PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft are MAKING the English seem bad, It is their fault people are complaining.



pacmanate
06-05-2012, 05:09 PM
Like seriously, look.
First trailer we got, the in-game rendered CG, we were fighting the "British"
Then we got the Gameplay reveal trailer! Once again, fighting the British. Fair enough, only 2 trailers, but wait! There is more.
After that we see our E3 Gameplay teaser trailer that lasted a minute. Who were we fighting? British again.
We then got to see the CG trailer. Have a guess who Connor was fighting against? If you said Germans, no. The British.
First gameplay demo of the day! Frontier demo gameplay, looked sweet, maybe we kill some "Americans"! Well... no, obviously.
2nd Gameplay demo of the day, the Naval gameplay. Once again, Connor on the "American" side, fighting the British.
Short scene from the Boston gameplay demo on Spike. Who does Connor strangle to death? An "English" Soldier!



Now personally, I am not one to care about Red Coats and Bluecoats, at the end of the day they were all British anyway. This isn't a thread like the rest to say "WHY ARE THE ENGLISH THE BAD GUYS".

But you have to wonder, what is Ubisofts problem? There have been 7 showings of Connor in action, and every single time against the "English". You can see why various fans are getting the impression that the "English" are the "bad guys" just from that list! It's because EVERYTHING that Ubisoft has released, shows Connor killing "English" people. You can also see why people think that Ubisoft hates English people just from that list.

I honestly do not have a clue why Ubisoft are portraying the English like this. It is VERY stupid. The angry fans arguments are justified!

raging8762
06-05-2012, 05:14 PM
I actually completely agree.

OriginalMiles
06-05-2012, 05:21 PM
As annoying as it is that every trailer is Connor v Brits, I don't care.
But your "argument" is well written, and I totally agree.

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 05:22 PM
That's just a marketing ploy to get the American (otherwise non-fans) Interested In AC3. It Is no reflection on Connor's alliances. Connor: "Forget the Patriots, I'm here for the Templar"

pacmanate
06-05-2012, 05:24 PM
That's just a marketing ploy to get the American (otherwise non-fans) Interested In AC3. It Is no reflection on Connor's alliances. Connor: "Forget the Patriots, I'm here for the Templar"


Yeah I know that. All of us boardies KNOW that its not Connor V English. However you can see why other fans think that it is!

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 05:26 PM
Yeah I know that. All of us boardies KNOW that its not Connor V English. However you can see why other fans think that it is!

Well yesterdays Frontier demo should have squashed any doubt of what/who Connor Is fighting for.

Locopells
06-05-2012, 05:27 PM
Trouble is, the Reds are naturally going to be the bulk of the guards that we kill, any Blue target is likely to be a spoiler for the main story.

I wouldn't worry, those with any brains will work it out, those without can...well - guess!

Serrachio
06-05-2012, 05:29 PM
Trouble is, the Reds are naturally going to be the bulk of the guards that we kill, any blue target is likely to be a spoiler for the main story...

What, Connor can't just kill one random Bluecoat guard? They could have even done it on stage as a satirical joke on the many complaints on the forums.

johnnyhayek
06-05-2012, 05:29 PM
You are right, sir. Well, their goal is to attract the biggest amount of people to their game, and the biggest market for them is obviously the US. But I'm sure it's just the advertising. I have a feeling we'll be killing "Americans" in the full game.

Locopells
06-05-2012, 05:32 PM
What, Connor can't just kill one random Bluecoat guard? They could have even done it on stage as a satirical joke on the many complaints on the forums.

Only after the war, when they're guarding stuff you can't just walk into.

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 05:32 PM
What, Connor can't just kill one random Bluecoat guard? They could have even done it on stage as a satirical joke on the many complaints on the forums.

In the demo, we saw Connor going after a man named Silas. Silas Dean was an America (colonial, w/e).

Serrachio
06-05-2012, 05:34 PM
In the demo, we saw Connor going after a man named Silas. Silas Dean was an America (colonial, w/e).

Right, like it appeared that way, when the fort he was in was full of Redcoats.

Also, how can we be sure it was Silas Deane? The mission took place in 1778, and Silas Deane died in 1789. I really doubt that Ubisoft would kill a person off 11 years before their official death.

pacmanate
06-05-2012, 05:37 PM
Right, like it appeared that way, when the fort he was in was full of Redcoats.

This.

I dont CARE if its a marketing plan. Thats not the point? The point is why the fans FEEL like the British are all bad.

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 05:38 PM
Right, like it appeared that way, when the fort he was in was full of Redcoats.

Assuming It was Silas Deane Connor assassinated, he was still an "American" albeit a potentially treacherous one.

johnnyhayek
06-05-2012, 05:39 PM
Only after the war, when they're guarding stuff you can't just walk into.
This exactly.

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 05:39 PM
This.

I dont CARE if its a marketing plan. Thats not the point? The point is why the fans FEEL like the British are all bad.

Yeah, and I'm saying they should no longer have any doubt.

pacmanate
06-05-2012, 05:39 PM
Assuming It was Silas Deane Connor assassinated, he was still an "American" albeit a potentially treacherous one.

Okay, he was American. But Connor being on the bluecoats side, infiltrating a fort of redcoats then killing a guy.....

How many fans do you think will KNOW that Connor killed an American after storming a fort full of British

dxsxhxcx
06-05-2012, 05:41 PM
In the demo, we saw Connor going after a man named Silas. Silas Dean was an America (colonial, w/e).

IMO is clear that Connor was after this Silas to get more information about the target, he's probably the "boss" of those soldiers we saw, then when he realize he isn't there and that other guy start talking about what he should do about the war, he asks him for info about his target (that isn't Silas) and then soldier tell him where his target is...

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 05:42 PM
Okay, he was American. But Connor being on the bluecoats side, infiltrating a fort of redcoats then killing a guy.....

How many fans do you think will KNOW that Connor killed an American after storming a fort full of British

"Forget the Patriots, I'm here for the Templar"

If that doesn't show people Connor's neutrality, then that's there own problem.

playassassins1
06-05-2012, 05:42 PM
Ok, I'm having a feeling that a major part of Templars are going to be on the Redcoat side. I think the Bluecoats will only have a few on their side.

So I'm thinking Connor will be working with the bluecoats the most.

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 05:43 PM
IMO is clear that Connor was after this Silas to get more information about the target, he's probably the "boss" of those soldiers we saw, then when he realize he isn't there and that other guy start talking about what he should do about the war, he asks him for info about his target (that isn't Silas) and then soldier tell him where his target is...

But wasn't the quest named 'Kill Silas' ?

Vex_Assassin
06-05-2012, 05:46 PM
Assuming It was Silas Deane Connor assassinated, he was still an "American" albeit a potentially treacherous one.

It can't be Silas Deane. Deane died in 1789 in Great Britain. I don't think that Ubi would bend history like that. I certainly hope they didn't.

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 05:47 PM
It can't be Silas Deane. Deane died in 1789 in Great Britain. I don't think that Ubi would bend history like that. I certainly hope they didn't.

You could be right. It was just a stab in the dark on my side.

pacmanate
06-05-2012, 05:49 PM
Ubisoft did say that the arent changing history, just showing a different side.

Locopells
06-05-2012, 05:50 PM
Ok, I'm having a feeling that a major part of Templars are going to be on the Redcoat side. I think the Bluecoats will only have a few on their side.

So I'm thinking Connor will be working with the bluecoats the most.

This. After all the Templars come from Europe, so it figures that their main sphere of control is through the British forces.

POP1Fan
06-05-2012, 05:51 PM
The thing is they shouldn't make the Patriots look good either.I mean in the CG trailer (that was AWESOME) Washington looks over to Connor like :OMG I found an ally.

luckyto
06-05-2012, 05:51 PM
Ubisoft did say that the arent changing history, just showing a different side.

No, they said they are taking liberty with history. Characters represent real people, not biographies.

Locopells
06-05-2012, 05:52 PM
The thing is they shouldn't make the Patriots look good either.I mean in the CG trailer (that was AWESOME) Washington looks over to Connor like :OMG I found an ally.

Given that Connor's story opens with them destroying his village, I think we need have no worries on that score...

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 05:58 PM
No, they said they are taking liberty with history. Characters represent real people, not biographies.

They did also say that what Is written In history books, Isn't all necessarily fact, and there Is more trustworthy source material people may not of heard of.

dxsxhxcx
06-05-2012, 06:00 PM
But wasn't the quest named 'Kill Silas' ?

you may be right... I thought you were trying to justify Connor's neutrality saying that he was going after this Silas (that I thought it was american)...

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 06:11 PM
you may be right... I thought you were trying to justify Connor's neutrality saying that he was going after this Silas (that I thought it was american)...

Well If It was Silas Deane, and you take Into account the quote from Connor I mentioned above, then yes, they both justify Connor's neutrality.

