Assassin's Creed 3 Catch-All

Nice video. Can't wait to see how combat will actually play out a bit more other than the flashes and tiny bits of it we get to see. It's definitely number 1 on my list of games this year. Definitely looking forward to it.

The use of the words 'freedom and liberty' grated with me a bit. I don't think it's the words themselves but the fact that they are being used in a modern, hollow and jingoistic way rather than as a direct, practical description of the struggle at hand.

Also, there is only so much flag waving I'm comfortable with.

Higgledy wrote:

The use of the words 'freedom and liberty' grated with me a bit. I don't think it's the words themselves but the fact that they are being used in a modern, hollow and jingoistic way rather than as a direct, practical description of the struggle at hand.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me that much, because one of the fundamental themes of the series has been self-determination versus control.

Unfortunately, I think that makes the civil war period really cliche. I'm honestly wondering how much of the "stick it to the Brits" is going to be motivated by the fact that Ubisoft is a French company.

Higgledy wrote:

The use of the words 'freedom and liberty' grated with me a bit. I don't think it's the words themselves but the fact that they are being used in a modern, hollow and jingoistic way rather than as a direct, practical description of the struggle at hand.

Also, there is only so much flag waving I'm comfortable with.

This whole game is going to be uncomfortable as heck for all concerned. That language is the least of it.

Have you read The Federalist Papers or any of the other literature from the time? On your side of things, look at Locke's work. This mess is where those words being used that way was started. They didn't get twisted into what we call Jingoism until a hundred years later. It would be weird if he didn't use them.

momgamer wrote:
Higgledy wrote:

The use of the words 'freedom and liberty' grated with me a bit. I don't think it's the words themselves but the fact that they are being used in a modern, hollow and jingoistic way rather than as a direct, practical description of the struggle at hand.

Also, there is only so much flag waving I'm comfortable with.

This whole game is going to be uncomfortable as heck for all concerned. That language is the least of it. ;)

It's a mine field but at the same time the perfect setting for a game like this.

momgamer wrote:

Have you read The Federalist Papers or any of the other literature from the time? On your side of things, look at Locke's work. This mess is where those words being used that way was started. They didn't get twisted into what we call Jingoism until a hundred years later. It would be weird if he didn't use them.

Watching the trailer again the language isn't as pretentious as it seemed this morning.

I'll have a read of some of the papers you suggest. This game may lead me to read up more on the war of independence (I enjoy military history, etc.) For some reason it isn't a part of history that's gone into in great detail over here :).

We don't study it as much as we should around here either. But my rant on education is a whole 'nother thing.

Maybe, just for informational purposes, we should get reviewer's History grades to go along with their review scores. I think it's going to matter on this one.

It would be great of Ubisoft added Valve-like dev commentary, because from what I've read, they take this stuff very seriously.

The amount of pregame discussion and commentary has me super excited about the implications of what this game will be once it is out.

momgamer wrote:

Maybe, just for informational purposes, we should get reviewer's History grades to go along with their review scores. I think it's going to matter on this one.

So far, it's pretty good. The entire speech from Washington in the first trailer? Taken directly from his general orders, from July 2nd, 1776.

cube wrote:
momgamer wrote:

Maybe, just for informational purposes, we should get reviewer's History grades to go along with their review scores. I think it's going to matter on this one.

So far, it's pretty good. The entire speech from Washington in the first trailer? Taken directly from his general orders, from July 2nd, 1776.

I know the developers are paying attention. They've been doing an awesome job studying and thinking things through. I'm more concerned that the reviewers (and gamers) aren't going to have a clue and ding the game for stuff that really happened.

cube wrote:

So far, it's pretty good. The entire speech from Washington in the first trailer? Taken directly from his general orders, from July 2nd, 1776.

Forums were really hard to read back in the olden days.

New gameplay footage:

Looking good!

...Dude. In the Sony show, they've revealed there's a sequence where you man an old timey sailin' ship, grabbing the wheel, giving the order to fire, and bringing it around for a boarding party. So, yeah, I'm sold again. My AC:R angst is over. Dammit. I'm such a doormat.

All they need to do is let me press the pre-order button on steam and the money is theirs. Seriously, that looks awesome.

