PDA

View Full Version : Anyone ever considered an Assassin's Creed set during the American Civil War?



Pages : [1] 2

Sajuro
03-31-2013, 06:45 AM
I know it will get flames, but I think it could be a good chance to blur the line further between the good guys and the bad. The Main Character could be an escaped slave or abolitionist but most of the Templars would be on the side of the North since they were the powerhouse (and that it would fall in line with their ideals) and while there would be Southern Templars, most of the leaders you would assassinate on their side could be free people who have no part in the conspiracy but are just horrible human beings nonetheless.
Lincoln wasn't on anyone's side but Templars backed him since one America would be easier to control and as an experiment to forcibly change behaviors of the resisting populace, but they had Booth assassinate him when their leaders felt he was being too easy on the South and the Klan being created would also be another arm of the Templars to try and control southern populace through fear

jenyto
03-31-2013, 07:05 AM
Not sure they'll do one with the latest Lincoln film out not long ago. I feel like it might backfire.

kalo.yanis
03-31-2013, 11:52 AM
Please, no more US. Blandest setting ever.

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 12:02 PM
Please, no more US. Blandest setting ever.
VERY generalizing, since the entirety of the US is not Boston and NY alone, even at that I disagree that the US was the blandest setting ever...

to me, that honor goes to Rome...

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 12:04 PM
Please, no more US. Blandest setting ever.Indeed, the lack of landmarks really irritated me.

pirate1802
03-31-2013, 12:06 PM
to me, that honor goes to Rome...


+9000

Regarding an AC during Civil War; I'm all for it, since I'm a sucker for everything wild west. Bland setting my shiny metallic ***. The very thought of roaming among dusty settlements, barging into a saloon and picking a fight with the Sheriff has me orgasmic. :p

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 12:11 PM
+9000

Regarding an AC during Civil War; I'm all for it, since I'm a sucker for everything wild west. Bland setting my shiny metallic ***. The very thought of roaming among dusty settlements, barging into a saloon and picking a fight with the Sheriff has me orgasmic. :pYea it's orgasmic but I'd rather do that in RDR and in AC I'd rather be in ancient Greece taking down Alexander the Great or helping him, is he Assassin or Templar?

TheHumanTowel
03-31-2013, 12:12 PM
+9000

Regarding an AC during Civil War; I'm all for it, since I'm a sucker for everything wild west. Bland setting my shiny metallic ***. The very thought of roaming among dusty settlements, barging into a saloon and picking a fight with the Sheriff has me orgasmic. :p
Play Red Dead if you want to do that. AC in the Wild West would be bad. There's practically no buildings or even any trees to parkour on.

As for the civil war nah. There's better settings imo more suited to an AC game. We just did America.

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 12:12 PM
Yea it's orgasmic but I'd rather do that in RDR and in AC I'd rather be in ancient Greece taking down Alexander the Great or helping him, is he Assassin or Templar?
He was backed by Templars, but was not one himself..

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 12:13 PM
We just did America.
Oh god I never heard anyone complain about Roma...where was it again ?? oh yes..Italy..

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 12:14 PM
He was backed by Templars, but was not one himself..Then he lives.

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 12:15 PM
Then he lives.
He was killed by the Assassins

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 12:16 PM
He was killed by the AssassinsReally? Haha I need to read the encyclopedia again or go to the AC wiki.

pirate1802
03-31-2013, 12:50 PM
Yea it's orgasmic but I'd rather do that in RDR and in AC I'd rather be in ancient Greece taking down Alexander the Great or helping him, is he Assassin or Templar?

Yes, Ancient Greece, Rome, Persia, Egypt, Babylon all rank higher on my orgasmic level.

pirate1802
03-31-2013, 12:51 PM
Play Red Dead if you want to do that.

Oh believe me, its the biggest regret of my life..


Oh god I never heard anyone complain about Roma...where was it again ?? oh yes..Italy..

But..but..but.. its a different city!

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 12:54 PM
Oh believe me, its the biggest regret of my life..Regret? Why not just play it?