Vex_Assassin
06-05-2012, 06:13 PM
The thing is they shouldn't make the Patriots look good either.I mean in the CG trailer (that was AWESOME) Washington looks over to Connor like :OMG I found an ally.

I saw it more like "Oh ****, my fellow Templar just got killed by that awesome Assassin, I hope I am not the next one on his list!"
But that's maybe just me ...

EDIT: Washington looked more concerned than anything else for me

SaintPerkele
06-05-2012, 06:17 PM
I saw it more like "Oh ****, my fellow Templar just got killed by that awesome Assassin, I hope I am not the next one on his list!"
But that's maybe just me ...

EDIT: Washington looked more concerned than anything else for me
That was actually my first impression. Didn't even recognize Washington and was expecting him to hide a Templar cross at the end or something like that. That would actually have been awesome and could have been an end to all the discussions.

Vex_Assassin
06-05-2012, 06:18 PM
That was actually my first impression. Didn't even recognize Washington and was expecting him to hide a Templar cross at the end or something like that. That would actually have been awesome and could have been an end to all the discussions.

I was expecting the same thing!

lukaszep
06-05-2012, 06:21 PM
When they are showing demos at an American gaming convention, why would they showoff the murder of the founding fathers? Americans are stereotyped into being very patriotic, and maybe Ubisoft fears a backlash from American gamers more than that from British?
Your argument is well written and I agree, but like most people, I don't care. First of all, Connor won't be killing just British soldiers. It's set in the past, there were no Americans. It's FICTIONAL.

morpheusPrime08
06-05-2012, 06:30 PM
Chef Ramsays, calm down.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a503761e970b-800wi

misterB2001
06-05-2012, 06:32 PM
I genuinely cant believe people actually care about this, it's a story, judge the full story once youve complete the game.

D.I.D.
06-05-2012, 06:46 PM
I did think it was pretty comical going from the audience/Facebook question to showing yet another Redcoat slaughter video!

I see your point. Personally, it doesn't bother me. No country is "the good guys"; the UK has always done terrible things. We've got a lot to be proud of too, but none of it was happening on North American soil during those years. I'd be a little uncomfortable if the Bluecoats turn out to have a simplistic air of holy destiny about them, but I feel no personal connection with these British soldiers so I don't care how many of them I have to kill. I'm actually more concerned that it looks as though the killing of animals will be unavoidable. Not sure what that says about me.

berserker134
06-05-2012, 06:52 PM
Like seriously, look.
First trailer we got, the in-game rendered CG, we were fighting the "British"
Then we got the Gameplay reveal trailer! Once again, fighting the British. Fair enough, only 2 trailers, but wait! There is more.
After that we see our E3 Gameplay teaser trailer that lasted a minute. Who were we fighting? British again.
We then got to see the CG trailer. Have a guess who Connor was fighting against? If you said Germans, no. The British.
First gameplay demo of the day! Frontier demo gameplay, looked sweet, maybe we kill some "Americans"! Well... no, obviously.
2nd Gameplay demo of the day, the Naval gameplay. Once again, Connor on the "American" side, fighting the British.
Short scene from the Boston gameplay demo on Spike. Who does Connor strangle to death? An "English" Soldier!



Now personally, I am not one to care about Red Coats and Bluecoats, at the end of the day they were all British anyway. This isn't a thread like the rest to say "WHY ARE THE ENGLISH THE BAD GUYS".

But you have to wonder, what is Ubisofts problem? There have been 7 showings of Connor in action, and every single time against the "English". You can see why various fans are getting the impression that the "English" are the "bad guys" just from that list! It's because EVERYTHING that Ubisoft has released, shows Connor killing "English" people. You can also see why people think that Ubisoft hates English people just from that list.

I honestly do not have a clue why Ubisoft are portraying the English like this. It is VERY stupid. The angry fans arguments are justified!


so are you sugesting that connor should also fight on the british side because if i recall ubi said that he wouldn't be on any side but connor is seen most aside americans because from his perspective the americans were peapole that " gave freedomm"

jazmex
06-05-2012, 06:54 PM
y'know, I'm absolutely fed up with all these screaming kids complaining about this.

in fact, amongst my friends group we have a yearly e3 group convo in which we discuss realtime the happenings.

-AC:III trailer
-My friend commented 'looks sweet apart from Connor being on the Ameri***'s side'
-I then spent more time than I should have had to correcting him.

Ubisoft have been constantly stressing the fact that the British are not the bad guys, from day one. The problem lies not in that Ubisoft are making it seem like Connor is on the American's side, it's more AC 'fans' judging before they have information.

much like with Halo 4, all the 'fans' were up in rage about how much it was like or turning into COD, just to be shut up at e3 when, SURPRISE, it was nothing like it.

rant over.

tarrero
06-05-2012, 07:09 PM
Well, at least washington looked oncerned on the Cinematic trailer, it´s :something:......

eagleforlife1
06-05-2012, 07:22 PM
y'know, I'm absolutely fed up with all these screaming kids complaining about this.

“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” ― C.S. Lewis (http://forums.ubi.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis)

Locopells
06-05-2012, 07:28 PM
“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” ― C.S. Lewis (http://forums.ubi.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis)

Damm - nice comeback!

morpheusPrime08
06-05-2012, 07:43 PM
Damm - nice comeback!

Not really, he had to find someone elses quote just to make a point, the fact is that most of the people complaining are 17 and under. While people like Escoblades stay calm & cool.

Locopells
06-05-2012, 07:48 PM
Not really, he had to find someone elses quote just to make a point, the fact is that most of the people complaining are 17 and under. While people like Escoblades stay calm & cool.

I'm more impressed that he knew the quote in the first place. I've read a fair bit of C.S. Lewis and I don't remember that one. And if you're still bothered about the ages of the people complaining, you just made his point for him - again...

pacmanate
06-05-2012, 08:05 PM
Stay OT otherwise this thread will get locked.

rileypoole1234
06-05-2012, 08:26 PM
Technically everybody in the colonies was British back then, but since you already said that, I disagree. I think that the way Ubi is showing it is the only good way to. He did say that he was after Templars, not British, so at least we know the British aren't the bad guys in the game. I'm babbling I know, I haven't slept..

SaintPerkele
06-05-2012, 08:28 PM
Not really, he had to find someone elses quote just to make a point, the fact is that most of the people complaining are 17 and under.
I'm older than that. Okay, to be fair, I'm not complaining, whining or whatever and I always tell those people you are refering to that it has been stated several times by the developers that Connor is neutral, but nonetheless, pacmanate has a valid point.

I have no problem with killing British or American soldiers (yes, yes, I know, they were both British at the time, but that doesn't really help an educated dicussion either), it's just that the developers contradict themselves. Now I don't neccessarily have to see Connor killing a Bluecoat or whatever, but a nice indication that there are Templars on both sides would be appreciated. Something like the previously stated idea, that the CGI trailer would not feature Washington but instead another concerned American officer, who is shown to wear the Templar cross somewhere or something similar to that.

I appreciated the "Let the patriots fight their war, I'm here for the Templars"-quote quite a lot and I understand that most targets on the American side would probably be spoiler-ish, but I dislike that things like both gameplay demos show Connor killing Redcoats for no apparent reason. Instead of just sneaking into the fort and taking out the target, he brutally kills a group of guards at its entrance. And Connor being on a Continental ship, dressed as a Continental officer is not explained either.
Now, I'm aware that the gameplay demos exist to show of new gameplay and mechanics, sure. But there is this certain subtle message that I dislike.

I see a lot of users insulting people who share these concerns (although their concerns are usually expressed on a "hurr durr I don't want to kill British people, **** you USA"-basis) and saying to them what I said above: "The devs stated that this is not the case!". However, let's be honest, only the 'real' fanbase reads what the developers said, watch every single interview and so on. Those people, as annoying as they may be, are judging the game based on the videos that were released to the public. And this proves, that the videos - unfortunately - give a certain impression, even though mostly everybody on this forum knows that this impression is false.

tl;dr: I don't believe that the Connor will be taking side for one faction and I don't believe that the game will glorify America either. But Ubisoft gives a certain impression with their released media and marketing, so they should not be too surprised, that many uneducated (in terms of the AC franchise) people get this certain impression. And considering that the mods close almost every single thread about this subject, it's obvious that Ubisoft does not want that to happen.

freddie_1897
06-05-2012, 08:34 PM
I'm older than that. Okay, to be fair, I'm not complaining, whining or whatever and I always tell those people you are refering to that it has been stated several times by the developers that Connor is neutral, but nonetheless, pacmanate has a valid point.

I have no problem with killing British or American soldiers (yes, yes, I know, they were both British at the time, but that doesn't really help an educated dicussion either), it's just that the developers contradict themselves. Now I don't neccessarily have to see Connor killing a Bluecoat or whatever, but a nice indication that there are Templars on both sides would be appreciated. Something like the previously stated idea, that the CGI trailer would not feature Washington but instead another concerned American officer, who is shown to wear the Templar cross somewhere or something similar to that.

I appreciated the "Let the patriots fight their war, I'm here for the Templars"-quote quite a lot and I understand that most targets on the American side would probably be spoiler-ish, but I dislike that things like both gameplay demos show Connor killing Redcoats for no apparent reason. Instead of just sneaking into the fort and taking out the target, he brutally kills a group of guards at its entrance. And Connor being on a Continental ship, dressed as a Continental officer is not explained either.
Now, I'm aware that the gameplay demos exist to show of new gameplay and mechanics, sure. But there is this certain subtle message that I dislike.

I see a lot of users insulting people who share these concerns (although their concerns are usually expressed on a "hurr durr I don't want to kill British people, **** you USA"-basis) and saying to them what I said above: "The devs stated that this is not the case!". However, let's be honest, only the 'real' fanbase reads what the developers said, watch every single interview and so on. Those people, as annoying as they may be, are judging the game based on the videos that were released to the public. And this proves, that the videos - unfortunately - give a certain impression, even though mostly everybody on this forum knows that this impression is false.

tl;dr: I don't believe that the Connor will be taking side for one faction and I don't believe that the game will glorify America either. But Ubisoft gives a certain impression with their released media and marketing, so they should not be too surprised, that many uneducated (in terms of the AC franchise) people get this certain impression. And considering that the mods close almost every single thread about this subject, it's obvious that Ubisoft does not want that to happen.
Look at this Morpheus, he's made his own comeback now.

Btw, you have no way of knowing that it's mostly under 17's complaining, so that point just went completely out the window

Assassin_M
06-05-2012, 09:01 PM
DO you really have no faith what so ever in the development team ?

pacmanate
06-05-2012, 09:04 PM
DO you really have no faith what so ever in the development team ?

Hope thats not directed at me.

Radman500
06-05-2012, 09:07 PM
can you not separate reality from fiction?

luckyto
06-05-2012, 09:08 PM
I'm older than that. Okay, to be fair, I'm not complaining, whining or whatever and I always tell those people you are refering to that it has been stated several times by the developers that Connor is neutral, but nonetheless, pacmanate has a valid point.

I have no problem with killing British or American soldiers (yes, yes, I know, they were both British at the time, but that doesn't really help an educated dicussion either), it's just that the developers contradict themselves. Now I don't neccessarily have to see Connor killing a Bluecoat or whatever, but a nice indication that there are Templars on both sides would be appreciated. Something like the previously stated idea, that the CGI trailer would not feature Washington but instead another concerned American officer, who is shown to wear the Templar cross somewhere or something similar to that.

I appreciated the "Let the patriots fight their war, I'm here for the Templars"-quote quite a lot and I understand that most targets on the American side would probably be spoiler-ish, but I dislike that things like both gameplay demos show Connor killing Redcoats for no apparent reason. Instead of just sneaking into the fort and taking out the target, he brutally kills a group of guards at its entrance. And Connor being on a Continental ship, dressed as a Continental officer is not explained either.
Now, I'm aware that the gameplay demos exist to show of new gameplay and mechanics, sure. But there is this certain subtle message that I dislike.

I see a lot of users insulting people who share these concerns (although their concerns are usually expressed on a "hurr durr I don't want to kill British people, **** you USA"-basis) and saying to them what I said above: "The devs stated that this is not the case!". However, let's be honest, only the 'real' fanbase reads what the developers said, watch every single interview and so on. Those people, as annoying as they may be, are judging the game based on the videos that were released to the public. And this proves, that the videos - unfortunately - give a certain impression, even though mostly everybody on this forum knows that this impression is false.

tl;dr: I don't believe that the Connor will be taking side for one faction and I don't believe that the game will glorify America either. But Ubisoft gives a certain impression with their released media and marketing, so they should not be too surprised, that many uneducated (in terms of the AC franchise) people get this certain impression. And considering that the mods close almost every single thread about this subject, it's obvious that Ubisoft does not want that to happen.


But this is pointless. You can play the game how you like. A demo is meant to show mechanics... not the only way to accomplish a mission.

No offense, but when I play AC1, I brutally destroy Crusaders. In fact, that is my own secret Sync objective every time I enter Acre: Kill every guard. Why? Because combat is fun, and particularly Acre in the later sequences. In Jerusalem, my objective is to kill noone but my target. All stealth. Why? Because approaching the "holy city" from this perspective makes for an interesting twist. I could totally reverse this, and the game is fine either way. AC2 worked the same way.

Admittedly, Brotherhood and Revelations put some "requirements" into their levels that took the choice away. Revelations in particular had you destroying a whole town and killing thousands of innocents. Brotherhood enforced strict no-kill scenarios in FAR too many missions. But on the whole, you can approach most quests from multiple angles.

If you want to treat Redcoats like a bunch of holy men, then PLAY YOUR GAME THAT WAY. If you are that offended that anyone would conceive of killing a Brit because they are holier than thou, then by gods, don't buy the game. Either way, this whole moral discussion about a video game is absurd. Complain about mechanics, or graphics, or the amount of content; but complaining about video game morality and historical accuracy is just a bit too much. It's like visiting a COD board and complaining about the morality of war --- it's a war game. It's an Assassin game, you kill. Period.

Assassin_M
06-05-2012, 09:08 PM
Hope thats not directed at me.
No it wasnt..
I completely understand your post, just disagree on Ubisoft`s fault part..

Radman500
06-05-2012, 09:10 PM
WHY DOES IT MATTER IF THE BRIT'S ARE ENIMIES???

Russians are enimies in almost every shooter... you see them whining?

people have a hard time separating reality from fiction

pacmanate
06-05-2012, 09:10 PM
No it wasnt..
I completely understand your post, just disagree on Ubisoft`s fault part..

Oh okay was gonna say. When I meant fault i just mean in the sense that you cant blame fans for thinking british are evil

Assassin_M
06-05-2012, 09:13 PM
Oh okay was gonna say. When I meant fault i just mean in the sense that you cant blame fans for thinking british are evil
Ubisoft are not blaming them. WE ARE !!
and yes, the British were evil :p

LightRey
06-05-2012, 09:19 PM
But this is pointless. You can play the game how you like. A demo is meant to show mechanics... not the only way to accomplish a mission.

No offense, but when I play AC1, I brutally destroy Crusaders. In fact, that is my own secret Sync objective every time I enter Acre: Kill every guard. Why? Because combat is fun, and particularly Acre in the later sequences. In Jerusalem, my objective is to kill noone but my target. All stealth. Why? Because approaching the "holy city" from this perspective makes for an interesting twist. I could totally reverse this, and the game is fine either way. AC2 worked the same way.

Admittedly, Brotherhood and Revelations put some "requirements" into their levels that took the choice away. Revelations in particular had you destroying a whole town and killing thousands of innocents. Brotherhood enforced strict no-kill scenarios in FAR too many missions. But on the whole, you can approach most quests from multiple angles.

If you want to treat Redcoats like a bunch of holy men, then PLAY YOUR GAME THAT WAY. If you are that offended that anyone would conceive of killing a Brit because they are holier than thou, then by gods, don't buy the game. Either way, this whole moral discussion about a video game is absurd. Complain about mechanics, or graphics, or the amount of content; but complaining about video game morality and historical accuracy is just a bit too much. It's like visiting a COD board and complaining about the morality of war --- it's a war game. It's an Assassin game, you kill. Period.
For the record, in ACR you don't actually see anyone dying from the fires in Cappadocia, nor do I think it a realistic estimate that there were "thousands of people" living there. It was more likely a few hundred at most.

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 09:21 PM
Lets put this to bed :)

SaintPerkele
06-05-2012, 09:35 PM
But this is pointless. You can play the game how you like. A demo is meant to show mechanics... not the only way to accomplish a mission.

No offense, but when I play AC1, I brutally destroy Crusaders. In fact, that is my own secret Sync objective every time I enter Acre: Kill every guard. Why? Because combat is fun, and particularly Acre in the later sequences. In Jerusalem, my objective is to kill noone but my target. All stealth. Why? Because approaching the "holy city" from this perspective makes for an interesting twist. I could totally reverse this, and the game is fine either way. AC2 worked the same way.

Admittedly, Brotherhood and Revelations put some "requirements" into their levels that took the choice away. Revelations in particular had you destroying a whole town and killing thousands of innocents. Brotherhood enforced strict no-kill scenarios in FAR too many missions. But on the whole, you can approach most quests from multiple angles.

