PDA

View Full Version : What's up with all the American hate for this game?



Pages : [1] 2

CrazySN
05-10-2012, 06:09 PM
The hate for Americans in this game is astounding, and it's starting to annoy me whenever someone complains about fighting for the American side in this game. Seriously, it sounds like some of you guys actually wanted to have the British win during the American Revolution. You can bet that if it were any other nation fighting for it's independence, there wouldn't be nearly as much people complaining. While I know Americans certainly aren't saints and committed a lot of atrocities during and after the war, it's their cause that led to the basis of human rights around the globe.

It's because of the American Revolution that other revolutions ignited all over the globe, like the French Revolution and the Mexican Revolution. So it's not like it would be bad if the Assassins did decide to side with the Americans, as both of their causes clearly did coincide with each other, hypocritical or not.

Nader-Abudiix
05-10-2012, 06:18 PM
im good with it :) i dont mind who us assassin's side with because thats just a backgroud, we are fighting templars here xD

SaintPerkele
05-10-2012, 06:21 PM
It's no hate against Americans.
Let me quote myself from the other thread:

It's not about your own nationality, even though I would understand it if Russians were offended. I'm German and I have no problem with WWII games, because portraying the Nazis as the evil guys is more than reasonable.
The American Revolution was all in all more of a grey area though. While England surely surpressed its colonies, the settlers slaughtered innocent Natives at the same time. And the British soldiers were certainly no evil guys intoxicated by propaganda.
Also, it's not just the fact that Connor is apparently only fighting for the Colonialists, as the trailer suggests; it's the way it is depicted: Brutally killing Redcoats, without any explanation (which is at least given in the full demo), talking about those who are truly free (although most likely meaning Assassins and not Americans), while the flag is waving in the background.


Assassin's Creed is just not the franchise to support one nation without any criticism, whether it's America, Russia or whatever. I wouldn't really mind if Connor was only on the American side, but there's no reason to show the American flag all the time other than attract American customers.

EscoBlades
05-10-2012, 06:22 PM
People seem to forget that this is a game......

SixKeys
05-10-2012, 06:24 PM
It's not just another nation fighting for its independence, though. We're talking about a nation that went on to become one of the most powerful countries in the world and which is known for its widespread jingoism. If this game were about fighting for the independence of, say, North Korea, and the trailers and previews were all freedom-this and freedom-that while constantly panning to a shot of the North Korean flag bathing in the golden sunlight, it'd feel just as uncomfortable to some people because we know how North Korea is today.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject as these threads have a tendency to erupt into flame wars.

FilipinoNinja67
05-10-2012, 06:27 PM
Would have been better off in france x)

burtie80
05-10-2012, 06:29 PM
I don't think its going to be as clear cut...besides its just a game and people need to chill! :)

TheHumanTowel
05-10-2012, 06:34 PM
People need to take a step back and look at the past games in the series. AC has always been about Assassins and Templars. There has never been any bias towards a particular nation. The developers have consistently stated the Assassins are outside of the Revolution and Connor is not a part of either side. Although I would like to see Connor kill a few colonials to shut up the naysayers I trust the developers to deliver on this promise. Any claims the game will be totally pro-america are really only founded on prejudice against America.

n00bfi_97
05-10-2012, 06:34 PM
People seem to forget that this is a game......


I don't think its going to be as clear cut...besides its just a game and people need to chill! :)

I´m going to have comment on this. Yes, it´s just game, but how does that hurt anyone any less? I don´t understand why people say "HURR DURR it´s just game" but they never say for example, "HURR DURR it´s just a book".

A sensitive topic is a sensitive topic no matter which way one broaches it.

freddie_1897
05-10-2012, 06:37 PM
we dont want britain to win the american revolution and we don't care, because this isn't a game that is about the american revolution primarily, it's about assassins vs templars, and if there are assassins on both sides then they should show connor killing like one colonist or allied with one british officer rather than showing what they've shown in all previous footage and screens, which is Connor killing a bunch of redcoats and talking with a bunch of colonists.

i have no problem with killing redcoats, i just feel that the AC franchise should be more diverse when it comes to enemies, AC has always shown the other side of the story, and thats what i'd like them to do in this case.

just show connor killing some colonists and everyone's happy. unless there's one really, really patriotic american. which i doubt would be playing this game

Mr_Shade
05-10-2012, 06:48 PM
People need to take a step back and look at the past games in the series. AC has always been about Assassins and Templars. There has never been any bias towards a particular nation. The developers have consistently stated the Assassins are outside of the Revolution and Connor is not a part of either side. Although I would like to see Connor kill a few colonials to shut up the naysayers I trust the developers to deliver on this promise. Any claims the game will be totally pro-america are really only founded on prejudice against America.
Indeed.

So let's try and focus on the story of Connor and the Assassin's - if we can..

In the past they have treated every country with respect and the story flows around events happening there...


This wil be no different...


What I am shocked to see if people attacking each other on the forums over what is basically a plot device in the game.. The setting is not the be all and end all of the game, so let's have a little trust in the team - and allow them the space to expand the AC universe a little ;)

Brownsnakeeyes
05-10-2012, 07:00 PM
I´m going to have comment on this. Yes, it´s just game, but how does that hurt anyone any less? I don´t understand why people say "HURR DURR it´s just game" but they never say for example, "HURR DURR it´s just a book".

A sensitive topic is a sensitive topic no matter which way one broaches it.


I'm not really sure so I'm going to guess, but I think he was trying to remind people that it's just a game, like any other media. And not to take it too seriously.


I have an eight year old that I'm having to remind that video games aren't REAL. And movies too. And if people have a problem with what UBI is doing then don't buy it or grow a tougher skin.

MasterSimaYi
05-10-2012, 07:28 PM
While I do agree that having some footage of Connor killing some colonial Templars would be good and would satisfy a lot of people, I have the strong feeling that when they do a lot of people would be confused and they would simply complain about that instead. Face it, people really always complain about something. It's more of a lose-lose situation.

And also, just because Connor [and the Assassins] support the colonists during the American Revolution does not mean that the Assassins all support the United States. The game is just one entry in the universe, and if you paid close attention to the Rifts you will see that by modern times the Templars have major influence over a lot of political and economic figures, including Presidents such as FDR, LBJ and George W. Bush. Even if they would portray the United States in a good light now, doesn't mean it's like that in the entire storyline of the series.

freddie_1897
05-10-2012, 07:31 PM
first off, i'd like to mention that all the gameplay and screens seem to be from the beginning of the revolution, where the redcoats were everywhere. then i'd like to say that knowing Ubisoft there will be a twist involving the colonists at some point in the game so i'm not too worried about it being an 'America, **** yeah!' game. (get the reference?) however i think that showing Connor killing a colonist wouldn't do any harm, all it could do is lay people's fears to rest.

Markie577
05-10-2012, 07:40 PM
The hate for Americans in this game is astounding, and it's starting to annoy me whenever someone complains about fighting for the American side in this game. Seriously, it sounds like some of you guys actually wanted to have the British win during the American Revolution. You can bet that if it were any other nation fighting for it's independence, there wouldn't be nearly as much people complaining. While I know Americans certainly aren't saints and committed a lot of atrocities during and after the war, it's their cause that led to the basis of human rights around the globe.

It's because of the American Revolution that other revolutions ignited all over the globe, like the French Revolution and the Mexican Revolution. So it's not like it would be bad if the Assassins did decide to side with the Americans, as both of their causes clearly did coincide with each other, hypocritical or not.

It's not about people really hating american's. It's about american's being kind of nationalistic. Which is one of the reasons that started world war 1 and 2. Nationalists are scary and we often don't like nationalists.
And btw... The dutch were sooner with their war of independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Revolt).
It's just human nature to want to rule over their own lifes (and often rule over other people's life (American slaves, dutch slave trade, belgian colonies).

DavisP92
05-10-2012, 07:40 PM
people just whine too much, they want everything there way. We are killing redcoats in the trailer and game because they are taking orders from a government that is telling them to force control on the colonists, who are also British. What is stupid is now people are like "oh, but all redcoats aren't bad guys" wtf. when has that ever mattered, are you saying that every guard that we have killed in all of the AC games were bad, no. They were just taking orders like the redcoats. From what i've seen on this forum, people from England are taking offense to this for no reason, it's a game. There are games where will kill russians, germans, americans, and etc. Get over it, the majority of the enemies will probably be redcoats and we will most likely kill them for the same reason we killed the guards in AC1, 2, B and R. Because they are taking orders.

Edit: Americans aren't even making this game, and this has nothing to do with nationalism or anything. It's a game where we have been told that we will kill people on both sides of the war. Stop whining

tH3PatRi0Tx1776
05-10-2012, 08:04 PM
I have a feeling that the only reason they haven't shown colonists targets is because they're major spoilers and major targets in the game. Also, let's not forget who was heavily involved in the french-indian war, which subsequently ended with the massacre of Native American villages at the hands of the redcoats, which I believe will be the beginning of the game. But why would we kill colonists? They're just civilians. Now killing people in the continental Army would make more sense, but at the same time, no because there were very few of them and they wouldn't be able to justify it in game, but targets are more easily justified. Also, it's been confirmed that we will fight dutch and German colonists also.

But what I don't understand is that you're all complaining about how they're not just showing Connor kill them, but brutally, when in the past you guys wanted the kills to be more brutal. I remember ACII being particularly brutal and also ACR, where we killed Turks and not Italians. But no one complained then, but now?

In Modern Warfare 2 when they showed the attack on the US, I didn't get mad because the white house was burning, I knew it was a game. I didn't go to a forum and get angry because they attacked my homeland and people in a game. Same with Homefront, how bout movies like Letters to Iwo Jima? I didn't get mad because they showed the Japanese killing Americans, why would I? And that actually happened. At least they aren't showing Connor killing civilians, like a certain game named GTA. But oh yeah, it's just a game and it's fun running around in GTA and killing people and cops and everyone. But they show a redcoat being killed and bam, it's all over.

Ugh, sorry for my little rant. It's just that all this hate against America is annoying.

DavisP92
05-10-2012, 08:11 PM
I have a feeling that the only reason they haven't shown colonists targets is because they're major spoilers and major targets in the game. Also, let's not forget who was heavily involved in the french-indian war, which subsequently ended with the massacre of Native American villages at the hands of the redcoats, which I believe will be the beginning of the game. But why would we kill colonists? They're just civilians. Now killing people in the continental Army would make more sense, but at the same time, no because there were very few of them and they wouldn't be able to justify it in game, but targets are more easily justified. Also, it's been confirmed that we will fight dutch and German colonists also.

But what I don't understand is that you're all complaining about how they're not just showing Connor kill them, but brutally, when in the past you guys wanted the kills to be more brutal. I remember ACII being particularly brutal and also ACR, where we killed Turks and not Italians. But no one complained then, but now?

In Modern Warfare 2 when they showed the attack on the US, I didn't get mad because the white house was burning, I knew it was a game. I didn't go to a forum and get angry because they attacked my homeland and people in a game. Same with Homefront, how bout movies like Letters to Iwo Jima? I didn't get mad because they showed the Japanese killing Americans, why would I? And that actually happened. At least they aren't showing Connor killing civilians, like a certain game named GTA. But oh yeah, it's just a game and it's fun running around in GTA and killing people and cops and everyone. But they show a redcoat being killed and bam, it's all over.

Ugh, sorry for my little rant. It's just that all this hate against America is annoying.

exactly what i've been saying that it would be spoilers, people just love to complain and whine about things

Assassin_M
05-10-2012, 08:12 PM
For God`s sake people, The Colonists are British and The red Coats are British..
THEY`RE ALL BRITISH !!! Connor is half British, during that time there was no "American"

LightRey
05-10-2012, 08:13 PM
For God`s sake people, The Colonists are British and The red Coats are British..
THEY`RE ALL BRITISH !!! Connor is half British, during that time there was no "American"
Not all of the colonists were British, but yeah. Get that through your thick skulls, people.

freddie_1897
05-10-2012, 08:14 PM
actually a lot of people complained about the killing turks thing, the comments sections for almost all the videos about ACR were littered with complaints.
but i agree with you, i just hope that he does kill the people who burnt down his village at some point

albertwesker22
05-10-2012, 09:54 PM
I've said this before, but the game continues past the war. So the enemies we face for the remainder of the game, probably won't be redcoats.

SaintPerkele
05-10-2012, 10:00 PM
In Modern Warfare 2 when they showed the attack on the US, I didn't get mad because the white house was burning, I knew it was a game. I didn't go to a forum and get angry because they attacked my homeland and people in a game. Same with Homefront, how bout movies like Letters to Iwo Jima? I didn't get mad because they showed the Japanese killing Americans, why would I? And that actually happened. At least they aren't showing Connor killing civilians, like a certain game named GTA. But oh yeah, it's just a game and it's fun running around in GTA and killing people and cops and everyone. But they show a redcoat being killed and bam, it's all over.
I really don't want to fuel this discussion even more, but I just have to reply to the post. There's a difference between what we criticize and what you mean. Games such as Homefront, although they show brutality against Americans, is still an America-patriotic game. You are not the one who attacks America, you're the one defending it. I remember a lot of critics who even complained about that aspect of Homefront. I didn't play it myself, but from what I've read and heard from credible sources it was extremely patriotic and portrayed the absurd idea that North Korea would try to conquer the world which is apparently present in many people's heads.

I'm not desperately looking for a game where I can kill Americans. I don't even mind those patriotic games, as long as people play them who see them as nothing but games. I wouldn't even mind if we killed only redcoats in ACIII. What I dislike is the patriotic feeling the trailers give. Not because I don't want to see any patriotic media anywhere (although I personally have a strong problem with nationalism, no matter which country. But that might just be because my country knows what nationalism can lead to), but because this is something that doesn't really suit the AC franchise, which was usually about politically grey areas and the Assassins supporting all different political systems or countries, yet being in the middle of the fractions.

I'm hoping that you and the other American gamers who keep mentioning the "hate against America" can at least partially understand my problem with it. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who are simply hating against America, but I assure you I (along with the majoirity of those who complain on the forums) am not one of them.
You said it yourself: There are games like MW and Homefront which are meant to be patriotic. AC however shouldn't be, no matter which country it is about. And I'm actually sure it won't be, but most of the media released so far simply deliver a different image.

By the way, I completely agree with

I have a feeling that the only reason they haven't shown colonists targets is because they're major spoilers and major targets in the game. Also, let's not forget who was heavily involved in the french-indian war, which subsequently ended with the massacre of Native American villages at the hands of the redcoats, which I believe will be the beginning of the game. But why would we kill colonists? They're just civilians. Now killing people in the continental Army would make more sense, but at the same time, no because there were very few of them and they wouldn't be able to justify it in game, but targets are more easily justified. Also, it's been confirmed that we will fight dutch and German colonists also.

MasterSimaYi
05-10-2012, 10:01 PM
I've said this before, but the game continues past the war. So the enemies we face for the remainder of the game, probably won't be redcoats.

Actually, both the war and the game end in 1783.

De Filosoof
05-10-2012, 10:07 PM
It's no hate against Americans.
Let me quote myself from the other thread:


Assassin's Creed is just not the franchise to support one nation without any criticism, whether it's America, Russia or whatever. I wouldn't really mind if Connor was only on the American side, but there's no reason to show the American flag all the time other than attract American customers.

This, exactly this :).

albertwesker22
05-10-2012, 10:12 PM
Actually, both the war and the game end in 1783.

I'm pretty sure, Ubi stated that the game would continue past the war. It's not like the war ended on December 31st 1783. There would still be enough time for a couple of more sequences past the war and the game could still end in 83..

MasterSimaYi
05-10-2012, 10:24 PM
I'm pretty sure, Ubi stated that the game would continue past the war. It's not like the war ended on December 31st 1783. There would still be enough time for a couple of more sequences past the war and the game could still end in 83..

It ended on September 3, 1783. Only a few months...

