E3 Preview: Assassin's Creed 3 Hands On

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I'M BRITISH AND FEEL CONFLICTED BY THIS GAME.

OT: Was the sea-based stuff really working? The videos do look good but it's a totally revolutionary direction for them to take the game.

Then again, this is a revolutionary game. Huh? Huh? :D

I love the AC franchise, and cannot wait for this game to be released. Will be nice to try out something new within the AC universe.

Doing these types of missions will offer a range of benefits, from giving you a new recruit you can use for group missions or skilled laborers who can work to repair your homestead on the outside of town. Some grateful folks might even open up their homes of if you're being chased by the guards and need to cut through a house to get to the other side of the block.

Nice!

I was really enticed by the gameplay trailer, but what you're describing here makes me so much more excited.

Chrono212:
I'M BRITISH AND FEEL CONFLICTED BY THIS GAME.

OT: Was the sea-based stuff really working? The videos do look good but it's a totally revolutionary direction for them to take the game.

Then again, this is a revolutionary game. Huh? Huh? :D

I'm of Italian descent and I'm not at all conflicted by this game. Years of having to hear "Itsa me, aMaaaaaaaaaaario!" gives me little pity for your situation. ;D

I'm hoping they make things realistic and don't paint the Colonials as pure little goody goodies who were just throwing off the yoke of tyranny. As easy as it is to say the British were tax-loving taxhounds, the Colonies were petulant little turds in their own right.

History is written by the victors, I guess, right?

*ahem* Back to ACIII, they have REALLY put in some nice details. I anticipate this one will sit next to Red Dead Redemption on my shelf, and the two will spend their days making sweet sweet love.

image

The.Bard:

Chrono212:
I'M BRITISH AND FEEL CONFLICTED BY THIS GAME.

OT: Was the sea-based stuff really working? The videos do look good but it's a totally revolutionary direction for them to take the game.

Then again, this is a revolutionary game. Huh? Huh? :D

I'm of Italian descent and I'm not at all conflicted by this game. Years of having to hear "Itsa me, aMaaaaaaaaaaario!" gives me little pity for your situation. ;D

I'm hoping they make things realistic and don't paint the Colonials as pure little goody goodies who were just throwing off the yoke of tyranny. As easy as it is to say the British were tax-loving taxhounds, the Colonies were petulant little turds in their own right.

History is written by the victors, I guess, right?

*ahem* Back to ACIII, they have REALLY put in some nice details. I anticipate this one will sit next to Red Dead Redemption on my shelf, and the two will spend their days making sweet sweet love.

image

Humm? Sorry, I was busy drinking tea and counting my taxes.

I read somewhere that there would be 'good' British guys and 'bad' Colonials. Even Washington himself served as a British general.

Or something.

The.Bard:

Chrono212:
I'M BRITISH AND FEEL CONFLICTED BY THIS GAME.

OT: Was the sea-based stuff really working? The videos do look good but it's a totally revolutionary direction for them to take the game.

Then again, this is a revolutionary game. Huh? Huh? :D

I'm of Italian descent and I'm not at all conflicted by this game. Years of having to hear "Itsa me, aMaaaaaaaaaaario!" gives me little pity for your situation. ;D

I'm hoping they make things realistic and don't paint the Colonials as pure little goody goodies who were just throwing off the yoke of tyranny. As easy as it is to say the British were tax-loving taxhounds, the Colonies were petulant little turds in their own right.

History is written by the victors, I guess, right?

*ahem* Back to ACIII, they have REALLY put in some nice details. I anticipate this one will sit next to Red Dead Redemption on my shelf, and the two will spend their days making sweet sweet love.

image

It would be pretty far out of character for them to make Colonials incorruptible good guys and the British baby-blending demons. Remember in the first AC? The Crusaders were twats, the locals were twats, the Templars were twats, and even the Assassins were twats. Here's hoping we can return to that golden age of universal moral ambiguity.

I just got excited again, but then I realized this was without gameplay, and remembered how awesome Revelations' trailer looked, but how sticky the game felt compared to the smooth, lubed up AC2 or Brotherhood. And now I remember why I was really angry at the series, for stuffing in way too much stuff and taking away from what I wanted in the series. Please tell me the naval battles aren't as torturous as either the cart sections or the crappy tower defense sections?

Steve Butts:
E3 Preview: Assassin's Creed 3 Hands On

This game is my boyfriend.

Read Full Article

But it looks like a girlfriend. That I had in November of last year.

I am so confused... America was supposily founded by the Freemasons. There is proof that most of the founding fathers were masons. The masons are believed to be offshoots of the Templars. Therefore is Connor teaming up with Templars?!?! I think it would have been far more interesting to have him be English and fighting the American rebels. Of course he would fail assassinating Washington, but use that as a way for the assassin brotherhood to lose power and explain why obstergo is has the current day upper hand.