If you want to treat Redcoats like a bunch of holy men, then PLAY YOUR GAME THAT WAY. If you are that offended that anyone would conceive of killing a Brit because they are holier than thou, then by gods, don't buy the game. Either way, this whole moral discussion about a video game is absurd. Complain about mechanics, or graphics, or the amount of content; but complaining about video game morality and historical accuracy is just a bit too much. It's like visiting a COD board and complaining about the morality of war --- it's a war game. It's an Assassin game, you kill. Period.
I completely agree with you, seriously. I was just trying to point out why I believe that some of the people are not stupid, uneducated children, but people who base their opinion of the game only on the released media.


Lets put this to bed :)
Nah, this thread is the first one to discuss the subject on a reasonable and educated matter, I actually enjoy it.

UrDeviant1
06-05-2012, 09:40 PM
Nah, this thread is the first one to discuss the subject on a reasonable and educated matter, I actually enjoy it.

Fair one. But people see these sorts of thread as, yet again, the British moaning. I just want to say that people should now realize that Connor Is neutral.

luckyto
06-05-2012, 09:41 PM
Lightrey, 100s. 1000s. Either way, it was of questionable moral value; with questionable meaning that many people questioned it. That wasn't the point I was making --- the point I was making is that most AC games let you choose how to play it... with that being one of the few exceptions. I expect AC3 to be the same. If you want to go about slaughtering Redcoats, I'm sure you can. If you choose a more pacifist approach, I'm sure you can do this to a reasonable degree as well.

rileypoole1234
06-05-2012, 10:45 PM
Alex just said that there will be Templars on the American side during the Gamestop stream. At least we know for sure now at least a couple Americans will be killed by Connors hand.

BBALive
06-05-2012, 11:10 PM
Like seriously, look.
First trailer we got, the in-game rendered CG, we were fighting the "British"
Then we got the Gameplay reveal trailer! Once again, fighting the British. Fair enough, only 2 trailers, but wait! There is more.
After that we see our E3 Gameplay teaser trailer that lasted a minute. Who were we fighting? British again.
We then got to see the CG trailer. Have a guess who Connor was fighting against? If you said Germans, no. The British.
First gameplay demo of the day! Frontier demo gameplay, looked sweet, maybe we kill some "Americans"! Well... no, obviously.
2nd Gameplay demo of the day, the Naval gameplay. Once again, Connor on the "American" side, fighting the British.
Short scene from the Boston gameplay demo on Spike. Who does Connor strangle to death? An "English" Soldier!



Now personally, I am not one to care about Red Coats and Bluecoats, at the end of the day they were all British anyway. This isn't a thread like the rest to say "WHY ARE THE ENGLISH THE BAD GUYS".

But you have to wonder, what is Ubisofts problem? There have been 7 showings of Connor in action, and every single time against the "English". You can see why various fans are getting the impression that the "English" are the "bad guys" just from that list! It's because EVERYTHING that Ubisoft has released, shows Connor killing "English" people. You can also see why people think that Ubisoft hates English people just from that list.

I honestly do not have a clue why Ubisoft are portraying the English like this. It is VERY stupid. The angry fans arguments are justified!

The target in the Frontier demo was an American (Silas Deane).
There was also a piece of information recently released saying that Connor infiltrated a British encampment by pretending to be captured by a group of British soldiers who were actually his allies. Whether the group of Brits were actually patriots is not know, but it's a start.

It could also explain the fact that some British soldiers just seem to back off and let Connor run and kill their superiors (during the gameplay trailer and the Frontier demo). That's probably wishful thinking, but oh well.

You could also say that it's marketing.

pacmanate
06-05-2012, 11:14 PM
The target in the Frontier demo was an American (Silas Deane).
There was also a piece of information recently released saying that Connor infiltrated a British encampment by pretending to be captured by a group of British soldiers who were actually his allies. Whether the group of Brits were actually patriots is not know, but it's a start.

It could also explain the fact that some British soldiers just seem to back off and let Connor run and kill their superiors (during the gameplay trailer and the Frontier demo). That's probably wishful thinking, but oh well.

You could also say that it's marketing.

How did he pretend to be captured? He jumped onto a buliding, shot some gunpowder, ran down, and killed 2 guys.

BBALive
06-05-2012, 11:16 PM
How did he pretend to be captured? He jumped onto a buliding, shot some gunpowder, ran down, and killed 2 guys.

It wasn't in the demo, buddy. Reread my post.

BATISTABUS
06-05-2012, 11:17 PM
Altair was on the side of the Assassins. At the time, the Assassin Order was primarily Arabic, and the Templars were primarily European (mostly French). Because of this, what was seen as the main enemy of Altair and the Assassins were the European Templars, which were killed and advertised to more easily set the time period and conflict. The game was advertised as being a fight against the Templars; known commonly by the public as European crusaders. By the end of the game, Altair ended up killing just as many (if not more) Arab Templars than European Templars. When Altair kills Europeans, it is not a hate-crime. He is following orders, as being an Assassin is his life and all he's ever known. Also, Altair was half-European.

Connor is an Assassin. Assassins are the faction of freedom, and those attempting to become "free" at the time were the Colonists. The "suppressors" were the British Army. Because of this, what is being seen as the main enemy of Connor and the Assassins are British soldiers and British Templars. They are being killed and advertised to more easily set the time period and conflict. The game spans many years before, during, and after the American Revolution. Connor will kill before the Revolution (when everyone is British), and after the Revolution (when the British have gone home). Even so, the game is being sold on the premise that it takes place during the American Revolution, so it makes sense that most of the targets in demonstrations, commercials, and other advertisements would be British (especially since it's more than likely that Connor's Mentor is a colonist). When Connor kills the British, it is not a hate-crime. He is driven by his sense of justice, which has aligned him with the Assassins, who have determined particular British individuals to be targets. Also, Connor is half-British.

In other words, unless you had a moral problem with the first Assassin's Creed, you have nothing to complain about.

Serrachio
06-05-2012, 11:20 PM
The target in the Frontier demo was an American (Silas Deane).
There was also a piece of information recently released saying that Connor infiltrated a British encampment by pretending to be captured by a group of British soldiers who were actually his allies. Whether the group of Brits were actually patriots is not know, but it's a start.

It could also explain the fact that some British soldiers just seem to back off and let Connor run and kill their superiors (during the gameplay trailer and the Frontier demo). That's probably wishful thinking, but oh well.

You could also say that it's marketing.

Where is your source for this information?

Also, to use a certain phrase, I think a select, vocal portion of the community just wants to "see it to believe it" when it comes to killing Patriots (Bluecoats) and Loyalists (Redcoats), when it has only been portrayed as killing solely Loyalists.

I know that Connor is neutral in this conflict, though he admires the Patriots somewhat as their strive for freedom is comparable for his aim for the Mohawk tribe, but I guess others would prefer to see the extent of his neutrality as being shown through the people he kills.

Connor himself says that he's only after the Templars, and that other people can nail it down to a marketing ploy to entrance American gamers into purchasing it, but they're forgetting that they have a whole European audience.

I think that Ubisoft needs to stop playing favourites, both in its marketing of the game and the equality between the Collector's Editions over the North American region and the EMEA.

BBALive
06-05-2012, 11:24 PM
Where is your source for this information?

Also, to use a certain phrase, I think a select, vocal portion of the community just wants to "see it to believe it" when it comes to killing Patriots (Bluecoats) and Loyalists (Redcoats), when it has only been portrayed as killing solely Loyalists.

I know that Connor is neutral in this conflict, though he admires the Patriots somewhat as their strive for freedom is comparable for his aim for the Mohawk tribe, but I guess others would prefer to see the extent of his neutrality as being shown through the people he kills.

Connor himself says that he's only after the Templars, and that other people can nail it down to a marketing ploy to entrance American gamers into purchasing it, but they're forgetting that they have a whole European audience.

I think that Ubisoft needs to stop playing favourites, both in its marketing of the game and the equality between the Collector's Editions over the North American region and the EMEA.

http://www.t3.com/reviews/assassins-creed-3-review

"Finally at the end of the mission we see Connor needs to access a restricted area. He calls what appears to be some reinforcements in the form of four British soldiers who surround him and give the other British soldiers the impression that Connor has been taken prisoner."

It was clear during the demo that the target's name was "Silas". The only notable "Silas" during the American Revolution was Silas Deane. Perhaps he's unrelated to the "Silas" in the demo, but that seems like a pretty big coincidence.

freddie_1897
06-05-2012, 11:31 PM
If Silus is a colonial, then why the hell is he in charge of a redcoat camp?

BATISTABUS
06-05-2012, 11:36 PM
If I may quote Wikipedia... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silas_Deane#Controversy )

Silas Deane (December 24, 1737 – September 23, 1789) was an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) merchant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant), politician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician) and diplomat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomat). Originally a supporter of American independence Deane served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress) and then as the United States' first foreign diplomat when he travelled toFrance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_France) to lobby the French government for aid. Deane was drawn into a major political row over his actions in Paris, and subsequently endorsed Loyalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)) criticisms of American independence and lived on a modest charity provided him in London. Deane later lived in the Dutch Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic) andGreat Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain) where he died.