Timeaus
05-10-2012, 10:28 PM
Well I can understand that people are angry because Ubisoft tried to focus their marketing appeal American audience, but Ubi is a company and they want to make a lot of profits and it so happen that America is the biggest market for gaming. I don't like it either but that's how most companies work. Pharmaceutical companies are even worst. People are selfish and that they think for themselves first that is the nature of most people and I'm one of them ( but I do care about other people as well). Its a sad truth, but its the truth.
Anyways I'm just happy and glad that I get to play this game, don't really care how they market it.

albertwesker22
05-10-2012, 10:35 PM
It ended on September 3, 1783. Only a few months...

A few months is more than enough time. Ezio's time in Istanbul was only about a year, yet they made a full game of it. Ezio spent the same amount of time in Florence in the Bonfire of the vanities, but that was only one sequence. If Ubi have stated the game continues past the war, who will we be fighting for the rest of the game?

Assassin_M
05-10-2012, 10:47 PM
, who will we be fighting for the rest of the game?
Hmmm

Colonials: "Connor you are great now run along and start a family in a new free america"
Connor: "Really ? thanks"

We do have an upgraded Animus right ?

Colonials attack Connor after some time and kill him in front of his family..

MasterSimaYi
05-10-2012, 11:00 PM
A few months is more than enough time. Ezio's time in Istanbul was only about a year, yet they made a full game of it. Ezio spent the same amount of time in Florence in the Bonfire of the vanities, but that was only one sequence. If Ubi have stated the game continues past the war, who will we be fighting for the rest of the game?

Revelations spanned two years, Bonfire of the Vanities spanned one year or a few months. And I'm not the one saying Ubisoft said that, I can't recall anything like that.

Khoserkenovich
05-10-2012, 11:35 PM
Because hating USA "is cool".

SaintPerkele
05-10-2012, 11:40 PM
Because hating USA "is cool".
You know, only reading the thread title and replying to it without reading the thread "is not cool".

CrazySN
05-11-2012, 12:38 AM
It's not just another nation fighting for its independence, though. We're talking about a nation that went on to become one of the most powerful countries in the world and which is known for its widespread jingoism. If this game were about fighting for the independence of, say, North Korea, and the trailers and previews were all freedom-this and freedom-that while constantly panning to a shot of the North Korean flag bathing in the golden sunlight, it'd feel just as uncomfortable to some people because we know how North Korea is today.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject as these threads have a tendency to erupt into flame wars.

That's the problem though. It's that people can't see past American jingoism to find deeper meaning in what's already there. Maybe it's because I'm an American, and that I probably have a skewed view, but there's more to the American flag than just "America **** yeah," especially during the American Revolution. To me, the American flag does represent the belief in freedom and equal rights, rather than just American nationalism. While many Americans did many things to betray this belief in the past, it's this belief that caused it to undo many of it's mistakes like slavery, sexism and racism.


It's not about people really hating american's. It's about american's being kind of nationalistic. Which is one of the reasons that started world war 1 and 2. Nationalists are scary and we often don't like nationalists.
And btw... The dutch were sooner with their war of independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Revolt).
It's just human nature to want to rule over their own lifes (and often rule over other people's life (American slaves, dutch slave trade, belgian colonies).

I understand where you're coming from, and I too dislike nationalism. However, for a country that dealt with multiple states, religions, and nationalities, I'd argue that the American Revolution wasn't even mainly about nationalism. Heck, I don't think the war would have even started if the British didn't treat the colonists as 2nd class citizens and gave them unfair laws. I really do believe that the American Revolution was fought on the premise of freedom and human rights, and I'm sure Connor wouldn't be helping the colonists if he thought the colonists were just fighting simply because they think the land belongs to them.

morpheusPrime08
05-11-2012, 01:00 AM
Repeating what another forum member said, I think im going dark also. The forums are just getting too heated and im tired of either

A) Defending AC3
B) Arguing over who the enemies are

Good thing Max Payne 3 comes out next week, I highly reccomend it as the best 3rd person shooter this year, definitely a heavy contender for GOTY from the same guys who braught you GTA and Red Dead Redemption.

Khoserkenovich
05-11-2012, 01:10 AM
You know, only reading the thread title and replying to it without reading the thread "is not cool".

I did read the topic, and I agree that the trailer was way too nationalistic for an Assassin's Creed game (Ubisoft said that the game wasn't going to simply portrait the British as the bad guys and "Americans" as good guys, but that's not what it seems judging by the trailer). It's just that some people seems to declare to "hate" the USA, but can't give a single reason why besides the well known cliché of "imperialist capitalism".

GunnarGunderson
05-11-2012, 01:25 AM
All they need to do is show Connor killing a colonial and everyone will shut up

Assassin_M
05-11-2012, 01:34 AM
All they need to do is show Connor killing a colonial and everyone will shut up
Hopefully that`s all it takes..

SixKeys
05-11-2012, 01:47 AM
While many Americans did many things to betray this belief in the past, it's this belief that caused it to undo many of it's mistakes like slavery, sexism and racism.


You think racism and sexism no longer exist in America? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

CrazySN
05-11-2012, 02:02 AM
You think racism and sexism no longer exist in America? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Things like that will always exist in the world, no matter what we do. It would be naive to think otherwise. The point is that it's not nearly as prevalent as it was in the past, and we actually do have laws to prevent many cases of it happening in the future.

MetalCreed
05-11-2012, 02:35 AM
I'm indifferent to all this as a Canadian..

mattahleen
05-11-2012, 03:03 AM
vita game anyone? This is from 1755-1783 and the french revolution was from 1789-1799.

hendricks610
05-11-2012, 04:10 AM
[spam]

pirate1802
05-11-2012, 04:46 AM
I´m going to have comment on this. Yes, it´s just game, but how does that hurt anyone any less? I don´t understand why people say "HURR DURR it´s just game" but they never say for example, "HURR DURR it´s just a book".

A sensitive topic is a sensitive topic no matter which way one broaches it.

Because games are works of fiction, meant to be fun, not educative or historically accurate (some games might be so, but thats not the main objective of most games). If the said book was a fiction then people should go hurr durr there too.

rain89c
05-11-2012, 04:52 AM
Because American post-Invasion setting is boring. And maybe because the majority of peeps in this forum are from Europe.

EscoBlades
05-11-2012, 09:41 AM
*cough*

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.

Locopells
05-11-2012, 11:50 AM
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.

Thoughts?

Locopells
05-11-2012, 11:51 AM
You don't see me up in arms about none of the trailers addressing the issue of slavery at the time do you?

They've already said that they wouldn't be addressing that though - so no contradiction as per my last post.

SquarePolo27
05-11-2012, 11:54 AM
I'm British (English if you want to be precise) and I honestly don't care that I'm killing British troops or whatever.

Locopells
05-11-2012, 11:56 AM
Same here - like I said, they're naturally going to be the bulk of the guards hanging around, untill the war is over. Think of Acre in AC1.

reddragonhrcro
05-11-2012, 12:01 PM
No idea whats up with all of that,i m actualy interested in it as i m going to learn something more about American history as pretty much there wasn´t much of in my history books while i was in school.

EscoBlades
05-11-2012, 12:10 PM
They've already said that they wouldn't be addressing that though - so no contradiction as per my last post.

On the contrary, they will be addressing the issue of slavery in the game. I've discussed it with Matt Turner (Lead Scriptwriter on AC3) and you can listen to the interview via the link in my sig. Still, knowing that, and not seeing anything mentioned about it in promo trailers isn't getting me all worked up and upset over it.

Assassin_M
05-11-2012, 12:15 PM
On the contrary, they will be addressing the issue of slavery in the game. I've discussed it with Matt Turner (Lead Scriptwriter on AC3) and you can listen to the interview via the link in my sig. Still, knowing that, and not seeing anything mentioned about it in promo trailers isn't getting me all worked up and upset over it.
Exactly.. I mean its not like we`re in September and that was the launch trailer; we still have 5 more months..
Who knows what we`ll get to see during that time..

Locopells
05-11-2012, 01:26 PM
On the contrary, they will be addressing the issue of slavery in the game. I've discussed it with Matt Turner (Lead Scriptwriter on AC3) and you can listen to the interview via the link in my sig. Still, knowing that, and not seeing anything mentioned about it in promo trailers isn't getting me all worked up and upset over it.

O-K, That's weird, I'm fairly certain I remember reading an interview in which they said it would be there, but not a major part of the storyline since they couldn't fit all the the issues during the the war into the game, or something like that. My bad.

EscoBlades
05-11-2012, 01:34 PM
O-K, That's weird, I'm fairly certain I remember reading an interview in which they said it would be there, but not a major part of the storyline since they couldn't fit all the the issues during the the war into the game, or something like that. My bad.

No probs. Should you wish to hear it, click to 11:24 of this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPZJaerqqI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPZJaerqqI)

De Filosoof
05-11-2012, 01:46 PM
O-K, That's weird, I'm fairly certain I remember reading an interview in which they said it would be there, but not a major part of the storyline since they couldn't fit all the the issues during the the war into the game, or something like that. My bad.

It would make great sidemissions to rescue slaves :D.
It would also be very noble and satisfying with different difficulty type missions.

Locopells
05-11-2012, 02:12 PM
No probs. Should you wish to hear it, click to 11:24 of this video - [/URL][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPZJaerqqI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPZJaerqqI)

Yeah that's pretty much what I read, though he makes more of it.

SaintPerkele
05-11-2012, 03:30 PM
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.

Thoughts?
Yes, this is pretty much spot on.

IrishMason33
05-11-2012, 05:30 PM
Why do people care. My ancestors where British Knights Templar during the crusades and in the order after crusades and you get to kill them in the for entire series. I don't care because the story is fiction. My ancestor came to America also to have new life and joined the revolution like everyone did in the day.

Funny how you fight with George Washington and the with the founding fathers who where all Freemasons, which was created by the Knights Templar. I wonder how they going to answer that.

Also in the game play trailer with the actual game play at 0:44 to 0:48 Connor killed a white coat and says "I will kill regarded their allegiance." And he also says "the future of our land....depends on those... who are truly free( 0:58 to 1:10)

Video link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RLOV3m1S2w

kriegerdesgottes
05-12-2012, 12:50 AM
I personally just don't get what the big deal is either but that is coming from a person who couldn't be more American but at the same time let's face it, Connor is wearing blue stripes on his overcoat which no other assassin has worn which just happens to be the color of the continental army which would signify he is taking a side which we all know isn't really the case. I know he is neutral and I believe that truly is the case but I can see how the British people on here are worried about it being an America propaganda game with the American flags all over and the main character wearing the colors of the American continental army. I think they are wayyy overreacting though.

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 12:53 AM
I personally just don't get what the big deal is either but that is coming from a person who couldn't be more American but at the same time let's face it, Connor is wearing blue stripes on his overcoat which no other assassin has worn which just happens to be the color of the continental army which would signify he is taking a side which we all know isn't really the case. I know he is neutral and I believe that truly is the case but I can see how the British people on here are worried about it being an America propaganda game with the American flags all over and the main character wearing the colors of the American continental army. I think they are wayyy overreacting though.
Its not just British people who are worried, though..
Which is what truly bugs me..
I mean I can answer to the British "EVERYONE WAS BRITISH"
But I can`t answer to someone who just doesnt like America..

Captain Tomatoz
05-12-2012, 01:30 AM
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.

Thoughts?

This ^^^

I am not bothered if the British (red coats) are the bulk of the enemies. I can understand why people are worried about it though, You have to admit that the trailer was very much on the colonists side, with no "grey area" (but remember it is only a trailer). I just think its the advertisers fault and the game will be balanced in the end :).

Also its early days yet, the first few AC1 trailers had Altiar only killing crusaders and that game was even on both sides. Also if there is free roam after the game, who are we going to kill because there will only be blue coats left

CrazySN
05-12-2012, 01:45 AM
Ugh, every youtube video I watch about AC3 has 90% of the comments about AC3 being American Propaganda. If people could stop thinking that anything America = propaganda, I'd be happy.

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 01:47 AM
Ugh, every youtube video I watch about AC3 has 90% of the comments about AC3 being American Propaganda. If people could stop thinking that anything America = propaganda, I'd be happy.
You went to the dumbest place in the world and asked for sanity ?

kriegerdesgottes
05-12-2012, 01:48 AM
Ugh, every youtube video I watch about AC3 has 90% of the comments about AC3 being American Propaganda. If people could stop thinking that anything America = propaganda, I'd be happy.

Agreed

Locopells
05-12-2012, 02:08 AM
you went to the dumbest place in the world and asked for sanity ?

lol!

Locopells
05-12-2012, 02:12 AM
This ^^^

I am not bothered if the British (red coats) are the bulk of the enemies. I can understand why people are worried about it though, You have to admit that the trailer was very much on the colonists side, with no "grey area" (but remember it is only a trailer). I just think its the advertisers fault and the game will be balanced in the end :).

Also its early days yet, the first few AC1 trailers had Altiar only killing crusaders and that game was even on both sides. Also if there is free roam after the game, who are we going to kill because there will only be blue coats left

This ^^^ too. Can't comment about AC1 though, only got into AC after AC2's console release (PC gamer, played 1 after being sold on the advertising for 2 before 2's PC release)

Taffy_17
05-12-2012, 04:11 AM
I think the problem is Connor is being portrayed in the trailers as if he's taking a side and purposefully hunting down Redcoats which is something the Assassins don't do.

Altair didn't take the side of the Crusaders or Muslims, Ezio didn't take the side of the Byzantines or Jannissaries. Why should Connor side with the americans?

We need to see some kind of a distinction that sais, ok he's a templar or he's working for the templars he needs to be killed which the trailers didn't really portray and is why its stirring this up.

CrazySN
05-12-2012, 04:57 AM
I think the problem is Connor is being portrayed in the trailers as if he's taking a side and purposefully hunting down Redcoats which is something the Assassins don't do.

Altair didn't take the side of the Crusaders or Muslims, Ezio didn't take the side of the Byzantines or Jannissaries. Why should Connor side with the americans?

We need to see some kind of a distinction that sais, ok he's a templar or he's working for the templars he needs to be killed which the trailers didn't really portray and is why its stirring this up.

You don't need to be on anyone's side in order to aid them. However, despite what Ubisoft representatives might say, I do think the Assassins will lean more toward the Colonists side for the majority of the game, rather than the British. Since Connor is clearly on good terms with high ranking Colonial officers such as George Washington, as we can see with the information released about the game, it's very unlikely that Connor would be in good terms with the British. It also makes sense for Connor to aid them, since he fights for the liberty of his people and bargaining with the Colonist to help them win the war could accomplish that, rather than destroying them outright.

With everything we know about this game, this shouldn't even be a problem though. We know for sure that this game won't be an "America **** yeah" game. That, and I'm sure that with Connor's relationship with the Colonials, we'll see the good and bad side of them and the good and bad side of what it means to fight for liberty. That's why I think it's important for Ubisoft to show the American flag in the trailers for this game. Because back then, the American flag didn't mean "America **** yeah." Back then, it was the symbol for liberty, which was exactly what Connor, the Colonials, and the Assassins fought for. Did they get it? Well, we'll see that in final game won't we?

albertwesker22
05-12-2012, 06:41 AM
You don't need to be on anyone's side in order to aid them. However, despite what Ubisoft representatives might say, I do think the Assassins will lean more toward the Colonists side for the majority of the game, rather than the British. Since Connor is clearly on good terms with high ranking Colonial officers such as George Washington, as we can see with the information released about the game, it's very unlikely that Connor would be in good terms with the British. It also makes sense for Connor to aid them, since he fights for the liberty of his people and bargaining with the Colonist to help them win the war could accomplish that, rather than destroying them outright.

With everything we know about this game, this shouldn't even be a problem though. We know for sure that this game won't be an "America **** yeah" game. That, and I'm sure that with Connor's relationship with the Colonials, we'll see the good and bad side of them and the good and bad side of what it means to fight for liberty. That's why I think it's important for Ubisoft to show the American flag in the trailers for this game. Because back then, the American flag didn't mean "America **** yeah." Back then, it was the symbol for liberty, which was exactly what Connor, the Colonials, and the Assassins fought for. Did they get it? Well, we'll see that in final game won't we?