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 12:55 PM
Regret? Why not just play it?
PC

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 12:57 PM
PCHahaha Lol@PC gamers, always arrogant with your better graphics hahaha I have RDR, I win.

pirate1802
03-31-2013, 12:58 PM
Regret? Why not just play it?

Its hard to imagine, but not everyone owns multiple platforms :D

pirate1802
03-31-2013, 12:58 PM
Hahaha Lol@PC gamers, always arrogant with your better graphics hahaha I have RDR, I win.

And I take my fish off you, you're fired!

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 01:00 PM
Its hard to imagine, but not everyone owns multiple platforms :DI know, just didn't know you were PC.

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 01:01 PM
And I take my fish off you, you're fired!Ha I knew this wold happen I have multiple. I'll have my own team with blackjack and ******s.

TRUKITTN
03-31-2013, 01:29 PM
I wonder why they never released RDR on PC. I'd buy it again if they did.

And who says Assassins wouldn't make it in the Wild West? Pfft. Steam Locomotive surfing, Cactus climbing (bet that'd take some skill), canyon diving; all the elements could be there if one were creative enough. Course, I'd just like to see the outfit a Old Western Assassin would be sporting. Achilles already set a precedent for an eagle-brim hat in lieu of hood. Also it'd give Ubi a chance to work on their horse models and physics some more. Maybe its just me but I thought they were just plain strange lookin' in AC3, and they weren't much better in the previous titles.

As for the Civil War itself... before AC3 I might of thought it wouldn't work, but now I think I could enjoy such a setting. Though in general, the further back they go, the more likely I am to love it. A Three Kingdoms era Chinese assassin or an Ancient Egyptian assassin during the controversial Reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaton? I'd be all over that stuff.

pacmanate
03-31-2013, 01:31 PM
^ same reason they dont want GTA5 on PC, too many pirates.

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 01:33 PM
I wonder why they never released RDR on PC. I'd buy it again if they did.

And who says Assassins wouldn't make it in the Wild West? Pfft. Steam Locomotive surfing, Cactus climbing (bet that'd take some skill), canyon diving; all the elements could be there if one were creative enough. Course, I'd just like to see the outfit a Old Western Assassin would be sporting. Achilles already set a precedent for an eagle-brim hat in lieu of hood. Also it'd give Ubi a chance to work on their horse models and physics some more. Maybe its just me but I thought they were just plain strange lookin' in AC3, and they weren't much better in the previous titles.
.Cactus climbing? Also you want to go to a setting just so that the horses are better? Ubi also don't have the class to compete with R*.

pirate1802
03-31-2013, 01:38 PM
^ same reason they dont want GTA5 on PC, too many pirates.

They don't want GTA 5 on PC yet because they are afraid of their porting job. It'll come on PC sooner or later.

ProletariatPleb
03-31-2013, 01:50 PM
^ same reason they dont want GTA5 on PC, too many pirates.
>Every console game ever first comes out on the internet before the release date.
>I know more console pirates than PC.
>We have standards.

Every Rockstar North game comes to PC. They did the exact same with IV what they're doing with V so there's a strong chance V will end up on PC, 7 months later as usual.

Which brings me to my next point, RDR2 was not done by R* North hence we didn't get a PC version.

Not to forget V so far looks like some ****ty hollywood movie and is full of solid colors, hardly any texture work and far from anything impressive. So yeah, I wouldn't care at this point but if it does come to PC then perhaps we'll see it in all it's glory.
Sorry for going off-topic.

nunosilva13
03-31-2013, 03:21 PM
Hahaha Lol@PC gamers, always arrogant with your better graphics hahaha I have RDR, I win.

Hahahaha Lol@ScumbagsĄ, i have PC for multiplataforms and PS3 for exclusives. I win.

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 03:23 PM
Hahahaha Lol@ScumbagsĄ, i have PC for multiplataforms and PS3 for exclusives. I win.
Uhhh he was joking....

Hahahah Lol@no sense of humor..

nunosilva13
03-31-2013, 03:33 PM
Uhhh he was joking....

Hahahah Lol@no sense of humor..

