Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Very true, we'll have to see.

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 liked Ezio. He had a personality. I didn't much like Revelations though, and yes, the plot is so mixed up you could call it gumbo.

Soladrin wrote:Yet you still took their language, for shame.

This...........Nice one!

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.

Might be like the first one..... In the middle killing people from both sides.

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:

dogma wrote:

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.

He doesn't have to be Ezio's descendant, just Desmond's ancestor.

I don't think he will be a native... i think corpses' ideasounds the best.

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?

I know right? Most of the guys in AC1 couldn't even be snuck up on

Well, not in mechanics wise, but story wise, they try to be stealthy.

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.

dogma wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

dogma wrote:

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.



I doubt it is just a straight up Native American.

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.

It would suck, actually.
No big cities...

Give me Red October Russia!

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.

On Kotaku someone mentioned Gangs of New York as a possible set up for a level/city.

Shrike325 wrote:

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

Maybe we can finally gain the ability to climb up trees.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.