Well Connor's people are fighting for the British. If Connor is siding with the Continental army for most of the game, then he is doing the exact opposite of fighting for his people's future, he is actively hastening their banishment.

I don't believe he will be siding with the continental army. He will be killing Templars on both sides, the majority of them happen to be British. That helps the Revolution, but that doesn't mean he is picking one side over the other.

CrazySN
05-12-2012, 07:07 AM
Well Connor's people are fighting for the British. If Connor is siding with the Continental army for most of the game, then he is doing the exact opposite of fighting for his people's future, he is actively hastening their banishment.

I don't believe he will be siding with the continental army. He will be killing Templars on both sides, the majority of them happen to be British. That helps the Revolution, but that doesn't mean he is picking one side over the other.

I didn't mention that Connor was choosing one side over the other. I simply mentioned Connor leaning more over to one side than the other. Also, FYI, there were a few people in the Mohawk tribe that did choose to side with the Colonials over the Redcoats, and were actually allowed to stay within US soil after the war, at least for awhile anyways.

Jamison_J_B
05-12-2012, 10:45 AM
I don't get it.... I thought this crap had ended. Maybe the entire world should declare war on the U.S. and kill every last one of us "good for nothing" americans, then the world can rejoice and be happy. For the love of god...

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 11:06 AM
I don't get it.... I thought this crap had ended. Maybe the entire world should declare war on the U.S. and kill every last one of us "good for nothing" americans, then the world can rejoice and be happy. For the love of god...
Calm down..
People are just arguing.... something that`ll never be settled..
Im just gonna enjoy the game, regardless of whom I get to kill..
I`v killed Russians, Americans, Italians, Syrians, British, Germans, French, Arabs, Egyptians, Ottomans, Byzantines, Spanish, Cypriots, Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese and Africans..
I dont give a single "F"

Captain Tomatoz
05-12-2012, 11:18 AM
I don't get it.... I thought this crap had ended. Maybe the entire world should declare war on the U.S. and kill every last one of us "good for nothing" americans, then the world can rejoice and be happy. For the love of god...

Chill, don't take things to heart. This is the internet and haters gonna hate. Lots of prejudice about my country for the empire we had but I don't go around getting angry at them. Let them hate me, its their loss not mine :D

De Filosoof
05-12-2012, 11:23 AM
I don't get it.... I thought this crap had ended. Maybe the entire world should declare war on the U.S. and kill every last one of us "good for nothing" americans, then the world can rejoice and be happy. For the love of god...

Dude please, there's nothing wrong with most American people.
They're just nice people like every other country.
The reason why your country gets critiziced by certain groups of people is because the leaders behind the curtain in your country are extremely corrupt.

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 11:26 AM
Dude please, there's nothing wrong with most American people.
They're just nice people like every other country.
The reason why your country gets critiziced by certain groups of people is because the leaders behind the curtain in your country are extremely corrupt.
True, I mean why bring political agendas into a game we`re all passionate about ?
Lets just leave Politics out, BUT NOOOOOOO...
God !!

Serrachio
05-12-2012, 11:29 AM
What people don't seem to realize is that only towards the end of the conflict there were "Americans".

Before then, everyone was British. I'm British myself, but I'm not *****ing that British people were killed. Why is that? Because this all happened in the past, and complaining about who gets killed or what nation gets killed in a game is pointless.

You can't physically go back in time and change the outcome, so stop complaining about it here and now, when a game addresses the war and the time period.

If you can't face the fact that people who share the same country as you were fighting and losing their lives, either suck it up or don't buy the game. Ubisoft aren't going to suffer because you had second thoughts.

De Filosoof
05-12-2012, 11:30 AM
True, I mean why bring political agendas into a game we`re all passionate about ?
Lets just leave Politics out, BUT NOOOOOOO...
God !!

I think it's a nice change of pace to put these kinda things in games (like the glyph puzzles).
That way people can learn important stuff while having fun.
It's better than all the terrorist propaganda in many other games.
I think people get kinda braindead by only playing COD.
There should be many more games like AC in my opinion.

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 11:31 AM
What people don't seem to realize is that only towards the end of the conflict there were "Americans".

Before then, everyone was British. I'm British myself, but I'm not *****ing that British people were killed. Why is that? Because this all happened in the past, and complaining about who gets killed or what nation gets killed in a game is pointless.

You can't physically go back in time and change the outcome, so stop complaining about it here and now, when a game addresses the war and the time period.

If you can't face the fact that people who share the same country as you were fighting and losing their lives, either suck it up or don't buy the game. Ubisoft aren't going to suffer because you had second thoughts.
Thank you Good sir !!



I think it's a nice change of pace to put these kinda things in games (like the glyph puzzles).
That way people can learn important stuff while having fun.
It's better than all the terrorist propaganda in many other games.
I think people get kinda braindead by only playing COD.
There should be many more games like AC in my opinion.
I didnt mean leave politics out of the game, No I want it there..
I was referring to people hating the American setting simply because of their politics..

De Filosoof
05-12-2012, 11:39 AM
Thank you Good sir !!



I didnt mean leave politics out of the game, No I want it there..
I was referring to people hating the American setting simply because of their politics..

True, i think it could be extremely interesting,if done right ofcourse.
But i trust Corey May, he's an awesome scriptwriter
(now let's hope those marketing guys at ubisoft didn't brainwash him LOL;)).

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 11:41 AM
True, i think it could be extremely interesting,if done right ofcourse.
But i trust Corey May, he's an awesome scriptwriter.
YES !! TRUST
Its what we really need to have towards the Dev Team..

De Filosoof
05-12-2012, 11:45 AM
YES !! TRUST
Its what we really need to have towards the Dev Team..

That's right :) But i almost never trust marketing guys though.
The problem with them is they only pay attention to dollar signs and try to convice people with calculations and many digits lol.

(It's very easy for people to sell their souls these days)

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 11:48 AM
That's right :) But i almost never trust marketing guys though.
The problem with them is they only pay attention to dollar signs and try to convice people with calculations and many digits lol.
We`re not gonna play the trailer; We`re playing a video game that promised balance and grey..
I couldnt care less about how they market it..
Although if one was sensible enough, he/she would`v taken the very subtle hints of Colonials being a much worse threat than the Red Coats in the end..

De Filosoof
05-12-2012, 12:11 PM
We`re not gonna play the trailer; We`re playing a video game that promised balance and grey..
I couldnt care less about how they market it..
Although if one was sensible enough, he/she would`v taken the very subtle hints of Colonials being a much worse threat than the Red Coats in the end..

True that.

SaintPerkele
05-12-2012, 04:03 PM
We`re not gonna play the trailer; We`re playing a video game that promised balance and grey..
I couldnt care less about how they market it..
Although if one was sensible enough, he/she would`v taken the very subtle hints of Colonials being a much worse threat than the Red Coats in the end..
Completely agree, althoughthe marketing bothers me, but I have high expectations for the main game.

Food for thoughts maybe: Listen to the speech Connor gives without watching the video and it gets an entirely different meaning (the quotes might not be perfectly correct, but they are along those lines).
"Part of me wants to repel all outsiders; part of me is the outsider." The trailer shows a British flag during this sequence which doesn't give the true meaning justice: Connor, being half-native and half-british is actually partially against all Colonists, whether they are British or 'American' (allow me to use that term), but partially also on their side due to his British heritage. This is not about the War of Independence, but about the whole colonialisation and the process of taking someone else's land.
"I will fight the enemy regardless of their allegiance." Well, this is ovbious. Connor will fight the Templars, and not the Redcoats, no matter on which side they are in the war. The trailer shows a bear instead. "Yeah guys, I will also fight bears, if they are templars!"
"The future of this country belongs to those who are truly free." The trailer shows the American flag, implying that "those who are truly free" refers to the Americans and those who fight against the Redcoats. What Connor is most likely actually meaning when saying "those who are truly free", are the Assassins - "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." No matter how the war will end, it's up to the Assassins to change the future of the country.

I have the feeling that those who produced the trailers were just a marketing organisation or something like that. Therefore, the trailer will most likely not do the game justice. Thoughts on that?

dxsxhxcx
05-12-2012, 04:48 PM
Completely agree, althoughthe marketing bothers me, but I have high expectations for the main game.

Food for thoughts maybe: Listen to the speech Connor gives without watching the video and it gets an entirely different meaning (the quotes might not be perfectly correct, but they are along those lines).
"Part of me wants to repel all outsiders; part of me is the outsider." The trailer shows a British flag during this sequence which doesn't give the true meaning justice: Connor, being half-native and half-british is actually partially against all Colonists, whether they are British or 'American' (allow me to use that term), but partially also on their side due to his British heritage. This is not about the War of Independence, but about the whole colonialisation and the process of taking someone else's land.
"I will fight the enemy regardless of their allegiance." Well, this is ovbious. Connor will fight the Templars, and not the Redcoats, no matter on which side they are in the war. The trailer shows a bear instead. "Yeah guys, I will also fight bears, if they are templars!"
"The future of this country belongs to those who are truly free." The trailer shows the American flag, implying that "those who are truly free" refers to the Americans and those who fight against the Redcoats. What Connor is most likely actually meaning when saying "those who are truly free", are the Assassins - "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." No matter how the war will end, it's up to the Assassins to change the future of the country.

I have the feeling that those who produced the trailers were just a marketing organisation or something like that. Therefore, the trailer will most likely not do the game justice. Thoughts on that?

sadly, IMO the images can't be ignored just to give his words the meaning we desire...

1. I don't think Connor's british heritage has something to do with it, he's divided about protecting everyone from the british invasion but at the same time these people he want to protect see him as an outsider as well because he's mohawk, so for these people, he's no different than the british...

2. maybe what you said is what Connor meant with his words, but once again the images betray him because the dead guy seems to be a redcoat, he may be a templar too but the fact that he seems to be on the british' side give us the idea that Connor is fighting the british and not the templars...

3. once again the images betray Connor, if we forget the images we can give the meaning we want to what he said, but when you say something like "The future of this country belongs to those who are truly free." and show an american flag waving in the background, is hard to think that he's talking about the assassins...

even with all they said about the game not being about the Revolution but about the Templars vs Assassins war, people are worried because they believe the game will be showing the USA as the good guys as always and the character that is supposed to be neutral on their side, and when the first "big" thing they release about the game shows exactly that, is easy to understand why they're worried...

CrazySN
05-12-2012, 05:07 PM
sadly, IMO the images can't be ignored just to give his words the meaning we desire...

1. I don't think Connor's british heritage has something to do with it, he's divided about protecting everyone from the british invasion but at the same time these people he want to protect see him as an outsider as well because he's mohawk, so for these people, he's no different than the british...

2. maybe what you said is what Connor meant with his words, but once again the images betray him because the dead guy seems to be a redcoat, he may be a templar too but the fact that he seems to be on the british' side give us the idea that Connor is fighting the british and not the templars...

3. once again the images betray Connor, if we forget the images we can give the meaning we want to what he said, but when you say something like "The future of this country belongs to those who are truly free." and show an american flag waving in the background, is hard to think that he's talking about the assassins...

Well, I think the words "truly free" could only ever apply to the Assasin's, since law does not apply to them, and besides the Templars, only they have the power to manipulate where the future is being headed. While the flag can certainly be interpreted in different ways, I think the flag merely symbolized the freedom that both the Assassins and Colonials were fighting for.

De Filosoof
05-12-2012, 05:15 PM
3. once again the images betray Connor, if we forget the images we can give the meaning we want to what he said, but when you say something like "The future of this country belongs to those who are truly free." and show an american flag waving in the background, is hard to think that he's talking about the assassins...

even with all they said about the game not being about the Revolution but about the Templars vs Assassins war, people are worried because they believe the game will be showing the USA as the good guys as always and the character that is supposed to be neutral on their side, and when the first "big" thing they release about the game shows exactly that, is easy to understand why they're worried...
Thank you for making sense :).

albertwesker22
05-12-2012, 05:33 PM
Well, I think the words "truly free" could only ever apply to the Assasin's, since law does not apply to them, and besides the Templars, only they have the power to manipulate where the future is being headed. While the flag can certainly be interpreted in different ways, I think the flag merely symbolized the freedom that both the Assassins and Colonials were fighting for.

Well Connor did say a part of him wanted to repel all outsiders. Connor probably hates the idea of helping the colonials(atleast early in the game) You have to admit, it's a raw deal when you have to choose between two invading forces. Which is why I also believe that Connor is not interested in helping either side in the slightest. He's just after the Templars, because if they win, everyone else loses. Mowhawk, British and Colonials. I mean we all need to remember that the Redcoats are not Templars, and the Continental army are not Assassin's.

I remember an article a few weeks ago. Connor won't be fighting with the Colonials against the Redcoats in any batlle. He has specific targets during these battles. He only wants his targets, he doesn't care how many soldiers on either side lose their lives. He'll let the battle run its course. If he want's to kill a British Templar, then he is going to make it seem like he is doing it for the continental army, that way he doesn't have to worry about being shot at by both sides, plus he'll get rewards. Remember when Ezio killed the Pazzi conspirators? They needed to die, but by killing them for Lorenzo, Ezio got a codex page and information. The same thing is happening here in my opinion.

CrazySN
05-12-2012, 05:43 PM
Well Connor did say a part of him wanted to repel all outsiders. Connor probably hates the idea of helping the colonials(atleast early in the game) You have to admit, it's a raw deal when you have to choose between two invading forces. Which is why I also believe that Connor is not interested in helping either side in the slightest. He's just after the Templars, because if they win, everyone else loses. Mowhawk, British and Colonials. I mean we all need to remember that the Redcoats are not Templars, and the Continental army are not Assassin's.

I remember an article a few weeks ago. Connor won't be fighting with the Colonials against the Redcoats in any batlle. He has specific targets during these battles. He only wants his targets, he doesn't care how many soldiers on either side lose their lives. He'll let the battle run its course. If he want's to kill a British Templar, then he is going to make it seem like he is doing it for the continental army, that way he doesn't have to worry about being shot at by both sides, plus he'll get rewards. Remember when Ezio killed the Pazzi conspirators? They needed to die, but by killing them for Lorenzo, Ezio got a codex page and information. The same thing is happening here in my opinion.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. The Assassins have made temporary allegiances in the past, and them temporarily helping the Colonists shouldn't be a problem.

albertwesker22
05-12-2012, 05:47 PM
Exactly the point I'm trying to make. The Assassins have made temporary allegiances in the past, and them temporarily helping the Colonists shouldn't be a problem.

Then we're on the same page :D

dxsxhxcx
05-12-2012, 07:10 PM
Exactly the point I'm trying to make. The Assassins have made temporary allegiances in the past, and them temporarily helping the Colonists shouldn't be a problem.

the problem is that the USA is view by some people as an arrogant, selfish and full of itself country and so is its people, and some people don't want to see a character they are supposed to like to be like that or support this behavior, that's why some people are worried about the game taking place in the USA, that's why they're worried about what they saw in the trailer with all that talk about freedom, and how the message the video passed is that the american people are truly free when in fact they aren't different than anyone else in this world...


I don't have the intention to offend any american here or say that all the americans behave like this, I know they don't and I'm sorry if some of you feel this way after you read this, but that's one way how some people see you and that's how they don't want the character to look like...

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 07:12 PM
DIE !! DIE !!! YOU STUPID THREAD !!! TEAR THE MALDITO THREAD TO PIECES !!!
just die already

Mr_Shade
05-12-2012, 07:35 PM
Just in case anyone hasn't seen this.. I will leave this here:

The time frame of the game helps minimise the controversy too because this isn’t the US of A as we know it now. ”The truth of the matter is that America didn’t exist until 1783 and that’s when our game ends,” states Turner. He points out that before this point the US was just an extension of England and the Revolution was considered a “civil war on foreign soil”.

“At that point it’s not about American or English; it’s about English and English and that’s something we want to be very clear on. It’s not about America Ra Ra it’s about freedom and community and about how people are treated in that kind of a situation. And how they want to find their own identity. I think that’s something that’s universal to anybody”.


http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/05/08/assassins-creed-3-not-about-america-ra-ra-wont-shy-away-from-slavery-says-writer/

Lets drop the name calling and stereotyping and READ what the writers have intended...


This is a game, about Connors struggle and conflict - and events in and around the revolution.. It's about FREEDOM..


Its not about killing Americans... It's about doing what he feels is right..

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 07:39 PM
Just in case anyone hasn't seen this.. I will leave this here:

The time frame of the game helps minimise the controversy too because this isn’t the US of A as we know it now. ”The truth of the matter is that America didn’t exist until 1783 and that’s when our game ends,” states Turner. He points out that before this point the US was just an extension of England and the Revolution was considered a “civil war on foreign soil”.

“At that point it’s not about American or English; it’s about English and English and that’s something we want to be very clear on. It’s not about America Ra Ra it’s about freedom and community and about how people are treated in that kind of a situation. And how they want to find their own identity. I think that’s something that’s universal to anybody”.


http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/05/08/assassins-creed-3-not-about-america-ra-ra-wont-shy-away-from-slavery-says-writer/

Lets drop the name calling and stereotyping and READ what the writers have intended...


This is a game, about Connors struggle and conflict - and events in and around the revolution.. It's about FREEDOM..


Its not about killing Americans... It's about doing what he feels is right..
Ohhhhh THANK YOU !!

Black_Widow9
05-12-2012, 07:47 PM
So glad you found this Shade. ;)

Locopells
05-12-2012, 07:58 PM
We never did doubt the writers, that's the whole point:


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.

Thoughts?

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 08:00 PM
We never did doubt the writers, that's the whole point:
Its not about the writers, its about a fact stated by a writer..
Which is the USA did not exist during the Revolution, there was no such thing..

Captain Tomatoz
05-12-2012, 08:41 PM
Its not about the writers, its about a fact stated by a writer..
Which is the USA did not exist during the Revolution, there was no such thing..

I know what your saying and I completely agree with you.

But, whether you like it or not the redcoats are always going to be seen as the "british" and the bluecoats are always going to be seen as the "americans", because that's what they later became. So I can understand why people might be worried. I personally think its WAY to early to be judging a game considering it doesn't come out till late October.

Also to the doubters and worriers, remember this, Corey May is the lead writer. I feel safe :)

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 08:45 PM
I know what your saying and I completely agree with you.

But, whether you like it or not the redcoats are always going to be seen as the "british" and the bluecoats are always going to be seen as the "americans", because that's what they later became. So I can understand why people might be worried. I personally think its WAY to early to be judging a game considering it doesn't come out till late October.

Also to the doubters and worriers, remember this, Corey May is the lead writer. I feel safe :)
Then that completely changes the basis of the argument to a simple matter of point of view..

Captain Tomatoz
05-12-2012, 08:49 PM
Then that completely changes the basis of the argument to a simple matter of point of view..

Isn't that what an argument is? People's different points of view clashing.

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 08:53 PM
Isn't that what an argument is? People's different points of view clashing.
True but there are arguments that includes at least one party having no valid base, which can determine a victor in an argument`s outcome..
but now, it can just end in "I see it that way, its my opinion so lets agree to disagree"

Captain Tomatoz
05-12-2012, 08:57 PM
True but there are arguments that includes at least one party having no valid base, which can determine a victor in an argument`s outcome..
but now, it can just end in "I see it that way, its my opinion so lets agree to disagree"

Yeah I suppose. I just think people should wait and see until nearer the the release date when more information comes out (or maybe E3) before they judge. I'm happy with it at the moment though and its shaping up to be the best game in the series :D

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 08:59 PM
Yeah I suppose. I just think people should wait and see until nearer the the release date when more information comes out (or maybe E3) before they judge. I'm happy with it at the moment though and its shaping up to be the best game in the series :D
BEST IN THE WOOOOOOOOOORLD !!
Oh yeah :D

CrazySN
05-12-2012, 09:10 PM
We never did doubt the writers, that's the whole point:


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.

Thoughts?

That's just the thing that just keeps getting restated over and over again. Look, there is no contradiction in what the developers are saying about making a balanced game. It's just that people keep perceiving American Jingo in the AC3 advertisements, when there really isn't any.


Just in case anyone hasn't seen this.. I will leave this here:

The time frame of the game helps minimise the controversy too because this isn’t the US of A as we know it now. ”The truth of the matter is that America didn’t exist until 1783 and that’s when our game ends,” states Turner. He points out that before this point the US was just an extension of England and the Revolution was considered a “civil war on foreign soil”.

“At that point it’s not about American or English; it’s about English and English and that’s something we want to be very clear on. It’s not about America Ra Ra it’s about freedom and community and about how people are treated in that kind of a situation. And how they want to find their own identity. I think that’s something that’s universal to anybody”.


http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/05/08/assassins-creed-3-not-about-america-ra-ra-wont-shy-away-from-slavery-says-writer/

Lets drop the name calling and stereotyping and READ what the writers have intended...


This is a game, about Connors struggle and conflict - and events in and around the revolution.. It's about FREEDOM..


Its not about killing Americans... It's about doing what he feels is right..

Took the words straight out of my mouth.

Calvarok
05-13-2012, 12:17 AM
It's like people forget what AC is like every time a new game comes out. Every AC game has villains of many nationalities. Every single side's ****ishness tendancies are shown. And if you look at the actual history of the American Revolution, the British were a lot more ****ish than the colonists. Not to mention that at this point the colonists were still British people. All they wanted was to be independant from some far-off empire over the seas. Neither side was blameless and pure, but the colonist's motivations were "we just want to do our own thing" wheras the Empire's was "We must continue our expansion and control all new territories.". One of those is something that is quite obviously a slippery slope towards evil.

Locopells
05-13-2012, 12:24 AM
Shade's absolutely right, it IS about Freedom - but also there IS a tilt towards that being US only in the ads. Now of course the USA doesn't exist at this point, and they are not the US of today but that's not how your average smuck on the street is going to see it. We might know Connor is neutral, but not everyone is going to "READ what the writers have intended". In other words, put the box art in front of two average joes from the UK and US, and see what THEY think the game is about.

I know I'm repeating myself, and I hate to keep the argument going but the OP asked a question, and this is more or less the answer. Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but it's late and I'm tired...

n00bfi_97
05-13-2012, 12:24 AM
It's like people forget what AC is like every time a new game comes out. Every AC game has villains of many nationalities. Every single side's ****ishness tendancies are shown. And if you look at the actual history of the American Revolution, the British were a lot more ****ish than the colonists. Not to mention that at this point the colonists were still British people. All they wanted was to be independant from some far-off empire over the seas. Neither side was blameless and pure, but the colonist's motivations were "we just want to do our own thing" wheras the Empire's was "We must continue our expansion and control all new territories.". One of those is something that is quite obviously a slippery slope towards evil.

OMFG. I just have to comment on this.

Now look, I'm completely neutral on this topic because I'm not European nor American.

Back then, no one, NO ONE, was 'Amercian', The Revolutionary War was a civil war on foreign soil. Even the US considers it to be so. Because like I said, back then no one was American; all were British. Like it or not, North America was under British control. The majority of the people that wanted independence were British peeps that went to North America, not the Red Indians. This means that they were (may be a bit harsh) selfish; they wanted to break off from Britain simply because they didn't like the laws, whereas technically it's the same country. Therefore, both sides are at fault; one doesn't want to let go of power and another is not following their obligations .

Locopells
05-13-2012, 12:27 AM
Careful with the Red Indians tag, the Native American's don't like it...

Taffy_17
05-13-2012, 01:28 AM
Question: What's up with all the American hate for this game?

Answer:

Valid Reason 1: Why should the assassins, which has traditionally stayed neutral, suddenly side with the americans and start hunting down british soldiers in the woods as seen in almost every screenshot and video to date? No one likes bias against their team.

Other Reason 1: Because its fun
Other Reason 2: America's always been seen as the playground bully by other nations.
Other Reason 3: Everyone loves winding people up. And the more you respond to this with people making and commenting on threads like this the more of it theres going to be.
Other Reason 4: Ubisoft hasn't commented on it and until it does this argument will go on and on.

Now pick your favourite of these Five, in my opinion, excelent reasons why people are hating/insulting/winding up the american population of this forum and let it go.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 01:32 AM
Question: What's up with all the American hate for this game?

Answer:

Valid Reason 1: Why should the assassins, which has traditionally stayed neutral, suddenly side with the americans and start hunting down british soldiers in the woods as seen in almost every screenshot and video to date? No one likes bias against their team.

Other Reason 1: Because its fun
Other Reason 2: America's always been seen as the playground bully by other nations.
Other Reason 3: Everyone loves winding people up. And the more you respond to this with people making and commenting on threads like this the more of it theres going to be.
Other Reason 4: Ubisoft hasn't commented on it and until it does this argument will go on and on.

Now pick your favourite of these Five, in my opinion, excelent reasons why people are hating/insulting/winding up the american population of this forum and let it go.
Valid 1: No, The Assassins arent siding with any one, and they only show him killing Red Coats, because they want to avoid spoilers..
Other 1:Immature
Other 2: Probably
Other 3: I wont even answer that..
Other 4: Yes they have

CrazySN
05-13-2012, 01:38 AM
OMFG. I just have to comment on this.

Now look, I'm completely neutral on this topic because I'm not European nor American.

Back then, no one, NO ONE, was 'Amercian', The Revolutionary War was a civil war on foreign soil. Even the US considers it to be so. Because like I said, back then no one was American; all were British. Like it or not, North America was under British control. The majority of the people that wanted independence were British peeps that went to North America, not the Red Indians. This means that they were (may be a bit harsh) selfish; they wanted to break off from Britain simply because they didn't like the laws, whereas technically it's the same country. Therefore, both sides are at fault; one doesn't want to let go of power and another is not following their obligations .

Were the Colonists really at fault for not wanting to follow laws that oppressed them and treated them like 2nd class citizens?


Question: What's up with all the American hate for this game?

Answer:

Valid Reason 1: Why should the assassins, which has traditionally stayed neutral, suddenly side with the americans and start hunting down british soldiers in the woods as seen in almost every screenshot and video to date? No one likes bias against their team.

Other Reason 1: Because its fun
Other Reason 2: America's always been seen as the playground bully by other nations.
Other Reason 3: Everyone loves winding people up. And the more you respond to this with people making and commenting on threads like this the more of it theres going to be.
Other Reason 4: Ubisoft hasn't commented on it and until it does this argument will go on and on.

Now pick your favourite of these Five, in my opinion, excelent reasons why people are hating/insulting/winding up the american population of this forum and let it go.

The first reason shouldn't even be valid, and if you want to know why, you can read the posts above.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 01:41 AM
Truth be told, Im disappointed..
Instead of discussing the Story, Graphics, Gameplay, Weapons etc... of the game, We are discussing who is ultimately better, The US or UK..
I`v lost all faith in humanity..

Acrimonious_Nin
05-13-2012, 01:41 AM
Would the whole assassins fight for freedom stuff going on....what would that say about the Libertarian party that almost at times sounds Anarchistic(sometimes) and to my knowledge the Libertarian party tends to look at the liberals and the conservatives as 2 players on different sides of the chess board. This leads me to remember how Clay's rifts in brotherhood explained political, economic, and philosophic strife through the chess board. Towards the end of the rifts he Tells Desmond that he needs to step out of the board which is "the assassin thing to do". So would the assassins have their own unique set of philosophical/spiritual/political views and Libertarian is just libertarian, or are the assassins infiltrating countries using the libertarian party to combat Abstergos monopoly of liberal vs conservative ?

EDIT: I am referring to the modern day assassins. Since the fall is about the most we will see about the modern day assassin's operations, I figured I would do some synthesis on what I can gather about the modern day assassins before AC3 comes out. :D

Taffy_17
05-13-2012, 01:50 AM
Valid 1: No, The Assassins arent siding with any one, and they only show him killing Red Coats, because they want to avoid spoilers..
Other 1:Immature
Other 2: Probably
Other 3: I wont even answer that..
Other 4: Yes they have


As a Brit i don't want to run around killing British all day, just as an American would want to play as a Viet Cong assassin (for example) and kill Americans all day, on this note it must suck to be a Russian gamer.

So until they show us a clip of Connor killing a colonist/american or interacting with a British general he will always be seen as on their team, because the only thing we've seen is him chumming up with the Americans, and killing British, people will interprit this as bias, and people don't like bias.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 01:52 AM
As a Brit i don't want to run around killing British all day, just as an American would want to play as a Viet Cong assassin (for example) and kill Americans all day, on this note it must suck to be a Russian gamer.

So until they show us a clip of Connor killing a colonist/american or interacting with a British general he will always be seen as on their team, because the only thing we've seen is him chumming up with the Americans, and killing British, people will interprit this as bias, and people don't like bias.
Why the hell wouldnt you want to kill virtual Polygons and programs all day ? is it because they`re wearing red ? THEY WERE ALL BRITISH !!! Red Coats and Colonists..There was no such thing as USA

CrazySN
05-13-2012, 01:53 AM
Truth be told, Im disappointed..
Instead of discussing the Story, Graphics, Gameplay, Weapons etc... of the game, We are discussing who is ultimately better, The US or UK..
I`v lost all faith in humanity..

Really? I don't see much of that anywhere. I just see people talking about their different points of view about the game.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 01:55 AM
Really? I don't see much of that anywhere. I just see people talking about their different points of view about the game.
Yes Different point of views about which country is so totally awesome..

Taffy_17
05-13-2012, 01:55 AM
Why the hell wouldnt you want to kill virtual Polygons and programs all day ? is it because they`re wearing red ? THEY WERE ALL BRITISH !!! Red Coats and Colonists..There was no such thing as USA

But thats not how people see it which is why we are having this discussion in the first place.

albertwesker22
05-13-2012, 01:55 AM
Truth be told, Im disappointed..
Instead of discussing the Story, Graphics, Gameplay, Weapons etc... of the game, We are discussing who is ultimately better, The US or UK..
I`v lost all faith in humanity..


You think the UK is better right?? ;)

Seriously. All kidding aside, I feel your pain. This reminds of AC Revelations. We had a few Turks on this forum saying "THEY SHOULD BE CALLING THE CITY ISTANBUL, NOT CONSTANTINOPLE!!!!!" To which a few Europeans responded like "The f**king Ottomans kidnapped European children! They are evil!!!!"

It will probably blow over soon.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 01:58 AM
You think the UK is better right?? ;)

Seriously. All kidding aside, I feel your pain. This reminds of AC Revelations. We had a few Turks on this forum saying "THEY SHOULD BE CALLING THE CITY ISTANBUL, NOT CONSTANTINOPLE!!!!!" To which a few Europeans responded like "The f**king Ottomans kidnapped European children! They are evil!!!!"

It will probably blow over soon.

This is even worse..


But thats not how people see it which is why we are having this discussion in the first place.
If people just try to focus on facts and steer away from sheer arrogance then ALL of this could be avoided altogether..

CrazySN
05-13-2012, 02:00 AM
You think the UK is better right?? ;)

Seriously. All kidding aside, I feel your pain. This reminds of AC Revelations. We had a few Turks on this forum saying "THEY SHOULD BE CALLING THE CITY ISTANBUL, NOT CONSTANTINOPLE!!!!!" To which a few Europeans responded like "The f**king Ottomans kidnapped European children! They are evil!!!!"

It will probably blow over soon.

Truth be told, I can see this thread going around in circles, since people keep mentioning the same things over and over again.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 02:02 AM
Truth be told, I can see this thread going around in circles, since people keep mentioning the same things over and over again.
It probably wont ever end until EVERYONE sees Connor killing a Colonist..

kriegerdesgottes
05-13-2012, 02:05 AM
It probably wont ever end until EVERYONE sees Connor killing a Colonist..

I somehow doubt it will end there. Then no one would be able to complain anymore.

Taffy_17
05-13-2012, 02:06 AM
This is even worse..