Please note, I am xenophobicly American, but I have to admit Americans as the "bad guys," especially in revolutionary times would be a very interesting story.

Chrono212:

I read somewhere that there would be 'good' British guys and 'bad' Colonials. Even Washington himself served as a British general.

Or something.

He served as a general for the colonial militia during the French and Indian War during the 1750's.

They are going to have to spin a very entertaining story especially since most of the "founding fathers" for the US where free masons and the Templar's are an offshoot of the Free Masons like Baptists are to Christianity.

irmasterlol:

It would be pretty far out of character for them to make Colonials incorruptible good guys and the British baby-blending demons. Remember in the first AC? The Crusaders were twats, the locals were twats, the Templars were twats, and even the Assassins were twats. Here's hoping we can return to that golden age of universal moral ambiguity.

Complication here being that there's a bit more popular sentiment surrounding this in what undoubtedly is their largest fanbase. There's undoubtedly going to be idiots complaining the moment they don't depict 18th century US rebels as anything less than angelic.

Here's to hoping they don't chicken out.

This might be the first game I'll ever preorder. Typically I just wait a few months to get a reduced price on it, but I doubt I'll be able to wait. The more I see of the game, the more I want to play it.

Personally, I'm hoping for a plot twist in which the Americans end up being just as bad as the British. I don't hate America, but it would be interesting to see a game where we're not the symbolic representation of all good in the universe.

Plus I kinda want to assassinate George Washington. I have no idea why.

I hope that it doesnt turn out to be a case of "America, f**k yeah"
Im hoping that the assassin remains neutral, if anything he should be figthing for the british, as he is half british half mohawk. The mohawks fought for the british as the settlers had been stealing land and such.

If it does i will rage. A lot.

bdcjacko:
I am so confused... America was supposily founded by the Freemasons. There is proof that most of the founding fathers were masons. The masons are believed to be offshoots of the Templars. Therefore is Connor teaming up with Templars?!?! I think it would have been far more interesting to have him be English and fighting the American rebels. Of course he would fail assassinating Washington, but use that as a way for the assassin brotherhood to lose power and explain why obstergo is has the current day upper hand.

This is why I fully expect Washington to be conning you into doing his dirty work for him before he betrays you, just like Al Mualim in the first game. I mean seriously, look at the face he pulls at the end of the CG trailer. If that isn't a 'I'm secretly evil' face, then I don't know what is.

Tsaba:

Chrono212:

I read somewhere that there would be 'good' British guys and 'bad' Colonials. Even Washington himself served as a British general.

Or something.

He served as a general for the colonial militia during the French and Indian War during the 1750's.

They are going to have to spin a very entertaining story especially since most of the "founding fathers" for the US where free masons and the Templar's are an offshoot of the Free Masons like Baptists are to Christianity.

Well they could outsource that problem to Nicholas Cage.

I heard he's dealt with Freemasons before.

Chrono212:
Well they could outsource that problem to Nicholas Cage.

I heard he's dealt with Freemasons before.

But, he's heavily monitored by the Knights Templar
image

Tsaba:

Chrono212:
Well they could outsource that problem to Nicholas Cage.

I heard he's dealt with Freemasons before.

But, he's heavily monitored by the Knights Templar
image

Which is exactly why they won't expect it!

So when the game ends and you've helped the super good freedom fighters win against the evil imperialist scum, you get to live the rest of your days on a reservation. Right?

Chrono212:
Which is exactly why they won't expect it!

We're better off hiring Indiana Jones seeing as Nicholas Cage likes to pretend he rides motorcycles.

Kargathia:

irmasterlol:

It would be pretty far out of character for them to make Colonials incorruptible good guys and the British baby-blending demons. Remember in the first AC? The Crusaders were twats, the locals were twats, the Templars were twats, and even the Assassins were twats. Here's hoping we can return to that golden age of universal moral ambiguity.

Complication here being that there's a bit more popular sentiment surrounding this in what undoubtedly is their largest fanbase. There's undoubtedly going to be idiots complaining the moment they don't depict 18th century US rebels as anything less than angelic.

Here's to hoping they don't chicken out.

Oh come on, even Call of Duty didn't have any problems making a US general one of the bad guys. I don't see why ubisoft would.

As long as it doesn't go down the all American good guys road I'm happy. If I have to kill the British I better get to kill colonists.

And the British better not all sound like Del Boy, there were regiments from all over the UK, so there should be a decent range of accents.

NinjaDeathSlap:

bdcjacko:
I am so confused... America was supposily founded by the Freemasons. There is proof that most of the founding fathers were masons. The masons are believed to be offshoots of the Templars. Therefore is Connor teaming up with Templars?!?! I think it would have been far more interesting to have him be English and fighting the American rebels. Of course he would fail assassinating Washington, but use that as a way for the assassin brotherhood to lose power and explain why obstergo is has the current day upper hand.