Was that a joke? I wonder if it's me lacking sense of humor, or someone else ;)

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 03:37 PM
Was that a joke? I wonder if it's me lacking sense of humor, or someone else ;)
You figure;)

I saw through your scheme..HA !!!

Megas_Doux
03-31-2013, 04:11 PM
VERY generalizing, since the entirety of the US is not Boston and NY alone, even at that I disagree that the US was the blandest setting ever...

to me, that honor goes to Rome...

This!!!
NY is a very underrated city.....


And in regards to Rome, well if Toscana and Firenze had an ugly looking baby, that would be ACB´s rendition of that city......

Sajuro
03-31-2013, 04:49 PM
I thought revelations had the dullest city, maybe I was just bored by then.
But even if it was set in the wild west, it might just be parkouring would be less prominent but you would still have it, you'd just have to find new ways to hide or move about the plains

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 04:52 PM
I thought revelations had the dullest city, maybe I was just bored by then.
You`re the first person I ever meet with this view

Rugterwyper32
03-31-2013, 04:56 PM
Personally, I found Forli to be the dullest city in the series by far.
I actually enjoyed Rome and both of the main cities in AC3. Constantinople was great too. And then you have the greatness of all 3 cities in AC1

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 04:56 PM
You`re the first person I ever meet with this viewSecond.

overdidd
03-31-2013, 04:57 PM
no, no no no no. No more America.

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 04:58 PM
no, no no no no. No more America.I guess you could say they overdidd it?

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 05:03 PM
Second.
You`re a spec of dust

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 05:06 PM
You`re a spec of dustYay I got you this time it's my favoutite city hahahaha.

Assassin_M
03-31-2013, 05:08 PM
Yay I got you this time it's my favoutite city hahahaha.
you made me smile damm it xD

Megas_Doux
03-31-2013, 05:12 PM
Yay I got you this time it's my favoutite city hahahaha.

Your kind, always playing with words.....LOL

roostersrule2
03-31-2013, 05:12 PM
you made me smile damm it xdi win da interwebzzzzzzzz.

ProletariatPleb
03-31-2013, 05:40 PM
no, no no no no. No more America.
Seconded.

thecodeman715
04-01-2013, 12:21 AM
Too many guns, the American Revolution was the closest they should go to modern times, the more efficent guns they have in a game, like the revolvers, the more of a shooter it becomes instead of a stealth-based game. If it becomes a shooter, then we will have all of the CoD players joining in on AC, and that would be unbearable. I love the idea, especially since I'm related to a Confederate General (Stonewall Jackson) and that would be awesome to see him in a video game. But too many guns. If Ubisoft could do it to keep the assassin from having the revolvers and making it a shooter, that would be great. Or just having the revolvers be very unaccurate, which they were back then, that would be cool.

THIS IS NOT MINE, BUT KUDOS TO THE ARTIST, DEMONSFEARME:
http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=American+Civil+War+assassin%27s+creed#/art/No-Sides-to-War-186976318?_sid=1730d469


The character could have 2 different outfits, and they would work like the capes from AC2, a Northern outfit which would make you less suspicsious to guards in the North and one for the South. You could have allies on each side, like be friends with Stonewall Jackson and also with Ulysses S. Grant. And your assassins could be free slaves. Wow, My post just went from absolutley hating the idea to loving it. I love my mind....

I-Like-Pie45
04-01-2013, 12:24 AM
They should just ripoff the Gangs of New York and turn it into an AC game. Complete with a U2 performed credits song.

Rugterwyper32
04-01-2013, 01:07 AM
Too many guns, the American Revolution was the closest they should go to modern times, the more efficent guns they have in a game, like the revolvers, the more of a shooter it becomes instead of a stealth-based game. If it becomes a shooter, then we will have all of the CoD players joining in on AC, and that would be unbearable. I love the idea, especially since I'm related to a Confederate General (Stonewall Jackson) and that would be awesome to see him in a video game. But too many guns. If Ubisoft could do it to keep the assassin from having the revolvers and making it a shooter, that would be great. Or just having the revolvers be very unaccurate, which they were back then, that would be cool.

THIS IS NOT MINE, BUT KUDOS TO THE ARTIST, DEMONSFEARME:
http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&global=1&q=American+Civil+War+assassin%27s+creed#/art/No-Sides-to-War-186976318?_sid=1730d469


The character could have 2 different outfits, and they would work like the capes from AC2, a Northern outfit which would make you less suspicsious to guards in the North and one for the South. You could have allies on each side, like be friends with Stonewall Jackson and also with Ulysses S. Grant. And your assassins could be free slaves. Wow, My post just went from absolutley hating the idea to loving it. I love my mind....

Now just let me ask you, which cities and stuff would there be in a game set in this time anyway? I learned a lot about the Colonial US in the wait for AC3, but besides Lincoln and slavery related stuff I know next to nothing about the civil war over there. So I'm genuinely curious.
If it had potential to be interesting and Ubisoft could pull it off without going too far from the roots of the series, I think that would work pretty well. But then again, as I said, my knowledge of that is minimal. The furthest era I've thought of myself has been the short-lived Federal Republic of Central America, since I'm more familiar with this.

thecodeman715
04-01-2013, 01:42 AM
Now just let me ask you, which cities and stuff would there be in a game set in this time anyway? I learned a lot about the Colonial US in the wait for AC3, but besides Lincoln and slavery related stuff I know next to nothing about the civil war over there. So I'm genuinely curious.
If it had potential to be interesting and Ubisoft could pull it off without going too far from the roots of the series, I think that would work pretty well. But then again, as I said, my knowledge of that is minimal. The furthest era I've thought of myself has been the short-lived Federal Republic of Central America, since I'm more familiar with this.

That is a good question, Gettysburg,is a very historic city, which I believe was the bloodiest battle of the Civil War, or Manasass, the site of 3 civil war battles. I think those cities with many more could make for a great AC game. It could be like AC2 where there are like 5 different settings, which worked out great for them. Just wiki the American Civil War and read about some of the battles, very interesting part of US history.

Stardust235
04-01-2013, 02:11 AM
Honestly, I hope they pick an EXTREMELY different time period -- having 2 games in the 1700s and then another in the 1800s would be boring.

roostersrule2
04-01-2013, 05:05 AM
sometimes, there is no clear standard to say who is good or bad, sometimes we say someone is good for he has done somehing we hope him to doWhat?

thecodeman715
04-03-2013, 02:49 AM
Honestly, I hope they pick an EXTREMELY different time period -- having 2 games in the 1700s and then another in the 1800s would be boring.

So, the Ezio trilogy was boring to you? Or do you just not like the time period?

poptartz20
04-03-2013, 08:16 AM
I love how 2 games set in Italy is okay but America is a no?

I actually would be curious to see a game set in the Civil war, There are many aspects to play from that style. I instantly think of Django Unchained meets Assassins creed. That would simply be awesome. Killing slavers and plantations owners who supply money to Templars. The list could go on. The series should advance past that point though if you ask me. That would just put it to close to the present.

There is also England or France, Brazil, Japan/China--typical but the style and setting would be great. India even? We could also go with Russia, Now that would be interesting too!

Sajuro
04-04-2013, 06:01 AM
I love how 2 games set in Italy is okay but America is a no?

I actually would be curious to see a game set in the Civil war, There are many aspects to play from that style. I instantly think of Django Unchained meets Assassins creed. That would simply be awesome. Killing slavers and plantations owners who supply money to Templars. The list could go on. The series should advance past that point though if you ask me. That would just put it to close to the present.

There is also England or France, Brazil, Japan/China--typical but the style and setting would be great. India even? We could also go with Russia, Now that would be interesting too!
If they are going to be doing a lot of AC games, I think we could do all of them, have more games with rebellion against the british empire, in India you can have the main character interact with Gandhi or if you go to South Africa during Apartheid.