If people just try to focus on facts and steer away from sheer arrogance then ALL of this could be avoided altogether..

Unfortunately people are stupid and all they see is this cool new assassin mindlessly hunting down and killing their team

If you want it to stop their gonna have to see a pic of him killing a colonist to back up ubisofts work

albertwesker22
05-13-2012, 02:08 AM
If people just try to focus on facts and steer away from sheer arrogance then ALL of this could be avoided altogether..

The British and Americans, could be the two most arrogant(generalizing a bit) peoples on the planet. What did you expect? ;)

You would think people would have a little faith. This is Assassin's Creed we're talking about here, they haven't been biased this far. Stop freaking out people!

CrazySN
05-13-2012, 02:09 AM
It probably wont ever end until EVERYONE sees Connor killing a Colonist..

Would it really? What if the game only had 20% of the game killing Colonists and 80% of it killing redcoats? Would people still complain then? That's what I'm wondering.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 02:12 AM
Unfortunately people are stupid and all they see is this cool new assassin mindlessly hunting down and killing their team

If you want it to stop their gonna have to see a pic of him killing a colonist to back up ubisofts work
WoW the ones who are actually mature and dont care who they kill are the stupid ones ? Just WoW..

and this is for you.. Happy now ?
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/1007/vlcsnap2012051304h03m37.png
Not Photoshop..

Taffy_17
05-13-2012, 02:12 AM
earning a new respect for russian gamers here. you never hear them complaining about being the bad guys all the time

Taffy_17
05-13-2012, 02:16 AM
WoW the ones who are actually mature and dont care who they kill are the stupid ones ? Just WoW..

and this is for you.. Happy now ?
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/1007/vlcsnap2012051304h03m37.png
Not Photoshop..

hahaha, points for artistic effort, unfortunately i'm not the one you need to convince, i still have faith in ubisoft.

Captain Tomatoz
05-13-2012, 03:20 AM
Its pretty obvious that the colonists soldiers will be killed in this game since (if I remember correctly, sorry if I'm wrong) Boston gets taken over by the colonists during the war.

Who will protecting the people of Boston from the assassin if the colonists can't chase him down?

n00bfi_97
05-13-2012, 02:01 PM
earning a new respect for russian gamers here. you never hear them complaining about being the bad guys all the time

Seconded. I suppose it's the cold; they can't be bothered to argue, unlike some of these pathetic people.

mattscat16
05-13-2012, 02:01 PM
People seem to forget that this is a game......

this..

ProletariatPleb
05-13-2012, 02:24 PM
WoW the ones who are actually mature and dont care who they kill are the stupid ones ? Just WoW..

and this is for you.. Happy now ?
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/1007/vlcsnap2012051304h03m37.png
Not Photoshop..
Made my day ROFL!

lothario-da-be
05-13-2012, 03:29 PM
somrtimes its just ridiculous, yesterday somebody said on youtube he won't buy ac3 because he can't kill his own people.If Russians and Germans did that! they never complain about anything. I really don't understand these guys, refuse to kill pixels?

SaintPerkele
05-13-2012, 06:14 PM
somrtimes its just ridiculous, yesterday somebody said on youtube he won't buy ac3 because he can't kill his own people.If Russians and Germans did that! they never complain about anything. I really don't understand these guys, refuse to kill pixels?
To be fair though.The Russians and especially us Germans have out of all the Western civilization the worst recent history, at least if we consider the last century. I'm not angry if people wish to kill us in games, because we actually were the bad guys for quite a while. Also, as long as it's just a game, I don't see the big deal about it anyway.

freddie_1897
05-13-2012, 07:05 PM
Seconded. I suppose it's the cold; they can't be bothered to argue, unlike some of these pathetic people.
that seem a bit harsh. i'm not actually worried about going on a redcoat slaughterfest because they were arseholes, and I'm british, but the only thing i'm worried about is in youtube comments for LP's, there are gonna be so many Britain vs America comments there it'll be crazy, and the last thing i want is some hugely patriotic or nationalist american going "HEY, WE ARE THE COUNTRY OF THE GOD!, GOD LOVES US, WE SAVED YOUR ARSE IS WW2, AMERICA! THE LAND OF FREEDOM! GO DRINK SOME TEA"

now before anyone thinks i'm exaggerating this is an actual comment i found on youtube. now i know that 99% of americans are not like this, but their are quite a lot of you so theres always that occasional 1%. who go all out annoying, this goes for the British as well.

lfc908
05-13-2012, 09:52 PM
that seem a bit harsh. i'm not actually worried about going on a redcoat slaughterfest because they were arseholes, and I'm british, but the only thing i'm worried about is in youtube comments for LP's, there are gonna be so many Britain vs America comments there it'll be crazy, and the last thing i want is some hugely patriotic or nationalist american going "HEY, WE ARE THE COUNTRY OF THE GOD!, GOD LOVES US, WE SAVED YOUR ARSE IS WW2, AMERICA! THE LAND OF FREEDOM! GO DRINK SOME TEA"

now before anyone thinks i'm exaggerating this is an actual comment i found on youtube. now i know that 99% of americans are not like this, but their are quite a lot of you so theres always that occasional 1%. who go all out annoying, this goes for the British as well.

Nope I believe you, I saw a whole load of youtube video comments regarding Japan's tsunami and they said '' hahahaha they deserved that for Pearl harbour'' and ''seeing those nukes go off in Japan makes me proud to be American''

Back on topic, I have no problem killing British soldiers, as I'm English as well. The problem I have is I hope the game isn't cringey and all ''AMERICA **** YEAH LIBERTY **** YEAH'' WHICH it is bound to have some of it, However it will be an awesome game :)

n00bfi_97
05-13-2012, 09:54 PM
Just let this da.mn thread die.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 09:55 PM
Nope I believe you, I saw a whole load of youtube video comments regarding Japan's tsunami and they said '' hahahaha they deserved that for Pearl harbour'' and ''seeing those nukes go off in Japan makes me proud to be American''

Back on topic, I have no problem killing British soldiers, as I'm English as well. The problem I have is I hope the game isn't cringey and all ''AMERICA **** YEAH LIBERTY **** YEAH'' WHICH it is bound to have some of it, However it will be an awesome game :)
Of course you`ll hear "America RA" in the game..
From Troops, from Leaders, but this is just a back story, a side show to the main plot..
Just lke AC I remember ? when in each city you`d hear preachers glorifying their respective leaders and cursing the enemy ?

Locopells
05-14-2012, 01:15 AM
Of course you`ll hear "America RA" in the game..
From Troops, from Leaders, but this is just a back story, a side show to the main plot..
Just lke AC I remember ? when in each city you`d hear preachers glorifying their respective leaders and cursing the enemy ?

I think he means from the Assassins, of course you're gonna get it from the bluecoats, that goes with the territory.

Assassin_M
05-14-2012, 01:17 AM
I think he means from the Assassins, of course you're gonna get it from the bluecoats, that goes with the territory.
Oh then that makes it a complete no of course..
The Assassins Wont be "America Ra Ra"
As far as I can tell..

Locopells
05-14-2012, 01:18 AM
Oh then that makes it a complete no of course..
The Assassins Wont be "America Ra Ra"
As far as I can tell..

Duh (in theory)

Assassin_M
05-14-2012, 01:19 AM
Duh (in theory)
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious :D
Wont happen again sorry

Locopells
05-14-2012, 01:21 AM
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious :D
Wont happen again sorry

Sorry, that was my short way of agreeing with you...

Jamison_J_B
05-14-2012, 10:37 AM
To be fair though.The Russians and especially us Germans have out of all the Western civilization the worst recent history, at least if we consider the last century. I'm not angry if people wish to kill us in games, because we actually were the bad guys for quite a while. Also, as long as it's just a game, I don't see the big deal about it anyway. Germans weren't the bad guys it was Hitler, big difference. Toward the end of the war Hitler started killing Germans. See this is where my brain just screams. I can tell the difference between a homicidal psychopathic leader and a nation of people, some others here can as well. Just like how Hitler killed a bunch of Germans, Stalin killed a bunch of Russians. Coming from a "yank", I in no way consider you or any other citizen of Deutschland violent or whatever. Hell, I'm half German. Nah dude...

SaintPerkele
05-14-2012, 12:54 PM
Germans weren't the bad guys it was Hitler, big difference. Toward the end of the war Hitler started killing Germans. See this is where my brain just screams. I can tell the difference between a homicidal psychopathic leader and a nation of people, some others here can as well. Just like how Hitler killed a bunch of Germans, Stalin killed a bunch of Russians. Coming from a "yank", I in no way consider you or any other citizen of Deutschland violent or whatever. Hell, I'm half German. Nah dude...
As much as I appreciate what you say, unfortunately, Hitler's actions were heavily supported by the majority of citizens. The Holocaust and the pogroms all over Germany would not have been possible, if there hadn't been so many civilians supporting it and informing the government of jews and other people who were depicted as enemies of the state.
Of course that does not imply that every German was cruel and heartless, it was just the result of a very good propaganda. Don't believe people who tell you that there was a huge resistance against the Nazi regime in Germany - there wasn't, at least not like the Résistance in France. Sure, there were some people who tried to hide jews and others who simply disliked the government, but that was huge minority. So "bad guys" might have been the wrong word, but by no means are the German people completely innocent. The concept (which was ironically developed by Stalin) of Eastern Germany was "Hitlers come and go, the people stay the same"; as a result, there was no so called "re-education" in Eastern Germany - which can still be seen today, as most Neonazis come from the region which used to be Eastern Germany.

Oh, and about one month after taking office, Hitler already politically persecuted all socialists and communists which were as a matter of fact usually "German" and put them in concentration camps.

Sorry, I know that was a bit OT :D

HoIcon
05-14-2012, 07:48 PM
what follows is my opinion and ramblings if you so see it that way, the british were/are pretty bad, they seeked to invade and control, the colonists that now falsely call themselves americans are the same just bigger and more full of themselves, if what is now america had been left in the hands of the native humans and animals it would be far greater than it is now, for a time anyway, humans have an annoying nak of learning things, knowledge may be power but it is also destruction when the knowledge is widespread
if my mind had turned out the same as is it now and if i had been there during the revolution i'd probably of simply been an observer, instead of picking sides, i'd watch my brothers tear eachother apart, such is human nature to fight to control
maybe the world would simply be better off if humans never appeared
i'm hoping the AC series will eventually change my opinion of humanity as i am tired of seeing things this way, very tired
reply if you wish, it changes little, i just wanted to express my thoughts somewhere where they might be read, ease my mind a little

tH3PatRi0Tx1776
05-14-2012, 08:03 PM
what follows is my opinion and ramblings if you so see it that way, the british were/are pretty bad, they seeked to invade and control, the colonists that now falsely call themselves americans are the same just bigger and more full of themselves, if what is now america had been left in the hands of the native humans and animals it would be far greater than it is now, for a time anyway, humans have an annoying nak of learning things, knowledge may be power but it is also destruction when the knowledge is widespread
if my mind had turned out the same as is it now and if i had been there during the revolution i'd probably of simply been an observer, instead of picking sides, i'd watch my brothers tear eachother apart, such is human nature to fight to control
maybe the world would simply be better off if humans never appeared
i'm hoping the AC series will eventually change my opinion of humanity as i am tired of seeing things this way, very tired
reply if you wish, it changes little, i just wanted to express my thoughts somewhere where they might be read, ease my mind a little

You remind of Machiavelli. You're a realist aren't you? Me too! except that I'm an Optimistic Realist, if that makes sense. But, the Native people themselves were warriors, they fought each other constantly and Natives had empires also. They're human, just like the rest and all humans are the same, except for those who are actually good and stand for what's right, but most humans are the same. But as a Christian believer, I do believe that humans were made to be good, caring creatures. who were here to take care of this world and it's many animals, but as screw ups, we kinda destroyed that plan.

freddie_1897
05-14-2012, 08:55 PM
the world would without a doubt have been better off without humans, but that doesn't mean i like that, the thing is is that everyone looks at AC3 like this: Connor=Colonist, colonist=good. but they don't realise that as time goes on the colonists who won unfortunately become bad, they took the native americans land and destroyed the environment, when i play AC3, i will see the colonists as the good guys at the time, but i will understand that all that will change.
and unfortunately for the person above, i believe that, for example, if a person was given a ring that could make them invisible, they would use it to steal something, therefore i do, slightly negatively believe that all humans are good, but if given the chance do bad things. that's why power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, like whats happening in Syria at the moment

kriegerdesgottes
05-14-2012, 09:24 PM
You remind of Machiavelli. You're a realist aren't you? Me too! except that I'm an Optimistic Realist, if that makes sense. But, the Native people themselves were warriors, they fought each other constantly and Natives had empires also. They're human, just like the rest and all humans are the same, except for those who are actually good and stand for what's right, but most humans are the same. But as a Christian believer, I do believe that humans were made to be good, caring creatures. who were here to take care of this world and it's many animals, but as screw ups, we kinda destroyed that plan.

Agreed and as a believer myself my opinion would only differ in the fact that man is evil in nature and not good by any means. The liberals like to believe that man in somehow inherently good by nature and therefore we should just trust in ourselves but the reality is that we are evil in nature and only some few of us fight our whole lives to inch closer and closer to good and equality and love for all people. But it's the people who try and strive for good when it's contrary to our nature who are truly exceptional and "the good ones" and not the ones who accept evil (which btw is not a human concept) as normal and celebrate evil and hate good. That's just how I see it anyway :)

De Filosoof
05-14-2012, 09:32 PM
Oh dear...Christians talking about good & evil.
Do you guys understand that people are actually being formed by culture and their environment?
There is no such thing as an "evil" baby human being.
Humans are being formed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

I really recommend this documentary.
There's also a very interesting part about biology in it (at 0:09:00 )I think many AC fans will like this.

kriegerdesgottes
05-14-2012, 09:47 PM
People are certainly influenced by environment and their surroundings but that doesn't make them any less evil or good. Man has a tendency for evil, self righteousness and selfishness. Man has a drive to give into their own interests and wants which often times are evil and not consider others. When you are a child you are concerned with your needs and what you want and you typically will do even mean and hurtful things to do others because you don't know better or because you deserve better and some people never care to strive to break free from this childish mentality. I'm not saying that every child is the equivalent of Hitler but I am saying that man is selfish, mean, self-righteous, and self serving by nature and regardless of your surroundings and upbringing you have the choice to abstain from evil and to think about and consider others and do good in a world of evil. Life is about choice and to do good when your flesh prefers evil.

Jexx21
05-14-2012, 09:48 PM
like with light and shadows, there is no evil. only the absence of good.

And humans were initially formed to be good by nature, not evil.

also, The Circle Series by Ted Dekker is a great read for concepts about good and evil.

---

also, aren't personalities also partially genetic? Not just it being formed through environment?

TheHumanTowel
05-14-2012, 10:05 PM
People are certainly influenced by environment and their surroundings but that doesn't make them any less evil or good. Man has a tendency for evil, self righteousness and selfishness. Man has a drive to give into their own interests and wants which often times are evil and not consider others. When you are a child you are concerned with your needs and what you want and you typically will do even mean and hurtful things to do others because you don't know better or because you deserve better and some people never care to strive to break free from this childish mentality. I'm not saying that every child is the equivalent of Hitler but I am saying that man is selfish, mean, self-righteous, and self serving by nature and regardless of your surroundings and upbringing you have the choice to abstain from evil and to think about and consider others and do good in a world of evil. Life is about choice and to do good when your flesh prefers evil.
Does evil really exist though? I'm sure Hitler and other figures of absolute evil thought they were acting for the good of humanity or their nation or whatever. Morality is very relative to the time period. Slavery was a societal norm back in the day. It wasn't seen as immoral and inhumane as it is today. But can we call the slave owners in those time periods evil? Is it right to judge them by today's conventional morality when they lived in a time where slavery was condoned by the Zeitgeist? I don't think we can.

kriegerdesgottes
05-14-2012, 10:06 PM
like with light and shadows, there is no evil. only the absence of good.

