Image of Assassins Creed III's main character leaked

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Hmmm, I'll break my long silence on this forum for this particular thread. This honestly looks pretty interesting to me. The American Revolution hasn't been touched much by games to the best of my knowledge, and there are many interesting ways they could take this. The art is evocative of The Patriot, particularly Mel Gibson's Tomahawk wielding, white shirt wearing, red coat murdering, militiaman. I'd love to see Ubisoft re-invent a bit and go for gameplay centered around setting ambushes, moving through the forests and undergrowth, climbing trees instead of buildings, infiltrating camps/towns, etc. It would be a nice break from the monotony of the classic urban free running which has defined the series so far. Granted, that's what made the series so popular, and it's an insane amount of fun, but we've done it for 4(?) games so far. Adding a new dimension of small scale militia-ish fighting, perhaps as a scout for the Colonials (or even a neutral party) sounds like a pretty cool direction to go. I just keep imagining a combination of Last of the Mohicans and The Patriot, picking off patrols while working towards a larger conspiracy that could involve figures like Washington.

Anyway, just my two cents. I think it's difficult to dismiss something when there's so little information out about it.

Duo Oratar:
I knew they wouldn't do it. I had a slight hope that they'd drop the whole animus thing and go have the expected game about Desmond and the world in 2012 but I doubted they'd try it.

It was probably the original plan before they realised that Desmond is one of the most boring characters ever made.

I'm really disappointed by this but somehow knew it would happen. I have no problem with a game set during the American revolution, I have a problem with it being this game. It makes no sense at this point in the series when all hints seem to have been leading to the French revolution or ancient Egypt. I hope Ubisoft knows what they're doing because if this game is another disappointment like Brotherhood and Revelations I doubt I'll be buying the next one.

triggrhappy94:
Wait wait wait wait!
That flag!? Isn't that the flag for the American Civil war.

well the USA was a new country and had not fully expanded its borders westwards yet from the colonies set by the british so there are fewer states, hence why the flag has so few stars. Its really after the revolution when america starts expanding west into native american lands that they created more states and made the more noticeable american flag of today with tons of stars. And in actual fact during the first years of the revolution, the USA still had the old colony flag which had the british union flag on it and would go to battle with the brits, both under the british union flag until they made a new flag for the country.

and im a brit and I dont care about the assassin killing redcoats, I dont really see myself allying with my country of that period. Also, I dont really think the americans or the brits are goodies or baddies in the game, they are like the christian crusaders and muslim warriors fighting in the holy land, with niether side really being a good or bad guy.

Uhhh, I'm a little disappointed honestly. I was never a big fan of the American Revolution time period. I would much rather see Assassins's Creed take place during the Russian or French Revolution, which I find more interesting. This game is probably going to endorse in all that "Home of the Free" and "The American Dream" stuff because the Devs want to "suck up" to a larger audience. I really hope this picture isn't real...the main reason I like Assassins's Creed is because the setting is a little different from the other games I play on a regular basis...

Terminate421:
-snip-

There were two things about your post I wanted to comment on:

At least it isn't Ezio AGAIN. (I did like Ezio, however.)

I couldn't agree more with this statement. I liked Ezio in AC:II. When I saw he was in Brotherhood, I thought "well....ok....I guess..." By the time that he was in Revelations I had given up. It's too much. Especially because I liked Altair (sp?) and I was hoping for a new Assassin with a new background story. As cool as Ezio is, I am sick of his adventures.

I do however hope for the ability to actually aim and fire my gun. And before I am called out saying "Don't turn it into a shooter!" I am not suggesting a shooter, I would however like to pick off enemies with my gun without having to be within 20 feet of them. To compensate and not make it a shooter, add a noise aspect or make reload times take forever.

From a historical perspective, this shouldn't be an issue. I am reminded of the painstakingly long reload process of a period rifle (poweder horn, flint, musket ball, ramrod etc), not to mention their horrible aim and unreliability. I hope this game will rely more on tomahawks and bow/arrow type of weapons over guns.