ACRules2
04-04-2013, 06:39 AM
I would enjoy a Civil War era AC but there are a few other settings like
Mongolia under Genghis Khan
Victorian England
Feudal Japan

TheBearJew32
04-04-2013, 09:27 AM
If it went civil war they would have to do gettysburg, and after the battles in AC3 i just don't see it being that good...very linear, open field, lot of people dying/little actual involvement from assassin...i can hear it now...WHERE IS GENERAL LEE!?

Locopells
04-04-2013, 09:42 AM
Oh god I never heard anyone complain about Roma...where was it again ?? oh yes..Italy..

In a story that was supposed to be DLC for ACII - this is a whole new game. That's not to say we can't return to a country, though, just pointing out the obvious.


^ same reason they dont want GTA5 on PC, too many pirates.

Wait, WHAT!


They don't want GTA 5 on PC yet because they are afraid of their porting job. It'll come on PC sooner or later.

Oh, phew...


Yay I got you this time it's my favoutite city hahahaha.

And the over active swear filter strikes again...


So, the Ezio trilogy was boring to you? Or do you just not like the time period?

Time period's got nothing to do with it. ACR went to a completely different country, and correspondingly had a different feel to it (plus it was another expansion, not a full game).

RinoTheBouncer
04-04-2013, 10:00 AM
Please, no more US. Blandest setting ever.

Totally agree.

Worst locations, worst supporting characters, and worst events.

LightRey
04-04-2013, 10:21 AM
Tbh even I am getting sick and tired of guns. Can we go back to swords, knives and bows please?

Sajuro
04-04-2013, 10:39 PM
If it went civil war they would have to do gettysburg, and after the battles in AC3 i just don't see it being that good...very linear, open field, lot of people dying/little actual involvement from assassin...i can hear it now...WHERE IS GENERAL LEE!?
Why would they have to have Gettysburg? Maybe have him help the Union in the south or from behind the scenes by taking out plantation owners or trying to convince Sherman not to destroy civilian property or some such thing. I know people would expect it since we have short attention spans and need to see recognizable events, you could even meet and maybe talk General Lee into surrendering his armies (Saying that "you are only getting more of your country men killed this way") and be behind some battles but I would like it if he wouldn't be like Connor who was behind every key battle and was always right about what to do.

Eternal Reward
04-04-2013, 10:47 PM
It would be cool. Be a great time to have a black protagonist. Personally I want an Achilles game, though that will never happen.

TheBearJew32
04-05-2013, 01:34 AM
Why would they have to have Gettysburg?
Because it's the civil war...it's the most famous battle of the civil war...it's known to be the turning point of the civil war......Lee was a templar...it's supposed to be haunted...my favorite turtle is Michelangelo...I'm Ron Burgundy? all good reasons

Rugterwyper32
04-05-2013, 02:15 AM
While doing some investigation and the such, I came to conclusions of possible locations and the such, but let me start by adding I think Gettysburg would make for a better one-off location for the battle. While at that, I think 2 Union cities, 2 Confederation and 2 bordering between both would work. My take on it? Philadelphia and Washington DC for Union, Richmond and either Atlanta for Confederation, and Louisville and Baltimore for a border one. Add other locations for one-off missions in big battles and the such, maybe being able to play them the way you can the Leonardo missions in Brotherhood (giving you the date the same way naval missions in AC3 give you the date if you play them after beating the rest of the game). I think that would make for an interesting, big scale game later along the series. Wouldn't like to see it soon, but for something like ACVII or some such. Find an excuse for the main character to head to England in a spinoff after that, have Victorian England represented, ???, profit.

As for maps of the locations, these are the 6 I thought of

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/1865_Washington.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/philadelphia_1842.jpg
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/august/richmond-map.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Atlanta._From_Vincent%27s_subdivision_map_-_Army_of_the_Cumberland_1864.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/LouisvilleDefenses1865.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/1864_Mitchell_Map_of_Baltimore%2C_Maryland_-_Geographicus_-_Baltimore-mitchell-1864.jpg

OSantaClownO
04-05-2013, 12:18 PM
Please, no more US. Blandest setting ever.

Not sure what the word "Blandest" means, but I couldn't agree more about no more US.