And humans were initially formed to be good by nature, not evil.

also, The Circle Series by Ted Dekker is a great read for concepts about good and evil.

---

also, aren't personalities also partially genetic? Not just it being formed through environment?

I have to disagree. The concept of good and evil is not the same and the concept of light and dark or cold and heat. Man was formed initially without the knowledge of evil but decided to take part of it anyway. Maybe we should change the subject? I really don't want to start a flame war. These are just my opinions and beliefs. You are certainly all free to believe what you want.

kriegerdesgottes
05-14-2012, 10:09 PM
Does evil really exist though? I'm sure Hitler and other figures of absolute evil thought they were acting for the good of humanity or their nation or whatever. Morality is very relative to the time period. Slavery was a societal norm back in the day. It wasn't seen as immoral and inhumane as it is today. But can we call the slave owners in those time periods evil? Is it right to judge them by today's conventional morality when they lived in a time where slavery was condoned by the Zeitgeist? I don't think we can.

Well you actually have made a good point though because yes indeed Hitler did think he was righteous for murdering Jews and others but was he? obviously not. This in itself shows that evil is not relative but the heart of man is relative. Do you see? A society can make a man believe that murder and rape and theft and all sorts of evil are ok and acceptable but are they? no they are not. They are still evil but the man's heart is relative in that case and believes it is good but it is still not. I tell you that murder and rape and cruelty have never ever in the history of man been something that has been worldwide accepted as good and do you know why? Because they are not. And there will always be places and people who will think otherwise but they are wrong because indeed Evil is real and not a relative concept.

freddie_1897
05-14-2012, 10:15 PM
Does evil really exist though? I'm sure Hitler and other figures of absolute evil thought they were acting for the good of humanity or their nation or whatever. Morality is very relative to the time period. Slavery was a societal norm back in the day. It wasn't seen as immoral and inhumane as it is today. But can we call the slave owners in those time periods evil? Is it right to judge them by today's conventional morality when they lived in a time where slavery was condoned by the Zeitgeist? I don't think we can.
that is not true, i mean it is to an extent, but does anyone here remember Dennis Nilsen? that man did not act for good, in any way, shape or form, he was scary because he was so normal, he was a respectable civil servant until what happened. but that man was pure evil, he was not insane, he has not been declared insane, but he is proof that evil exists, the same goes for jefferey Dahmer for those who know who he is

Assassin_M
05-14-2012, 10:16 PM
Personally, I do not like taking part in these conversations, but im just throwing this out there..
A moral sense is inborn in man and, through the ages, it has served as the common man’s standard of moral behavior, approving certain qualities and condemning others. While this instinctive faculty may vary from person to person, human conscience has consistently declared certain moral qualities to be good and others to be bad.

Justice, courage and truthfulness have always found praise, and history does not record any period worth the name in which falsehood, injustice, dishonesty and breach of trust have been praised; sympathy, compassion, loyalty and generosity have always been valued, while selfishness, cruelty, meanness and bigotry have never been approved of by society; men have always appreciated perseverance, determination and courage, but never impatience, fickleness, cowardice and stupidity. Dignity, restraint, politeness and friendliness have throughout the ages been counted virtues, whereas snobbery and rudeness have always been looked down upon. People with a sense of responsibility and devotion to duty have always won the highest regard, those who are incompetent, lazy and lacking in a sense of duty have never been looked upon with approval.

Similarly, in assessing the standards of good and bad in the collective behavior of society as a whole, only those societies have been considered worthy of honor which have possessed the virtues of organisation, discipline, mutual attention and compassion and which have established a social order based on justice, freedom and equality. Disorganisation, indiscipline, anarchy, disunity, injustice and social privilege have always been considered manifestations of decay and disintegration in a society. Robbery, murder, larceny, adultery and corruption have always been condemned. Slander and blackmail have never been considered healthy social activities, while service and care of the aged, helping one’s relatives, regard for neighbours, loyalty to friends, aiding the weak, the destitute and the orphans, and nursing the sick are qualities which have been highly valued since the dawn of civilisation.

Individuals who are honest, sincere and dependable, whose deeds match their words, who are content with their own rightful possessions, who are prompt in the discharge of their obligations to others, who live in peace and let others live in peace, and from whom nothing but good can be expected, have always formed the basis of any healthy human society.

These examples show that human moral standards are universal and have been well-known to mankind throughout the ages. Good and evil are not myths, but realities well understood by all. A sense of good and evil is inherent in the very nature of man. Hence in the terminology of in Arabic Quran good is called Ma’rif (a well-known thing) and evil munkar (an unknown thing); that is to say, good is known to be desirable and evil is known not to commend itself in any way.
Sorry for the wall of text

tH3PatRi0Tx1776
05-14-2012, 10:17 PM
the world would without a doubt have been better off without humans, but that doesn't mean i like that, the thing is is that everyone looks at AC3 like this: Connor=Colonist, colonist=good. but they don't realise that as time goes on the colonists who won unfortunately become bad, they took the native americans land and destroyed the environment, when i play AC3, i will see the colonists as the good guys at the time, but i will understand that all that will change.
and unfortunately for the person above, i believe that, for example, if a person was given a ring that could make them invisible, they would use it to steal something, therefore i do, slightly negatively believe that all humans are good, but if given the chance do bad things. that's why power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, like whats happening in Syria at the moment


Exactly! couldn't said it better myself, if given the chance, they would do the bad thing, as I said through, there are few who would actually do good or many, I don't know, can't really estimate it. But, yes, power can corrupt, as Machiavelli said "Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical. and greedy of gain."

But, he also said "A return to first principles in a republic is sometimes caused by the simple virtues of one man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example." Which basically, all it takes is one good man to come in power, for good to be displayed.

TheHumanTowel
05-14-2012, 10:20 PM
Well you actually have made a good point though because yes indeed Hitler did think he was righteous for murdering Jews and others but was he? obviously not. This in itself shows that evil is not relative but the heart of man is relative. Do you see? A society can make a man believe that murder and rape and theft and all sorts of evil are ok and acceptable but are they? no they are not. They are still evil but the man's heart is relative in that case and believes it is good but it is still not. I tell you that murder and rape and cruelty have never ever in the history of man been something that has been worldwide accepted as good and do you know why? Because they are not. And there will always be places and people who will think otherwise but they are wrong because indeed Evil is real and not a relative concept.
I think it boils down the fact that you believe morality is objective and I think morality is relative. I don't want to keep going round in circles so I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. You made some interesting points.

TheHumanTowel
05-14-2012, 10:37 PM
that is not true, i mean it is to an extent, but does anyone here remember Dennis Nilsen? that man did not act for good, in any way, shape or form, he was scary because he was so normal, he was a respectable civil servant until what happened. but that man was pure evil, he was not insane, he has not been declared insane, but he is proof that evil exists, the same goes for jefferey Dahmer for those who know who he is
Those men are monsters but I'd imagine they thought their actions were justified. Certainly not acting for good but maybe they believed they could do these things because they didn't believe in morality. I'm not trying to be really cynical here and say there is no such thing as morality. Morality is hugely important in society. Humans would never have risen to the heights we have if we hadn't developed the concept of morality. What i'm saying is people can do evil things but can we call the person truly evil when to them they were perfectly justified in their actions.

ShadowRage41
05-14-2012, 10:54 PM
. But, the Native people themselves were warriors, they fought each other constantly and Natives had empires also..
For the most part Native Americans were hunters and gathers. Sure there were tribal conflicts usually over herds ect. Most of their conflicts concerned maintaining control over their lands and resources... Conflicts were not so much about expanding an empire or owning land. The Native Americans scoffed at the notion of owning something that was here before they were. and would be here long after they died. As I said it was about survival and resources. If they had truly had an Empire, the white settlers would never have gotten a foothold in the door. Each tribe understood the boundaries of their territories. many migrated following the herds and therein is where conflict arouse. Of course some tribes were as much about raiding and stealing from enemies. but to imply the native American Indians established empires, that is simply not correct.. Even theChiricahua Apache during the time of Cochise as strong as they were could not be considered an empire.

The tactical problem the Native American had were they were grouped into subdivisions and tribes. you might have eight different tribes within the Apache for instance. each with their own Chief and their own set of traditions. traditions varied from tribe to tribe. They did not have an overall leader at all. for instance one tribe of the Apache might be in good standing with the United States Military. while at the same time be at odds with local governing bodies and Mexico. Another might be hostile to all.

The great Buffalo hunts by the white settlers were a U.S gov initiative to remove enemies from their resources. nothing more. it became about gold and the Railroad... moving the gold from places like Colorado. I could go on and on. The Little Big Horn was a product of a gathering of all the tribes to address the issue of the shortage of resources. and to decide what to do about the continuing expansion of the White Settlers and the U.S gov. Custer stumbled upon it and was massacred as a result. But it was the beginning of the end. The Crow, Blackfoot and Sioux did not tolerate any outsiders to transgress on their territory or hunting lands. The old adage they competed over scarce resources. But for the most part they were hunters first warriors second. The Chiricahua Apache were warriors first and then hunters. their territories did not yield much bounty. so they would raid Mexico Arizona and New Mexico they would transgress on other Native Americans hunting grounds and because they were such hardened warriors there was not much any of the other Native American tribes could do about it. For more info read the Geronimo campaign by Brittion Davis and Lt. Charles Gatewood, The native Americans were much more complex than many people believe. many conflicts that ended in the United States routing a partcular tribe. was a result of the strongest of the Native American warriors counting coup. where they would ride fearlessly towards an enemy and touch them on the head with a coup stick not injuring them. This was how many native Americans conducted war. a code so to speak. the White warriors fought to kill first and foremost. Sitting Bull had to remind the warriors at the great council prior to The battle of little Bighorn for the warriors to forgo counting coup and fight like the white warriors... to kill

De Filosoof
05-14-2012, 11:45 PM
Ofcourse people should believe what they want but people should always be eager to learn new stuff.
It's too easy to say "well that's just my believe, so...".
Debate is always very important.

I think people should question their reality extra hard when they're not open for different views and information anymore...

Assassin_M
05-14-2012, 11:48 PM
Ofcourse people should believe what they want but must always be eager to learn new stuff.
Indeed.. Meanwhile in Heaven..
Every person in the world has read the Quran, Bible, Torah and decided upon which to follow, every person in the world read every scientific theory of Evolution, space, creation, physics, chemistry etc.. and everyone is tolerant of one another..

De Filosoof
05-15-2012, 12:02 AM
But just let's keep it peaceful here.
Our opinions and views on the word may differ but we're all human beings, enjoying the same things like playing assassin's creed ;).

Assassin_M
05-15-2012, 12:05 AM
But just let's keep it peaceful here.
Our opinions and views on the word may differ but we're all human beings, enjoying the same things like playing assassin's creed ;).
You truly are an Inspiration, my friend..
I admire your calling greatly, seriously..

Jexx21
05-15-2012, 02:35 AM
I think people should question their reality extra hard when they're not open for different views and information anymore...

he who increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.

some people don't want to know more.

tH3PatRi0Tx1776
05-15-2012, 03:18 AM
he who increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.

some people don't want to know more.
12 I, the Teacher, was king of Israel, and I lived in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to search for understanding and to explore by wisdom everything being done under heaven. I soon discovered that God has dealt a tragic existence to the human race. 14 I observed everything going on under the sun, and really, it is all meaningless—like chasing the wind.


15 What is wrong cannot be made right.
What is missing cannot be recovered.

16 I said to myself, “Look, I am wiser than any of the kings who ruled in Jerusalem before me. I have greater wisdom and knowledge than any of them.” 17 So I set out to learn everything from wisdom to madness and folly. But I learned firsthand that pursuing all this is like chasing the wind.


18 The greater my wisdom, the greater my grief.
To increase knowledge only increases sorrow.

Ecclesiastes 1:12-18

One of the most interesting books in the bible, a great read that I suggest. It starts with, “Everything is meaningless,” says the Teacher, “completely meaningless!”. Gets your attention doesn't it?

De Filosoof
05-15-2012, 11:27 AM
12 I, the Teacher, was king of Israel, and I lived in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to search for understanding and to explore by wisdom everything being done under heaven. I soon discovered that God has dealt a tragic existence to the human race. 14 I observed everything going on under the sun, and really, it is all meaningless—like chasing the wind.


15 What is wrong cannot be made right.
What is missing cannot be recovered.

16 I said to myself, “Look, I am wiser than any of the kings who ruled in Jerusalem before me. I have greater wisdom and knowledge than any of them.” 17 So I set out to learn everything from wisdom to madness and folly. But I learned firsthand that pursuing all this is like chasing the wind.


18 The greater my wisdom, the greater my grief.
To increase knowledge only increases sorrow.

Ecclesiastes 1:12-18

One of the most interesting books in the bible, a great read that I suggest. It starts with, “Everything is meaningless,” says the Teacher, “completely meaningless!”. Gets your attention doesn't it?


Those are quotes from the bible, written many many years ago.
They're not directly applyable to current society anymore.
Look at how the current monetary system has been corrupted.
We're exploiting all earths resources right now in the name of more profit without looking at the consequences, this didn't happen 2000 years ago.
People can look away and quote their beloved bible as much as they want but that doesn't change a thing.

" Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever was".


To be honest, we actually have the abilities and technology to create a garden of eden here on earth if we REALLY wanted to and don't have to leave it in the hands of faith or money addict elites.

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/431708_191298137641941_129370207168068_275180_5297 96070_n.jpg

tH3PatRi0Tx1776
05-15-2012, 03:40 PM
Those are quotes from the bible, written many many years ago.
They're not directly applyable to current society anymore.
Look at how the current monetary system has been corrupted.
We're exploiting all earths resources right now in the name of more profit without looking at the consequences, this didn't happen 2000 years ago.
People can look away and quote their beloved bible as much as they want but that doesn't change a thing.

" Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever was".


To be honest, we actually have the abilities and technology to create a garden of eden here on earth if we REALLY wanted to and don't have to leave it in the hands of faith or money addict elites.

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/431708_191298137641941_129370207168068_275180_5297 96070_n.jpg

I was just putting the verse in context because after all, "he who increases knowledge, increases sorrow" is from the bible. Those verses still apply to modern society and the whole book still applies, if you read it, you'll understand. Also, what are you talking about? Of course the monetary system is corrupted, it has always been! Ever since the first civilization! There has always been people who have a hunger and love for money and the power that it brings, after all, the love for money is the root of all sorts of evil. But, nah, the bible doesn't talk about that because that's a new thing. Corruption and power hungry people are all new things. Look, you don't have to believe in the Bible, but don't criticize people who do see it as something still relative.


Ofcourse people should believe what they want but people should always be eager to learn new stuff.

I think people should question their reality extra hard when they're not open for different views and information anymore...

Didn't you say this? I thought you were a really open minded person, after all, "Intelligent people are always ready to learn. Their ears are open for knowledge."

Sukramo
05-15-2012, 03:58 PM
All this could have been avoided with one screenshot of Connor killing a colonist.

Assassin_M
05-15-2012, 04:10 PM
All this could have been avoided with one screenshot of Connor killing a colonist.
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg833/scaled.php?server=833&filename=vlcsnap2012051304h03m37.png&res=landing

freddie_1897
05-15-2012, 04:15 PM
^my mind is at rest!

Serrachio
05-15-2012, 05:43 PM
Now that I think about it, a question has surfaced in my mind.

If Ubisoft are going to make Connor somewhat impartial to the conflict, provided he's killing Templars on both sides, how are the revolutionaries going to act if Connor has to kill a guy who fights on their side?

Will Connor tell them? Will George Washington be "well I had my suspicions about that guy anyway" or something of this sort?

As it is now, Connor does become associated with their cause because they're fighting for their freedom, but he's not affliated with the Continental Army. I'm just curious to see how the war effort might turn against George Washington if Connor has to go kill a Templar that's on the "American" side.

Mr_Shade
05-15-2012, 05:46 PM
Oooh the mystery of the plot....

Acrimonious_Nin
05-15-2012, 06:14 PM
All this could have been avoided with one screenshot of Connor killing a colonist.

