PDA

View Full Version : Let's try making sense of Connor's neutrality



ProletariatPleb
07-05-2012, 08:13 AM
Firstly, this was not completely done by me, I found this on reddit and I'm posting it here, with edits because too much Q_Q on the forums about how ACIII is anti-something, etc etc etc.

The most common reason, it's gonna be an "Amuricaaa!" game, a biased game. That doesn't bother me so much as the comments that follow, claiming that the American public is nothing but a bunch of flag-waving zealots that will protest and boycott anything remotely anti-American. Then the game these accusers use to defend themselves is Modern Warfare 2, the same game where a 3 star American general turns out to be the grand villain and you play as a pair of former British SAS soldiers to take him down, killing legions of US special ops soldiers in the process.

I think all the people here can agree that letting this place degenerate into a constant soapbox for self-loathing Americans and self-righteous non-Americans will not further or enhance any discussion of Assassin's Creed whatsoever. If we're going to duke it out, let's duke it out here. Keep the political and nationalist BS out of the other threads because it's really tiring. I come here to talk about Assassin's Creed, not to constantly correct posters who insist that Americans are close-minded consumers that can't tolerate any game that doesn't have fighter jets screaming through a sky filled with red, white, and blue fireworks above a scorched earth of brown people.

1) Strangely, no one leveled this sort of criticism against the first Assassin's Creed which was the most politically explicit of all the AC games. The Assassins Shiite Muslims while the Templars were mostly European Crusaders. There were no European or Christian Assassins in the game. We killed English, Germans, Saracens, and I think French as well, then nobody complained.

2) If this game was set in the French Revolution, I doubt anyone would be demanding an "even" view of the loyalists and revolutionaries. There's clearly a chip on someone's shoulder when he suddenly becomes critical just because America is the area of conflict.

3) The trailers and artwork prominently feature the Betsy Ross flag because the game is set during the American Revolution. It's immediately recognizable and eye-catching. If Ubisoft made an AC game set during the Bolshevik Revolution and used the Red Banner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_flag) for cover art, I doubt people would get riled up and accuse Ubisoft of pandering to the communist agenda.

4) You can see in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUhraVG7Ow) trailer that Connor is indifferent, even hostile, to the colonists and their cause. "They speak of liberty and justice... But for whom?" He shoves his way callously through Continental soldiers because his only concern is reaching his target.

5) Killing a bunch of weekend warrior minutemen doesn't make your protagonist look badass. Dismantling a finely trained unit of professional redcoats makes your protagonist look badass.

6) Speaking of the Continental Army, they had their asses completely handed to them in the aforementioned trailer. Not a very favorable portrayal of Americans. Therefore, it can't be "Amuricaaa!"

7) The game takes place over a period of 30 years, spanning before, during, and after the Revolutionary War. Anyone who has learned US history would know that British troops would be ones patrolling and guarding towns before and during the war, thus the great majority of enemies Connor kills would be redcoats, British Templars, and probably some colonial Templars with loyalist sympathies. Connor's targets after the war would be American templars guarded by American soldiers since the British are expelled by then, but it would be stupid to create trailers of the final chapters of the game for obvious reasons.

8) Revealing the American revolutionaries that Connor kills could be big spoilers. So far all we've seen him kill are MOSTLY unidentified British officers.

9) If Connor wasn't allied in some way with the colonists then where could he find safe haven? Again, no one seemed to care that Altair killed loads of Christians in AC1 because the Muslims are seen as underdogs. They're the natives and the Europeans are the invaders. The colonists in this game are placed in the same position. The Assassins have numerous times supported the cause of the common people.

10) Though its association with the United States is convenient, the bald eagle in the trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUhraVG7Ow) isn't some tear-jerking American sentiment. Notice how as the eagle disappears into the canopy of trees, Connor bursts out in its place. The eagle is part of an on-going theme that portrays the AC protagonists as birds of prey (http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Features/2009/04/Assassins Creed 2 trailer secrets/EagleShadow--article_image.jpg). All their hoods have a tapered tip that's reminiscent of a beak (http://www.vis-atk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ezio_eagle.jpg). Connor's hood takes this a step further by actually placing a stylized stitching of an eagle on the beak (http://images.wikia.com/assassinscreed/images/5/53/Assassin's_Creed_3_-_Connor_concept_art_by_Lewa.jpg). Even their names are allusions to birds. Altair means "the flying one" in Arabic and Ezio is an Italian name derived from the Old Greek word for eagle. Connor is the only one whose names don't evoke any avian influence. RatonhnhakÚ:ton means "the spirit lives" in Mohawk and Connor means "lover of hounds" in Gaelic, but AC 3's emphasis on making Connor feel like a predator probably pushed the design team to inject more of a feral feel into him. He's portrayed as both an eagle and a wolf. Even the trademark vision mechanic of the series is called Eagle Vision (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Eagle_Vision).

11) All the AC protagonists maintained some sort of light political allegiance. For example, Ezio had the support of Forli and Monteriggioni and also of the Medici. The Syrians sieged Masyaf, but after Saladin withdrew, the Assassins had the support of the local population. Why would Assassins in Colonial America be any different and why is it so objectionable if it's clearly an ongoing theme?

12) The Assassins mostly side with whichever side is giving power to the common people. This is why in the lore, the Narodnaya Volya, the Russian branch of the Assassin Order, supported the Bolshevik Revolution but killed Stalin 40 years later. Although Stalin was a communist, he was also a Templar that tried to focus power within the elite and control the proletariat. Political and national affiliations mean nothing to Assassins. In the Revolutionary War, the colonists are the underdogs. Naturally, many of the Founding Fathers would be Assassins because they're breaking off from a monarchy that has power concentrated within the upper echelons of society. Once the United States is founded, this changes.

Have some faith, guys. Good faith is a resource. Origin gets a bad rap compared to Steam because Valve has a lot more good faith compared to EA. When you look forward to a game or some decisions look questionable, developers cash in on that capital of faith. DRM concerns aside, Ubisoft Montreal has always done right by me. In my opinion, Ubisoft and Rockstar easily have the best writers in the industry. I doubt they'd change gears so suddenly.


Look at all the stuff this franchise has produced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin's_Creed). There are five games in the main series alone with a slew of supporting comics, smaller platform games, movies, and books. They've had many opportunities to pander and sell out but they haven't. If anything, the games are biased towards a leftist and Assassin perspective while the supplementary media highlight some of the very negative qualities of the Assassins while showing the Templar Order in a more sympathetic light. Believing that Ubisoft would abandon this design direction simply because the game is set in America is insulting to the company and quite frankly reveals a lot of bigoted, preconceived notions of what American fans of the series want.


By the way, the lore states that Franklin Roosevelt was a Templar that conspired with fellow Templars Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin to start World War II. Let that sink in for you. Assassin's Creed says that FDR, consistently voted by scholars as one of the greatest presidents of all time, was a mass-murder conspirator that worked with Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin to engineer the bloodiest and most horrific war in human history in order to form a new world government.


That doesn't sound like an American bias.

But what we see on the forum currently?
This

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpgDtoj73DQ

And people think ACIII is:
http://i48.tinypic.com/wtd3xd.gif

playassassins1
07-05-2012, 08:43 AM
This is what I hate about people. They don't do their research and without even thinking they all said: UBISOFT IS ANTI-BRITISH.

Unlike this guy, he's made allot of points that we seem to forget, its all the same. The only thing is, the game is set in during The American Revolution.... If ubisoft didn't take advantage of the Continental army and the Redcoats, they could have just left this setting and use a diferrent one...

