I usually don't spend a lot of time in Dakka's videogame section, because I spend most of my time writing about games on German websites, but here's something I wanted to share with you:
Assassin's Creed III will take place in the late 18th century during the American revolution. Our main character is a native American who prefers his blade of choice to be less....well... hidden.
Playing a native american doesn't make a huge amount of sense...
How is a native american meant to be descended from Altair or Ezio? How is desmond (who doesn't look even the least bit native american) descended from this new character?
I mean I'm all for a new time period and a new character but this doesn't make sense.
corpsesarefun wrote:Playing a native american doesn't make a huge amount of sense...
How is a native american meant to be descended from Altair or Ezio? How is desmond (who doesn't look even the least bit native american) descended from this new character?
I mean I'm all for a new time period and a new character but this doesn't make sense.
Wait, you thought this series was trying to make sense?
Don't be silly they're making it up as they go along!
Why do I keep hearing he's a Native? Because of his tomahawk? It's a weapon, not an identity. He seems to have somewhat dark skin, but that could be shading or he's from somewhere where darker skin is the norm.
What I have a problem with is that there are no big cities to go climbing around in revolutionary America. There might be a church or two, but it won't be to the scale of the first 2 and the half sequels.
Also, the blade can clearly be seen. Also,Ubisoft is right pissed about the whole "Leaking images" thing.
I don't see Native American. I see a Limey about to get a really, really close shave.
Hm... maybe we'll see a few more jumps through history? Instead of having 3 games with 1 character, we'll have 1 game with 2-3 characters? An ancestor in the American revolution, setting out to stop a group a group of British Templars before they find some sort of secret in the American wilderness?
Oh... wait. Isn't there that whole story about people finding Templar signs carved into rocks in the States, apparently showing the way to the Holy Grail? I bet that's the plot. Bam.
Oh so just because it's set in the American Civil War the British are the bad guys?
I mean, yeah that's probably what's gonna happen but it doesn't have to be like that...
You could have templars on both sides and have him have to kill of members of both armies...
purplefood wrote:Oh so just because it's set in the American Civil War the British are the bad guys?
REVOLUTIONARY WAR.
The British weren't even a part of the American Civil War!
Oh for Crisps sake! That's the second time i've done that... You know the one i mean... The one where you guys were fighting each other as opposed to fighting us... Seriously not trolling though...
corpsesarefun wrote:Just wondering, is there any official confirmation he is native american?
No, but Ubisoft has claimed they will release more information on March 5th.
I'm guessing the native american description is based on the tomahawk, and design of quiver seen in some of the other images, but I'm not convinced by that.
corpsesarefun wrote:Just wondering, is there any official confirmation he is native american?
No, but Ubisoft has claimed they will release more information on March 5th.
I'm guessing the native american description is based on the tomahawk, and design of quiver seen in some of the other images, but I'm not convinced by that.
He really doesn't look it and it doesn't make much sense considering he is one of desmond's ancestors... I'm guessing he is a non-native american assassin that works with natives americans.
Its possible he is a Native American with a white ancestor, or a native recruited into the Assassins to help them in the New World and his blood line eventually mixed into Enzio's at some point. There are numerous ways to resolve the question.
I stopped liking AC when they made the sequel and you weren't Altair. Ezio was a and ruined everything for me. The game is dreadful now, it makes even less sense than it used to.
I think I'd find it offensive to be killing British people (since I am one) in this game, and we're probably the bad guys, which I think the picture's hinting at. So I'm going to leave it well alone.
I wouldn't think they'd be one-sided in a (relatively) recent era, I'm grasping at straws, but you could quite possibly fight both sides of the war, in which the Templars are both Revolutionaries and British. Just a guess though.
Skarwael wrote:I think I'd find it offensive to be killing British people (since I am one) in this game, and we're probably the bad guys, which I think the picture's hinting at. So I'm going to leave it well alone.
1. It's the American Revolution, so really it's Brits killing Brits.
2. Come of your high horse. I'm sure there are plenty of Russian and Arabs who play the Modern Warfare series, and there are plenty of Italians and Spaniards who play the Ezio-series of Assassins Creed.
