy the game. and yes there a HUGE amount of people not caring about: ooohhh! that British guy is bad. this racism. this is controversy!
they buy for the game to go in and kill and ubisoft makes money from them. so this whole idea of" america fuck yeah!" in the trailer which was released on the fourth of july clearly shows that money making goal.
they show the trailer so more people would want to buy the game. and yes there a HUGE amount of people not caring about: ooohhh! that British guy is bad. this racism. this is controversy!
they buy for the game to go in and kill and ubisoft makes money from them. so this whole idea of" america fuck yeah!" in the trailer which was released on the fourth of july clearly shows that money making goal.
I'm really hoping you're being sarcastic. You know, with the whole Industrial Revolution thing and everything...dfphetteplace said:
why should ubisoft care? for them its like: lets throw a bunch of tea-drinking barbaric buck-toothed inbred bastards for the player to slaughter.
they show the trailer so more people would want to buy the game. and yes there a HUGE amount of people not caring about: ooohhh! that British guy is bad. this racism. this is controversy!
they buy for the game to go in and kill and ubisoft makes money from them. so this whole idea of" america fuck yeah!" in the trailer which was released on the fourth of july clearly shows that money making goal.
they show the trailer so more people would want to buy the game. and yes there a HUGE amount of people not caring about: ooohhh! that British guy is bad. this racism. this is controversy!
they buy for the game to go in and kill and ubisoft makes money from them. so this whole idea of" america fuck yeah!" in the trailer which was released on the fourth of july clearly shows that money making goal.
good gosh thats the best gaming idea i have ever heard! i want this!Kyrian007 said:
Whats the problem the brits were the baddies that time?? I live in the south I was the bad guy then 100% inspite of what confederate apologists would like to think.
Sometimes your the bad guy sometimes your the good guy. tough titty.
Sometimes your the bad guy sometimes your the good guy. tough titty.
Not to mention the founders of principles that America would eventually fight for. John Locke yadayada.Da Orky Man said:
ITT: A lot of people need to educate themselves on the British education system. Contrary to seemingly popular belief, we're not taught that the empire was great.
Hell, we're taought next to nothing about the empire. I mean, a bit of it came in while doing the First World War, but we went through a full module of Industrial Revolution with nary a word.Lethos said:
It's fine for the game to be biased, but when it goes for such a cheap bias as making the Redcoats bad and the Colonials good then it's pretty shitty. It'd be like if they made it a crusade against Islam in the first one because the target demographic was white Americans.
If they go for that bias then I'm far more likely to believe that they did it solely because they were too scared to break the status quo.
If they go for that bias then I'm far more likely to believe that they did it solely because they were too scared to break the status quo.
They did that once before. We got the Great Depression and (arguably) WWII. Yeeeaaaahh...DRes82 said:
A-MEN!erttheking said:
I'm not american (neither british) but it would make sense to me that the Templars are pro-British and the Assasins pro-revolution if the Templars are controlling the British crown, in which case they would lose part of their empire with the independence of the USA.
But I don't know if that's the case. It would make sense though, since the Templars have been controlling great western powers like the Papacy in previous games.
Ok I have a serious honest to god question that id like to ask. This is neither sarcasm or feined(sp?) ignorance. I actually dont know the answer to this question if there is one.
So the implication here is that the revolutionary war is not black and white. not nearly so as the civil war was that i mentioned in an earlier post. I mentioned that we were clearly the bad guys in spite of what confederate apologists think.
The same goes with nazi germany I imagine the american/british/russian hail marys that ensue with every ww2 depiction might indeed get old but itd be nigh impossible to argue that it happened any other way.
So i myself have little education on the revolutionary war aside from this otherwise black and white understanding.
So how and in what ways would you say that the revolutionary war was in fact grey? I would argue that if it wasnt so grey than the rise trailer is justified.
how can in any light the brits possibly be the good guys and the americans bad? or the morality of the whole thing be grey and unclear?
again totally real question. looking forward to some sharp responses.
edit
f note it was not just the americans but the french,the netherlands, and spain on the side of the colonies.
So the implication here is that the revolutionary war is not black and white. not nearly so as the civil war was that i mentioned in an earlier post. I mentioned that we were clearly the bad guys in spite of what confederate apologists think.
The same goes with nazi germany I imagine the american/british/russian hail marys that ensue with every ww2 depiction might indeed get old but itd be nigh impossible to argue that it happened any other way.
So i myself have little education on the revolutionary war aside from this otherwise black and white understanding.
So how and in what ways would you say that the revolutionary war was in fact grey? I would argue that if it wasnt so grey than the rise trailer is justified.
how can in any light the brits possibly be the good guys and the americans bad? or the morality of the whole thing be grey and unclear?
again totally real question. looking forward to some sharp responses.
edit
f note it was not just the americans but the french,the netherlands, and spain on the side of the colonies.Not even a little. I'm not saying other people are innocent at all, but I have no sympathy for an empire that paved their way with the blood of indigenous people.Da Orky Man said:
Cappa: Trust me.
I wouldn't be so sick of these sorts of things if the people complaining didn't phrase things in ways that imply that anyone who disagrees with them is some sort of "-ist". I recently came across someone on Kotaku who literally said that they held their position because it was a just one, and anyone who disagreed with them supported injustice. Considering how messy even basic social issues tend to be, I tend to be leery of anyone proclaiming absolute positions.erttheking said:
And what about, like every other empire that has ever existed? The Spanish Empire, Roman Empire, Mongol Empire? Sure, the British Empire did some rather awful things, but next to almost any other, it was relatively peaceful, not to mention getting the world out of the late middle ages into the early modern era.dfphetteplace said:
book of negroes.
The document contains records on 3000 African Americans; the former slaves recorded in the Book of Negroes were evacuated to British North America, where they were settled in Nova Scotia. According to the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States argued for the return of all property, including slaves. The British refused to return the slaves whom they had promised freedom during the war for joining their cause. The detailed records were created to document those freedmen whom the British resettled in Nova Scotia, along with other Loyalists.
In this im rather impressed the brits kept there end of the bargain.
The document contains records on 3000 African Americans; the former slaves recorded in the Book of Negroes were evacuated to British North America, where they were settled in Nova Scotia. According to the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States argued for the return of all property, including slaves. The British refused to return the slaves whom they had promised freedom during the war for joining their cause. The detailed records were created to document those freedmen whom the British resettled in Nova Scotia, along with other Loyalists.
In this im rather impressed the brits kept there end of the bargain.
Uh...
A french developer... You know there are jokes about France vs. Britain still floating around right? Then there is the fact that France backed the revolution. This could turn into a biased situation very easily. But then again, it probably wont.GiglameshSoulEater said: