I'm indifferent to all this as a Canadian..
vita game anyone? This is from 1755-1783 and the french revolution was from 1789-1799.
Why make a new assassin go somewhere when you already have a young one ready to fight?
Last edited by dom1999; 05-11-2012 at 07:07 AM.
Because American post-Invasion setting is boring. And maybe because the majority of peeps in this forum are from Europe.
Its a game, with some history thrown in. An entertainment medium. Chill out and enjoy it. None of you have played the game yet, so have no idea how the game will portray any of the sides involved in the setting and conflict, as well as the sensitive issues present at the time.
You don't see me up in arms about none of the trailers addressing the issue of slavery at the time do you. why can't people just enjoy stuff nowadays?
I'm done with this topic. When you all decide to have fun, give me a shout.
To put it simply, I think the hate is stemming from the contradiction between what the developers are saying about making a balanced game, and the advertisers who can't seem to get the Jingo out of their system.
It was a lot clearer with the advertising for past games that the chief character was neutral, the only time the Assassin has been perceived to take a side was when Ezio put himself briefly on the side of the Ottomans - and that didn't show up in the advertising at all (as I recall).
Now we have Connar who is also supposed to be neutral, yet the advertisers have him talking about outsiders, followed by the UK flag, and the 'truly free' followed by the old US one - and it's that which is causing problems. Not the killing of redcoats, seeing as they are naturally going to be the bulk of the guards hanging around, untill the war is over, and any bluecoat killing is likly to be spoiler related.
I'm British (English if you want to be precise) and I honestly don't care that I'm killing British troops or whatever.
Yes, my signature is outdated. Shut up.