3. The others may be right, especially if this ancestor is an Indian, since they weren't entirely happy with either the Americans or the British.
corpsesarefun wrote:Just wondering, is there any official confirmation he is native american?
No, but Ubisoft has claimed they will release more information on March 5th.
I'm guessing the native american description is based on the tomahawk, and design of quiver seen in some of the other images, but I'm not convinced by that.
He really doesn't look it and it doesn't make much sense considering he is one of desmond's ancestors... I'm guessing he is a non-native american assassin that works with natives americans.
Well, don't forget we also have to somehow get Italian Edzio a descendant in the New World, where Italy never had colonies.
Soladrin wrote:Yet you still took their language, for shame.
To be fair, we treat it like we treat most things we take: shamefully.
Also, for the people saying that Desmond isn't a Native American because he's obviously Italian. What's to say that in 190derp that the great-great-etc. grandson of Ezio didn't make it with the great-great-etc. granddaughter of Axeman up there.
I've seen absolutely no proof that he's a Native other than that he has a bow and a tomahawk. He has the bow for stealth reasons. Which is louder, a gun or a bow? And tomahawks aren't bad weapons.
moom241 wrote:I've seen absolutely no proof that he's a Native other than that he has a bow and a tomahawk. He has the bow for stealth reasons. Which is louder, a gun or a bow? And tomahawks aren't bad weapons.
Question: when has Assassin's Creed ever been about stealth?
Am I the only one who wishes the series stayed in the Crusades and never had the bizzare sci-fi slant? I wouldn't mind sequels so long as they weren't story connected and just showcased assassins from different cultures and eras.
Honestly the idea that some random group of Islamic radicals got into some pissing match with a much larger and more politically influencial group of radical Christians is pretty fantastic to start with so I guess I didn't mind
asimo77 wrote:Am I the only one who wishes the series stayed in the Crusades and never had the bizzare sci-fi slant? I wouldn't mind sequels so long as they weren't story connected and just showcased assassins from different cultures and eras.
I dunno, for me the game loses a lot of its impact without the sci-fi aspects. I mean, the sort of underlining story is that not only are the Assassins at war with the Templars, but that their constant struggles throughout history have changed the world as a whole. If it's just disconnected sequels, you'd really lose that effect of being able to look into the future (our past) and see the ongoing conflict between the Assassins. Or at least you wouldn't be able to see it without several games, each one showing a different struggle.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:I stopped liking AC when they made the sequel and you weren't Altair. Ezio was a and ruined everything for me. The game is dreadful now, it makes even less sense than it used to.
To each his own, then. Assassin's Creed was boring. The game literally had no plot other than "Altair acts like a prick and, over the course of a 20-hour game, slowly regains his abilities while you spend hours assassinating nine seemingly random people." Nothing happened until the very, very end of the game when the Apple showed up. Every single "level" was the same - traipsing through one of three cities, finding information on the target, and eventually killing him. Plus, Altair didn't have any real personality. I mean, the Ezio trilogy at least had an engrossing storyline, and told the story of basically Ezio's entire life as an Assassin through three different games. Not only that, but there was some actual mission variance, and a far less dull and boring set of cities to romp around in.
I just have to say, you're the first person I've seen who enjoyed the first game over all three of its sequels. I almost didn't buy AC2 or Brotherhood simply because the first one was so dull and uninteresting.
corpsesarefun wrote:Just wondering, is there any official confirmation he is native american?
No, but Ubisoft has claimed they will release more information on March 5th.
I'm guessing the native american description is based on the tomahawk, and design of quiver seen in some of the other images, but I'm not convinced by that.
He really doesn't look it and it doesn't make much sense considering he is one of desmond's ancestors... I'm guessing he is a non-native american assassin that works with natives americans.
Well, don't forget we also have to somehow get Italian Edzio a descendant in the New World, where Italy never had colonies.
I thought New Jersey was a colony of Italy. I must have my facts mixed up. Damn television is killing me.....
There had been Europeans in the New World for some time before the Revolutionary War (I believe the UK name for it was The War of Those Ungrateful Jerks) so there would be time to get some backstory in place.
Odds are more likely that the character is either:
Like Hawkeye from the Leatherstocking Tales. European raised by Native group. Best known to most from the film Last of the Mohicans.
Or, and seems more likely, a colonist that used to fight with the British but now is a part of the colonies Revolutionary units, like George Washington, or sticking with media influence, Mel Gibson in The Patriot.
Dreadwinter wrote:
I thought New Jersey was a colony of Italy. I must have my facts mixed up. Damn television is killing me.....
Nope, first the Dutch, then the English.
Ultimately, this means that Jersey Shore is further evidence that Nigel Powers was right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:He doesn't have to be Ezio's descendant, just Desmond's ancestor.
Ah, you're right, I was going off the idea that Edzio, and the new guy being descendants of Altair as slightly less ridiculous than Desmond being the descendant of three key assassins.
Unless, of course, we find out that its really just a big ol' incest cult.
Anung Un Rama wrote:I usually don't spend a lot of time in Dakka's videogame section, because I spend most of my time writing about games on German websites, but here's something I wanted to share with you:
Assassin's Creed III will take place in the late 18th century during the American revolution. Our main character is a native American who prefers his blade of choice to be less....well... hidden.
Ahtman wrote:
I doubt it is just a straight up Native American.
Myself as well, my guess is more a Mel Gibson type. A guy who fought with, or against, the natives and became disillusioned by their treatment at the hands of the British army.
I can't see the protagonist as a pure Native American, largely because the British seem to be the Templars of this game, and most Native Americans sides with the British.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thenoobbomb wrote:
It would suck, actually.
No big cities...
Give me Red October Russia!
Boston and New York were fairly large at the time.
moom241 wrote:I've seen absolutely no proof that he's a Native other than that he has a bow and a tomahawk. He has the bow for stealth reasons. Which is louder, a gun or a bow? And tomahawks aren't bad weapons.
Question: when has Assassin's Creed ever been about stealth?
Whatchu talking about? I use to jump off buildings and kill people WAY before they knew I was falling on them. Stealth right there
The tomahawk pictured doesn't seem very "Nativey" anyways. I understand they could get quality steel weapons, but that ax looks European made. I'll admit the bow looks like it was made by Native Americans.
I wonder what you're interactions will be with them. Get som Iroquois allies perhaps? I think they were still around, I'm no history buff.
Ahtman wrote:
I doubt it is just a straight up Native American.
Myself as well, my guess is more a Mel Gibson type. A guy who fought with, or against, the natives and became disillusioned by their treatment at the hands of the British army.
I can't see the protagonist as a pure Native American, largely because the British seem to be the Templars of this game, and most Native Americans sides with the British.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thenoobbomb wrote:
It would suck, actually.
No big cities...
Give me Red October Russia!
I do prefer Moscow.
Now thats BIG.
Boston and New York were fairly large at the time.
One should not confuse siding with the British with loyalty to the British. Native groups simply picked a side and hoped for the best. Native Americans had a habit of trying to play both sides when the Europeans got into a conflict in the Americas.
LordofHats wrote:He doesn't have to be Ezio's descendant, just Desmond's ancestor.
Ah, you're right, I was going off the idea that Edzio, and the new guy being descendants of Altair as slightly less ridiculous than Desmond being the descendant of three key assassins.
Unless, of course, we find out that its really just a big ol' incest cult.
The average length of time for a new generation is traditionally about 16 years. Let's assume that most kids are born 20 years after their parents. And, as ancestors grow exponentially (you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 etc), we can do some quick math.
Between Altair and Desmond, there would be about 45 generations (900 years / 20 years per generation). That's 30,500,000,000,000 greatx43-grandparents. That's more people than have ever been alive. So, it's pretty safe to assume that there's plenty of incest along the way. And, it's safe to assume that just about everyone alive at that time is an ancestor of yours (baring a few isolated tribes that haven't been exposed to the outside world in 1000 years).
Yes, that means that almost everyone is related to you. (You have to go back between 2000 and 5000 years to get to the point where you're related to every living human).