In other words, he's not our guy.

BBALive
06-05-2012, 11:39 PM
If I may quote Wikipedia... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silas_Deane#Controversy )

Silas Deane (December 24, 1737 – September 23, 1789) was an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) merchant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant), politician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician) and diplomat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomat). Originally a supporter of American independence Deane served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress) and then as the United States' first foreign diplomat when he travelled toFrance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_France) to lobby the French government for aid. Deane was drawn into a major political row over his actions in Paris, and subsequently endorsed Loyalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)) criticisms of American independence and lived on a modest charity provided him in London. Deane later lived in the Dutch Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic) andGreat Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain) where he died.

In other words, he's not our guy.

I realise that he was pro-revolution, but like I said, it's a big coincidence. Perhaps Silas was a popular name at the time.

V 501st Legion
06-05-2012, 11:49 PM
To be honest this whole debate is pretty ridiculous. People will fuss about anything to make attention for themselves. The assassins believe in fighting for freedom, it just so happens most of the colonists were doing just that. At this point in history its not about Brits vs. Americans everyone was British because it was a British colony in the middle of a civil war.

Inorganic9_2
06-05-2012, 11:55 PM
That was actually my first impression. Didn't even recognize Washington and was expecting him to hide a Templar cross at the end or something like that. That would actually have been awesome and could have been an end to all the discussions.


I also thought that he looked more concerned than anything else.

Locopells
06-05-2012, 11:59 PM
I realise that he was pro-revolution, but like I said, it's a big coincidence. Perhaps Silas was a popular name at the time.

Google it, and you'll see it's all over the era...

rob.davies2014
06-06-2012, 12:23 AM
I realise that he was pro-revolution, but like I said, it's a big coincidence. Perhaps Silas was a popular name at the time.
It's not about the Revolution for Connor, it's about Templars. It could be this guy.

BATISTABUS
06-06-2012, 12:35 AM
It's not about the Revolution for Connor, it's about Templars. It could be this guy.
It's not about his allegiance, its about the fact that we saw a guy die in the Frontier when Silas Deane died in Europe.

morpheusPrime08
06-06-2012, 01:01 AM
Look at this Morpheus, he's made his own comeback now.

Btw, you have no way of knowing that it's mostly under 17's complaining, so that point just went completely out the window

Ahh Freddie, I like how you wormed your way in the conversation, this is a perfect thread for you;).

Anyway SaintPerkele had some great points, I was not calling him immature just saying how it's obvious that the random topics of complaints that have popped up over the last month are from a younger audience.

It's just a game folks, and Americans love Brits, like Adele, Jason Statham, Christopher Nolan just to name a few. So there is a mutual respect.

Dagio12
06-06-2012, 01:48 AM
It only seems logical to me that most of what we are seeing deals with the killings of redcoats. If i am not mistaken, the assassins ideals follow more in line with those of the colonist, than that of the british army, so it makes sense that he may find more allegiance with that group than the redcoats. It also seems apparent that many of the larger cities seem to be patrolled by primarily redcoarts, so if you are the type of player that likes getting into it with random guards, chances are.... they will be redcoats. I am sure you can engage with the bluecoats in there colonies if you wish, but for gameplay and demo purposes, I see no point in the devs showing that off when they can show a lot more by showing off mission gamplay and city gameplay. Besides, its been made plenty clear, that Connor is neutral, and the gamplay narrative clearly shows that. Important segments that may have colonists being killed will most likely be very important to the plot, and therefore will probably not be shown for spoiler reasons. At the end of the day, Connor is fighting for freedom, which coincidently falls in line with some of the colonists beliefs. Makes sense that he may find more in common with them, but his true allegience is to the assassins, and his enemies will be templars (whichever side/sides they may be on.) Lets not forget that the colonists are the ones that busted in and burnt down connors village when he was young... i dont think that is ubisoft making them seem nice.

** also, bluecoats or red... they were all mostly Brtish, just a civil war on foreign land**

GunnarGunderson
06-06-2012, 01:59 AM
So why didn't the Americans appear on the minimap as enemies? Or neutral enemies like the Ottomans?

Acrimonious_Nin
06-06-2012, 02:04 AM
Like seriously, look.
First trailer we got, the in-game rendered CG, we were fighting the "British"
Then we got the Gameplay reveal trailer! Once again, fighting the British. Fair enough, only 2 trailers, but wait! There is more.
After that we see our E3 Gameplay teaser trailer that lasted a minute. Who were we fighting? British again.
We then got to see the CG trailer. Have a guess who Connor was fighting against? If you said Germans, no. The British.
First gameplay demo of the day! Frontier demo gameplay, looked sweet, maybe we kill some "Americans"! Well... no, obviously.
2nd Gameplay demo of the day, the Naval gameplay. Once again, Connor on the "American" side, fighting the British.
Short scene from the Boston gameplay demo on Spike. Who does Connor strangle to death? An "English" Soldier!


Now personally, I am not one to care about Red Coats and Bluecoats, at the end of the day they were all British anyway. This isn't a thread like the rest to say "WHY ARE THE ENGLISH THE BAD GUYS".

But you have to wonder, what is Ubisofts problem? There have been 7 showings of Connor in action, and every single time against the "English". You can see why various fans are getting the impression that the "English" are the "bad guys" just from that list! It's because EVERYTHING that Ubisoft has released, shows Connor killing "English" people. You can also see why people think that Ubisoft hates English people just from that list.

I honestly do not have a clue why Ubisoft are portraying the English like this. It is VERY stupid. The angry fans arguments are justified!


Did you see that guy drinking tea in the first gameplay XD omg I LOL'd so hard because I thought, "OMG no...no...they do not know what they have done " XD hahahahahhahahahhahah it was good

CrazySN
06-06-2012, 02:07 AM
Like seriously, look.

First trailer we got, the in-game rendered CG, we were fighting the "British"
Then we got the Gameplay reveal trailer! Once again, fighting the British. Fair enough, only 2 trailers, but wait! There is more.
After that we see our E3 Gameplay teaser trailer that lasted a minute. Who were we fighting? British again.
We then got to see the CG trailer. Have a guess who Connor was fighting against? If you said Germans, no. The British.
First gameplay demo of the day! Frontier demo gameplay, looked sweet, maybe we kill some "Americans"! Well... no, obviously.
2nd Gameplay demo of the day, the Naval gameplay. Once again, Connor on the "American" side, fighting the British.
Short scene from the Boston gameplay demo on Spike. Who does Connor strangle to death? An "English" Soldier!



Now personally, I am not one to care about Red Coats and Bluecoats, at the end of the day they were all British anyway. This isn't a thread like the rest to say "WHY ARE THE ENGLISH THE BAD GUYS".

But you have to wonder, what is Ubisofts problem? There have been 7 showings of Connor in action, and every single time against the "English". You can see why various fans are getting the impression that the "English" are the "bad guys" just from that list! It's because EVERYTHING that Ubisoft has released, shows Connor killing "English" people. You can also see why people think that Ubisoft hates English people just from that list.

I honestly do not have a clue why Ubisoft are portraying the English like this. It is VERY stupid. The angry fans arguments are justified!

Don't worry. I'm 90% sure they'll make the Americans the true bad guys at end-game, once they reveal the founding fathers are the true Templars, and the fact that you'll probably be killing only Colonists since the war is over by then.

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 02:14 AM
Don't worry. I'm 90% sure they'll make the Americans the true bad guys at end-game, once they reveal the founding fathers are the true Templars, and the fact that you'll probably be killing only Colonists since the war is over by then.
THIS !!
I have this gut feeling that Connor will end up being betrayed by the Colonists..

JumpInTheFire13
06-06-2012, 02:18 AM
E3 is in the US. I'm guessing some idiot would say "He killed an American, I'm not going to buy this game!" It's just a way for Ubisoft to sell more copies.

kudos17
06-06-2012, 02:32 AM
THIS !!
I have this gut feeling that Connor will end up being betrayed by the Colonists..

Absolutely this, it irks that people don't see it.

Of course the British are portrayed as enemies to freedom, because they technically are at first. To the world, they are an oppressive monarchy on the American coast at the time.

The devil is in the details. For example, the Boston Massacre was portrayed as a horrible and monstrous tragedy, when in fact, it was the British troops who were more scared. They were fending off an angry crowd, frightened for their lives - and they had guns. Things went downhill fast. I feel if Ubisoft portrays the things like that they way they were - bad on both sides - than they have convinced me that they are still neutral.

And like mentioned before, the colonists WILL NOT be the enemy first. They have no reason to be. Toward the end of the game, I suspect, it will be revealed that the Templar ranks have worked their way into the new country too, by way of the American Freemasons. Why would Ubisoft spill a spoiler like that? That's why they dance around the topic when it's brought up. They don't want to say "Oh, we will kill plenty of colonists" if they can't back it up without spoiling things.