Well there goes my hopes of a victorian england game, the only problem i have with this is that as far as i can remember there werent any major cities during this time (at least not on the level of past gsmes), so i dont really see how you can fee run with this, unless its over rocks and naturey type stuff

I liked the consent of setting it around Victorian England better. Jumping around the roof-tops Victorian London during the prime of the Industrial Revolution. Meeting influential people such as Charles Darwin, Jack the Ripper, Queen Victoria, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Dickens and Florence Nightingale just to name a few.

That or the fall of the Tzar in Russia, just so I could meet Rasputin.

Kay... This is all well and good, but isn't there a main storyline involving a boring protagonist to deal with?.

I like the new direction, but I'm starting to think Ubisoft has contracted Lost syndrome, not even they know where they want the story to go, so they just keep thickening the plot hoping to run into a plot thread that will work for a finale.

Two thoughts.

1. Ezio, I like you, but thank God you've finally buggered off.

2. The excitement I feel for an AC3 is still thoroughly dampened by the fact that it's not going to be set during the French Revolution. Seriously, it fit so perfectly in so many ways that I'm baffled how another time period could have ever topped it.

EDIT:

Radoh:

Jegsimmons:
i will buy this if they drop everything relating to desmond, that bullshit space conspiracy, and anything that isnt about a gang of assassins ruining people shit.

but i know it wont so...fuck it. this series jumped shark long ago.

Jumped shark as in some guy in the somewhat future is reliving the memories of his ancestor because his genetics is a grand tapestry of recorded information?
You mean the first ten minutes of the first game?

Probably more in the sense that the "plot" steadily sounds like it was pieced together from extracts the developers found when they were rummaging about in Dan Brown's garbage bin one night.

superdelux:
image

It appears that the next game in the series will take place during the American revolution and will star a Native American ancestor this time around.

Did Ubisoft themselves actually put this up somewhere?

Because I have a difficult time believing that isn't just fan art.

Smeggs:

superdelux:
image

It appears that the next game in the series will take place during the American revolution and will star a Native American ancestor this time around.

Did Ubisoft themselves actually put this up somewhere?

Because I have a difficult time believing that isn't just fan art.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/03/01/april-cover-revealed-assassin-39-s-creed-iii.aspx

Its official, this proves it

etherlance:
Wait.....This is a joke right?

Cause I swear if I have to play through another entire game that doesn't finish the fucking storyline, I'm gonna kill the developers.

At the end of Revelations I thought to myself: "Finally the last part of the game is next".

I love the games but they really seem to be dragging on now.

Ubisoft said that the storyline will conclude this year, they believe that if the climax of the series is supposed to happen in December 2012 you should finish the story before then.

Radoh:

Jegsimmons:
i will buy this if they drop everything relating to desmond, that bullshit space conspiracy, and anything that isnt about a gang of assassins ruining people shit.

but i know it wont so...fuck it. this series jumped shark long ago.

Jumped shark as in some guy in the somewhat future is reliving the memories of his ancestor because his genetics is a grand tapestry of recorded information?
You mean the first ten minutes of the first game?

yep. also the near future will be awkward when we actually hit that year and the series is still going.

godofslack:

Jegsimmons:

godofslack:
This seems a little odd. During the American Revolution most native Americans fought against the US, so a apparently native assassin in front of an American flag seems out of place. And, frankly, I don't think it will be about killing American revolutionaries as that would probably get a lot of opposition. Also what's with all the male protagonists, I get the entire author/player insertion thing that you all like to do, but surely you have to realize that a strong female protagonist is a selling point right?

actually, not quite, the natives were for the most part neutral because the British treated them worse than the french and Spanish, really more fought AGAINST the British.