Ezio is about 500 years old, meaning 25 generations, or 33.5 million ancestors, much less than the world population at the time. So, not everyone alive would be descended from him, but a very large number would be. But, certainly, almost everyone of European decent is his decedent.
So, really, the only key ancestor would be the new assassin. He was alive only 250 years ago (~10 generations (as we've gotten older when we have kids lately), or 1024 ancestors). So, Desmond is one of a few thousand key people that would share all three ancestors.
This looks... bad. I like climbing up the massive stone facades of cathedrals and medieval buildings. Climbing a tree? Hunting dear? This isn't assassin's creed.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:This looks... bad. I like climbing up the massive stone facades of cathedrals and medieval buildings. Climbing a tree? Hunting dear? This isn't assassin's creed.
There will still be buildings to climb (you can see a town in one of the screenshots). They're adding to the climbing system by letting you climb trees and cliffs, not replacing the building climbing system.
Chaning combat so you can't turtle with counter is the best decision ever. The combat system was really fluid if you didn't sit back relying on counter-insta-gib.
Anyone else think that this looks a little....OTT? It's about as unbiased as The Patriot. I mean, the star-spangled banner waving behind Mr.Washington as he orders his troops
forward and using at least two sentences to describe the cruelty of those guddam brits...But we fight 4 freedom!!!!!
Ediin wrote:Anyone else think that this looks a little....OTT?
Not really, just seems to be setting the stage and making it clear where and when this is happening.
Ediin wrote:forward and using at least two sentences to describe the cruelty of those guddam brits...But we fight 4 freedom!!!!!
HURR DURR!!
Because a general/admiral rallying the troops has really only ever been done to promote American Exceptionalism. No other General/Admiral from any other nation would do such a thing. They would just pack their soldiers lunches and send them off with a wink and a smile.
I'm super psyched for this. They actually had a poll on ign a while ago asking where AC should go next. Colonial America was the only one that interested me (and maybe Russia). It won too iirc and now they're actually doing it! I think there's a lot of possibilities for assassinating goodness in this setting.
TheRobotLol wrote:Am i the only one here who feels uncomfortable about knifing his own country...
"uncomfortable" is no where near the right word for how I felt when Modern Warfare 2 had me start killing Americans. I refuse to play past the end of the American campaign now when I replay it (after the first completion of the game)
Actually Im uncomfortable killing Brits, I respect the British (after all they were once our brothers) so Im on the fence about this one. I mean I support the Revolution as much as any other patriot and wouldnt mind playing a good Revolution game but the game would need to be focused on that, the War for Independence, not about anything else which I have a feeling that the war will be a side issue in this game, the setting of the game, not the plot. As such Im not too interested in it.
From what I hear colonists and the british are 'grey' in the respects that there are both bad guys and good guys, similarly to the original in which you killed crusaders and arabs both.
Considering I'm not actually killing anyone I'm ok with it, even in Modern Warfare. Even so, I find it odd that killing and maiming all sorts of Europeans, Asians, South Americans and Africans is ok, but god forbid it be an American or Brit.
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't really care where the mooks I kill in a videogame are from.
I would like a bit of moral ambiguity though.
Context is always important, and I imagine like the others it won't be a black and white situation where one side is the absolute evil and the other is the absolute good. I doubt people that spent that much time recreating other areas in history would suddenly treat the colonists as unassailably righteous and the British as mustache twirling villains.
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't really care where the mooks I kill in a videogame are from.
I would like a bit of moral ambiguity though.
Context is always important, and I imagine like the others it won't be a black and white situation where one side is the absolute evil and the other is the absolute good. I doubt people that spent that much time recreating other areas in history would suddenly treat the colonists as unassailably righteous and the British as mustache twirling villains.
Wait, America isn't all the times right? Since when?
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't really care where the mooks I kill in a videogame are from.
I would like a bit of moral ambiguity though.
Context is always important, and I imagine like the others it won't be a black and white situation where one side is the absolute evil and the other is the absolute good. I doubt people that spent that much time recreating other areas in history would suddenly treat the colonists as unassailably righteous and the British as mustache twirling villains.
Wait, America isn't all the times right? Since when?
Pre-WWI we were known to make the occasional mistake. Been smooth sailing since then of course.