This argument has to stop, because these threads won't make it any different... We haven't even seen anything story based yet(Except the 2 E3 demo's). So we can't really say: This game will have ONLY redcoat targets.
And this argument is getting out off hand.... The forums are flooded with these threads while Mr_Shade clearly said to keep this subject in one thread....

Just get over it and wait until we see more of the story.. And I hope after reading Sid's post, we will all understand that we're missing allot....

MT4K
07-05-2012, 09:26 AM
That's a really good post sid. Well done. Some excellent points you made there.

The post is definitely worth the read. Even if it does take a little longer than the average post on the forums :D.

Timeaus
07-05-2012, 09:29 AM
Agreed, I would also like to add that Connor helping igniting the revolution is basically similar to how Ezio helped the citizens of Rome to stood up and fight against the tyranny of the Borgia in Brotherhood. Assassin always side with the civilians which the colonists are basically. Obviously both colonists and royalists have done some bad deeds but every demos and trailers shown was early on the war where the patriot haven't really establish an organize army yet it was mostly regular civilians who were call upon if they are needed. Also try to look at from Connor's point of view during that time period obviously he doesn't know everything that we know today from his point of view he see a bunch of civilians trying to fight the oppression from the British empire, who do you think hes gonna lean toward. Obviously there are templars on the patriot side but they probably appear as templars early on because Connor thinks "oh well these guy are trying fight for people freedom so they can't be templars". But later on the war in some of twist he found out that there are some templars on the patriot side so he turn on them later in the game, so obviously Ubi is not going to spoil what happen later on the game. Most of what has been shown has been early on the war around 1776 and the boston demo takes place on 1773 the war hasn't started yet so Connor can't go around killing colonist civilians.

Also has anyone notice why in the Alex Ross art Connor's coat is actually red and not blue and I don't think that's a mistake by him. AlsoMaybe Ubi haven't show Connor killing the patriot yet is cause just maybe the patriot are a different enemy archetype in the game from the redcoats and they don't want spoil the surprise for people. The Devs did mentioned that there will be multiple archetypes in the game, so I wouldn't be surprised if they make the patriots a different archetype. The game is till 3 1/2 months away so have some patience and wait for more trailers and gameplay to be shown.

Sorry if this is a little long, Just want to give my opinion on subject.

EscoBlades
07-05-2012, 12:46 PM
The last 2 paragraphs make this one of the greatest posts on the forum i've seen since i joined years ago.

misterB2001
07-05-2012, 12:56 PM
Amen to that Esco, a very good post.

LightRey
07-05-2012, 01:01 PM
The last 2 paragraphs make this one of the greatest posts on the forum i've seen since i joined years ago.
Agreed.

(Rabble rabble)

Sushiglutton
07-05-2012, 01:19 PM
I don't really care about all this, because I'm more of a gameplay than a story guy.

But this post is just dumb and unfair. There has been a very pro-America anti British bias to the marketing so far, denying that is just plain silly. And the majority of those who criticize it are far from rabble rabble, that's a totally unfair accusation. They have all the right to complain of the biased marketing. And they have a very clear idea what they want instead: a more balanced apporach. For example show colonial troops herassing native americans, slaves, Connor fighting/assassinate patriots and so on.

You can disagree with it but calling it rabble rabble is just ignorant and disrespectful.

LightRey
07-05-2012, 01:27 PM
I don't really care about all this, because I'm more of a gameplay than a story guy.

But this post is just dumb and unfair. There has been a very pro-America anti British bias to the marketing so far, denying that is just plain silly. And the majority of those who criticize it are far from rabble rabble, that's a totally unfair accusation. They have all the right to complain of the biased marketing. And they have a very clear idea what they want instead: a more balanced apporach. For example show colonial troops herassing native americans, slaves, Connor fighting/assassinate patriots and so on.

You can disagree with it but calling it rabble rabble is just ignorant and disrespectful.
Eh, he's literally asking people to have an open discussion with him on the subject, very much contrary to what you're suggesting. Furthermore, he has presented clear, compelling evidence to support the fact that the advertising has not at all been as pro-American as has been suggested. Now you're calling him out for saying it's all "rabble rabble", but all I see you doing is saying he's wrong, not giving any evidence or elaboration on why he's wrong (only vaguely pointing out which points are wrong), which, ironically, is really about the same as yelling "rabble rabble".

Sushiglutton
07-05-2012, 01:31 PM
Eh, he's literally asking people to have an open discussion with him on the subject, very much contrary to what you're suggesting. Furthermore, he has presented clear, compelling evidence to support the fact that the advertising has not at all been as pro-American as has been suggested. Now you're calling him out for saying it's all "rabble rabble", but all I see you doing is saying he's wrong, not giving any evidence or elaboration on why he's wrong (only vaguely pointing out which points are wrong), which, ironically, is really about the same as yelling "rabble rabble".

Yes I did, let me break it down for you so it's easier to grasp. He accused the Brits of being Rabble rabble. That means that they are just mindlessly complaining without saying what should be done instead. As I explained that is not the case at all. They have a very clear idea of what should be done instead.

LightRey
07-05-2012, 01:34 PM
Yes I did, let me break it down for you so it's easier to grasp. He accused the Brits of being Rabble rabble. That means that they are just mindlessly complaining without saying what should be done instead. As I explained that is not the case at all. They have a very clear idea of what should be done instead.
No, he's accused the people on this forum ranting on about all this of basically yelling "rabble rabble", he's not accusing the Brits of anything. Most Brits actually don't give a rat's little behind. You didn't explain anything. You have presented no examples, no analysis, not even a description of their point of view. You're just making a claim and not giving any evidence to support it, i.e. you're rabbling.

TheHumanTowel
07-05-2012, 01:35 PM
On your first point didn't Altair have targets on both sides of the war? I think the first game is a good example of the Assassin's neutrality rather than being politically explicit. Altair kills Christian and Muslim targets and I don't think it's ever stated that Altair is a muslim.

Sushiglutton
07-05-2012, 01:38 PM
No, he's accused the people on this forum ranting on about all this of basically yelling "rabble rabble", he's not accusing the Brits of anything. Most Brits actually don't give a rat's little behind. You didn't explain anything. You have presented no examples, no analysis, not even a description of their point of view. You're just making a claim and not giving any evidence to support it, i.e. you're rabbling.

I used "the Brits" as meaning those critical of the marketing campaign. Sorry that was sloppy of me. I should have known someone like u would jump at that. I did give examples (it's right after the words "For example").

LightRey
07-05-2012, 01:39 PM
On your first point didn't Altair have targets on both sides of the war? I think the first game is a good example of the Assassin's neutrality rather than being politically explicit. Altair kills Christian and Muslim targets and I don't think it's ever stated that Altair is a muslim.
The thing is though that all these people are part of a (supposedly) Christian order and the Assassins at the time were all Arab and predominantly Muslim (Alta´r seems to have been an exception, though it's not entirely clear what exactly his religious beliefs were, if he had any), with no Christians.


I used "the Brits" as meaning those critical of the marketing campaign. Sorry that was sloppy of me. I should have known someone like u would jump at that. I did give examples (it's right after the words "For example").
Then you should not be making comments suggesting something that is untrue. Saying they are "Brits" is like saying the British in general agree and would side with them, which again is utter nonsense.

I'm talking about examples of how he's wrong, not how you think they should have shown things.

NeroInfernoF7
07-05-2012, 01:45 PM
God bless you for this thread, seriously, thank you.

TheHumanTowel
07-05-2012, 01:47 PM
The thing is though that all these people are part of a (supposedly) Christian order and the Assassins at the time were all Arab and predominantly Muslim (Alta´r seems to have been an exception, though it's not entirely clear what exactly his religious beliefs were, if he had any), with no Christians.
The Templars are only a christian organisation on the surface though. Their overarching goal is world peace, they don't have a religious agenda. Judging by Sibrand's confession I'd say the majority of them were atheists.