Honestly, that untrue, a quick wikipedia search will disprove that claim. It's true that native Americans were officially neutral many did fight in the war, and I can't think of a single citation in which natives fought against the British during the war. Remember one of the causes for the war was that Britain had set out more than half the country for the Natives (they didn't know how much though) and the colonists wanted to go past the line into native territory.

yeah the indians captured a fort right before the 'official' part of the war started and even cooked a guy

though we are both right:
Most Native Americans east of the Mississippi River were affected by the war, and many communities were divided over the question of how to respond to the conflict. Though a few tribes were on friendly terms with the Americans, most Native Americans opposed the United States as a potential threat to their territory. Approximately 13,000 Native Americans fought on the British side, with the largest group coming from the Iroquois tribes, who fielded around 1,500 men.[31] The powerful Iroquois Confederacy was shattered as a result of the conflict; although the Confederacy did not take sides, the Seneca, Onondaga, and Cayuga nations sided with the British. Members of the Mohawk fought on both sides. Many Tuscarora and Oneida sided with the colonists. The Continental Army sent the Sullivan Expedition on raids throughout New York to cripple the Iroquois tribes which had sided with the British. Both during and after the war friction between the Mohawk leaders Joseph Louis Cook and Joseph Brant, who had sided with the Americans and the British respectively, further exacerbated the split.

A watercolor painting depicting a variety of Continental Army soldiers.
Creek and Seminole allies of Britain fought against Americans in Georgia and South Carolina. In 1778, a force of 800 Creeks destroyed American settlements along the Broad River in Georgia. Creek warriors also joined Thomas Brown's raids into South Carolina and assisted Britain during the Siege of Savannah.[32] Many Native Americans were involved in the fighting between Britain and Spain on the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi River-mostly on the British side. Thousands of Creeks, Chickasaws, and Choctaws fought in or near major battles such as the Battle of Fort Charlotte, the Battle of Mobile, and the Siege of Pensacola.[33]

Jegsimmons:

godofslack:

Jegsimmons:

actually, not quite, the natives were for the most part neutral because the British treated them worse than the french and Spanish, really more fought AGAINST the British.

Honestly, that untrue, a quick wikipedia search will disprove that claim. It's true that native Americans were officially neutral many did fight in the war, and I can't think of a single citation in which natives fought against the British during the war. Remember one of the causes for the war was that Britain had set out more than half the country for the Natives (they didn't know how much though) and the colonists wanted to go past the line into native territory.

yeah the indians captured a fort right before the 'official' part of the war started and even cooked a guy

though we are both right:
Most Native Americans east of the Mississippi River were affected by the war, and many communities were divided over the question of how to respond to the conflict. Though a few tribes were on friendly terms with the Americans, most Native Americans opposed the United States as a potential threat to their territory. Approximately 13,000 Native Americans fought on the British side, with the largest group coming from the Iroquois tribes, who fielded around 1,500 men.[31] The powerful Iroquois Confederacy was shattered as a result of the conflict; although the Confederacy did not take sides, the Seneca, Onondaga, and Cayuga nations sided with the British. Members of the Mohawk fought on both sides. Many Tuscarora and Oneida sided with the colonists. The Continental Army sent the Sullivan Expedition on raids throughout New York to cripple the Iroquois tribes which had sided with the British. Both during and after the war friction between the Mohawk leaders Joseph Louis Cook and Joseph Brant, who had sided with the Americans and the British respectively, further exacerbated the split.

A watercolor painting depicting a variety of Continental Army soldiers.
Creek and Seminole allies of Britain fought against Americans in Georgia and South Carolina. In 1778, a force of 800 Creeks destroyed American settlements along the Broad River in Georgia. Creek warriors also joined Thomas Brown's raids into South Carolina and assisted Britain during the Siege of Savannah.[32] Many Native Americans were involved in the fighting between Britain and Spain on the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi River-mostly on the British side. Thousands of Creeks, Chickasaws, and Choctaws fought in or near major battles such as the Battle of Fort Charlotte, the Battle of Mobile, and the Siege of Pensacola.[33]

Plus not to mention many French people married Native Americans, especially out on the frontiers. This new assassin could be a mix and since the French lost to Britain, have a disdain for the British in addition to a few Templar Founding Fathers (My money is on Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, and James Madison being the Templars.)

