Haha, the comments in this thread are among the funniest I have seen. They released that trailer yesterday because it was Independence Day in America. People on the internet can be really really thick headed when it comes to Anti-American sentiment.
I don't know why people are having such a hard time dealing with this trailer. It's a game trailer. Last time I checked, this doesn't mimic real life in any form, nor does it advertise itself as a history lesson.
The Ass Creed games have always been pretty even handed in how they portray their characters and factions; those loosely based on real world counterparts anyway. This is why all the publicity for this game comes over badly, because even handed it is not.
I'm not overly bothered, I don't buy new Ubisoft games for my PC, but when I do eventually pick up my used console copy I'd like it to have a decent story; not be some American Patriot's fantasy wank off material.
My main problem with this assessment is that it's not uneven as far as we know. We don't know much of anything about how the game plays out, only that it's from the perspective of the colonists. We have not seen anything that depicts it unevenly. This ad was the closest, but it was clearly aimed at American audiences who were celebrating Independence Day. People are freaking out about this and using it as an excuse for wide spectrum anti-american sentiment, and it's just kind of pathetic that people are freaking over a game we don't know anything about. All the pictures of ingame footage have been mostly battlefields, and last time I checked, they didn't benefit anyone in particular. Also, to point out the obvious, this game is created by a French company. American's don't have any say at all the advertising routes the company takes.
Or to put it another way, in every released example of footage be it in game or cinematic has had the protagonist killing Redcoats and helping colonists. If we're basing our opinion on what we've seen, it's very f*cking uneven and it's getting harder and harder to take Ubisoft's word for it that it won't be.
You're just finding excuses to be argumentative. The character is a patriot. In the first game Altaire was a Muslim and the major villains were Christians, but no one found fault with that. There are two sides to every conflict, I just don't understand why you folks are so upset about this. Would you rather have the main character be a British Loyalist and trying to overthrow the creation of the American Republic? I wouldn't have a problem like that, but the game is meant to very loosely follow history. And I mean very loosely. If there was no conflict, there would be no game. If they had done a game based around the Japanese occupation of China in 1931, and all the scenes were of an Assassin character killing Japanese, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Or even if we reversed it where it were a Japanese Assassin killing Chinese, you would still be fine with it. You wouldn't be insulted because it was not even handed.
Haha, the comments in this thread are among the funniest I have seen. They released that trailer yesterday because it was Independence Day in America. People on the internet can be really really thick headed when it comes to Anti-American sentiment.
I don't know why people are having such a hard time dealing with this trailer. It's a game trailer. Last time I checked, this doesn't mimic real life in any form, nor does it advertise itself as a history lesson.
The Ass Creed games have always been pretty even handed in how they portray their characters and factions; those loosely based on real world counterparts anyway. This is why all the publicity for this game comes over badly, because even handed it is not.
I'm not overly bothered, I don't buy new Ubisoft games for my PC, but when I do eventually pick up my used console copy I'd like it to have a decent story; not be some American Patriot's fantasy wank off material.
My main problem with this assessment is that it's not uneven as far as we know. We don't know much of anything about how the game plays out, only that it's from the perspective of the colonists. We have not seen anything that depicts it unevenly. This ad was the closest, but it was clearly aimed at American audiences who were celebrating Independence Day. People are freaking out about this and using it as an excuse for wide spectrum anti-american sentiment, and it's just kind of pathetic that people are freaking over a game we don't know anything about. All the pictures of ingame footage have been mostly battlefields, and last time I checked, they didn't benefit anyone in particular. Also, to point out the obvious, this game is created by a French company. American's don't have any say at all the advertising routes the company takes.
As someone above pointed out, we didn't see an advert to commemorate the Her Majesty's Jubilee which came almost at the same time as the 4th of July. Do you not think that it would've provided a golden opportunity to show off their evenhandedness? Yet they didn't take it. Interesting, no?
LoL, but it's a game about the American Revolution. If they did make a trailer depicting that, it wouldn't make any sense in the context of the game. Also, I don't think that matters to anyone who isn't British. I mean, in the present context it's a conflict involving both sides. And the depictions of battlefield scenes don't tell us anything about the tone of the game. Only that the main character is a patriot. News flash, during the American Revolution people killed other people. If you were on a battlefield, you were on a side killing other people from the other side. People are really going out of their way to hate on this whole idea.
We're generally aware of it, but it doesn't change the target. It's gotten to the point where every time they open their f*cking mouths it's either "We aren't just going to be demonising one side, we're going to be even handed" or "F*ck the red-coats, Amurika F*CK YEAH!". It's really, REALLY hard to imagine the game will be anything other than a load of Colonists and Connor hanging around (personal favourite, him chilling with George Washington, because THAT'S likely from someone who wasn't fond of British or Natives) killing redcoats and creating America on the blood and bones of the evil empire.