BATISTABUS
07-05-2012, 01:48 PM
*Applause and tears*

SaintPerkele
07-05-2012, 01:49 PM
While I agree with your post in certain terms, I still have to make some corrections.

1) No. In the game, the Assassins were clearly depicted as atheists. Their enemies were on both sides of the war and not "mostly European crusaders". In fact, I think there were only four Christian Templars (Robert de Sable, Garnier de Naplouse, William of Montferrat and Sibrand) and five Muslim targets (of course you can't really talk about their Religion, as most of the Templars are depicted as atheists as well). There were no "European" Assassins, as the Assassin order was historically founded in Syria and AC1 is the most historically accurate. In additional games such as Bloodlines however, we learn that Maria Amiel for example became an Assassin as well and even the love interest for Altair, clearly showing that the Assassins are not siding with anyone. Also, King Richard was depicted rather heroic.
"We killed English, Germans, Saracens, and I think French as well, then nobody complained." - that's why nobody complained, because we were shown, even in the early gameplay trailers and screenshots, that everyone can be an enemy to the Assassins and not just one side of the war.

2) What? Of course we would. At least I would. The French Revolution is the perfect example for what an AC game should be about: People uprising against an absolute system (a cause which would be supported by the Assassins), which eventually turned into a new reign of terror. If one has a certain historical knowledge, one should know about Robespierre, who was a brutal mass-murderer and yet one of the most importan leaders of the revolution. I would become very, very critical if the revolutionists were only depicted as heroes.

3) Did you read The Fall? The Russian Revolution plays an important role and is supported by the Assassins, yet the red flag (which is as a matter of fact an equally important symbol as the American flag) is almost never shown, especially not on the cover art. Showing the flag in order to show the setting is perfectly fine. Depicting Connor in front of the flag which is waving in the wind, indicating that he is siding with someone, however is not. The British flag has only been shown in a bad context (e.g. the live action trailer, where it is pulled down from the wall).

4) Yes. However, other media released by Ubisoft contradicts this statement, which is what many fans are mad about.

5) Yes, if you do it a couple of times. But now it's just always the same..

6) Yes, in certain terms. In other trailers however this is not the case.

7) Definitely.

8) Indeed.

9) Wrong. The Continentals are no in the same position as the Muslims. The American Natives are. The Continentals are just invaders as well, with the only difference that they are still dominated by another empire.

10) I never heard anyone complaining about the Bald Eagle. It's a typical American eagle, so it's perfectly fine to show it.

11) Monteriggioni was shown to be a city founded by the Assassins. The Assassins did not really support the Medici and the Sforzas - they were just attacked by Templars and as such the Assasssins could kill two birds with one stone: Eliminating Templars and getting at least a certain support by political leaders. So yes, political allegiance, but only for their own purpose.
Also, the Saracenes were fighting the Assassins all the time. They never sided with Saladin.

12) That's what I'm hoping for.

Sushiglutton
07-05-2012, 01:50 PM
I'm talking about examples of how he's wrong, not how you think they should have shown things.


He is wrong because he claims that those complaining have no idea what they want, instead they are just "rabble rabble". As my examples shows that is not the case.

TheHumanTowel
07-05-2012, 01:53 PM
While I agree with your post in certain terms, I still have to make some corrections.

1) No. In the game, the Assassins were clearly depicted as atheists. Their enemies were on both sides of the war and not "mostly European crusaders". In fact, I think there were only four Christian Templars (Robert de Sable, Garnier de Naplouse, William of Montferrat and Sibrand) and five Muslim targets (of course you can't really talk about their Religion, as most of the Templars are depicted as atheists as well). There were no "European" Assassins, as the Assassin order was historically founded in Syria and AC1 is the most historically accurate. In additional games such as Bloodlines however, we learn that Maria Amiel for example became an Assassin as well and even the love interest for Altair, clearly showing that the Assassins are not siding with anyone. Also, King Richard was depicted rather heroic.
"We killed English, Germans, Saracens, and I think French as well, then nobody complained." - that's why nobody complained, because we were shown, even in the early gameplay trailers and screenshots, that everyone can be an enemy to the Assassins and not just one side of the war.

2) What? Of course we would. At least I would. The French Revolution is the perfect example for what an AC game should be about: People uprising against an absolute system (a cause which would be supported by the Assassins), which eventually turned into a new reign of terror. If one has a certain historical knowledge, one should know about Robespierre, who was a brutal mass-murderer and yet one of the most importan leaders of the revolution. I would become very, very critical if the revolutionists were only depicted as heroes.

3) Did you read The Fall? The Russian Revolution plays an important role and is supported by the Assassins, yet the red flag (which is as a matter of fact an equally important symbol as the American flag) is almost never shown, especially not on the cover art. Showing the flag in order to show the setting is perfectly fine. Depicting Connor in front of the flag which is waving in the wind, indicating that he is siding with someone, however is not. The British flag has only been shown in a bad context (e.g. the live action trailer, where it is pulled down from the wall).

4) Yes. However, other media released by Ubisoft contradicts this statement, which is what many fans are mad about.

5) Yes, if you do it a couple of times. But now it's just always the same..

6) Yes, in certain terms. In other trailers however this is not the case.

7) Definitely.

8) Indeed.

9) Wrong. The Continentals are no in the same position as the Muslims. The American Natives are. The Continentals are just invaders as well, with the only difference that they are still dominated by another empire.

10) I never heard anyone complaining about the Bald Eagle. It's a typical American eagle, so it's perfectly fine to show it.

11) Monteriggioni was shown to be a city founded by the Assassins. The Assassins did not really support the Medici and the Sforzas - they were just attacked by Templars and as such the Assasssins could kill two birds with one stone: Eliminating Templars and getting at least a certain support by political leaders. So yes, political allegiance, but only for their own purpose.
Also, the Saracenes were fighting the Assassins all the time. They never sided with Saladin.

12) That's what I'm hoping for.
Pretty much agree with everything in this post. The OP is right in a lot of cases but this is pretty perfect.

BATISTABUS
07-05-2012, 01:55 PM
AC1 is a perfect example. Trailers depicted Altair killing European knight Templars, but by the end of the game, most of your main targets were Arabs.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 01:55 PM
Anybody got a short version?
But, the reason why nobody complained is because we killed everybody in AC1.
And just saying, our problem is not with the game itself, but the marketing.

LightRey
07-05-2012, 02:03 PM
The Templars are only a christian organisation on the surface though. Their overarching goal is world peace, they don't have a religious agenda. Judging by Sibrand's confession I'd say the majority of them were atheists.
Of course, but that only became known after people played the game. I can also imagine people not looking too kindly upon the fact that they chose an irl Christian order to play the role of "bad guy", regardless of their actual in-game motivations.



He is wrong because he claims that those complaining have no idea what they want, instead they are just "rabble rabble". As my examples shows that is not the case.
Hardly. Your example only shows what you'd like to see in the trailers, expecting that to be the case as well with the others. Furthermore, I'm still seeing no analysis or evidence supporting your claims, not to mention you seem to be focusing solely on the "rabble rabble" bit, which was, quite obviously, a joke and likely in part an exaggeration. I am actually having very strong doubts you've actually read the OP fully through. If you had, you'd probably have written something more along the lines of what SaintPerkele posted, which I must say is an excellent post with valid counterarguments.


Anybody got a short version?
But, the reason why nobody complained is because we killed everybody in AC1.
And just saying, our problem is not with the game itself, but the marketing.
Well that's fantastic and all, but this is a forum about the game, not about how it's marketed. Go write an angry letter to Ubisoft or something instead of bothering the people who are here to actually discuss the content and context of the games.

Dtanobo
07-05-2012, 02:40 PM
Finally someone to lay down the stupid logic people seem to have about this new game. He pretty much took every word out of my mouth and more. It's too chaotic to get involved with these debates but thank you and respect

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 02:44 PM
Wait, you people actually thought people were angry over the game? no, almost everybody that I saw her was mad at the way the game is marketed.
Even tho recently I am having some doubts over how neutral Connor is. A diagram that was posted here seemed, atleast too me, may be VERY close too the actual game. Which is there are Templars on British side, Connor is capable killing from both sides, Templar influence on the British side, friends with the Colonials.

And about the Eagle, who would say it shows American bias? every Assassin we know off is somehow related too Eagles, Altair's jump mimics a eagle. The hood, and so on.

As of now I guess, until the game comes out, the answer too Connor's stance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t348e24vDyA

ProletariatPleb
07-05-2012, 03:09 PM
Wait, you people actually thought people were angry over the game? no, almost everybody that I saw her was mad at the way the game is marketed.
Even tho recently I am having some doubts over how neutral Connor is. A diagram that was posted here seemed, atleast too me, may be VERY close too the actual game. Which is there are Templars on British side, Connor is capable killing from both sides, Templar influence on the British side, friends with the Colonials.

And about the Eagle, who would say it shows American bias? every Assassin we know off is somehow related too Eagles, Altair's jump mimics a eagle. The hood, and so on.

As of now I guess, until the game comes out, the answer too Connor's stance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t348e24vDyA
The eagle part was for the people who just HAVE to find faults and also for newcomers...don't get so worked up about it.

xXHyperMidgetXx
07-05-2012, 03:22 PM
Connor doesn't seem to care much about the war, as during the Frontier gameplay video when a patriot suggest he follow Silas when he goes to attack a patriot camp, Connor waves him off, telling him to let the patriots fight their own battles and that he was there for the Templar. That may suggest that he doesn't mind the outcome of the war as he wants the Templars gone.

LightRey
07-05-2012, 03:24 PM
Wait, you people actually thought people were angry over the game? no, almost everybody that I saw her was mad at the way the game is marketed.
Even tho recently I am having some doubts over how neutral Connor is. A diagram that was posted here seemed, atleast too me, may be VERY close too the actual game. Which is there are Templars on British side, Connor is capable killing from both sides, Templar influence on the British side, friends with the Colonials.

And about the Eagle, who would say it shows American bias? every Assassin we know off is somehow related too Eagles, Altair's jump mimics a eagle. The hood, and so on.

As of now I guess, until the game comes out, the answer too Connor's stance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t348e24vDyA
We don't. We're all well aware the focus of this debate is mostly on the marketing, but that's not really a fitting point of discussion on these forums. Especially if done so 10 different threads at the same time.

Turul.
07-05-2012, 03:50 PM
The fundamental problem is that people don't understand what the trailers are really promoting, freedom over tyranny.

Connor is shown fighting against the british because at this time they were oppressing the colonists.

the marketing isn't about fighting for america, but what it stood for at the time: freedom. and that's what the Assassin's have been fighting for all along.

Connor isn't fighting for these people because he feels some sort of allegiance, but because he believes in their cause and ideals, and as an agenda that parallels theirs in many ways

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 04:03 PM
No. Peace, freedom and equality is what they want. Equality was not present in that time.

LightRey
07-05-2012, 04:36 PM
No. Peace, freedom and equality is what they want. Equality was not present in that time.
Equality was about as present then as it is now. Don't kid yourself with the idea that we've become that much more civilized in a few hundred years.

De Filosoof
07-05-2012, 04:41 PM
Equality was about as present then as it is now. Don't kid yourself with the idea that we've become that much more civilized in a few hundred years.

Haha:p True...

ProletariatPleb
07-05-2012, 04:44 PM
Equality was about as present then as it is now. Don't kid yourself with the idea that we've become that much more civilized in a few hundred years.
I love it when you talk real :D

beatledude210
07-05-2012, 04:47 PM
I love this thread...with all my heart :o

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 04:54 PM
Love?

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 04:55 PM
Nope, we are not equal now yet. But it is much better now. No slaves, atleast.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 04:58 PM
Well, making it illegal is a good first step.

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 05:02 PM
I deleted my previous post because I didn't think it made a whole lot of sense... Our slaves are animals and work in our food industry...(<that isn't what my previous post was btw.)

kudos17
07-05-2012, 05:23 PM
I find it funny that it just occurred to me that the reason the bald eagle is a national symbol of America could very much be because of the Assassins' influence (in terms of the game lore, anyway :p)

Also, yes on all of OP's points. Like I've said before, if this game wasn't America vs Britain (or, honestly, New England vs Britain ["Old" England, specifically]), we'd have far less controversy. People just have a natural beef against the US. Especially when old rivals like Britain come into play.

Still, it's hard to watch the trailers without going "Oh, brother". Honestly, I think it'd be better if they just used gameplay and less cinematic stuff. People would complain less if they saw some pieced-together clips rather than a dramatic trailer depicting the Colonists as the "good guys" (i.e., RISE, E3 cinematic, etc).

No matter how many times Ubi says and people show that it is not "USA good - Britain bad", it's still ingrained into peoples heads right now through so many misinterpreted trailers.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 05:25 PM
I think one of the problems lies with the fact no negatives of the Colonies are shown.

freddie_1897
07-05-2012, 05:28 PM
my turn to make a cool quote:

"potatoes are an excellent source of friendship"

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 05:29 PM
Genius^

RatonhnhakeFan
07-05-2012, 05:30 PM
9) If Connor wasn't allied in some way with the colonists then where could he find safe haven? Again, no one seemed to care that Altair killed loads of Christians in AC1 because the Muslims are seen as underdogs. They're the natives and the Europeans are the invaders. The colonists in this game are placed in the same position. The Assassins have numerous times supported the cause of the common people.

12) The Assassins mostly side with whichever side is giving power to the common people. This is why in the lore, the Narodnaya Volya, the Russian branch of the Assassin Order, supported the Bolshevik Revolution but killed Stalin 40 years later. Although Stalin was a communist, he was also a Templar that tried to focus power within the elite and control the proletariat. Political and national affiliations mean nothing to Assassins. In the Revolutionary War, the colonists are the underdogs. Naturally, many of the Founding Fathers would be Assassins because they're breaking off from a monarchy that has power concentrated within the upper echelons of society. Once the United States is founded, this changes.
Colonists the underdogs? Compared to the Crown yeah. But there are certain other actual underdogs. Thumbs up for effort for the redditer, but he's making exactly the same mistake other people do - including the Colonists and Loyalist during the War - ignore the Indians.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 05:32 PM
The Natives...and Connor is a native.

NeroInfernoF7
07-05-2012, 06:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJNtrVN4I5Y&feature=player_embedded

hahahaha

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 06:19 PM
Saw that. Been done multiple times.

TheHumanTowel
07-05-2012, 06:20 PM
Equality was about as present then as it is now. Don't kid yourself with the idea that we've become that much more civilized in a few hundred years.
That's a pretty ridiculous statement seeing as since then slavery has been abolished, true equal rights have been gained for minorities and racism is no longer an accepted part of society. You're only saying that for the sake of sounding cynical.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 06:21 PM
True, but it still is not 100% like the Assassin's want.

RatonhnhakeFan
07-05-2012, 06:25 PM
Equality was about as present then as it is now. Don't kid yourself with the idea that we've become that much more civilized in a few hundred years.
No, just no. We can criticize the current state of equality all we want. But the lives of women, black people, homosexuals, disabled and other minorities/people who are not white straight male judeo-christians have improved greatly since 18th century. This is not even comparable. Of course there's still no full real equality, but heck yeah the society has become much more civilized in a few hundred years.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 06:26 PM
Who knows, maybe in the future racism gets removed from the dictionary.

shanethebouncer
07-05-2012, 06:46 PM
Hasooon I hate to say it but your beginning to sound like a broken record.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 06:47 PM
...My last post was?

TheHumanTowel
07-05-2012, 06:49 PM
...My last post was?
I know it's not really your fault but you are just dominating every thread and discussion on here.

shanethebouncer
07-05-2012, 06:50 PM
I meant regarding the posts in these forums about how the colonies had slaves and the equality stuff when I know we discussed this in detail yesterday. Now I'm just wondering if your going to keep saying the same garbage till the release like you have been these last 5 days now.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 06:50 PM
Spare time does wonders.
Where was I talking about the Colonial Slaves? so you just assume because I posted it's about the Colonies?

shanethebouncer
07-05-2012, 06:52 PM
Spare time does wonders.
Where was I talking about the Colonial Slaves? so you just assume because I posted it's about the Colonies?

We've all got spare time that why were on these forums but that's not an excuse to post the same argument every 5 minutes on every thread on these forums.

RatonhnhakeFan
07-05-2012, 06:53 PM
I meant regarding the posts in these forums about how the colonies had slaves and the equality stuff when I know we discussed this in detail yesterday. Now I'm just wondering if your going to keep saying the same garbage till the release like you have been these last 5 days now.
You're talking to me or HaSoOoN-MHD? If it's me, then I will just say 'deal with it'. Get it?

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 06:54 PM
...Where did I mention the Colonies? it was the subject of how much equality improved over time.

shanethebouncer
07-05-2012, 07:00 PM
I think one of the problems lies with the fact no negatives of the Colonies are shown.


No. Peace, freedom and equality is what they want. Equality was not present in that time.

These are two arguments that you've talked to death about in this thread when we talked quite thoroughly about this the other day. I apologize you didn't say anything about the colonies slaves in this thread I was mistaken but you have repeatedly.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 07:04 PM
Second quote I said because I want people too understand that this whole ''Colonies = freedom, Assassin's go with them''
First quote was just the way I personally think they can fix.

DavisP92
07-05-2012, 07:09 PM
Second quote I said because I want people too understand that this whole ''Colonies = freedom, Assassin's go with them''
First quote was just the way I personally think they can fix.

i wanted to know, you do get the reason why the assassin, based on everything we know about them, would want to help the colonies more right?

ProletariatPleb
07-05-2012, 07:11 PM
-_- I posted this to stop the "why this isn't shown, why is this shown..this is all anti-blahblah" and that's exactly what they continue doing in this thread >_>

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 07:11 PM
The Assassin's wants peace, freedom and equality. Back then that was not provided, so really.

DavisP92
07-05-2012, 07:22 PM
The Assassin's wants peace, freedom and equality. Back then that was not provided, so really.

okay good, what i don't get is why there are a group of people screaming (not really :P) that it's pro-american when it not, it's pro-freedom everything they've shown was smart marketing honestly. they can't show a colonist being killed because then that would be a spoiler and obviously there has to be a main enemy/guard type which would be redcoats because they were the guards of that time.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 07:24 PM
Actually, after the story finished they are all 'MURICAN guards.

menacefox
07-05-2012, 08:03 PM
You have made some valid points.

But most people hate logic and thinking. I don't know what age group most of these forum posters are, I'm guessing it's 13-18?

Rest assured, some people will complain about this until the release date.

TheHumanTowel
07-05-2012, 08:18 PM
You have made some valid points.

But most people hate logic and thinking. I don't know what age group most of these forum posters are, I'm guessing it's 13-18?

Rest assured, some people will complain about this until the release date.
I'm 89 years old.

menacefox
07-05-2012, 08:23 PM
I'm 89 years old.
You lie!
If that's the case, you are the oldest gamer that I have heard of.
And I have been gaming like 20 years.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 08:24 PM
PFFFTTT...I am 380.

brefcourte
07-05-2012, 09:00 PM
Is there any high definition version of connors poster in the beginning of the thread ?

De Filosoof
07-05-2012, 09:41 PM
You have made some valid points.

But most people hate logic and thinking. I don't know what age group most of these forum posters are, I'm guessing it's 13-18?

Rest assured, some people will complain about this until the release date.

Yeah i think that's pretty much the case.

ProletariatPleb
07-05-2012, 09:51 PM
You have made some valid points.

But most people hate logic and thinking. I don't know what age group most of these forum posters are, I'm guessing it's 13-18?

Rest assured, some people will complain about this until the release date.
Atleast I tried :D

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 09:52 PM
It is so easy too shut people up...
Show so 'Merican guards being killed.

LightRey
07-05-2012, 11:39 PM
It is so easy too shut people up...
Show so 'Merican guards being killed.
Thing is they probably don't really care much. Most people are fine with the trailers.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 11:40 PM
''Most'' no. If that was the case there wont be an outrage.

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 11:40 PM
Yeah, but I bet you could shut most of the rest up if they showed some killing of bluecoats. Most is 50%+ so yes, I think it would be most.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 11:44 PM
Most people seem upset rather than ''OK''

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 11:44 PM
I don't think it would change anything if we argued over it.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 11:45 PM
Yep. It wont, but if they show Connor killing one group of Patriots, atleast a big portion of the problem will be fixed. The other portion would be historical accuracy, which I have faith in them.

kudos17
07-05-2012, 11:49 PM
''Most'' no. If that was the case there wont be an outrage.

Outrage? lolwut

If you want to see an outrage, check out the fan response to the Mass Effect trilogy ending. If you're a gamer, that should be big news. This little forum scuffle about AC3 falsely being accused of pandering to Americans is absolutely nothing.

It will pass.

ShaneO7K
07-05-2012, 11:50 PM
Yep. It wont, but if they show Connor killing one group of Patriots, atleast a big portion of the problem will be fixed. The other portion would be historical accuracy, which I have faith in them.

I really doubt much would change, even if they did show them being killed. People still manage to find one small detail and make it appear as if it is the most horrible thing that could possibly happen.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 11:51 PM
That is mega outrage, and no AC game stirred up this much trouble.
ME3's ending still suck, BTW. Just saying.

kudos17
07-06-2012, 12:13 AM
That is mega outrage, and no AC game stirred up this much trouble.
ME3's ending still suck, BTW. Just saying.

That's because no Assassin's Creed has been as anticipated as this one.

And ME3's endings do still suck, but they are a helluva lot better than they were IMO. But that's another topic altogether.

masterfenix2009
07-06-2012, 12:35 AM
Thank you Sidspyker!

Actually ME3's ending rocks BTW

TheHumanTowel
07-06-2012, 12:36 AM
Thank you Sidspyker!

Actually ME3's ending rocks BTW
Let's not open that can of worms.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 12:38 AM
No. It does not. Still some God Child crap followed by lack of effect from choices from ME1 and ME2, add in the big fat middle finger refuse ending. Yeah.

TheHumanTowel
07-06-2012, 12:39 AM
no. It does not. Still some god child crap followed by lack of effect from choices from me1 and me2, add in the big fat middle finger refuse ending. Yeah.
i said lets not.

EDIT: why can't I write in all caps. This forum has so many stupid restrictions.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 12:39 AM
Back on topic: Do you guys thing a couple of clips with Bluecoats killed would fix the problems?

JCearlyyears
07-06-2012, 12:40 AM
A bit, yes.

Felix-Vivo
07-06-2012, 12:42 AM
Back on topic: Do you guys thing a couple of clips with Bluecoats killed would fix the problems?

Yeah, I'd say so. Kind of.

xXMrGR1NCHXx
07-06-2012, 12:55 AM
Back on topic: Do you guys thing a couple of clips with Bluecoats killed would fix the problems?
As I believe it says in the OP, that could be a spoiler to the story. It seems Connor has friendly relations with them now, but who knows what happens at a later part of the game? Connor will have American targets, so sooner or later (most likely later) he will be battling with them. Showing clips of him fighting them could be a story spoiler. Who knows.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 12:56 AM
The game also takes place post-war.
The guards will be American.

LightRey
07-06-2012, 12:59 AM
The game also takes place post-war.
The guards will be American.
Yup and whoever he'll be assassinating will be American ...maybe even native American... :O

shanethebouncer
07-06-2012, 03:04 AM
If you already know he will be killing bluecoats before and bluecoat templar's after the war then why do you need to see a clip?

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 03:08 AM
...Too shut people up?

shanethebouncer
07-06-2012, 03:22 AM
People can't shut themselves up with this information? That's the question.

springtime1
07-06-2012, 03:23 AM
Back on topic: Do you guys thing a couple of clips with Bluecoats killed would fix the problems?

A bit, yes.

Yeah, I'd say so. Kind of.
Assassin's Creed III : Liberation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54TnbR4Uni4)

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 03:26 AM
What does that show?
Lol.
Yeah, but if they show a more neutral stance on the marketing, nobody can say the marketing is biased.

springtime1
07-06-2012, 04:07 AM
What does that show? Lol.
Clips with bluecoats being killed. ...?

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 04:08 AM
But that is a completely separate game, a spin off if you will. Not the main game, not Connor.

springtime1
07-06-2012, 04:27 AM
But that is a completely separate game, a spin off if you will. Not the main game, not Connor.
So? Ubisoft is ubisoft.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 04:28 AM
We are talking about the AC III marketing.
The marketing is obviously attempting too pander too American audience because it is the main game, the big seller. Liberation is the spin off.

springtime1
07-06-2012, 05:00 AM
The marketing is obviously attempting too pander too American audience because it is the main game, the big seller.
It is? Does this mean you think AC1 trailer was a marketing pander towards anti-Christians?

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 05:01 AM
Nope. AC1 was pretty fair. And in the end we got a 5-5 in terms of targets.

Sabastian_AC
07-06-2012, 05:20 AM
...Too shut people up?

"People"? Don't be so modest. You're making like 90% of the posts on this topic.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 05:21 AM
....And?
People all across the board just want too see a couple of Bluecoats killed.
It would atleast put Ubisoft in a better stance.

springtime1
07-06-2012, 05:34 AM
Nope. AC1 was pretty fair. And in the end we got a 5-5 in terms of targets.
Targets? Do you mean targets as in the 3 armored men wearing crosses in an area filled with crosses across from a church.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 05:38 AM
5 were Christian, 5 muslim.
Counting Al Mualim.

springtime1
07-06-2012, 05:47 AM
5 were Christian, 5 muslim.
Counting Al Mualim.
I thought you were talking about marketing? The original AC1 trailer doesn't depict the 10 targets of the story does it? Talk about spoilers.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 05:51 AM
The marketing was un-biased, and the game was un-biased. That's how you do it Ubisoft.

springtime1
07-06-2012, 07:14 AM
The marketing was un-biased, and the game was un-biased. That's how you do it Ubisoft.
The full game doesn't matter because it's post-released content when you're talking about pre-release marketing. Give a link of a AC1 2007 trailer or something depicting obvious non-Christian knights being killed.

ProletariatPleb
07-06-2012, 07:26 AM
I don't think the "Connor kills a bunch of blue soldiers" in a clip would solve anything, those who want to find a reason to cry, they will cry...one such reason I can think would be "they still showed more redcoats being killed."

john63
07-06-2012, 09:11 AM
I'm way late to this thread, but kudos for your excellent first post, sidspyker24 (http://forums.ubi.com/member.php/578485-sidspyker24?). You make an outstanding case, IMO.

LightRey
07-06-2012, 12:54 PM
The marketing was un-biased, and the game was un-biased. That's how you do it Ubisoft.
You sure about that? Because I remember the trailer showing a Muslim guy killing a Christian executioner.

TheHumanTowel
07-06-2012, 12:58 PM
You sure about that? Because I remember the trailer showing a Muslim guy killing a Christian executioner.
First of all Altair isn't a Muslim. Second that was one of the first trailers for Assassin's Creed, numerous other trailers were released after that showing Altair killing arab and european guards. The E3 demo has Altair killing Talal, an arab slave trader. The marketing for AC1 is in no way comparable to the slanted marketing we're seeing now.

ProletariatPleb
07-06-2012, 01:01 PM
First of all Altair isn't a Muslim. Second that was one of the first trailers for Assassin's Creed, numerous other trailers were released after that showing Altair killing arab and european guards. The E3 demo has Altair killing Talal, an arab slave trader. The marketing for AC1 is in no way comparable to the slanted marketing we're seeing now.
And we already knew everything about Alta´r before the game came?

LightRey
07-06-2012, 01:02 PM
First of all Altair isn't a Muslim. Second that was one of the first trailers for Assassin's Creed, numerous other trailers were released after that showing Altair killing arab and european guards. The E3 demo has Altair killing Talal, an arab slave trader. The marketing for AC1 is in no way comparable to the slanted marketing we're seeing now.
We don't know if he was Muslim, since his religious beliefs are never fully explained, but that's obviously what it looked like when the trailer was released. He was an Assassin and historically the Assassins were Muslim. You also shouldn't forget that irl the Assassins had their own little political agenda and before the game was released it looked like it was going to be about them and their (extremist) political ideology, which actually isn't that far off looking back. They may not have shown people siding with the crusaders or the Saracens, but they did clearly seem to be siding with a specific Muslim faction.

Assassin_M
07-06-2012, 01:06 PM
First of all Altair isn't a Muslim. Second that was one of the first trailers for Assassin's Creed, numerous other trailers were released after that showing Altair killing arab and european guards. The E3 demo has Altair killing Talal, an arab slave trader. The marketing for AC1 is in no way comparable to the slanted marketing we're seeing now.
This post is the complete meaning of contradiction. you based your "Unbiased" marketing of AC I by viewing EVERY trailer and gameplay released, while at the same time you are willing to call the marketing of AC III biased from viewing only a few trailers and gameplays.

Well, the first trailers and gameplays of AC I only showed Altair killing European Crusaders. The E3 Teaser, the E3 CGI trailer and the E3 2006 gameplay, and that time we didnt know that Altair wasnt Muslim and the Templars werent Christians, most were under the assumption that Altair was Muslim and the Templars were Christians..

TheHumanTowel
07-06-2012, 01:09 PM
We don't know if he was Muslim, since his religious beliefs are never fully explained, but that's obviously what it looked like when the trailer was released. He was an Assassin and historically the Assassins were Muslim. You also shouldn't forget that irl the Assassins had their own little political agenda and before the game was released it looked like it was going to be about them and their (extremist) political ideology, which actually isn't that far off looking back. They may not have shown people siding with the crusaders or the Saracens, but they did clearly seem to be siding with a specific Muslim faction.
The two of you are only addressing my first point which I acknowledge now is irrelevant as we didn't know much about Altair then but my other points still stand. There was never any controversy about AC1's marketing because it made sure to show Altair and the Assassins weren't on any side of the crusades. The first demo we got showed Altair killing a european, the second showed him killing an Arab. Trailers showed Altair killing crusader and arab guards.

Assassin_M
07-06-2012, 01:14 PM
The two of you are only addressing my first point which I acknowledge now is irrelevant as we didn't know much about Altair then but my other points still stand. There was never any controversy about AC1's marketing because it made sure to show Altair and the Assassins weren't on any side of the crusades. The first demo we got showed Altair killing a european, the second showed him killing an Arab. Trailers showed Altair killing crusader and arab guards.
Lets do this chronologically k ?

The first teaser showed Altair killing Random crusaders and a European target

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

This one was during E3 2006 and directly followed the teaser above

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

This one was the gameplay on the same event, showing Altair killing only Crusaders

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEdkDOIe8YM

It wasnt until 2007 that we got trailers showing neutrality..

TheHumanTowel
07-06-2012, 01:16 PM
This post is the complete meaning of contradiction. you based your "Unbiased" marketing of AC I by viewing EVERY trailer and gameplay released, while at the same time you are willing to call the marketing of AC III biased from viewing only a few trailers and gameplays.

Well, the first trailers and gameplays of AC I only showed Altair killing European Crusaders. The E3 Teaser, the E3 CGI trailer and the E3 2006 gameplay, and that time we didnt know that Altair wasnt Muslim and the Templars werent Christians, most were under the assumption that Altair was Muslim and the Templars were Christians..
Yes but we're only 3 months away from the release of AC3 now. It was already clear at the start of 2007 that Altair would be killing arabs as well and trailers and screenshots had been released showing that. So far in the AC3 marketing we have gotten a load of screenshots, 2 gameplay trailers, 2 cgi trailers and a demo and so far the Connor's body count would be Redcoats:600 Colonists:0. Plus the rise trailer that put the nail in the coffin. You can't really be saying this isn't slanted.

LightRey
07-06-2012, 01:17 PM
The two of you are only addressing my first point which I acknowledge now is irrelevant as we didn't know much about Altair then but my other points still stand. There was never any controversy about AC1's marketing because it made sure to show Altair and the Assassins weren't on any side of the crusades. The first demo we got showed Altair killing a european, the second showed him killing an Arab. Trailers showed Altair killing crusader and arab guards.
Eh, Actually I did address your second point. Read my post again please. The part about them seeming to side with a specific Muslim faction to be precise.

Assassin_M
07-06-2012, 01:19 PM
Yes but we're only 3 months away from the release of AC3 now. It was already clear at the start of 2007 that Altair would be killing arabs as well and trailers and screenshots had been released showing that. So far in the AC3 marketing we have gotten a load of screenshots, 2 gameplay trailers, 2 cgi trailers and a demo and so far the Connor's body count would be Redcoats:600 Colonists:0. Plus the rise trailer that put the nail in the coffin. You can't really be saying this isn't slanted.
3 months is more than enough time to show A LOT more media. and if that trailer was the nail in the coffin in your point of view then I believe you`re being a bit unfair in your judgement..

TheHumanTowel
07-06-2012, 01:30 PM
Eh, Actually I did address your second point. Read my post again please. The part about them seeming to side with a specific Muslim faction to be precise.
So the marketing was biased because they presented the Assassin's ideaology in a positive light? They are the protagonists after all. What specific Muslim faction are you talking about? From what I remember of AC1 the assassins made no reference to siding with a Muslim faction. The Assassins may have been Muslim in real life but that isn't what was presented in the game.

Assassin_M
07-06-2012, 01:33 PM
So the marketing was biased because they presented the Assassin's ideaology in a positive light? They are the protagonists after all. What specific Muslim faction are you talking about? From what I remember of AC1 the assassins made no reference to siding with a Muslim faction. The Assassins may have been Muslim in real life but that isn't what was presented in the game.
YES IN THE GAME..

but, as far as trailers went, no one knew that the Assassins wouldnt be portrayed as they were in real life..

LightRey
07-06-2012, 01:33 PM
So the marketing was biased because they presented the Assassin's ideaology in a positive light? They are the protagonists after all. What specific Muslim faction are you talking about? From what I remember of AC1 the assassins made no reference to siding with a Muslim faction. The Assassins may have been Muslim in real life but that isn't what was presented in the game.
No, it wasn't biased. It can just easily be seen as biased as the marketing for ACIII, because they're siding with a certain faction that, historically, was out to kill everyone that threatened their religious ideals. The Assassins were a Muslim faction. Stop confusing reality with fiction. We're talking about what it seemed like before the game was released, which means all we had to go on were the trailers and history.

TheHumanTowel
07-06-2012, 01:40 PM
No, it wasn't biased. It can just easily be seen as biased as the marketing for ACIII, because they're siding with a certain faction that, historically, was out to kill everyone that threatened their religious ideals. The Assassins were a Muslim faction. Stop confusing reality with fiction. We're talking about what it seemed like before the game was released, which means all we had to go on were the trailers and history.
Fine but whatever slight bias people can find in AC1's marketing it's still incomparable with the extent of bias we're seeing now.

LightRey
07-06-2012, 01:41 PM
Fine but whatever slight bias people can find in AC1's marketing it's still incomparable with the extent of bias we're seeing now.
I disagree. I think everybody is just overanalyzing it this time because it is about America.

Assassin_M
07-06-2012, 01:43 PM
I disagree. I think everybody is just overanalyzing it this time because it is about America.
Exactly..
I said it numerous times, this isn't about killing Brits, its about "America"

If this was anywhere else, such is the case with AC I, then no one would`v complained.

ProletariatPleb
07-06-2012, 01:43 PM
I disagree. I think everybody is just overanalyzing it this time because it is about America.
^The truth.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 04:31 PM
Quite honestly, the reason why everybody is over analyzing because it is America:
Rarely does a company has the courage too display Americans other than heroes
AC is known for un-bias
It's the American Revolution. Which is tough too avoid American bias.
And about the whole ''Muslim fatcion'' thing....
Err....you were killing Arabs, muslims.
And people do not confuse, IRL they were Ismailli. It is a different thing than Salah Adin islam.

LightRey
07-06-2012, 05:02 PM
Quite honestly, the reason why everybody is over analyzing because it is America:
Rarely does a company has the courage too display Americans other than heroes
AC is known for un-bias
It's the American Revolution. Which is tough too avoid American bias.
And about the whole ''Muslim fatcion'' thing....
Err....you were killing Arabs, muslims.
And people do not confuse, IRL they were Ismailli. It is a different thing than Salah Adin islam.
The thing is though, especially in the ACII and ACB glyphs, America is not at all depicted as "the greatest country in the world" or something. Quite the contrary in fact. What people like to forget is that there are 2 major factors at play here. The first is the obvious one: money. It's only natural that in the trailers they're focusing on the Americans fighting for their independence from the British. It's the historically and (therefore) ethically "favored" side of the conflict and it's an easy way to expand their American fanbase. Second, it's about America. There's no way around that. It takes place in America, it's about American independence and it's one of the most important events in American history.

Now I think that that second point justifies the first, especially since it's only natural for a company to pursue profits, but more so I want to argue with this that this in no way refects the stance of Connor or the Assassins in the game (which is strongly evidenced by the few facts we know about Connor himself and more so by our past experiences from previous games and assassins).

Yes, it's true that we have yet to see Connor killing any American soldiers, but we have to remember that most if not all of the footage was from the same part of the game, at a point where he was going after British Templars. I should also point out that Connor is only killing the people that are actually getting in his way. There is absolutely no evidence that he's trying to win the war for the Americans, especially since the Battle of Bunker Hill (the one featured in most of the trailers), was one the Americans lost, which means that Connor, even though he killed a British General there, did not secure victory for the Americans. Now I find it hard to believe that he would have been unable to do so if he was able to get so close to a British general he could assassinate him and get out alive.