BakaSmurf:
I hope this is real, as that outfit is quite badass in my humble opinion, the tomahawk is a nice touch too.

Being one of the few people that's going to genuinely miss Ezio kind of irks me though... Really, what is it everyone has against him?

It's just that he's been used a bit too much. He's become old. In Assassin's Creed, we had Altair. He was interesting enough... but still a bit bland. In Assassin's Creed II we had Ezio Auditore. A new, interesting, rounded character, with a decent story arc. Family is murdered, while out for revenge he is brought into the Assassin order, etc. In Brotherhood, they offered a decent campaign, again, fleshing out Ezio as an older protagonist now, which we don't see much. Revelations, we've seen it all before. The only difference is now Ezio is an old fart. I liked Revelations, but 3 games with one protagonist, when clearly your intention was to keep moving to different parts of history, makes no sense. Ah well. I've got the multiplayer to keep me coming back to Revelations.

For the last time, the complaints about the "lack of big cities" are incorrect. New York, Philadelphia, and Boston were plenty big in that time period and had plenty of large buildings.

And those of you who complain about the setting being overused, PLEASE give me some examples of games that use the same setting. I can't think of a single one off the top of my head.

Anddddddd... suddenly I have no desire to buy these games anymore.

Vuljatar:
For the last time, the complaints about the "lack of big cities" are incorrect. New York, Philadelphia, and Boston were plenty big in that time period and had plenty of large buildings.

And those of you who complain about the setting being overused, PLEASE give me some examples of games that use the same setting. I can't think of a single one off the top of my head.

I don't think it's this setting per se but this being another game about the US, in a industry flooded with americanism.

AssCreed was one of the few series free of that, we had classical european settings, middle eastern(around the crusades) and many of us were hoping for a push further east(china/japan) or maybe even into egypt. Going west again(worst of all, modern western setting) is plain disappointing.

And for the people that are gonna accuse me of antiamericanism - check out the threads on various internet forums where americans themselves wonder why they don't get to play as other nations besides themselves, they complained that there is a overabundance of US themes and that they could use some diversity in their games.

If AssCreed wanted to remain in the western setting, they should've did french revolution for this game and give us some interesting setting out east for the next game.

I expected a less cliched outing from Ubisoft.

Anyway, they've really got their work cut out for them.

rofltehcat:

predatorpulse7:

I think Ubisoft did this to pander the american gamers(the FLAG is on the freaking cover, if that is a cover at all) - large gaming market - and to make it easier to research(since the teams building the games had to go at the actual sites - in italy, istanbul etc.), a trip from Montreal down to the States would maybe be easier for them.

Well, I really hope they thought that one through really well. Because the last game that went for the whole "catering to American Patriots" thing was Homefront and I think this one can be considered a flop, even in the US.
Because it is Assassin's Creed, it will still sell well but I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up being the worst-selling AC because of the setting.

Could be but I doubt it. Many americans will give it a shot just cause they get to meet historical figures from their country's past and maybe kill them.

The setting isn't as good because it isn't as rich as other,older cultural settings. It may have been a catalyst to the modern world we have today but that's precisely why it is so goddam boring. It's way too recent for one and it is set in the new world, where we have a sort of european lite element going on, from architecture to warfare.

The settings of renaissance Italy and crusader holy land work because they are so far removed from today's world yet some of the things from those ages remain universal, not just european or middle eastern. Ditto if the settings had been chinese/japanese/ancient egypt.

What exactly is the (universal)appeal of the American Revolutionary war for non-americans? The US is the modern superpower, since the 50's, but it is a very young country still, it can't boast an old culture like some of those other countries I've named out there. Architecture wasn't as interesting(or as big) as in the old world, myths were far and few between(most being about the founding fathers) etc.

And I see the new box art has made by point about pandering to northamerican audience. All the other AssCreed boxarts had people in the background or that animus graphic. This has a guy with a tomahawk killing a BRIT with the AMERICAN flag in the freaking background.

