Assassin's Creed 3 Catch-All

Speedhuntr wrote:

Soooooooo....is John Wilkes Booth an Assassin? Making Lincoln a Templar?

I'm only half joking. :P

I think in one of the Subject 13 puzzles, they establish the opposite.

Very excited about this possibility for AC3 and for the continuation of the series in what is probably my favorite period in history, the American Revolution!

It would be amazing if Ben Franklin was the new assassin's Leonardo and I'd love to see the series to incorporate more outside of city sequences as well.

Muskets. Yay.

Am I the only one who thinks that American Revolution assassin looks a bit silly? Like Colbert-style satire?

shoptroll wrote:

Very cool that they're doing the American Revolution (you really don't see this used often in non-strategy games).

FTFY.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks that American Revolution assassin looks a bit silly? Like Colbert-style satire?

No. That's what I'm thinking as well, but I don't follow the series so I'm really confused by this.

FTFY.

*golf clap*

Very cool that they're doing the American Revolution (you really don't see this used often in games). But as someone who doesn't follow the series, I would've expected them to drop the iconic hood for something more appropriate for the period/locale. I guess there's some lore bit that explains the clothing?

They posted the official box art on Facebook.

IMAGE(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/422433_10150594293533068_6119163067_9102678_2093581204_n.jpg)

Whoah. Definitely assassinating the British, there.

shoptroll wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks that American Revolution assassin looks a bit silly? Like Colbert-style satire?

No. That's what I'm thinking as well, but I don't follow the series so I'm really confused by this.

Well, there is a very well written critique of the first two games over at Gamasutra that goes into some of the background on that.

Matthew LoPresti wrote:

As stated earlier, the original Hashshashin fortress was named Alamut, which most likely meant “Eagle's Teaching” in Arabic. Ubisoft decided to take the next logical step in Hashshashin lore and made each assassin represent an eagle. The most damning of all evidence is that the name “Altair” loosely translates to “The Flying One” in Arabic.

nel e nel wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks that American Revolution assassin looks a bit silly? Like Colbert-style satire?

No. That's what I'm thinking as well, but I don't follow the series so I'm really confused by this.

Well, there is a very well written critique of the first two games over at Gamasutra that goes into some of the background on that.

Matthew LoPresti wrote:

As stated earlier, the original Hashshashin fortress was named Alamut, which most likely meant “Eagle's Teaching” in Arabic. Ubisoft decided to take the next logical step in Hashshashin lore and made each assassin represent an eagle. The most damning of all evidence is that the name “Altair” loosely translates to “The Flying One” in Arabic.

And Ezio loosely translates to "eagle".

I wonder if this one will have an induction and training sequence, of if you'll be an assassin from the start.

Scratched wrote:

I wonder if this one will have an induction and training sequence, of if you'll be an assassin from the start.

Spirit Quest.

Speedhuntr wrote:
Scratched wrote:

I wonder if this one will have an induction and training sequence, of if you'll be an assassin from the start.

Spirit Quest.

By the way, does anyone know when Prey2 is out?

Vector wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks that American Revolution assassin looks a bit silly? Like Colbert-style satire?

No. That's what I'm thinking as well, but I don't follow the series so I'm really confused by this.

Well, there is a very well written critique of the first two games over at Gamasutra that goes into some of the background on that.

Matthew LoPresti wrote:

As stated earlier, the original Hashshashin fortress was named Alamut, which most likely meant “Eagle's Teaching” in Arabic. Ubisoft decided to take the next logical step in Hashshashin lore and made each assassin represent an eagle. The most damning of all evidence is that the name “Altair” loosely translates to “The Flying One” in Arabic.

And Ezio loosely translates to "eagle".

I guess the outfit, being a mixture of white and brown, does somewhat resemble the American bald eagle. As an aside, the Assassin doesn't look very Caucasian. African? Aboriginal?

I actually enjoyed the first Assassin's Creed quite a bit. Tried playing the second and grew tired of it pretty quickly; the gameplay and environment just felt too "samey" to me, even though the time period had shifted a bit. Haven't touched an Assassin's Creed game since. I think the renaissance was maybe just too well-explored in gaming to really hold my interest. Gave it a "been there, done that" feel.

This setting, though... that might get me. Not many games dive into the American revolution.

Thirteenth wrote:

I guess the outfit, being a mixture of white and brown, does somewhat resemble the American bald eagle. As an aside, the Assassin doesn't look very Caucasian. African? Aboriginal?

It's probably Desmond's new ancestor, so he will look undefinably ethnic.

Oh, God. This is going to be another 'America the myth' storyline isn't it? I'd have thought having a character that kills both British and Yanks would have been better.

They need to license this song and play it while I walk slow-mo with my hood up during the Boston tea party.

1Dgaf wrote:

Oh, God. This is going to be another 'America the myth' storyline isn't it? I'd have thought having a character that kills both British and Yanks would have been better.

Hard to say this won't happen just yet.

Funny how people are saying that this setting and story look so familiar. I cannot think of another non-strategy game that has used this as a setting and even in the world of strategy games, I can only think of two: Empire: Total War and the Civ series. Even then, Civ was never really about the revolution. In other media, I think of the Mel Gibson movie which was actually kind of crappy. Hell, I'm from Philly originally and went to high school near a major Revolution battle (Paoli Massacre) and think it's a surprisingly under-used time period...*

My point is I don't think this particular period has been beaten to death... Could it be that people are just tired of American-centric games? I could honestly see British citizens in particular rolling their eyes at this, especially since the AC series has traditionally hit more exotic locales.