And yet despite this jingositic, inaccurate plot of this we probably wouldn't be so pissed off if they wouldn't bald faced LIE about it. If they said "Yeah, we're doing the American War of Independence but it's all from one side" that'd be fine, it's the bullshit "We do it even handedly" that pisses everyone off. I mean, shit, I love AC but I'm really not sure I'm up for buying this, it's just relentless in the bullshit.
First of all, Connor's meant to be a Native American. Historically, he should hate the Colonists for what they're doing/did to his people.
Second, I don't think Altair's religion is ever outright stated. According to the Assassin's Creed wikia he had a Christian Mother and a Muslim Father, but nothing more than that so...source?
Third, Christians were not the 'major villains' of AC1. Templars were. Not Crusaders, not Saracens. Templars. You will note that Templars were on both sides. Not just the British Crusaders. Considering that
You get a whole scene where you reveal Robert's treachery to King Richard and he denounces him (strong reinforcer that Templars are villains, not Crusaders, followed by Robert revealing that Al Mualim is the true puppeteer - not the Crusaders.
Unless you're gonna claim that Al Mualim was a Christian?
Fourth, the rest of your post would have more weight if many of the objections weren't about Ubisoft seemingly lying about their product being "even-handed" when all the marketing is Americo-centric.
In this trailer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W6JsIyiQHE&feature=relmfu] the character says, "They speak of Liberty and Justice, but for who?"
To me that indicates that this game isn't exactly going to be shitting eagles and apple pie. Obviously the romanticized ideals of individual liberty are going to play an important part, but it's not likely that all of the colonists are going to be good all of the time. I mean, think about it. It takes place in the colonies, who do you think is going to be guarding some of the cities? Who do you think you're going to have to probably stab HUNDREDS of by the end of the game?
Unless literally every city everywhere in the game is always under British control, you are going to be stabbing a metric fuckton of American colonists.
It's a fucking trailer, guys. Released on the day of the celebration of the event it focuses on no less.
Chill the fuck out.
EDIT:
In this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cXbigJHjs8&feature=relmfu] the character says "let the patriots fight their own battles."
So is this the new thing devs are going to be doing to advertise games? Fun though they may be to watch they tell me just as little about the quality of the game as it did when they would simply put out pre-rendered trailers.
There's a point where being histroically accurate and/or having a different take on things becomes blatant pandering to a single market at the exclusion of another one. And I think I saw that point about halfway through the video. Put the patriotism card back in the deck Ubi, you're not doing yourself any favours in the long run.
Also, "Refusing to learn the history of a country I'll never see"? I think fair enough. It may sound belligerent coming from him, but no-one should be forced to learn history if they don't want to. -_-
First of all, Connor's meant to be a Native American. Historically, he should hate the Colonists for what they're doing/did to his people.
Second, I don't think Altair's religion is ever outright stated. According to the Assassin's Creed wikia he had a Christian Mother and a Muslim Father, but nothing more than that so...source?
Third, Christians were not the 'major villains' of AC1. Templars were. Not Crusaders, not Saracens. Templars. You will note that Templars were on both sides. Not just the British Crusaders. Considering that
You get a whole scene where you reveal Robert's treachery to King Richard and he denounces him (strong reinforcer that Templars are villains, not Crusaders, followed by Robert revealing that Al Mualim is the true puppeteer - not the Crusaders.
Unless you're gonna claim that Al Mualim was a Christian?
Fourth, the rest of your post would have more weight if many of the objections weren't about Ubisoft seemingly lying about their product being "even-handed" when all the marketing is Americo-centric.
It's true, Altaire's religion was implied as he answered directly to a Muslim leader. But also the naming convention is that of Islamic background, specifically the use of term "ibn" within his name, which means "son of". But I recognize that it could also be a result of his regional upbringing. The Knights Templar are among the most famous Western Christian Military Orders. They were representative of the Christian role in the Crusades, as well as many other knightly orders. Some of the more famous of those others being units like the Hospitallers (not sure if this is spelled correctly). As far as Al Mualin being the puppet master, you didn't know till the end that was the situation. The staging ground were the Crusades which was a war between Islam and Christendom, though that conflict is in the backround. That is not to say the background conflict to this title will not be the revolution. But Altaire clearly killed men of Christian descent, and I will say it again, no one had an issue with this. And the staged main villain was obviously Knights that were part of the Christian empires of the era.
Second, a person of Native American descent would have equal reasons to hate the British and colonists. Yet, there were many situations, historically, where Native Americans did not hate the colonists. There was a great divide among the various Native American tribes, some fought on the side of the Colonists, other on the side of the loyalists. Also, with a name like Connors, he is not specifically Native American, he is a mix. His name sake is Irish, who historically have had plenty of reason to hate and despise the British.