If it turns out that an Assassin accidentally killed Lincoln I'm going to laugh followed by buy the game again. looking forward to it anyway

I'll laugh when this turns out to be an elaborate April Fool's joke.

Zacharious-khan:
If it turns out that an Assassin accidentally killed Lincoln I'm going to laugh followed by buy the game again. looking forward to it anyway

:)

I would be very surprised if they didn't shoehorn this assassination in somehow.

Buretsu:
I'll laugh when this turns out to be an elaborate April Fool's joke.

I doubt it.

http://www.gameinformer.com/p/ac3.aspx

this one give a much closer detailed pic of the new assassin.

i really like it honestly..not sure what others don't like about it but i guess aesthetic design is pretty damn subjective so whatever. i mist say its really odd to not see any hidden blade but the tomahawk will do.

Honestly i'm not sure what people were expecting here, an American ancestor was kind of inevitable given we were progressing further and further towards Desmond directly.

predatorpulse7:

Vuljatar:
For the last time, the complaints about the "lack of big cities" are incorrect. New York, Philadelphia, and Boston were plenty big in that time period and had plenty of large buildings.

And those of you who complain about the setting being overused, PLEASE give me some examples of games that use the same setting. I can't think of a single one off the top of my head.

I don't think it's this setting per se but this being another game about the US, in a industry flooded with americanism.

AssCreed was one of the few series free of that, we had classical european settings, middle eastern(around the crusades) and many of us were hoping for a push further east(china/japan) or maybe even into egypt. Going west again(worst of all, modern western setting) is plain disappointing.

Out of the series of, what, 9 games, this is the only one set in America. 1/9 does not equal a flood.

I would have been delighted to have an AC game set in feudal Japan, but if we can't have that (and there is still time for them to make that... and I hope they do) colonial America is my second choice.

And for the people that are gonna accuse me of antiamericanism - check out the threads on various internet forums where americans themselves wonder why they don't get to play as other nations besides themselves, they complained that there is a overabundance of US themes and that they could use some diversity in their games.

I do see more than a little antiamericanism in this thread (big surprise, amirite?), but not from you.

I expected a less cliched outing from Ubisoft.

In what way would you define it as cliche?

EDIT: I forgot to add, I agree 100% with everyone in favor of a female protagonist voiced by Jennifer Hale. That would be the best thing that could ever happen to the series.

Jegsimmons:

Radoh:

Jegsimmons:
i will buy this if they drop everything relating to desmond, that bullshit space conspiracy, and anything that isnt about a gang of assassins ruining people shit.

but i know it wont so...fuck it. this series jumped shark long ago.

Jumped shark as in some guy in the somewhat future is reliving the memories of his ancestor because his genetics is a grand tapestry of recorded information?
You mean the first ten minutes of the first game?

yep. also the near future will be awkward when we actually hit that year and the series is still going.

It is the year this is taking place.
The whole thing is built around 12/21/2012 and how that's when the Templars are setting a system that will control people and sending it into space.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, i just realised he had a tomahawk.

Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuust buuuuyyyy!

JoesshittyOs:

willofbob:

Oh, and the American Revolution is not an interesting time period. Here's what happened: America was sick of the high british taxation rate and, instead of just complaining, or sending a guy, they sank a British ship. The war started then, but the Brits really weren't all that into it. They didn't really want to hold on to the colonies, they just fought as a matter of principle. Then the French joined in, siding with the Yanks, and Britain pulled out because America was far more trouble than it was worth.

In other words: Shame on you Ubisoft for abandoning whatever awesome idea you had come up with in favour of this blatant pandering to the American market. I hope you realise that now the only people who will uy this game are Yanks, now, right?

Dude... That was three hundred years ago.

Let it go.