Also, Connor is neutral. He will kill whatever side the Templars are on. That DOES NOT mean he will kill the colonists and British equally. Just that he will not take a side. It just so happens that what we've seen so far has been mostly British Templars.

Above all else, everything that we've seen of Connor - from his body language to his actual speech - shows how much he resents the outsiders. British and American British. He would probably kick them all off his land if he could.

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 02:37 AM
Absolutely this, it irks that people don't see it.

Of course the British are portrayed as enemies to freedom, because they technically are at first. To the world, they are an oppressive monarchy on the American coast at the time.

The devil is in the details. For example, the Boston Massacre was portrayed as a horrible and monstrous tragedy, when in fact, it was the British troops who were more scared. They were fending off an angry crowd, frightened for their lives - and they had guns. Things went downhill fast. I feel if Ubisoft portrays the things like that they way they were - bad on both sides - than they have convinced me that they are still neutral.

And like mentioned before, the colonists WILL NOT be the enemy first. They have no reason to be. Toward the end of the game, I suspect, it will be revealed that the Templar ranks have worked their way into the new country too, by way of the American Freemasons. Why would Ubisoft spill a spoiler like that? That's why they dance around the topic when it's brought up. They don't want to say "Oh, we will kill plenty of colonists" if they can't back it up without spoiling things.

Also, Connor is neutral. He will kill whatever side the Templars are on. That DOES NOT mean he will kill the colonists and British equally. Just that he will not take a side. It just so happens that what we've seen so far has been mostly British Templars.

Above all else, everything that we've seen of Connor - from his body language to his actual speech - shows how much he resents the outsiders. British and American British. He would probably kick them all off his land if he could.
People just do not take the time to pay attention..
and If there is anything I`v learned about ANY game, is that haters will always exist and will always find something to whine about..
I respect constructive and educated criticism, but this is just childish.

Acrimonious_Nin
06-06-2012, 02:52 AM
Absolutely this, it irks that people don't see it.

Of course the British are portrayed as enemies to freedom, because they technically are at first. To the world, they are an oppressive monarchy on the American coast at the time.

The devil is in the details. For example, the Boston Massacre was portrayed as a horrible and monstrous tragedy, when in fact, it was the British troops who were more scared. They were fending off an angry crowd, frightened for their lives - and they had guns. Things went downhill fast. I feel if Ubisoft portrays the things like that they way they were - bad on both sides - than they have convinced me that they are still neutral.

And like mentioned before, the colonists WILL NOT be the enemy first. They have no reason to be. Toward the end of the game, I suspect, it will be revealed that the Templar ranks have worked their way into the new country too, by way of the American Freemasons. Why would Ubisoft spill a spoiler like that? That's why they dance around the topic when it's brought up. They don't want to say "Oh, we will kill plenty of colonists" if they can't back it up without spoiling things.

Also, Connor is neutral. He will kill whatever side the Templars are on. That DOES NOT mean he will kill the colonists and British equally. Just that he will not take a side. It just so happens that what we've seen so far has been mostly British Templars.

Above all else, everything that we've seen of Connor - from his body language to his actual speech - shows how much he resents the outsiders. British and American British. He would probably kick them all off his land if he could.

You know what now that you mention this George Washington had the apple right? isn't the apple known (as Al mualim says) to corrupt any one who poses it ? I mean what makes G.W any more special; he is no Altair or Ezio that can control it. It makes sense that towards the end the Colonials or at least their world might change o.O I am now looking forward to beating this game and seeing how it unfolds :D omg omg omg

Dagio12
06-06-2012, 03:01 AM
THIS !!
I have this gut feeling that Connor will end up being betrayed by the Colonists..

+100, i agree and think this is a very likely scenario

ShadowRage41
06-06-2012, 03:25 AM
Absolutely this, it irks that people don't see it.

Of course the British are portrayed as enemies to freedom, because they technically are at first. To the world, they are an oppressive monarchy on the American coast at the time.

The devil is in the details. For example, the Boston Massacre was portrayed as a horrible and monstrous tragedy, when in fact, it was the British troops who were more scared. They were fending off an angry crowd, frightened for their lives - and they had guns. Things went downhill fast. I feel if Ubisoft portrays the things like that they way they were - bad on both sides - than they have convinced me that they are still neutral.

And like mentioned before, the colonists WILL NOT be the enemy first. They have no reason to be. Toward the end of the game, I suspect, it will be revealed that the Templar ranks have worked their way into the new country too, by way of the American Freemasons. Why would Ubisoft spill a spoiler like that? That's why they dance around the topic when it's brought up. They don't want to say "Oh, we will kill plenty of colonists" if they can't back it up without spoiling things.

Also, Connor is neutral. He will kill whatever side the Templars are on. That DOES NOT mean he will kill the colonists and British equally. Just that he will not take a side. It just so happens that what we've seen so far has been mostly British Templars.

Above all else, everything that we've seen of Connor - from his body language to his actual speech - shows how much he resents the outsiders. British and American British. He would probably kick them all off his land if he could.

There were good men and bad men on both sides of the conflict... which is true of any war. the crux of it was? Is the cause of war just or not? that is the question soldiers inevitably ask themselves following conflicts and war. was the cost too high? Much like the American civil war I see this as a nation trying to retain resources ect. good/bad depends on your perspective and which side you served on. as for the Native Americans? MOST tribes had little to no interest in what the white man was doing. their main concern was their tribes. their herds and their territories I.E hunting grounds. many native American tribes did not tolerate "ANY one" outside of their tribes on their land native American or not. As I have said so many times the relationship between the native Americans and the U.S GOV was complicated. They might be on good terms with certain Generals seeing them as strong honorable leaders and at the same time hostile towards local authorities.

I am an American and I do not see the British as "bad guy's" I see a war over ideology. One side wanting their Independence from the ideologies of the British Gov and Crown. the other wanting to retain their resources. Much like the American Civil war. although the Emancipation proclamation was the lynch pin that sealed it. a difference in ideology one seeking independence from the other. I am sure if the "Truth" was known atrocities were. committed by both sides. I understand the frustrations of many of you from Great Britain in the way you see your country portrayed. I have felt the same way seeing and hearing the way people frame mine. if you are Really interested in the truth it lies somewhere in the middle ground. Not even the native Americans were faultless in these conflicts. not all of the tribes or their leaders were honorable. some were Warriors whose sole intent was to take resources from other tribes and settlers. I am just being honest about it. But at that time the Colonist were of little interest to the Great tribes. until the mountain men began to hunt and trap on their lands... there was very little.. almost no interaction with the white man. and when there was? when it came to the Crow, Sioux,Comanche , Cheyenne, Apache and Blackfoot. the white mans scalp ended up hanging on some warriors lodge. Not because that lone man. or couple of men done them great wrong or even because of some wrong that a white man did to them. but usually they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. just unlucky.

I expect whoever the Templars are to be on both sides of the conflict. I expect their motivations to be esoteric with the war and the nations fighting as a backdrop to what Their true goals are. a larger story within a story. the war being a diversion or an opportunity for them to expand. both in the United States, France, with the Dutch, and British. I would expect them to play all angles and seize all opportunities. and that is how it will be if it is a well written story. XD. just my 2 cents

Calvarok
06-06-2012, 04:05 AM
I haven't really felt like the redcoats are evil. As always with AC games, I think the fact that we're after the target comes across pretty readily. They're soldiers, they attack you becasue you're storming their fort. Connor doesn't even bother to fight most of them, just those in his way.

DavisP92
06-06-2012, 04:08 AM
Like seriously, look.
First trailer we got, the in-game rendered CG, we were fighting the "British"
Then we got the Gameplay reveal trailer! Once again, fighting the British. Fair enough, only 2 trailers, but wait! There is more.
After that we see our E3 Gameplay teaser trailer that lasted a minute. Who were we fighting? British again.
We then got to see the CG trailer. Have a guess who Connor was fighting against? If you said Germans, no. The British.
First gameplay demo of the day! Frontier demo gameplay, looked sweet, maybe we kill some "Americans"! Well... no, obviously.
2nd Gameplay demo of the day, the Naval gameplay. Once again, Connor on the "American" side, fighting the British.
Short scene from the Boston gameplay demo on Spike. Who does Connor strangle to death? An "English" Soldier!


Now personally, I am not one to care about Red Coats and Bluecoats, at the end of the day they were all British anyway. This isn't a thread like the rest to say "WHY ARE THE ENGLISH THE BAD GUYS".

But you have to wonder, what is Ubisofts problem? There have been 7 showings of Connor in action, and every single time against the "English". You can see why various fans are getting the impression that the "English" are the "bad guys" just from that list! It's because EVERYTHING that Ubisoft has released, shows Connor killing "English" people. You can also see why people think that Ubisoft hates English people just from that list.