Spoiler:

*although maybe not since the 1770's was about the transition from sword to gun, and games usually fall on one side or the other of that spectrum.

The image of a British soldier being murdered with what appears to be a tomahawk seemingly in support of the American revolution makes me extremely uncomfortable.

4xis.black wrote:

The image of a British soldier being murdered with what appears to be a tomahawk seemingly in support of the American revolution makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I'm not sure I get why. The image is no different than any number of other kills pulled off by Altair or Ezio in any of the other Assassin's Creed games.

IMAGE(http://georgibomb.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/assassins-creed-ii.png)

Thin_J wrote:
4xis.black wrote:

The image of a British soldier being murdered with what appears to be a tomahawk seemingly in support of the American revolution makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I'm not sure I get why. The image is no different than any number of other kills pulled off by Altair or Ezio in any of the other Assassin's Creed games.

I'd also be interested in hearing why.

I'll still pre-order this once steam lets me. I'm not a huge fan of the whole America thing. Maybe you need to be American for it to really mean something. Don't know. But if I've learned anything from these games, it's that the developers are pretty damn good at some really fun gameplay and a great story so I'm hooked anyway.

Still think they missed a good opportunity with the whole japan thing. I mean really. Ninjas! And dudes in big Samurai armour. Ah well.

Spoiler:

Keep your friends close...

What potentially disappoints me is that in the leaked banner ad, the protagonist is seen guiding George Washington across the Delaware River.

Spoiler:

Wasn't it implied in one of the earlier games that Washington was a Templar? Something about a piece of Eden.

And thinking more about the history of this time period, I guarantee you that even though Ubisoft will find a story reason to make redcoats = evil Templars, this game will offend more people than the other two games combined.

I'm also predicting that this game's tutorial starts with the French Indian War.

I also predict that the main character will end up in France for the French Revolution in a sequel.

Grubber788 wrote:

What potentially disappoints me is that in the leaked banner ad, the protagonist is seen guiding George Washington across the Delaware River.

Spoiler:

Wasn't it implied in one of the earlier games that Washington was a Templar? Something about a piece of Eden.

And thinking more about the history of this time period, I guarantee you that even though Ubisoft will find a story reason to make redcoats = evil Templars, this game will offend more people than the other two games combined.

I'm also predicting that this game's tutorial starts with the French Indian War.

I also predict that the main character will end up in France for the French Revolution in a sequel.

I really don't understand why.

Speedhuntr wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

What potentially disappoints me is that in the leaked banner ad, the protagonist is seen guiding George Washington across the Delaware River.

Spoiler:

Wasn't it implied in one of the earlier games that Washington was a Templar? Something about a piece of Eden.

And thinking more about the history of this time period, I guarantee you that even though Ubisoft will find a story reason to make redcoats = evil Templars, this game will offend more people than the other two games combined.

I'm also predicting that this game's tutorial starts with the French Indian War.

I also predict that the main character will end up in France for the French Revolution in a sequel.

I really don't understand why.

I'm not saying I will be offended (I suspect this game will be easier to swallow as an American), but historically, the Revolution was a complicated event. For instance, it's commonly taught in the US that the Americans won the war, but really, the British got tired with fighting an expensive war with France egging them on. Plus, given the fact that this scenario takes place in a more recent era, I think the likelihood of empathizing with characters is higher. If the British are portrayed as meaningless bad guys, without any context for the historical facts of the situation, then it's somewhat offensive, from both a historical and a nationalistic point of view.

Ultimately, I am really interested to see how the alternate history is presented. I will be disappointed if it's closer to what I learned in elementary school than what I learned in college.

I'm wiling to give Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt though and am looking forward to giving this a shot.

Edit: Something else to consider, I'd wager that American, British and Canadian gamers constitute a large portion of Ubisoft's target audience. This game is bound to impugn at least one group's heritage.

Grubber788 wrote:

What potentially disappoints me is that in the leaked banner ad, the protagonist is seen guiding George Washington across the Delaware River.

Spoiler:

Wasn't it implied in one of the earlier games that Washington was a Templar? Something about a piece of Eden.

And thinking more about the history of this time period, I guarantee you that even though Ubisoft will find a story reason to make redcoats = evil Templars, this game will offend more people than the other two games combined.

Response to the entire thing:

Spoiler:

Supposedly, the US presidents were keepers of an Apple, and Kennedy was actually assassinated so Abstergo could get it. So this might explain how this came to be.

About the Brits being templars: That's where I think it gets weird.

From reading the wiki, the Templars after 1525 or so are extraordinarily weak, because Ezio stabbed them all. Apparently, that's when they transformed from a world power to the "modern" cloak and shadow game, and started working in the background. I have a feeling that it's not going to be the Assassin-backed US against the Templar-backed Brits as much as it's going to be the new guy stabbing a lot of random people on both sides.

Plus, even if the Templars still controlled the Vatican, England wasn't really on speaking terms with them around 1780.

Also, 4xis.black:
Native Americans fought on both the French and British sides in the French-Indian war. Also, and I actually didn't know this, there were a few tribes that did side with the Americans during the Revolutionary war.

EDIT because it was less spoilery than I think anyone cares about.