MrDwhitey wrote:I find it silly people worry about killing in a game dependant on nationality of the victims*. Just my thoughts.
I for one will enjoy killing redcoats and colonists both.
*It's a game
QFFT. I'm always a little amazed when my buddies get up-in-arms about killing innocents in games. I have more than one friend who refuses to play Saints Row 2 because of the Brotherhood missions, notably one where you lock a woman in the trunk of a car and deliver it to a monster truck rally, where her boyfriend crushes the car she's in. I mean, it's a game. A fairly brutal game at times, but a game nonetheless.
So no, no I don't feel uncomfortable controlling my bunch of pixels into killing other bunches of pixels. Because it's just a game.
asimo77 wrote:Am I the only one who wishes the series stayed in the Crusades and never had the bizzare sci-fi slant? I wouldn't mind sequels so long as they weren't story connected and just showcased assassins from different cultures and eras.
That's pretty much my opinion. I quite liked the idea of being an assassin during The Crusades, and thought the sci-fi thing was an annoying distraction, and was downright annoyed by the magical items at the end.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Considering I'm not actually killing anyone I'm ok with it, even in Modern Warfare. Even so, I find it odd that killing and maiming all sorts of Europeans, Asians, South Americans and Africans is ok, but god forbid it be an American or Brit.
Yeah, it's kind of odd, isn't it?
I mean, if you've got no problem killing any kind of person in a computer game because they're just make believe, that's cool. And if you've got a problem killing people in games because you don't think it's fun to imagine yourself killing people then that's cool as well.
But to be okay with killing Brazillians and people of whatever Middle Eastern country that was meant to be in MW2, and then worry about killing British people in AC3... that's pretty weird.
asimo77 wrote:Am I the only one who wishes the series stayed in the Crusades and never had the bizzare sci-fi slant? I wouldn't mind sequels so long as they weren't story connected and just showcased assassins from different cultures and eras.
That's pretty much my opinion. I quite liked the idea of being an assassin during The Crusades, and thought the sci-fi thing was an annoying distraction, and was downright annoyed by the magical items at the end.
I'll go ahead and agree as well. I would have rather it been the story of an assassin's guild and you follow different members through different time periods without the sci-fi trappings.
MrDwhitey wrote:I find it silly people worry about killing in a game dependant on nationality of the victims*. Just my thoughts.
I for one will enjoy killing redcoats and colonists both.
*It's a game
QFFT. I'm always a little amazed when my buddies get up-in-arms about killing innocents in games. I have more than one friend who refuses to play Saints Row 2 because of the Brotherhood missions, notably one where you lock a woman in the trunk of a car and deliver it to a monster truck rally, where her boyfriend crushes the car she's in. I mean, it's a game. A fairly brutal game at times, but a game nonetheless.
So no, no I don't feel uncomfortable controlling my bunch of pixels into killing other bunches of pixels. Because it's just a game.
Holy crap I would too.
My thing about games is that I like to get into them and pretend they are really happening. So in an RTS game, that "Rifleman" is not just a unit, he is a soldier who could have a family back home. It really improves the experience for me. I dont personally care if other people dont do this or dont have a problem doing what you did. Me PERSONALLY, I dont want to do it
Anyone else think that this looks a little....OTT? It's about as unbiased as The Patriot. I mean, the star-spangled banner waving behind Mr.Washington as he orders his troops
forward and using at least two sentences to describe the cruelty of those guddam brits...But we fight 4 freedom!!!!!
QFFT. I'm always a little amazed when my buddies get up-in-arms about killing innocents in games. I have more than one friend who refuses to play Saints Row 2 because of the Brotherhood missions, notably one where you lock a woman in the trunk of a car and deliver it to a monster truck rally, where her boyfriend crushes the car she's in. I mean, it's a game. A fairly brutal game at times, but a game nonetheless.
So no, no I don't feel uncomfortable controlling my bunch of pixels into killing other bunches of pixels. Because it's just a game.
Well to be fair that Saints Row mission sounds pretty awful, then again I have no context for the mission. Though it's worth mentioning that the mindless, juvenile violence and humour is probably why I never liked the Saints Row series. Also It's not unusual to feel uncomfortable doing certain things in a game, no one lives in a vacuum where their psyche doesn't colour any of the experiences in fiction; certain actions carried out by the player are going to affect people. I mean you wouldn't say movies and books don't affect you because it's all make believe right? Granted I don't think a game has every really affected me emotionally because frankly none of them are written that well.
The main reason it gets me is because the same friends have beaten Saints Row 1, have beaten Saints Row: the Third, and are looking forward to Saints Row 4. But they refuse to go anywhere near 2 because of one set of missions.
And in context, the woman is not an innocent by any stretch of the imagination. She effectively runs the entire Brotherhood, and her boyfriend is leader mostly in name. Not only that, but it was her idea to take down a member of the Saints in a brutal fashion.
Maybe it's just me being older, but I'm just not really affected by these kind of things in games. I mean, there are uncomfortable moments, I'll give you that, but they're few and far between. There was actually an interesting article that I read where basically video games that the author once found delightful, were now just more of the same. Yet his kids were playing the same game and being immensely entertained by imagining themselves doing something in the game. As an adult gamer now, I just don't that into it anymore.
This woman murdered Carlos, who the boss considered a little brother, by tying him to a truck, and having that truck drag him around the city. The boss him/herself has to perform a mercy kill on Carlos. She got absolutely no sympathy from me.
Alright thanks for the clarification on the Saints Row stuff.
Anyway back on track does anyone else think the new assassin looks silly? Certainly out of place in colonial America. And his fancy snow-white robes really don't mesh with the bits of fur and Native American fashion he's got.
My thing about games is that I like to get into them and pretend they are really happening. So in an RTS game, that "Rifleman" is not just a unit, he is a soldier who could have a family back home. It really improves the experience for me. I dont personally care if other people dont do this or dont have a problem doing what you did. Me PERSONALLY, I dont want to do it
Yeah, that's fair and I think most people do much the same. Which is why we have character design and stories in games, rather than abstract coloured blobs.
But what's weird is that at least some people seem to have no problem killing Middle Eastern soldiers in CoD and the like, but draw the line at killing British troops in a game like this.
My thing about games is that I like to get into them and pretend they are really happening. So in an RTS game, that "Rifleman" is not just a unit, he is a soldier who could have a family back home. It really improves the experience for me. I dont personally care if other people dont do this or dont have a problem doing what you did. Me PERSONALLY, I dont want to do it
Yeah, that's fair and I think most people do much the same. Which is why we have character design and stories in games, rather than abstract coloured blobs.
But what's weird is that at least some people seem to have no problem killing Middle Eastern soldiers in CoD and the like, but draw the line at killing British troops in a game like this.
Well the United States and the Middle East soldiers dont have the best relationships while the British have been a long term ally of America and even during the Revolution people were fighting that war with a bad taste in their mouths becasue they considered the British their brothers. I guess it could be considered a little weird but it also makes perfect sense
Yeah, that's fair and I think most people do much the same. Which is why we have character design and stories in games, rather than abstract coloured blobs.
But what's weird is that at least some people seem to have no problem killing Middle Eastern soldiers in CoD and the like, but draw the line at killing British troops in a game like this.
Well the United States and the Middle East soldiers dont have the best relationships while the British have been a long term ally of America and even during the Revolution people were fighting that war with a bad taste in their mouths becasue they considered the British their brothers. I guess it could be considered a little weird but it also makes perfect sense
Actually (For me at least) it's the relish with which people enjoy killing others who were (at the time) technically their countrymen...
I find it fairly disturbing...
Though to amend my previous comment: I would be fine with killing British troops as long as they are equally the 'bad guy' as much as the US troops are...
I personally am hoping that the storyline isn't HURR DURR HELP AMURRICA! and the british are the templars, etc. I hope that the war is neutral, although I am American.
In the previous Assassin's Creed games, it's pretty clear that the Templars were the power behind the throne for early America. I remember distinctly having to find some of those hidden clues in things like currency, or Washington's portrait, or things like that.
and ruined everything for me. The game is dreadful now, it makes even less sense than it used to.