This is why I fully expect Washington to be conning you into doing his dirty work for him before he betrays you, just like Al Mualim in the first game. I mean seriously, look at the face he pulls at the end of the CG trailer. If that isn't a 'I'm secretly evil' face, then I don't know what is.

"We made washington evil and for some reason, no one in the US bought AC:3"

ResonanceSD:

NinjaDeathSlap:

bdcjacko:
I am so confused... America was supposily founded by the Freemasons. There is proof that most of the founding fathers were masons. The masons are believed to be offshoots of the Templars. Therefore is Connor teaming up with Templars?!?! I think it would have been far more interesting to have him be English and fighting the American rebels. Of course he would fail assassinating Washington, but use that as a way for the assassin brotherhood to lose power and explain why obstergo is has the current day upper hand.

This is why I fully expect Washington to be conning you into doing his dirty work for him before he betrays you, just like Al Mualim in the first game. I mean seriously, look at the face he pulls at the end of the CG trailer. If that isn't a 'I'm secretly evil' face, then I don't know what is.

"We made washington evil and for some reason, no one in the US bought AC:3"

I think we can probably give the Americans some credit. I doubt they're all so wrapped up in patriotism that they can't even handle the thought of Americans being bad guys in one fictional videogame. Like erttheking said, the main bad guy in MW2 turned out to be a US general, and you spend the last hour or so of that game gunning down US special forces troops, and nobody (that I know of) threw a huge tantrum about that.

Admittedly, using real historical figures as prolific as George Washington might cut things a little closer to the bone for some, but at the end of the day, I think we can trust that the majority of people will realise that, at the end of the day, it's a story, so they can just get over it. The Fox News crowd will doubtless be up in arms the moment they get wind of it, but who cares about them as they would probably have never bought the game in the first place.

Hehe I doubt they'll make Washington evil, if only because that'll be hard to swallow. Then again he's a busy fellow during this period, so I doubt he's going to be omnipresent always giving you missions. That way they don't have to break their backs making him a three dimensional character.

Also... an end to Desmond?!?! Hooray! The series losing its weakest link!

I believe Brotherhood and Revelations was them attempting to tred water so they could avoid making the inevitable Desmond game. If they have a way of dumping him entirely then we can have AC games for a long time without Worthless (meta-plotwise) games.

erttheking:

Kargathia:

irmasterlol:

It would be pretty far out of character for them to make Colonials incorruptible good guys and the British baby-blending demons. Remember in the first AC? The Crusaders were twats, the locals were twats, the Templars were twats, and even the Assassins were twats. Here's hoping we can return to that golden age of universal moral ambiguity.

Complication here being that there's a bit more popular sentiment surrounding this in what undoubtedly is their largest fanbase. There's undoubtedly going to be idiots complaining the moment they don't depict 18th century US rebels as anything less than angelic.

Here's to hoping they don't chicken out.

Oh come on, even Call of Duty didn't have any problems making a US general one of the bad guys. I don't see why ubisoft would.

There's a bit of a difference between "an US general" and "one of these guys regularly toted as the pinnace of perfection".

Just compare the amount of movies that portrayed the US army / government / intelligence services negatively, versus the amount that portrayed the founding fathers as a bunch of cunts.

NinjaDeathSlap:

ResonanceSD:

NinjaDeathSlap:

This is why I fully expect Washington to be conning you into doing his dirty work for him before he betrays you, just like Al Mualim in the first game. I mean seriously, look at the face he pulls at the end of the CG trailer. If that isn't a 'I'm secretly evil' face, then I don't know what is.

"We made washington evil and for some reason, no one in the US bought AC:3"

I think we can probably give the Americans some credit. I doubt they're all so wrapped up in patriotism that they can't even handle the thought of Americans being bad guys in one fictional videogame. Like erttheking said, the main bad guy in MW2 turned out to be a US general, and you spend the last hour or so of that game gunning down US special forces troops, and nobody (that I know of) threw a huge tantrum about that.

Admittedly, using real historical figures as prolific as George Washington might cut things a little closer to the bone for some, but at the end of the day, I think we can trust that the majority of people will realise that, at the end of the day, it's a story, so they can just get over it. The Fox News crowd will doubtless be up in arms the moment they get wind of it, but who cares about them as they would probably have never bought the game in the first place.

Well I actually work for News Corp, and look at us, having a nuanced discussion about patriotism and the reasons for buying games. My OP was mostly a joke, but I think it's down to focus testing amongst all things, that we haven't seen many US based villains of late, with the most notable exception to this rule not being the bad guys in Modern Warfare, but the Enclave in the Fallout series.

And for the record, yes, I am getting Assassins Creed 3.