I honestly do not have a clue why Ubisoft are portraying the English like this. It is VERY stupid. The angry fans arguments are justified!

Well seeing how the main enemy will be the Redcoats that are oppressing the colonials, It makes sense that the main group of people the Connor will be killing are the redcoats. They should NOT show Connor killing any bluecoats because that would be spoilers. The Redcoats have the opposite view of the Assassins if you didn't have a problem playing any of the other Assassin's Creed games before then you shouldn't have a problem now.

It seems like most people that are complaining now are only complaining because they are British and angry that AC is doing what they love about the game, being true to history (not changing big things really). If we're going around killing colonials as Connor then that would mean that we are templars, simple as that. Get over it

lilshawty741
06-06-2012, 04:15 AM
Here's the problem:
Ubi can't make an ac game in which there are not constant enemies to fight. There always has to be an "enemy" trying to kill him. Just because we constantly see the English trying to kill Conner does not make them evil.
So why the British and not the Americans? Well Conner obviously sympathizes more with the Colonists than with the British. Again this is not to knock the English in general, but simply because the colonists are fighting for freedom and democracy (although as Connor points out in the trailer only white males reaped the benefits at first), and the British are the oppressive tyrants. The assassins order in general has always promoted freedom.
And before someone points out that the Colonists never treated the Indians fairly, well the British didn't either. So from the stand point of who will help his people more, the answer is neither.
It is also worth noting that a lot of the missions can probably be completed by killing few to no redcoats. I like to pretend that I am a silent, bad *** assassin and usually play that way anyway. Also in British occupied cities, Connor probably won't attack or be attacked on sight.
Lastly, Ubi is clearly trying to keep the American targets a secret. It is totally possible, maybe even probable, that when Connor goes in to kill some American general, the Patriots will start taking shots at him and he will start kicking some colonist b**t. Obviously, if Ubi wants to keep it as mysterious as possible, they are not going to show Connor killing Patriots.
If Ubi made a AC WW2 game (which I sincerely hope never happens) I doubt any Germans would complain that the protagonist isn't seen killing Americans or Englishmen, even though clearly most Germans/German soldiers in WW2 were not evil people. I didn't hear any Catholics getting outraged over Ezio attempting to kill the Pope, so what exactly is the problem? Is it an equality thing? Is it Ubi picking favorites?

Calvarok
06-06-2012, 04:17 AM
Remember that Connor is not specifically going out and killing soldiers of either side. He only kills when they're standing in his way and will kill him. The British are more likely to shoot people on sight, because they are invading the land and trying to subjugate it. The Colonials are more likely to be accepting of a rouge person.

DoNNiEDaRkO50
06-06-2012, 04:29 AM
Hey ,,, I couldn't say that I don't agree ,, but I only agree at some points ,, they were all british back then yes ,, but it shows that the redcoats are the bad guys ,, but let me tell you,,, I am 100% sure that there will be bluecoats killing ,, why I'm sure because the frontier gameplay demo when connor was riding to the fort there were bluecoats if you focus ,,you will see that you can lock on to them ,, which means you can kill them ,,, I know that you could lock on other people that enemies in the past assassin's creed game but only specific people but in the demo every bluecoat had a highlight on him which I think you can kill :D

DTfunjumper
06-06-2012, 07:59 AM
I could actually imagine that there will be cities ruled by both sides, and it doesn't matter which side they are on, he will kill them. I suggest they've been showing only redcoats being killed to attract the american non-fans, but also not the reveal too much of the story. I remember scenes from ACII here. I mean, you could kill these templar enemies, but also town guards, though you just supported them in the town of Forli. I guess we will be having a similar system here! Killing templars on both sides and whatever gets in your way!

freddie_1897
06-06-2012, 10:33 AM
i think this is actually a very well structured argument from pacmanate.

just goes to show how much an educated post can change peoples opinions on these types of threads

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 10:39 AM
i think this is actually a very well structured argument from pacmanate.

just goes to show how much an educated post can change peoples opinions on these types of threads
Wow "Educated post"
I havent seen those in a long time..

freddie_1897
06-06-2012, 10:41 AM
Wow "Educated post"
I havent seen those in a long time..
agreed

AdamXEve
06-06-2012, 10:55 AM
So much non-American butthurt in this thread. Of course the game is going to focus on the British largely as the enemy; this isn't even in question. Ubisoft has tried to dodge this as much as possible, but the game is centered around the American Revolution. Undoubtedly, there were Patriots who committed unspeakable acts during the Revolutionary War, but at the heart of it the British were oppressors.

They were -- by very definition -- villains. You mad?

Say that there is no specific villains in this game all you like, but as a proud American, I can't wait to slaughter and stack as many redcoat scum as possible. Cheers.

Locopells
06-06-2012, 11:05 AM
So much non-American butthurt in this thread. Of course the game is going to focus on the British largely as the enemy; this isn't even in question. Ubisoft has tried to dodge this as much as possible, but the game is centered around the American Revolution. Undoubtedly, there were Patriots who committed unspeakable acts during the Revolutionary War, but at the heart of it the British were oppressors.

They were -- by very definition -- villains. You mad?

Say that there is no specific villains in this game all you like, but as a proud American, I can't wait to slaughter and stack as many redcoat scum as possible. Cheers.

'Cuts a piece of that swiss cheese argument'

Pouring petrol on the flames, much? Let's stick to reasoned discussion please.

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 11:11 AM
'Cuts a piece of that swiss cheese argument'

Pouring petrol on the flames, much? Let's stick to reasoned discussion please.
Indeed..
I mean really as "A proud american" ? so what ? If any other american that wont be enjoying killing the redcoats is not a proud one ? Oh so I guess that makes me lesser myself, because I wont be "killing and stacking as much red coat scum as possible" even though they occupied Egypt for a long time..

AdamXEve
06-06-2012, 11:14 AM
Didn't you "retire" from these forums a long time ago?

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 11:16 AM
Didn't you "retire" from these forums a long time ago?
Weren't you Banned ?:rolleyes:

mockers0
06-06-2012, 11:18 AM
Um, who cares. Obviously he is going to be more sided for America they won and he was born in america. If you watched anything he say's hes here for the templar. He helps the ones in need and technically redcoats were trying to take americans freedom and america wanted out from their bondage and wanted to be free. He is more minded on templars and is going to side with whoever is logical for him to kill the next templar. I think we can except to see some naughty Americans as Templar. I wouldn't even be surprised if goerge Washington ends up being the last target as he secretly is a Templar. Because game is set 30 years after I think to if I am not mistaken.

He's going to be sided with more bluecoats it's not like redcoats are an awesome to side up with. It's based in America, so....

Locopells
06-06-2012, 11:19 AM
M's been back for ages...

DTfunjumper
06-06-2012, 11:19 AM
I have to support Assassin_M. Does it mean, that i have to be delighted to kill and stack as much blue coat scum as possible to be a proud brit, when it comes down to get the american templars. I mean, i can see that ubi is trying to catch more americans, but for me a tmplar is a templar and will get a blade in his throat if he gets in my way!
By the way, i still think it will be fifty fifty with red and blue!

Inorganic9_2
06-06-2012, 01:21 PM
My concern is not because of "non-American butthurt". I am British. I really don't care about killing British troops. The core of this problem is consternation about this game being filled with "America, **** yeah!!!", freedom, liberty and nauseating over-patriotism.


I refer you to this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV571FNpIcc

Need I say more?

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 01:25 PM
My concern is not because of "non-American butthurt". I am British. I really don't care about killing British troops. The core of this problem is consternation about this game being filled with "America, **** yeah!!!", freedom, liberty and nauseating over-patriotism.


I refer you to this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV571FNpIcc


Need I say more?
I understand, but you must also understand that there has to be some "America Yeah !" because this is their Revolution..
Your and our concern should be about who we`re playing as. The Assassins and Connor are in no way allied with Colonials as said, and shown, numerous times now..

Azurefeatherfly
06-06-2012, 01:35 PM
Developers have plainly said that Connor is using the Colonials to collect the information needed for his job as an assassin, he said so himself "Patriots can fight their own battle". Colonials interests mean next to nothing to Connor, he is there to hunt Templars no more no less.

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 01:37 PM
Developers have plainly said that Connor is using the Colonials to collect the information needed for his job as an assassin, he said so himself "Patriots can fight their own battle". Colonials interests mean next to nothing to Connor, he is there to hunt Templars no more no less.
Indeed..
The Boston Demo also shows how Connor is nothing more than a man of Justice, evident by him helping an Englishman and his Wife from Corrupt Officers..

Inorganic9_2
06-06-2012, 02:03 PM
I understand, but you must also understand that there has to be some "America Yeah !" because this is their Revolution..
Your and our concern should be about who we`re playing as. The Assassins and Connor are in no way allied with Colonials as said, and shown, numerous times now..