I see what you did there LMAO

There was nothing they could do, there was no way to fit 2 killings in one reveal picture. XD

CrazySN
05-15-2012, 06:15 PM
Now that I think about it, a question has surfaced in my mind.

If Ubisoft are going to make Connor somewhat impartial to the conflict, provided he's killing Templars on both sides, how are the revolutionaries going to act if Connor has to kill a guy who fights on their side?

Will Connor tell them? Will George Washington be "well I had my suspicions about that guy anyway" or something of this sort?

As it is now, Connor does become associated with their cause because they're fighting for their freedom, but he's not affliated with the Continental Army. I'm just curious to see how the war effort might turn against George Washington if Connor has to go kill a Templar that's on the "American" side.

My guess is that if AC3 will be anything like previous AC games, then that will most likely be the case. I'm thinking that AC3 will take the same approach in AC:R, in which Ezio befriended Prince Suleiman, but wasn't exactly on the Ottoman side. This is probably the same case with Connor and the founding fathers. If you find an enemy that might support the Templars, these "allies" will probably be notified about it, like in the same way Ezio notified Prince Suleiman about a supposed Templar traitor in his ranks.

Let's not forget that regardless of which side the Templars are on, they will always be about oppressing human rights. While that doesn't necessarily make them evil, it's only reasonable that both the Assassins and Colonists would want them wiped out because they fight for liberty. However, that may change near the end of the game.

tarrero
05-15-2012, 06:23 PM
Charles Lee´s role is quite is intriguing to me.....

freddie_1897
05-15-2012, 06:52 PM
for all those thinking 'oh, the colonists are viewed as the good guys, thats not fair' remember please that the colonists had a grey area, and after they had won the revolution got worse and worse, so if your thinking that America are gonna be glorified in this game, most of the presidents after were Templars

Locopells
05-17-2012, 12:20 AM
Oooh the mystery of the plot....

Shade, you teaser!

LightRey
05-17-2012, 06:08 PM
All this could have been avoided with one screenshot of Connor killing a colonist.
All this could've been avoided if people actually listened to what the devs have been saying this entire time and realized that all screenshots are from a battle in which Connor is supposed to kill an English general.

freddie_1897
05-17-2012, 06:30 PM
All this could've been avoided if people actually listened to what the devs have been saying this entire time and realized that all screenshots are from a battle in which Connor is supposed to kill an English general.
actually all this could have been avoided if they'd done either of those things XP

but yeah, that's true. however a lot of people didn't know that the screens are from one battle

LightRey
05-17-2012, 07:51 PM
actually all this could have been avoided if they'd done either of those things XP

but yeah, that's true. however a lot of people didn't know that the screens are from one battle
Well, aside from some obvious clues, such as the weather, the screens were posted alongside the released information which included that little fact, so I would kindly ask everyone who's been nagging to suck it.

freddie_1897
05-17-2012, 07:53 PM
Well, aside from some obvious clues, such as the weather, the screens were posted alongside the released information which included that little fact, so I would kindly ask everyone who's been nagging to suck it.
it's not that obvious, we've seen screens from both winter and summer, both would have been different times, and not all the screens were from doing the mission so it's kind of understandable why people are unaware of this fact

LightRey
05-17-2012, 08:16 PM
it's not that obvious, we've seen screens from both winter and summer, both would have been different times, and not all the screens were from doing the mission so it's kind of understandable why people are unaware of this fact
Most screens that aren't in winter show no combat and the few that do show very little reason to assume that all combat will be focused on killing the British. Furthermore, the vast majority of the screens are from that battle and from the very beginning the devs have been saying that Connor would be killing people on both sides. This is from way before the gameplay trailer was released. Finally, there's the simple fact that just because something is understandable, doesn't mean it's excusable. Ever heard of the concept guilty until proven innocent? It's not ok to accuse someone of murder, because you don't know all the facts. In fact, it can be considered the worst reason to accuse someone of murder. The same basics (though of course by far not as extreme) apply to this case.

So again: suck it.

xx-pyro
05-17-2012, 08:42 PM
Most screens that aren't in winter show no combat and the few that do show very little reason to assume that all combat will be focused on killing the British. Furthermore, the vast majority of the screens are from that battle and from the very beginning the devs have been saying that Connor would be killing people on both sides. This is from way before the gameplay trailer was released. Finally, there's the simple fact that just because something is understandable, doesn't mean it's excusable. Ever heard of the concept guilty until proven innocent? It's not ok to accuse someone of murder, because you don't know all the facts. In fact, it can be considered the worst reason to accuse someone of murder. The same basics (though of course by far not as extreme) apply to this case.

So again: suck it.

Yeah they've said we'll be killing people from both sides, they havne't shown it yet though. That's the problem people are having. It's not that people don't necessarily believe Ubisoft, but the trailer was more "America Ra Ra" than people expected, using the colonists flag as a symbol of "those who are free," and showing a bear rather than a blue coat after the line where he says he will be killing people of any allegiance. Those are the two things that personally irked me the most, and I'm Canadian lol. I agree it's silly to assume Connor will be pro-Colonists based off of one trailer, but again a few things in the recently released trailer certainly paint that picture. Telling people to suck it because you don't agree with their opinion or aren't able to comprehend their irritation is childish plain and simple.

LightRey
05-17-2012, 10:06 PM
Yeah they've said we'll be killing people from both sides, they havne't shown it yet though. That's the problem people are having. It's not that people don't necessarily believe Ubisoft, but the trailer was more "America Ra Ra" than people expected, using the colonists flag as a symbol of "those who are free," and showing a bear rather than a blue coat after the line where he says he will be killing people of any allegiance. Those are the two things that personally irked me the most, and I'm Canadian lol. I agree it's silly to assume Connor will be pro-Colonists based off of one trailer, but again a few things in the recently released trailer certainly paint that picture. Telling people to suck it because you don't agree with their opinion or aren't able to comprehend their irritation is childish plain and simple.
I think it's quite understandable and certainly excusable that they've yet to show colonists getting killed by Connor. You have every right to be curious, but to say that Ubisoft has done some kind of "wrong" in not yet having shown any colonists getting killed, especially so early, is just a little ridiculous.

SolidSage
05-17-2012, 10:15 PM
@Lightrey
What is this "it" you keep wanting people to suck?

itsamea-mario
05-17-2012, 10:18 PM
All this could've been avoided if people actually listened to what the devs have been saying this entire time and realized that all screenshots are from a battle in which Connor is supposed to kill an English general.

Releasing a screenshot is much easier than expecting people to use a little intellect.

SolidSage
05-17-2012, 10:30 PM
Releasing a screenshot is much easier than expecting people to use a little intellect.

What is this "intellect" thing you speak of?

LightRey
05-17-2012, 10:47 PM
What is this "intellect" thing you speak of?
The thing people need to suck.

SolidSage
05-17-2012, 11:09 PM
^ Nope not good enough, you didn't have to squirm nearly enough. Whatever happened to 16 anyway?;)

Serrachio
05-18-2012, 02:32 AM
^ Nope not good enough, you didn't have to squirm nearly enough. Whatever happened to 16 anyway?;)

He died, placed a digital version of himself on the Animus, and then it got deleted.

He is gone for good now.

Locopells
05-18-2012, 10:58 AM
Unless part of him escaped the Animus along with Desmond...

LightRey
05-18-2012, 12:41 PM
Unless part of him escaped the Animus along with Desmond...
Already confirmed not to be the case.

SaintPerkele
05-18-2012, 05:03 PM
His memories were transfered into Desmond though. So maybe we will get to see him (as a new form of glyphs, as announced, maybe?), but not 'directly'.

LightRey
05-18-2012, 05:06 PM
His memories were transfered into Desmond though. So maybe we will get to see him (as a new form of glyphs, as announced, maybe?), but not 'directly'.
What? No they weren't.

SaintPerkele
05-18-2012, 05:09 PM
It's one of the most plausible theories. Before 16 saved Desmond, he hugged him with all that light going into Desmond, while saying "What is a man but the sum of his memories?".
Afterwards, we were able to play the Lost Archive, which was actually intended to be accessible from Animus Island, as stated by the developers. Maybe he did not transer all of his memories into Desmond, but at least the ones from TLA.

LightRey
05-18-2012, 05:18 PM
It's one of the most plausible theories. Before 16 saved Desmond, he hugged him with all that light going into Desmond, while saying "What is a man but the sum of his memories?".
Afterwards, we were able to play the Lost Archive, which was actually intended to be accessible from Animus Island, as stated by the developers. Maybe he did not transer all of his memories into Desmond, but at least the ones from TLA.
No, it's not. Again, the devs confirmed that didn't happen. It. Is. Wrong. Get over it.

SixKeys
05-18-2012, 05:27 PM
So just to be clear, Desmond never actually saw 16's memories? He still has no idea Lucy was a traitor?

SaintPerkele
05-18-2012, 05:33 PM
No, it's not. Again, the devs confirmed that didn't happen. It. Is. Wrong. Get over it.
I appreciate your kind reply. Seriously, what's with the people on the Ubiforums always getting angry so easily?

Give me a source where that was stated by the developers and I accept it.

LightRey
05-18-2012, 07:35 PM
So just to be clear, Desmond never actually saw 16's memories? He still has no idea Lucy was a traitor?

That appears to be the case considering the nature of TLA, though it has yet to be confirmed. However, we should be looking for confirmation whether they are linked rather than whether they're not. Ergo, we should at this point assume that Desmond has no idea about anything only specified in TLA.


I appreciate your kind reply. Seriously, what's with the people on the Ubiforums always getting angry so easily?

Give me a source where that was stated by the developers and I accept it.
I'm not here to make anyone accept it. You were presenting the theory as if it were basically truth or at the very least likely, which it never was, like it or not. It was ridiculous then and after the statement by the devs it was simply wrong. That's it.

freddie_1897
05-18-2012, 07:45 PM
Most screens that aren't in winter show no combat and the few that do show very little reason to assume that all combat will be focused on killing the British. Furthermore, the vast majority of the screens are from that battle and from the very beginning the devs have been saying that Connor would be killing people on both sides. This is from way before the gameplay trailer was released. Finally, there's the simple fact that just because something is understandable, doesn't mean it's excusable. Ever heard of the concept guilty until proven innocent? It's not ok to accuse someone of murder, because you don't know all the facts. In fact, it can be considered the worst reason to accuse someone of murder. The same basics (though of course by far not as extreme) apply to this case.

So again: suck it. i am not against you, i agree with you, but i'm still allowed to argue as to why some people may still be angry about this anti-redcoat thing, you are not always right. you don't have to insult people because they disagree with you.

LightRey
05-18-2012, 07:55 PM
i am not against you, i agree with you, but i'm still allowed to argue as to why some people may still be angry about this anti-redcoat thing, you are not always right. you don't have to insult people because they disagree with you.
Who said I was insulting you? The "suck it" was directed at the same people as before, not you. Not to mention that isn't really an insult.

freddie_1897
05-18-2012, 07:59 PM
Who said I was insulting you? The "suck it" was directed at the same people as before, not you. Not to mention that isn't really an insult.
well it isn't exactly a nice thing to say either. this is the internet, things get mis-interpreted a lot. how was i to know it wasn't directed at me?

stingray10
05-18-2012, 08:00 PM
well it isn't exactly a nice thing to say either. this is the internet, things get mis-interpreted a lot. how was i to know it wasn't directed at me?

Shut up you hypocrite.

I just saw you stupid post on another thread, so STFU and sit down.

freddie_1897
05-18-2012, 08:02 PM
Shut up you hypocrite.

I just saw you stupid post on another thread, so STFU and sit down.
how about you read my most recent post on that thread before jumping to conclusions and insulting me further

LightRey
05-18-2012, 08:02 PM
well it isn't exactly a nice thing to say either. this is the internet, things get mis-interpreted a lot. how was i to know it wasn't directed at me?
Well for one because I said "again" and I did specify to whom it was directed in my previous post.

freddie_1897
05-18-2012, 08:03 PM
Well for one because I said "again" and I did specify to whom it was directed in my previous post.
then allow me to apologise

LightRey
05-18-2012, 08:04 PM
then allow me to apologise
No worries. I think we've all been a little on edge lately because of the state of the community.

freddie_1897
05-18-2012, 08:06 PM
No worries. I think we've all been a little on edge lately because of the state of the community.
yes, and with this 'stingray' apparently on my back over a joke i made i can relate

Assassin_M
05-18-2012, 08:11 PM
You 2 are cute:p xD

freddie_1897
05-18-2012, 08:13 PM
You 2 are cute:p xD
:o

Aphex_Tim
05-18-2012, 09:05 PM
No worries. I think we've all been a little on edge lately because of the state of the community.

Believe me, this is nothing; i came here from the Battlelog forums...
Everyone seems really nice here.

Assassin_M
05-18-2012, 09:34 PM
Believe me, this is nothing; i came here from the Battlelog forums...
Everyone seems really nice here.
You think its nice now, because You haven't seen the Golden Age of this Forums..
This Age was mostly during mid 2009 till the announcement of Brotherhood..
The arguments, theories and discussions were fantastic at that time. It was really fascinating to see all these great minds brain storming information into and in one place. History, Geography, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Geology, Biology etc.. It was all there.
Then came the sort of Peace Period. That was from E3 2010 i.e June till the announcement of AC Revelations..
What followed that Period of Peace was what I like to call the Civil War. That was from September 2011 till February 2012
The Period we`re in now Is the Dark Age. Probably wont end until much MUCH later..

kriegerdesgottes
05-18-2012, 09:42 PM
You think its nice now, because You haven't seen the Golden Age of this Forums..
This Age was mostly during mid 2009 till the announcement of Brotherhood..
The arguments, theories and discussions were fantastic at that time. It was really fascinating to see all these great minds brain storming information into and in one place. History, Geography, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Geology, Biology etc.. It was all there.
Then came the sort of Peace Period. That was from E3 2010 i.e June till the announcement of AC Revelations..
What followed that Period of Peace was what I like to call the Civil War. That was from September 2011 till February 2012
The Period we`re in now Is the Dark Age. Probably wont end until much MUCH later..

I don't know there have always been idiots on these forums and it's always been the case that the stupidest threads are the ones that typically stay alive forever or at least wayy longer than they should be but in my own opinion, the people on this forum for the most part are unusually respectful and friendly and I think that right now there is a bit of a "dark age" as you put it because some people have grown tired of the franchise maybe because we know so much now about it that we didn't know at all in 2009 so there's less to discuss and I personally feel there is a bit of franchise fatigue going on that I feel is sad but regardless the AC forums are the only forums that I can stand to be a part of and that I enjoy frequenting. And yea of course there are a few exception people that are super annoying. I can think of one right now off the top of my head lol but I won't name names :P.

SaintPerkele
05-18-2012, 10:06 PM
I'm not here to make anyone accept it. You were presenting the theory as if it were basically truth or at the very least likely, which it never was, like it or not. It was ridiculous then and after the statement by the devs it was simply wrong. That's it.
No, it's not ridiciulous at all. Just because you dislike the theory doesn't make it wrong. Unless you post the source for the developer's statement of course, which you still didn't do.

Assassin_M
05-18-2012, 10:07 PM
No, it's not ridiciulous at all. Just because you dislike the theory doesn't make it wrong. Unless you post the source for the developer's statement of course, which you still didn't do.
Its a Video if I remember correctly or a Podcast ? hmm..
But I definitely remember that Theory being made irrelevant by the devs..

dxsxhxcx
05-18-2012, 10:10 PM
they should release AC: The Chain, use that Abstergo website again and/or release something somehow related to AC3 for Project Legacy... :P

where is Erudito when we need "him"?! xD

SolidSage
05-18-2012, 10:41 PM
No, it's not. Again, the devs confirmed that didn't happen. It. Is. Wrong. Get over it.

Sweet, got that whole discussion kicked off again! 16 lives on...in our hearts man.

SaintPerkele
05-18-2012, 10:50 PM
Its a Video if I remember correctly or a Podcast ? hmm..
But I definitely remember that Theory being made irrelevant by the devs..
Ah, was that in Esco's podcast about TLA? Good to know, I wasn't aware of that.