Guess I'd better get to playing the last 2 AC games already.

Like I was saying in IRC earlier today:

If you don't already own both Brotherhood and Revelations, play Brotherhood and then decide if you're invested in Ezio's story enough to play Rev. Brotherhood really feels like AC3.0 in terms of features. Rev is a lot more like a 3.1. It adds a bit, but nothing absolutely necessary.

If you own both, there's no reason to play both.

I said this in another thread, but I have a huge soft spot for naval stuff, that alone makes AC3 a must-buy, and potential GOTY favorite for me.

cube wrote:

Like I was saying in IRC earlier today:

If you don't already own both Brotherhood and Revelations, play Brotherhood and then decide if you're invested in Ezio's story enough to play Rev. Brotherhood really feels like AC3.0 in terms of features. Rev is a lot more like a 3.1. It adds a bit, but nothing absolutely necessary.

If you own both, there's no reason to play both.

I think for story reasons, if you're skipping Revelations you ought to check youtube/wikis to fill in the blanks. There are some points that are potentially important to the series' narrative.

Blind_Evil wrote:

I said this in another thread, but I have a huge soft spot for naval stuff, that alone makes AC3 a must-buy, and potential GOTY favorite for me.

As soon as they started the ship sequence, I got pretty uneasy. I have issues with "loose control" sequences. It's a fairly large ship, so I'm guessing it's going to be slow turning and awkward to aim. Considering how dramatic that scene was, I imagine they'll make it easy enough so that most people won't have to replay the scene. So it could be an awkwardly controlled "turret sequence".

This is also thinking about how the AC series has tried to implement new ideas to break up the normal (amazing) gameplay: Leonardo machines in Brohood, horsecart chases, tower defense. They were all weird breaks in the gameplay that felt under-developed and awkward to control.

So considering how Ubi has normally handled these breaks in base AC gameplay, the ship sequence might just be a 15 minute side-quest that you jump to in certain parts of the story. I'd be really curious to know if they make it into something more.... It WAS real pretty.

Naval battle gameplay:

w00t!

nel e nel wrote:

Naval battle gameplay:

Holy sh*t. I was sold on the game already, but that looks friggin' amazing.

nel e nel wrote:

Naval battle gameplay:

w00t!

That looks like it could be an interesting game but what does that have to do with Assassin's Creed? What's that? It is Assassin's Creed? The f*ck?

Between this and the running around in the woods video, I'm losing my game boner over this. I'm sure plenty of people would like a naval battle game and Red Dead Redemption was a good game but they aren't Assassin's Creed. I want to climb sh*t and ice dudes, damn it.

I wish I could get the steelbook version for PC.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Between this and the running around in the woods video, I'm losing my game boner over this. I'm sure plenty of people would like a naval battle game and Red Dead Redemption was a good game but they aren't Assassin's Creed. I want to climb sh*t and ice dudes, damn it.

Pretty sure you'll still be able to do plenty of climbing around and leaping down on people to knife them. I really like that they're adding new things, rather than just making this "faffing about creed" only in the woods.

That naval warfare looks amazing. I am glad they are doing different things with the series. It started to get stale with revelations. I am so excited for this.

Adding new things is a good thing. But, when that new thing is naval combat to a stealthy-exploration assassination game?

AssBro had you defending the walls of a town with cannons.

muttonchop wrote:

AssBro had you defending the walls of a town with cannons.

Yep, and it was kind of awful.

muttonchop wrote:

AssBro had you defending the walls of a town with cannons.

And that was dumb. So was the glider flying part and pretty much every vehicle-type sequence that I can remember.

tl;dr I want to climb on sh*t and ice dudes. I also want to know why they killed Veronica Mars.

Old naval combat and navigation is awesome regardless of context and I will brook no argument on the matter.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Old naval combat and navigation is awesome regardless of context and I will brook no argument on the matter.

Aye aye!

iaintgotnopants wrote:

I want to climb sh*t and ice dudes, damn it.

Did you not see the other video. There was lots of climbing and icing of said dudes in that trailer. Seriously, it still looks like Assassin's Creed... just without the large number of buildings.