I'm Aussie.
My country wasn' even around back then. I'm just tired of Yanks treating the Revolution like it was some great and noble thing. Just take a note from our friends the russians and just try to forget about it.

willofbob:

JoesshittyOs:

willofbob:

Oh, and the American Revolution is not an interesting time period. Here's what happened: America was sick of the high british taxation rate and, instead of just complaining, or sending a guy, they sank a British ship. The war started then, but the Brits really weren't all that into it. They didn't really want to hold on to the colonies, they just fought as a matter of principle. Then the French joined in, siding with the Yanks, and Britain pulled out because America was far more trouble than it was worth.

In other words: Shame on you Ubisoft for abandoning whatever awesome idea you had come up with in favour of this blatant pandering to the American market. I hope you realise that now the only people who will uy this game are Yanks, now, right?

Dude... That was three hundred years ago.

Let it go.

I'm Aussie.
My country wasn' even around back then. I'm just tired of Yanks treating the Revolution like it was some great and noble thing. Just take a note from our friends the russians and just try to forget about it.

Why? You're clearly overwhelmed with an irrational hatred based off of the extremely biased and almost entirely unfactual stereotype of the typical "America! Fuck Yeah" person. It's the same as me thinking that you ride Kangaroos and throw boomerangs. Not to mention your rather laughably incorrect sparknotes view of how it all went down.

And in terms of how history goes down, it is one of the few great and noble things that this country can feel proud of. It marked the downward spiral of the British Empire throughout the world, and was one of the few countries to be formed without a bloodline or ridiculous Government type.

Seriously, this is the reaction you get to the time period? It's... ridiculous.

Xangba:

willofbob:
Oh, and the American Revolution is not an interesting time period. Here's what happened: America was sick of the high british taxation rate and, instead of just complaining, or sending a guy, they sank a British ship. The war started then, but the Brits really weren't all that into it. They didn't really want to hold on to the colonies, they just fought as a matter of principle. Then the French joined in, siding with the Yanks, and Britain pulled out because America was far more trouble than it was worth.

In other words: Shame on you Ubisoft for abandoning whatever awesome idea you had come up with in favour of this blatant pandering to the American market. I hope you realise that now the only people who will uy this game are Yanks, now, right?

You don't know much about the Revolution, do you?

OT: Not convinced this is real. That would require a change in the formula of the game with it's heavy melee fighting, roof climbing, ect. And we all know that developers don't change a formula mid-series. Or ever sometimes.

Okay, then, what's YOUR version of events.

Oh, and this isn't just "Americuh sux", this is deeper. The point of Assassin's creed is different time-periods, nations, etc. For America, they already have Desmond. They should have set this in Britain, France, Germany or Russia. Wait until the 20s and 30s for an American game, so we have more time to explore various other cultures. Colonial America just seems like a pretty dumb setting for me.
Nevertheless, I was still pretty angry when I posted that. Knowing Ubisoft, they'll make it work somehow. I just find it hard to work up enthusiasm.

P.S. Has there ever actually been a game with a non-American Hero in which the Yanks are the villains?

willofbob:

Xangba:

willofbob:
Oh, and the American Revolution is not an interesting time period. Here's what happened: America was sick of the high british taxation rate and, instead of just complaining, or sending a guy, they sank a British ship. The war started then, but the Brits really weren't all that into it. They didn't really want to hold on to the colonies, they just fought as a matter of principle. Then the French joined in, siding with the Yanks, and Britain pulled out because America was far more trouble than it was worth.

In other words: Shame on you Ubisoft for abandoning whatever awesome idea you had come up with in favour of this blatant pandering to the American market. I hope you realise that now the only people who will uy this game are Yanks, now, right?

You don't know much about the Revolution, do you?

OT: Not convinced this is real. That would require a change in the formula of the game with it's heavy melee fighting, roof climbing, ect. And we all know that developers don't change a formula mid-series. Or ever sometimes.

Okay, then, what's YOUR version of events.