Acrimonious_Nin
05-18-2012, 11:06 PM
they should release AC: The Chain, use that Abstergo website again and/or release something somehow related to AC3 for Project Legacy... :P

where is Erudito when we need "him"?! xD

Is Erudito American ?

Assassin_M
05-18-2012, 11:09 PM
Is Erudito American ?
They may not be even a "He" or even a single entity..

dxsxhxcx
05-18-2012, 11:19 PM
what "his" nationality has to do with it?!

Acrimonious_Nin
05-18-2012, 11:21 PM
I know I just was...>_>

I was staying on topic that's what his nationality has to do with ''it''

notafanboy
05-18-2012, 11:47 PM
i can´t wait till E3 when a bunch of ignorant ****s starts invading the forums

xx-pyro
05-18-2012, 11:50 PM
i can´t wait till E3 when a bunch of ignorant ****s starts invading the forums

Yes because everyone who has not religiously followed the progress of ACIII is suddenly an ignorant * :rolleyes:

Although on that E3 point I just realized how close it is to actually being here.

Assassin_M
05-18-2012, 11:52 PM
Yes because everyone who has not religiously followed the progress of ACIII is suddenly an ignorant * :rolleyes:

Although on that E3 point I just realized how close it is to actually being here.
Well technically, yes..
If one does not follow a specific subject, then he/she is considered an ignorant to that subject by default..

notafanboy
05-18-2012, 11:53 PM
Yes because everyone who has not religiously followed the progress of ACIII is suddenly an ignorant * :rolleyes:

Although on that E3 point I just realized how close it is to actually being here.

im talking about the "why u be killing brits ? i thought u were like a indian" kinda people, not newcomers.

xx-pyro
05-18-2012, 11:55 PM
Well technically, yes..
If one does not follow a specific subject, then he/she is considered an ignorant to that subject by default..

You really have a problem with me posting don't you? :confused: Like I said, just because someone doesn't religiously follow the progress/every update AC3 has it doesn't make them an ignorant **** like the post I originally quoted implied, it might make them unaware of certain aspects but there's no need to negatively conote or generalize everyone who isn't as excited about the game as he is.

E. In response to the guy who quoted me again, if I took it the wrong way then my apologies. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people degrade others for no particular reasons, there were nicer ways to phrase your.. concern.

notafanboy
05-18-2012, 11:56 PM
im talking about the "why u be killing brits ? i thought u were like a indian" kinda people, not newcomers.


i´ll quote myself...

kriegerdesgottes
05-18-2012, 11:56 PM
im talking about the "why u be killing brits ? i thought u were like a indian" kinda people, not newcomers.

Don't forget the Shouldn't this be AC5? people.

Assassin_M
05-18-2012, 11:59 PM
You really have a problem with me posting don't you? :confused: Like I said, just because someone doesn't religiously follow the progress/every update AC3 has it doesn't make them an ignorant **** like the post I originally quoted implied, it might make them unaware of certain aspects but there's no need to negatively conote or generalize everyone who isn't as excited about the game as he is.
No I do not have a problem with your posts, evident by me not targeting only your posts to reply..
But I stand by my point. Any one who hasn't been following AC III is Ignorant to AC III..
Nothing "Negative" or "Insulting" about it..
Just like me not following the latest clothing trends makes me Ignorant to clothing trends..

xx-pyro
05-19-2012, 12:00 AM
No I do not have a problem with your posts, evident by me not targeting only your posts to reply..
But I stand by my point. Any one who hasn't been following AC III is an Ignorant to AC III..
Nothing "Negative" or "Insulting" about it..

Last post then I'm off this topic. In what universe is the f word not insulting :confused:

Assassin_M
05-19-2012, 12:04 AM
Last post then I'm off this topic. In what universe is the f word not insulting :confused:
Nah not here..
Check your PMs..

Locopells
05-19-2012, 12:30 AM
You think its nice now, because You haven't seen the Golden Age of this Forums..
This Age was mostly during mid 2009 till the announcement of Brotherhood..
The arguments, theories and discussions were fantastic at that time. It was really fascinating to see all these great minds brain storming information into and in one place. History, Geography, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Geology, Biology etc.. It was all there.
Then came the sort of Peace Period. That was from E3 2010 i.e June till the announcement of AC Revelations..
What followed that Period of Peace was what I like to call the Civil War. That was from September 2011 till February 2012
The Period we`re in now Is the Dark Age. Probably wont end until much MUCH later..

Oh, that's wonderful...

I imagine we heading for the World War now, based on whether people like or hate ACIII, probably fixed round the inflammation of the issues that have caused the Dark Age...

LightRey
05-19-2012, 02:33 AM
No, it's not ridiciulous at all. Just because you dislike the theory doesn't make it wrong. Unless you post the source for the developer's statement of course, which you still didn't do.
I have shown many a time why your theory is ridiculous. Need I bring up Occam's Razor again about this? There was an entire thread about this months ago. Go check that out instead of bringing up an old theory that I had already pretty much refuted before the devs even felt the need to comment on it. S16 will not in any way be returning to the series and nothing of him was "absorbed" by Desmond.

Serrachio
05-19-2012, 03:15 AM
No I do not have a problem with your posts, evident by me not targeting only your posts to reply..
But I stand by my point. Any one who hasn't been following AC III is Ignorant to AC III..
Nothing "Negative" or "Insulting" about it..
Just like me not following the latest clothing trends makes me Ignorant to clothing trends..

I don't mean to jump on a bandwagon here, but if a person doesn't know about something, they are not "ignorant by default". They're uninformed, yes, but to be ignorant means that you choose not to listen to facts when they're presented to you, not that you're unaware that those facts exist.

Edit: Actually, I am stupid, the definition favours Assassin M's statement. I would prefer it if people thought before using words that can be taken the wrong way though.

n00bfi_97
05-19-2012, 10:47 AM
How about this guys:

Let this fu.cking thread die.

SaintPerkele
05-19-2012, 11:07 AM
I have shown many a time why your theory is ridiculous. Need I bring up Occam's Razor again about this? There was an entire thread about this months ago. Go check that out instead of bringing up an old theory that I had already pretty much refuted before the devs even felt the need to comment on it. S16 will not in any way be returning to the series and nothing of him was "absorbed" by Desmond.
I'm deeply sorry i did not read every single of your 10,000 posts. It was absolutely my fault. Next time I'll write something on the forums, I will check out whether you have written something about it.

Also, I never said that S16 was "absorbed" into Desmond, I too think that that would be ridiculous. What I said was simply, that S16 transfered some of his memories into Desmond, which is not ridiculous whatsoever, unless you can properly refute it without the developer's statement. If I'm not wrong, the developers even stated that Desmond was originally supposed to "play" Clay's memories. My 'ridiculous' theory was therefore most likely the original intention of the devs which was just changed later on.

Locopells
05-19-2012, 11:19 AM
How about this guys:

Let this fu.cking thread die.

Not a chance in hell bud...:)

Oh and tut, tut, tut for bypassing the filter...


I have shown many a time why your theory is ridiculous. Need I bring up Occam's Razor again about this? There was an entire thread about this months ago. Go check that out instead of bringing up an old theory that I had already pretty much refuted before the devs even felt the need to comment on it. S16 will not in any way be returning to the series and nothing of him was "absorbed" by Desmond.

Unless they change their minds...Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted remember!

Locopells
05-19-2012, 11:21 AM
I have shown many a time why your theory is ridiculous. Need I bring up Occam's Razor again about this? There was an entire thread about this months ago. Go check that out instead of bringing up an old theory that I had already pretty much refuted before the devs even felt the need to comment on it. S16 will not in any way be returning to the series and nothing of him was "absorbed" by Desmond.

Unless they change their minds...Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted remember!

The_Inventor
05-19-2012, 12:49 PM
Just being curious, has anyone else noticed that when pointed directly North, and looking at the moon or sun going by in the game, relatively fast, that it is going the wrong way since the cities of Florence, Venice, Rome, Forli, etc. are all in the northern hemisphere, and is traveling from west to east (left to right), instead of east to west like the moon does in reality while one is pointed or looking north?

freddie_1897
05-19-2012, 01:04 PM
Just being curious, has anyone else noticed that when pointed directly North, and looking at the moon or sun going by in the game, relatively fast, that it is going the wrong way since the cities of Florence, Venice, Rome, Forli, etc. are all in the northern hemisphere, and is traveling from west to east (left to right), instead of east to west like the moon does in reality while one is pointed or looking north?
No, no I did not notice that.
Me thinks that you think too much

LightRey
05-19-2012, 01:43 PM
Unless they change their minds...Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted remember!
You do not understand the true meaning of the phrase, my child.

Seriously though. The ACIII story was pretty much finished at the time of the statement, so there's really no chance of that. Aside from that, the theory is primarily based on the flawed idea that the markings appearing on Desmond's clothes (yes, it's only the clothes) below S16's arms when he's "hugging" him are in some way linked to the marks that appear on his arm at the end of ACR. However, as is quite clear from the event, the "hugging" seems to have been solely to create some kind of protective barrier around Desmond, so that he would not, like S16, be deleted along with Animus Island. Furthermore, if you actually take the time and effort to look at the markings, you'll see that they in no way match the symbols appearing on Desmond's arm, which much more clearly resemble the standard TWCB markings that can be found inside their temples and even on the bodies of Adam and Eve in The Truth. I had a very thorough discussion about this with Acrimonious_Nin already.

Finally, the theory just doesn't hold up to Occam's Razor. Just to give a list of some (of many) of the assumptions needed for this theory to work:
-The Animus can transfer memories from one individual to another (without having the other reliving those memories first)
-Subject 16 knew of a method to do the above or it happened "naturally" and involuntarily
-All hidden messages in The Truth were unnecessary for Desmond, because he would get S16's memories anyways (why?)
-There would actually be some kind of benefit for Desmond to know S16's memories regarding the story

I could go into specifics, but then a list would not be enough, as I would basically have to use something along the lines of a flow chart, but I think everyone gets the gist.

Assumptions necessary for the alternative:
-Things happened the way they appeared to (regarding this particular set of events)

Now I'm not going into this any further than I already have now. If anyone wants to know everything in detail, go search for the relevant threads on the forum in which I quite clearly state it all several times. There are quite a few of them, but they should be pretty obvious.

SaintPerkele
05-19-2012, 04:09 PM
Now that's a much better reply. Even though you don't like to discuss this any further, I'll just reply one more time to this.

I never made any connection between the symbols on Desmond's arm and the S16-scene. Just like you, i believe that they are rather a result of the Synch Nexus, given their obvious TWCB-style.

Considering the 'hugging' as a barrier - this theory came to my mind too, but the whole scene implies that it is actually rather getting bumped back into that Black Room gate (what's it called again?) by Clay what saves Desmond. During the 'hugging', S16 does not get deleted either. So if you keep my theory in mind and rewatch the scene, it seems like S16 is just transfering the TLA-memories into Desmond before he saves him and thus deletes himself. The sentence "What is a man but the sum of his memories?" wouldn't make any other sense, at least in my opinion - Clay willingly deletes himself, because he knows that he continues his 'existence' by having Desmond relive his memories (note: I don't mean that he actually continues to exist, more in a metaphorical sense. The way you say, that you'll live forever when you're famous and so on).

I usually prefer Occam's Razor when discussing theories too, but in this case it really seems quite plausible to me:
-The Animus can transfer memories from one individual to another (without having the other reliving those memories first)
Well, I never said that. I mean, Desmond relived Clay's memories. I don't expect Desmond to know everything that Clay knew now too, only everything from TLA. Also, the DDS-Scanner (and the whole PL-concept) shows that it is somehow possible to relive the ancestral memories of other persons.
-Subject 16 knew of a method to do the above or it happened "naturally" and involuntarily
Subject 16 knew almost everything about the Animus. Before his death and even more afterwards. He was able to put the glyphs in while he was still alive. He managed to transfer all his memories into the Black Room and thus created a 'double' of himself. This double was capable of putting all the rifts in and creating a hologram of himself through the miracle program. In Revelations, it is revealed that he is also able to keep the Animus busy while Desmond explores Ezio's memories and is eventually able to save Desmond from deletion. So yes, it is quite likely that he knew how to transfer memories (after all, he transfered all of his memories into the Animus) into other people. It definitely not happened involuntarily.
-All hidden messages in The Truth were unnecessary for Desmond, because he would get S16's memories anyways (why?)
I imagine that transfering all memories into Desmond would take much longer and more effort too, as it seemed quite hard for Clay to transfer himself into the Animus. I believe that it was merely the TLA-memories in order to show Desmond the truth about Lucy and the true intentions of Juno of which he was aware. Clay most likely expected Desmond to fall into a coma, as he implied that Desmond shoul search him in the darkness and, as already mentioned, worked for Juno anyway.
Considering your statement though.. Why did S16 never explain what exactly he meant when Desmond was in the Black Room and they could easily talk? Maybe he knew that the Synch Nexus would give him the knowledge or he transfered more than just the TLA-memories into Desmond (which I doubt though, as already said).
-There would actually be some kind of benefit for Desmond to know S16's memories regarding the story
Yes. Desmond is aware of Lucy's true allegiance and can inform the other assassins.

freddie_1897
05-19-2012, 04:20 PM
you don't think maybe this argument's gone on long enough?

could we just let this thread die now, it's just promoting bad things

Serrachio
05-19-2012, 04:26 PM
No, Clay did not put any sort of protective barrier around Desmond. They were just in an area of the Animus Island that hadn't yet been deleted.

Clay hugged Desmond as a final goodbye, though it surprised Desmond, since he didn't particularly know Clay all that well. Clay then threw Desmond out of the partition built for him, so that he could explore the final memories, recover from the coma and get out of the Animus as quickly as possible.

Desmond does not know that Lucy was a Templar. He knows that she's dead, since Clay basically confirmed his fears at the very start of the game. He was initially going to play through Clay's memories and discover that she was, but Alex Amancio decided that the first person segments had to be solely around Desmond. While I bet that was supposed to bridge the gap for the part of the audience who hadn't played all the previous installments, it left most of the fans in the dark of any real revelations and made it appear like they were selling the game on false promises until The Lost Archive came along, with all of Clay's memories that were supposed to be in the game from the start. However, it is never stated that Desmond is experiencing these memories in Clay's place. It's more likely that it is Clay going through them.

The knowledge that Desmond was supposed to learn in the Black Room was the message from Jupiter, which basically confirmed the final part of the series was set in America, when combined with the Brotherhood Da Vinci Disappearance co-ordinates.

SaintPerkele
05-19-2012, 04:34 PM
No, Clay did not put any sort of protective barrier around Desmond. They were just in an area of the Animus Island that hadn't yet been deleted.

Clay hugged Desmond as a final goodbye, though it surprised Desmond, since he didn't particularly know Clay all that well. Clay then threw Desmond out of the partition built for him, so that he could explore the final memories, recover from the coma and get out of the Animus as quickly as possible.

Desmond does not know that Lucy was a Templar. He knows that she's dead, since Clay basically confirmed his fears at the very start of the game. He was initially going to play through Clay's memories and discover that she was, but Alex Amancio decided that the first person segments had to be solely around Desmond. While I bet that was supposed to bridge the gap for the part of the audience who hadn't played all the previous installments, it left most of the fans in the dark of any real revelations and made it appear like they were selling the game on false promises until The Lost Archive came along, with all of Clay's memories that were supposed to be in the game from the start. However, it is never stated that Desmond is experiencing these memories in Clay's place. It's more likely that it is Clay going through them.

The knowledge that Desmond was supposed to learn in the Black Room was the message from Jupiter, which basically confirmed the final part of the series was set in America, when combined with the Brotherhood Da Vinci Disappearance co-ordinates.
Sounds quite plausible indeed. Anyway, I'll do what Freddie demands now and stop posting in this thread, as we should really, really let it die. I'm interested how all of the theories will be repulsed or confirmed in AC3, until then, we can only guess anyway ;)