Once again, no proof is given that it's not even handed. Such statements can't even be argued till someone has played the game. You know nothing about the game, as I know nothing about the game. All we have seen is a handful of action shots. But regardless of the outcome, the broad spectrum anti american sentiment caused by this is what annoys me.
It's making it damn hard for me to like this game as a Brit. I mean it's saying we're the bad guys pretty damn clearly despite that being less than true ( http://www.cracked.com/article_18442_5-reasons-founding-fathers-were-kind-dicks.html ).
There's definitely some preposterous notion of black and white that's being enforced by this game. The past two Assassins Creed games weren't even remotely based on the conflict of the time and it had you assassinating people on both sides of the war.
I mean I know it's only a game but for a series that accurately represented the cities of the time to the point that it's instantly recognisable to people who've been there, it doesn't seem to care even remotely for an accurate portrayal of the war.
.
Dude.
It was a trailer. Just one. There will be more. It was specifically out for the fourth of July. OF COURSE IT WAS FOR THE AMERICANS. I can expect to see a trailer for the British.
I agree with the many other commentors. This game seems to take an awful amount of sides. Yes, they have said how neutral the game will be, but so far all the trailers have been awfully littered with Red-Coat bodies. I am not taking sides myself, being scandinavian, but this doesn't look very 'neutral' to me.
Just going to leave this here:
http://kotaku.com/5918810/can-americans-not-handle-the-sight-of-their-ancestors-being-killed-in-assassins-creed
In summary: Every single thing in advertising and publicity so far has been anti-British, not just this trailer. The reason apparently being that Ubisoft thinks that Americans either can't cope with the idea of colonists being assassinated. Or would get confused by it, thinking Connor is fighting on the side of the Brits.
And yet despite this jingositic, inaccurate plot of this we probably wouldn't be so pissed off if they wouldn't bald faced LIE about it. If they said "Yeah, we're doing the American War of Independence but it's all from one side" that'd be fine, it's the bullshit "We do it even handedly" that pisses everyone off. I mean, shit, I love AC but I'm really not sure I'm up for buying this, it's just relentless in the bullshit.
That's only about 25% of the reason it bothers me. Sure, they said it was going to be moralistically-balanced; the other thing they said is that they're focused on telling Assassin's Creed stories, not revolution/history stories.
What, apparently, have the trailers thus far shown us about our protagonist, his views, motives, allies, enemies, his journey or his goal?
The trailers, (particularly this new one) have been very much more focused on presenting a revolution story; and seemingly not even a fair one at that. Beside that; they are supposed to be using {mostly} historical accuracy as a base for story-telling. The Animus is supposed to be rendering 'history as it really was', and 'without the tint of historical bias'.
Ironyeeeee...
Though even if it were to be some astute use of irony to underline just such a theme; saying on the one hand that your work will transcend immature, politically dismissive, ahistorical, absolutist, romanticized nationalist fantasy; while on on the other hand appealing to those very things in it's promotion; strikes me as wanting to have one's cake and eat it too.
pffftttt hahahaha ubisoft your really taking this whole the "British aren't the enemy the templars are" thing really seriously I mean for god sakes this game is getting more and more into american masturbation material with every announcement.
It's true, Altaire's religion was implied as he answered directly to a Muslim leader. But also the naming convention is that of Islamic background, specifically the use of term "ibn" within his name, which means "son of". But I recognize that it could also be a result of his regional upbringing.
As noted, he had a Muslim father - and a Christian mother. His religious beliefs have never been stated as far as a I know (nor have Al Mualim's). Considering the theme of the game was focused more on the Control/Safety of the Templars vs. the Freedom/Chaos of the Assassins, religion simply wasn't important. They were two factions which have philosophical opposition which have nothing to do with religion.
Baresark said:
The Knights Templar are among the most famous Western Christian Military Orders. They were representative of the Christian role in the Crusades, as well as many other knightly orders. Some of the more famous of those others being units like the Hospitallers (not sure if this is spelled correctly).
"The Knights Templar" are not the Templars of the AC series. The real version may be a Christian order but the AC version is nothing of the sort especially since the Templars as an AC faction predate Christianity by hundreds if not thousands of years.
Baresark said:
As far as Al Mualin being the puppet master, you didn't know till the end that was the situation. The staging ground were the Crusades which was a war between Islam and Christendom, though that conflict is in the backround. That is not to say the background conflict to this title will not be the revolution. But Altaire clearly killed men of Christian descent, and I will say it again, no one had an issue with this.