Oh, and this isn't just "Americuh sux", this is deeper. The point of Assassin's creed is different time-periods, nations, etc. For America, they already have Desmond. They should have set this in Britain, France, Germany or Russia. Wait until the 20s and 30s for an American game, so we have more time to explore various other cultures. Colonial America just seems like a pretty dumb setting for me.
Nevertheless, I was still pretty angry when I posted that. Knowing Ubisoft, they'll make it work somehow. I just find it hard to work up enthusiasm.

P.S. Has there ever actually been a game with a non-American Hero in which the Yanks are the villains?

The American revolution wasn't just some Yanks(Patriots) vs British(Loyalists). It also involved the French, Germans(Hessian), Spanish, Native Americans, African Americans(Slaves and Free men)

willofbob:
snip

Well based on your post it does kind of scream "Americuh sux" due to the oversimplification (and factually wrong) statement. You fail to mention the many petitions sent, or the martial law, or the quartering of troops without consent, or the closing of Boston harbor, or the fact that the Brits basically didn't allow the colonists to trade with any other nation. The mindset of the colonists was that they were British citizens, and were entitled to the same rights. The Brits did not fight "as a matter of principle," they had just gotten out of a war and were not looking to run up more of a debt for "principle." They fought to keep their colonies and the money they brought in. As for "really weren't all that into it" well if you're referring to the fact that their entire military wasn't in the colonies you'd be right, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the massive transport time for troops and resources along with the numerous other nations they were dealing with. In fact about two lines were correct there; "they sank a British ship" and "Britain pulled out because America was far more trouble than it was worth." Well, an American and French alliance was far more trouble than it was worth anyway. Oh and the numerous other nations trying to take the British empire down. Nah let's just pretend the only thing they were dealing with was a bunch of colonists.

OT:Come to think of it if this is true I wouldn't be surprised if you play a part in the Gaspee...

Oh and as for your P.S. I have no idea, since I tend to have access to games made in or for America. Seriously though, and this is to everyone, the "AMERICUH SUX!!!!11!!!11!" Is just as bad as "GO AMERICA!!!!"

Radoh:

Jegsimmons:

Radoh:

Jumped shark as in some guy in the somewhat future is reliving the memories of his ancestor because his genetics is a grand tapestry of recorded information?
You mean the first ten minutes of the first game?

yep. also the near future will be awkward when we actually hit that year and the series is still going.

It is the year this is taking place.
The whole thing is built around 12/21/2012 and how that's when the Templars are setting a system that will control people and sending it into space.

god, when did this series become so stupid?
you could put "this is what scientologist actually believe" and it wouldnt be far off.

and way to date yourself ubisoft...thats always good writting.

Xangba:

willofbob:
snip

Well based on your post it does kind of scream "Americuh sux" due to the oversimplification (and factually wrong) statement. You fail to mention the many petitions sent, or the martial law, or the quartering of troops without consent, or the closing of Boston harbor, or the fact that the Brits basically didn't allow the colonists to trade with any other nation. The mindset of the colonists was that they were British citizens, and were entitled to the same rights. The Brits did not fight "as a matter of principle," they had just gotten out of a war and were not looking to run up more of a debt for "principle." They fought to keep their colonies and the money they brought in. As for "really weren't all that into it" well if you're referring to the fact that their entire military wasn't in the colonies you'd be right, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the massive transport time for troops and resources along with the numerous other nations they were dealing with. In fact about two lines were correct there; "they sank a British ship" and "Britain pulled out because America was far more trouble than it was worth." Well, an American and French alliance was far more trouble than it was worth anyway. Oh and the numerous other nations trying to take the British empire down. Nah let's just pretend the only thing they were dealing with was a bunch of colonists.

OT:Come to think of it if this is true I wouldn't be surprised if you play a part in the Gaspee...

Oh and as for your P.S. I have no idea, since I tend to have access to games made in or for America. Seriously though, and this is to everyone, the "AMERICUH SUX!!!!11!!!11!" Is just as bad as "GO AMERICA!!!!"

i love politically incorrect (read as factual) history....puts a spring in my step and smile on my face.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked