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.

dogma wrote:

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.

If I had to guess, I'd say this is some sort of prologue where future chief Stabbing Bull is "recruited".

Some nice screenies







Looks like a new engine.

His Master's Voice wrote:

Pretty sure that's an assassin hiding in skyrim.

The Assassin's conspiracy has reached Skyrim? These are dark days indeed. Quick shout at him and maybe he'll go away!

Still no clear shots of his face. Ubi likes to keep us in the dark.

http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/some-details-about-assassins-creed-iii/

Here you are.

So he's half native. Sounds about right

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.

I like that they seem to be making combat more aggression based. It makes sense in an era where every guard has a gun.

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.

AMURRICAFUDGE YEAH1!!!!!

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!!!!!

HURR DURR!!

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.

Am i the only one here who feels uncomfortable about knifing his own country...

Don't worry I'm sure you'll get to kill some rebels too.

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.

(if that makes sense)

I hope it doesn't pick sides, in which both sides would have assassins and templars on 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.

I don't really care where the mooks I kill in a videogame are from.

I would like a bit of moral ambiguity though.

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.

Ahtman wrote:

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?

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

moom241 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

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

Meh, fair enough.

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

Locclo wrote:

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