Yes, he killed men of Christian descent. He also killed men of Muslim descent. Saracen men. And, as noted, Altairs own religious affiliations were never stated and indeed weren't important. The background conflict may have been religious, but the conflict of Altair was Assassins vs. Templars. We can draw a rather clear parallel to Assassins Creed 3, where the purported conflict of Connor is Assassins vs. Templars and the background conflict is the Colonial Rebellions, but thus far we've seen no evidence of this being the case. At all. All the press demos, the trailers, the screenshots, indicate that the background conflict and primary conflict of our protagonist are one and the same cut across the lines of American Assassins vs. British Templars.
You see why some people may have a problem?
Baresark said:
Second, a person of Native American descent would have equal reasons to hate the British and colonists. Yet, there were many situations, historically, where Native Americans did not hate the colonists. There was a great divide among the various Native American tribes, some fought on the side of the Colonists, other on the side of the loyalists. Also, with a name like Connors, he is not specifically Native American, he is a mix. His name sake is Irish, who historically have had plenty of reason to hate and despise the British.
He's indeed a mix - half-British, half-Native American. From the Assassin's Creed wikia [http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Connor_Kenway]:
Born to a British father and Mohawk mother, Ratonhnhaké:ton was raised among his mother's tribe. He suffered severely during his childhood, largely from the tribe's encounters with European colonists; a conflict that reached its peak when his village was destroyed by a colonial force.
Connor was raised Native American, had a British father and had his home village destroyed by Colonists. "Connor" isn't even his real name. He took it later on. He had no reason to side with the Colonists given his history. If they don't address this it'll be an enormous mis-step
Baresark said:
Once again, no proof is given that it's not even handed. Such statements can't even be argued till someone has played the game. You know nothing about the game, as I know nothing about the game. All we have seen is a handful of action shots. But regardless of the outcome, the broad spectrum anti american sentiment caused by this is what annoys me.
We know some of the game - they've given press demos. All of which focused on killing British people. The Kotaku article linked above indicates as such.
Oh dear God a trailer released on American Independence Day that's clearly advertising a game made in Canada by a French company to Americans is pandering to a romantic American view of the American Revolution. How unexpected! Remember when they advertised all those Christians and Chosen People of God you were going to kill in the first Assassin's Creed? No? Huh, me neither. Why didn't I hear all the Russians crying about Cally of Duty: Let's Kill Some Ruskies, or whatever. Get some thicker skin, Brits. Yes we know it sucks that having a tiny land mass means you can only be a ghost of the mighty empire you used to be, but I think it's time to get over it.
Having a small landmass did nothing to stop the English from creating a massive empire so why would it have caused the collapse of that very same empire?
I'm also a little confused by Christians and chosen people of god line. Aren't they the same thing in much the same way that Muslims are also the chosen people of god etc.
I'm not sure about you but the only vid Ive seen of a Russian man and call of duty combined was that very same Russian man filling his copy of the game with bullet holes.
After WWII there was a massive decolonization movement that granted independence to most of Britain's empire, leaving what's left almost laughably small by comparison. Being a small island doesn't matter when you're free to run about conquering whatever you think would look good on your map, but since that's no longer the case, then no more mighty empire for you.
Actually one of the big points of contrast between Christianity and Judaism or Islam is that the Christians don't believe people are chosen by god but rather that it is a personal choice. Ubisoft made a point of calling it 'The Holy Land' and not Israel or Palestine. Just like they made a point of having the people call themselves 'The chosen people of god' and not Muslims.
I guess there are just fewer Russians to complain at my usual Internet haunts. Also I didn't follow any of the news fo the CoD franchise, so that could explain why I never noticed.
Just goes to show stuff I don't know about religion
Also I'm Australian - a large island and still technically a part of the empire though I'm not sure why
LoL, you are really hung up on this. There is no reason to assume that it's not even handed based on anything that has been seen. The conflict that has been going on since long before this game is obviously the main point of the game. And as in previous installments, the game is framed against other more overt conflicts. There are as always, two sides to the war. You folks are just really hung up on it being from the perspective of the colonists. As for this:
Connor was raised Native American, had a British father and had his home village destroyed by Colonists. "Connor" isn't even his real name. He took it later on. He had no reason to side with the Colonists given his history. If they don't address this it'll be an enormous mis-step.
You are making my point. No one knows about how the game plays out. You are basing it off of speculation and nothing else. You have seen some pictures and assume to know more about the game than you possibly could. Your statement demonstrates how little any of us know about it.
still looking forward to play this game. and i think i read somewhere here that you will be killing americans as well, not just british. but they sure show a lot of brits getting killed so far.
regarding the kid. it sounds stupid i agree, but i guess he wanted to say that the future will change, so why believe in the past if it will be totally irrelevant if the british win.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