So yeah, the advertising is arguably pro-American, but the game and certainly Connor are not.

and about the Muslim faction thing, the Muslims were not a "united people" or something. The Assassins were, in real life, a Muslim faction (and pretty much in the game too, though their actual philosophy and reasons for killing went a little further than that). Look it up.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 05:19 PM
They were ismailli dude. Those are a different ''type'' of muslims than the ones that were fighting the Crusaders.

LightRey
07-06-2012, 05:23 PM
They were ismailli dude. Those are a different ''type'' of muslims than the ones that were fighting the Crusaders.
I'm not denying that. They were a Muslim faction. I'm not saying they were the same type of Muslims or whatever. Just saying they used their Religious motivations to justify killing others.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 05:25 PM
Well yeah, but they weren't exactly on the muslim side in the war.

LightRey
07-06-2012, 05:35 PM
Well yeah, but they weren't exactly on the muslim side in the war.
They were an odd bunch to be sure, but it's that mystery that allowed for a game like AC1 to be what it is in the first place. :p

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 05:36 PM
I may descend from them, and I ordered a hidden blade..
SO FEAR ME EVERYBODY! 8D

NeroInfernoF7
07-06-2012, 08:53 PM
Hahaha, holy god. Watching The Patriot now, and that dude is a freaking assassin! He even got a tomahawk!

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 08:54 PM
Historically un-accurate events does not prepare you for ACIII.....
His Tomahawk does not have the Insignia :P

NeroInfernoF7
07-06-2012, 08:58 PM
Historically un-accurate events does not prepare you for ACIII.....
His Tomahawk does not have the Insignia :P

No, but he goes badass mode on Redcoats and doing some Connor moves meanwhile.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 09:02 PM
I was just watching the fight scene...
Ubisoft, Y U NO USE ORIGINAL MOVES?
No seriously, one of the moves is taken right out of the demo.
Kinda worrying too see considering the amount of bias in that movie, the English were like Nazis....

NeroInfernoF7
07-06-2012, 09:03 PM
I was just watching the fight scene...
Ubisoft, Y U NO USE ORIGINAL MOVES?
No seriously, one of the moves is taken right out of the demo.
Kinda worrying too see considering the amount of bias in that movie, the English were like Nazis....

Exactly! :O

NeroInfernoF7
07-06-2012, 09:04 PM
Def going to make a live-action trailer with scenes from the movie, hahaha :D
It will be freaking perfect!

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 09:05 PM
And the part where he was hitting that English dude over and over, it looked like the Assassination of the English general in the CGI trailer..

NeroInfernoF7
07-06-2012, 09:06 PM
And the part where he was hitting that English dude over and over, it looked like the Assassination of the English general in the CGI trailer..

Yes, that fighting part is pretty much my live-action trailer, haha you're gonna love it :D

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 09:07 PM
I just hope Ubisoft dosen't give us a re-skinned Mil Gibson. I want too see new animations.

shanethebouncer
07-06-2012, 09:10 PM
Don't compare a Mel Gibson movie to an Assassins Creed game not even in flippancy.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 09:10 PM
From what I see, Connor is a re-skinned Mel Gibson.

shanethebouncer
07-06-2012, 09:15 PM
Don't buy the game then ....

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 09:16 PM
Why shouldn't I? In terms of weapons and moves they are ripped straight out of the movie.

shanethebouncer
07-06-2012, 09:18 PM
Ikr I'm appalled by it I probably won't buy the game now and neither should you let's boycott it together.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 09:18 PM
.....Wait, what? O_o

MT4K
07-06-2012, 09:21 PM
Why shouldn't I? In terms of weapons and moves they are ripped straight out of the movie.

Maybe they just got the same fight choreographer? Or perhaps the choreographer they did get just happened to use similar moves. Perhaps he himself was inspired by the film.

It could also have been meant as a little easter egg thing to see if people would notice :D. People wanted little easter eggs regarding that film and this would certainly be something fun. Everybody loves little easter eggs after all :D.

At the end of the day though it doesn't matter what/where/why they chose the combat moves they did. What matters is Connor's brutality, Efficiency, and awesomeness at looking cool performing them :P.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 09:22 PM
Well yeah, but he has a knife and a tomahawk combo and he uses each in the same hands as mel.

ProletariatPleb
07-06-2012, 09:38 PM
That multi stab move you're talking about has been there since Brotherhood, only, it was on dagger.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 09:39 PM
Not the multi stab move, but several moves and the weapon combos seem too be in AC III.

NeroInfernoF7
07-06-2012, 09:49 PM
Haha, my trailer is complete. Uploading it now. You guys are going to love it! ... I hope.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-06-2012, 09:51 PM
Draw a hood on Mel.
Lol.

Rebel Born 01
08-07-2012, 09:32 AM
number one. when u say a biased game think. all of ubisoft that means ubisoft singapore ect..... mostly came to an agreement to make assassins creed go to America. now we've seen muslim origin in 1. italian in 2 and brotherhood then turkish in rev. all with an almost out of sight american man who we know little about until rev's desmond memories. and if the animus project memories from ancestors then desmond has muslim and italians origins. meaning that ubisoft went more eastern than western. now u say they go to america and then its a biased game.not completely fair.

number two. the american bald eagle has more meaning than that. the eagle is known as a free bird. giving even more meaning to "everything is permitted". meaning connor will fight the enemy no matter of alligiance as seen in the trailers.

xcamthemandudex
08-08-2012, 01:59 AM
There is one thing Connor also said that shows he doesn't care about the war. He in a gameplay trailer says, "Let the Patriots fight it out among themselves. I care only for the Templars."

CrazySN
08-08-2012, 03:05 AM
There is one thing Connor also said that shows he doesn't care about the war. He in a gameplay trailer says, "Let the Patriots fight it out among themselves. I care only for the Templars."

Nah, he's probably just lying to himself. Otherwise, he'd have no reason to be a conflicted character.

LoyalACFan
08-08-2012, 03:24 AM
Nah, he's probably just lying to himself. Otherwise, he'd have no reason to be a conflicted character.

Conflicted between his Mohawk and European heritage, not the British and the Patriots.

CrazySN
08-08-2012, 04:04 AM
Conflicted between his Mohawk and European heritage, not the British and the Patriots.

I wasn't talking about the British and the Patriots. It's more about the Assassins and the Patriots more than anything. In many screenshots and concept art, we can see a close relationship between George Washington and Connor. Since the Assassin's and Patriot's motives about fighting for freedom are very similar, it's pretty obvious that Connor would be conflicted about helping them or not.

LoyalACFan
08-08-2012, 09:57 AM
I wasn't talking about the British and the Patriots. It's more about the Assassins and the Patriots more than anything. In many screenshots and concept art, we can see a close relationship between George Washington and Connor. Since the Assassin's and Patriot's motives about fighting for freedom are very similar, it's pretty obvious that Connor would be conflicted about helping them or not.

That doesn't make sense. If the Patriots' goals are similar to those of the Assassins, why would he be conflicted about helping them? If anything, they would be a convenient ally. When they put out trailers saying Connor is conflicted, they're talking about his conflicting loyalties to his European lineage and his Mohawk lineage.

POP1Fan
08-08-2012, 11:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTXEiAmV-M
2:28.
Can we all hug now?

ProletariatPleb
08-08-2012, 11:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTXEiAmV-M
2:28.
Can we all hug now?
Alright *hugs*