I'm of Italian descent and I'm not at all conflicted by this game. Years of having to hear "Itsa me, aMaaaaaaaaaaario!" gives me little pity for your situation. ;D

I'm hoping they make things realistic and don't paint the Colonials as pure little goody goodies who were just throwing off the yoke of tyranny. As easy as it is to say the British were tax-loving taxhounds, the Colonies were petulant little turds in their own right.

History is written by the victors, I guess, right?
[/quote]
There wasn't really a victor there, Britain lost the ability to tax a group of people, at the time, America was "Just another colony." I am hoping the assasin remains nuetral after fighting for one side and discovering templars are on both sides, I can see that happenening.

And Everyone being a twat isn't moral ambiguity, you can have Twatty Good people and Twatty Evil people, it just makes you less inclined to pick a side.

The eagle's a nice touch; if a little overwritten. Also why do Desmond's forefathers seem to be taking out entire armies in the trailers these days? Not that I'm complaining - it looks cool as hell - but aren't assassins supposed to be precision killers as opposed to full-on tanks?

The problem with setting the AC games more and more recently is that history is better and better documented as time goes on. It's getting pretty hard to stomach that there was one guy killing hundreds and hundreds of people in full view of the public in a highly distinguishable outfit only we never heard about it.

Also, it'd be "but for whom. You are half English, Connor.

I would've ditched the Brotherhood mechanics and kept the hook blade. The hook was the only decent thing in the expansions. 'Expansions'. Yeah.

Whatever, so excited for this.

Good to see that they've kept up with abandoning that whole "assassin" business, it might get in the way of charging down lines of men armed with smooth bore muskets single handedly, not getting hit by a single bullet.

Seriously, Native American gorilla warfare was incredibly effective and it'd be hugely gratifying to actually experience setting up large-scale ambushes in the dense forest, or any other typical tactic or strategy. So why is it that Mr. Assassin is just charging dudes down on a horse wielding a fucking hatchet when there's 50 guys shooting at him?

But hey, he can fire perfectly accurately in mid air with a bow, but since he's native american that's ok, i mean they can all do that right? Just as disappointing as when Ezio decided to screw the whole assassin business in the last trailer and just walk into the hundreds of enemy soldiers.

Good to see that they've kept up with abandoning that whole "assassin" business, it might get in the way of charging down lines of men armed with smooth bore muskets single handedly, not getting hit by a single bullet.

Seriously, Native American gorilla warfare was incredibly effective and it'd be hugely gratifying to actually experience setting up large-scale ambushes in the dense forest, or any other typical tactic or strategy. So why is it that Mr. Assassin is just charging dudes down on a horse wielding a fucking hatchet when there's 50 guys shooting at him?

But hey, he can fire perfectly accurately in mid air with a bow, but since he's native american that's ok, i mean they can all do that right? Just as disappointing as when Ezio decided to screw the whole assassin business in the last trailer and just walk into the hundreds of enemy soldiers.

Kargathia:

irmasterlol:

It would be pretty far out of character for them to make Colonials incorruptible good guys and the British baby-blending demons. Remember in the first AC? The Crusaders were twats, the locals were twats, the Templars were twats, and even the Assassins were twats. Here's hoping we can return to that golden age of universal moral ambiguity.

Complication here being that there's a bit more popular sentiment surrounding this in what undoubtedly is their largest fanbase. There's undoubtedly going to be idiots complaining the moment they don't depict 18th century US rebels as anything less than angelic.

Here's to hoping they don't chicken out.

But everything will be ok, because the game is developed "by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs."

NinjaDeathSlap:
This is why I fully expect Washington to be conning you into doing his dirty work for him before he betrays you, just like Al Mualim in the first game. I mean seriously, look at the face he pulls at the end of the CG trailer. If that isn't a 'I'm secretly evil' face, then I don't know what is.

I suspect that was probably Marquis de Lafayette -- whom the trailer quotes -- as opposed to Washington at the end.

The trailer is cool, but the whole one dude against an entire army thing seems a bit much. Also, while Connor is taking his time with the British commander, where were the rest of his men? It kinda looks like one of those final moments whenever Altair or Ezio scored a big name kill and listened to the dude's final words, but there's still a whole battle going on around them.

I expected awesome action sequences. AC offers that regularly in their trailers. What sold me on this right away was Washington's/Lafayette(?)'s reaction at the end. I've been wondering how Ubisoft would play with the Templars and picking sides since its been established that several of the founding fathers (including, I think, Washington) were Templars themselves. I was wondering if they would make him a Loyalist (a ballsy move, to put the protagonist on the losing side of a war, bound to history, from a French studio playing to a mainly American audience).

If it's got the deception that the first story did instead of this totally justified crusade of the past three, I'm game. Really looking forward to this.

Huh, that brings two franchises that I'd thought I'd ignore back into my house. This, which I've ignored after 2, and Halo. I guess this is a good year.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 67365)