Of course, but as long as that comes from American soldiers and isn't just stuffed into the game at any opportunity. It's like the Crusades: there was a decent and equal amount of "Deus Vult!" and "Allahu Akbar", not just one saturated side of "die, devil-worshipping Saracen scum!" or "die infidel scum!"



(Also, on a side-note: weren't the Templars the ones who originally set out for the New World?)

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 02:05 PM
Of course, but as long as that comes from American soldiers and isn't just stuffed into the game at any opportunity. It's like the Crusades: there was a decent and equal amount of "Deus Vult!" and "Allahu Akbar", not just one saturated side of "die, devil-worshipping Saracen scum!" or "die infidel scum!"



(Also, on a side-note: weren't the Templars the ones who originally set out for the New World?)
I agree with you completely, because as stated before, the game takes place before, during and after the Revolution over the Colonies. which means that fro some time, the red coats will be the enemies, then later switching to the Colonists..


Templars and Assassins at about the same time..
I`d refer to Giovanni Borgia`s story. It has all the details you`ll need..

BeCk41
06-06-2012, 02:12 PM
At least we know who our enemies are throughout the entire game...

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 02:13 PM
At least we know who our enemies are throughout the entire game...
Exactly. Templars..

jmk1999
06-06-2012, 04:42 PM
i think it's just ubi's way of saying "the US isn't getting a collector's edition. let's make it up to them by saying america is awesome." yeah... great. :nonchalance:

Mr_Shade
06-06-2012, 04:51 PM
i think it's just ubi's way of saying "the US isn't getting a collector's edition. let's make it up to them by saying america is awesome." yeah... great. :nonchalance:
I'd try not to put words into Ubi's mouth.. since that's all the trolls need...

jmk1999
06-06-2012, 05:05 PM
very true... apologies. that was opinion only.

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 05:06 PM
very true... apologies. that was opinion only.
I saw it as a Joking one xD
I`d sue society if you were being serious..

Locopells
06-06-2012, 05:09 PM
One mod telling off another? Dear me...

Seriously though, I assumed he was joking (even if the trolls can't tell the difference). Although the US does get better pre-oder bonuses...

jmk1999
06-06-2012, 05:16 PM
if you're referring to the weapons and mission, that's basically only a gamestop pre-order exclusive (for now anyway) and, as of currently, seen as a replacement for a collector's edition when compared to other countries. as i see it, i usually buy off of amazon which gives me free shipping and no tax... but... buying through gamestop forces me to pay that tax, which i consider another way of getting me to pay for the dlc (which would be like another $5-$10)... so even though ubi's not getting that money, i'm still paying for the dlc i'd normally get as a free bonus through amazon. so yeah... for a game that takes place in america, we should at least get ONE sweet CE out of the deal... but then, that's just my opinion.

Mr_Shade
06-06-2012, 05:21 PM
tbh I'm sure the Americans will get something.. maybe some tea?

One mod telling off another? Dear me...

Seriously though, I assumed he was joking (even if the trolls can't tell the difference). Although the US does get better pre-oder bonuses...

We have to be VERY careful what anyone working on the forums say about certain subjects, since certain news sites don't bother checking who is who or facts - and the next thing we see is:

"Ubisoft have officially announced blah blah blah'

That and the ammo certain jokes can give to trolls...



This subject of the thread in general is a VERY sensitive one, and one which needs handling carefully..

jmk1999
06-06-2012, 05:23 PM
very funny... coming from a brit. :rolleyes:

"new pre-order bonus! commemorative ACIII Tea Bag!"

Locopells
06-06-2012, 05:23 PM
if you're referring to the weapons and mission, that's basically only a gamestop pre-order exclusive (for now anyway) and, as of currently, seen as a replacement for a collector's edition when compared to other countries. as i see it, i usually buy off of amazon which gives me free shipping and no tax... but... buying through gamestop forces me to pay that tax, which i consider another way of getting me to pay for the dlc (which would be like another $5-$10)... so even though ubi's not getting that money, i'm still paying for the dlc i'd normally get as a free bonus through amazon. so yeah... for a game that takes place in america, we should at least get ONE sweet CE out of the deal... but then, that's just my opinion.

Wow - 250 years later, and you're still getting over taxed... Edit - KIDDING!

I have to say you're right though, even if the editions have never bothered me the same (with the exception of the ingame content they come with).


tbh I'm sure the Americans will get something.. maybe some tea?

As long as it ain't from Boston...

Mr_Shade
06-06-2012, 05:26 PM
as long as it ain't from boston...
spoilers!!!!



"new pre-order bonus! commemorative ACIII Tea Bag!"

Watch that goto the front page of a certain site now ;)

Locopells
06-06-2012, 05:30 PM
We have to be VERY careful what anyone working on the forums say about certain subjects, since certain news sites don't bother checking who is who or facts - and the next thing we see is:

"Ubisoft have officially announced blah blah blah'

That and the ammo certain jokes can give to trolls...

This subject of the thread in general is a VERY sensitive one, and one which needs handling carefully..

Well of course - it just struck me as amusing...

jmk1999
06-06-2012, 05:42 PM
Watch that goto the front page of a certain site now ;)

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c152/dom1999/AC3-teabag.jpg

Josegtx13
06-06-2012, 05:43 PM
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c152/dom1999/AC3-teabag.jpg

Where can I pre-order this from? :eek:





;)

Locopells
06-06-2012, 06:03 PM
That was some fast photoshopping!

Kaiskune
06-06-2012, 06:06 PM
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c152/dom1999/AC3-teabag.jpg

add a commemorative tea pot and a cupand saucer set to that and you've got a deal

"assassin's own blend"... has nice ring to it

Mr_Shade
06-06-2012, 06:14 PM
LOL at Kotaku...

as IF I was hinting at them being ones to jump to assumptions.. ;)

Any whoooooo


Due to the AWESOMENESS of the UBER TEA BAG:


'Special/Collector's Edition is coming for North America. We can, however, offer no further details at this time since we're still in the process of finalizing.

In regards to why it is taking us so long to announce what we're going to be offering, there are a couple of factors, one of which is that we know that the setting of AC3 pretty much requires that we deliver a staggeringly amazing Special Edition for North America, so we have been working very hard on meeting that expectation... that said, despite all of our extraordinarily strenuous efforts, it's extremely unlikely that anything resembling an actual Tomahawk will make it into the box. We tried our very best, but rules are rules, hehe.


But an announcement will be coming, in the hopefully very near future... and when it does, please don't hesitate to request a "roll-over" to the Special/Collector's Edition of your choice on your existing pre-order and your retailer should happily comply.'


So spread the news, North America is getting a Special / Collectors edition - news coming soon! ;)

Locopells
06-06-2012, 06:14 PM
As if...

Mr_Shade
06-06-2012, 06:28 PM
wonder how long before they announce DLC of crumpets..?

Locopells
06-06-2012, 06:32 PM
Hell yeah!

jmk1999
06-06-2012, 06:41 PM
i KNEW the tea bag would trigger a response! :p

wonder how long before they announce DLC of crumpets..?

i see what you're doing... you just want me to photoshop that now. i'm too lazy... i think i'll leave that up to your imagination. :rolleyes:

D173120T
06-06-2012, 06:48 PM
It would be nice to see Connor kill some Traitorous Rebellious Scum for a change!

superkootje
06-06-2012, 07:24 PM
Where can I find the footage he wrote about at point 7?

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 07:39 PM
It would be nice to see Connor kill some Traitorous Rebellious Scum for a change!
WoW You need help..

AdamXEve
06-06-2012, 09:39 PM
I find it funny how if you don't agree with the majority on here you're automatically labeled a troll; then the very same people who call you a troll for having a different opinion proceeds to troll. Stay classy Ubisoft-forum-moderators.

Acrimonious_Nin
06-06-2012, 09:53 PM
I find it funny how if you don't agree with the majority on here you're automatically labeled a troll; then the very same people who call you a troll for having a different opinion proceeds to troll. Stay classy Ubisoft-forum-moderators.

Hey its you from a while back hey :D you don't agree ? well...why are you here then ?

AdamXEve
06-06-2012, 09:54 PM
I'm a very sour person in general, but I think the word troll certainly needs to not be tossed around so loosely.

Acrimonious_Nin
06-06-2012, 09:56 PM
I'm a very sour person in general, but I think the word troll certainly needs to not be tossed around so loosely.
naaahhh your not that sour....just not on the bandwagon XD....and with the whole troll word......what is a troll ??? and who fits the profile anyways ?

Patrickmc693
06-06-2012, 11:56 PM
If you stop worrying about the colour of the coat, and worried more about the person wearing it, life becomes a lot easier:P the AC series is assassins VS Templars, all other divides don't matter. When AC 1 was revealed, it was the William de Monferrat mission shown. No one was going on saying " why is only killing King Richards men? Why is siding with Saladin?:P In short, you kill Templars in AC 3, not just redcoats.