Y2Trey
06-18-2014, 07:01 AM
Something William Miles said in AC3 really got me thinking about an Assassin's Creed set during the Civil War.

*mini-spoilers* When Desmond was asking him if the Assassins and Templars ever tried working together, William said there have been various points throughout history where there has been cooperation but it's never lasted because of the conflict of their ideals. *end of mini-spoilers*

So I was thinking of possible times where it would make sense for the Assassins and Templars to be on the same page, and The Civil War was one of them. The Assassins are all about freedom, so they would be pro-Union for the sake of abolition. The Templars are about preserving order, so it seems they would also be pro-Union to preserve it. However, to some of the Templars, order might have meant preserving the institution of slavery, so their could be some division there. Definitely think The Civil War would make for an interesting time period for an AC game; I've even been contemplating a fan fiction for the fun of it.

Sesheenku
06-18-2014, 07:21 AM
Something William Miles said in AC3 really got me thinking about an Assassin's Creed set during the Civil War.

*mini-spoilers* When Desmond was asking him if the Assassins and Templars ever tried working together, William said there have been various points throughout history where there has been cooperation but it's never lasted because of the conflict of their ideals. *end of mini-spoilers*

So I was thinking of possible times where it would make sense for the Assassins and Templars to be on the same page, and The Civil War was one of them. The Assassins are all about freedom, so they would be pro-Union for the sake of abolition. The Templars are about preserving order, so it seems they would also be pro-Union to preserve it. However, to some of the Templars, order might have meant preserving the institution of slavery, so their could be some division there. Definitely think The Civil War would make for an interesting time period for an AC game; I've even been contemplating a fan fiction for the fun of it.

Only if they add in more than two damn cities.

FFS gimme Virginia and Georgia and all those Southern states.

I was massively disappointed with 3 when they didn't even put a side quest for the southern states, it would have added some severely needed difference in house architecture and some more plant variation.

SirTookTookIII
06-18-2014, 08:24 AM
I would be fine if there was another game set in North America, they could do the Indian Wars, like the War of 1812 with Connor fighting alongside Tecumseh or something in the southwest like the Apaches, Navajo or Hopi. There was a lot of stories with native leaders being blessed by their god to be able to avoid bullets, I'd assume they coud use something like the shard of eden that Connor used to deflect bullets.

steveeire
06-18-2014, 08:26 AM
tbh for the next game set in America, I want cities with tall buildings. Something set around the time of prohibition would be cool.

roostersrule2
06-18-2014, 10:15 AM
No.

pirate1802
06-18-2014, 12:14 PM
I'd have said there are no decent cities like Venice and Paris... but then I'd have said the same about Black Flag (which is one of my favourite AC games)

So I dunno, if the overall game is good I can overlook the absence of great cities.

LatinaC09
06-18-2014, 12:43 PM
tbh for the next game set in America, I want cities with tall buildings. Something set around the time of prohibition would be cool.

Oooh the Roaring 20s in America would be awesome to see! Gangsters, Bonnie and Clyde, flappers. There's a lot of awesome history here!

DumbGamerTag94
06-18-2014, 01:09 PM
Oooh the Roaring 20s in America would be awesome to see! Gangsters, Bonnie and Clyde, flappers. There's a lot of awesome history here!

WTF? Just play the Mafia series. I don't understand how people can shoot down the American Civil War "because guns" and "because the setting sucks"(cuz iz be a elitist Euro who tink Europe izzz deeee bezzzztt eva! and know nothin bout Merica cept AC3)(and for some reason considers the Caribbean to be the same as America(lol))

Talk about a gun problem lol. 1920s America is not the way to go. And besides Al capone and Chicago, and the small city Atlantic City is today. it is mostly a myth besides those two places that the Prohibition crime happened in cities. In fact MOST was in the midde of Midwestern cornfield small towns.

People like John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, Babyface Nelson, and others mainly tended to operate in very rural areas of Missouri, Indiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Illinois.

So in all seriousness Atlantic City would be almost as bad as AC3s new York, and 99.999% of that game would take place in flat areas with no trees in the Midwest. So literally no parkour opprotunities and machine guns everywhere! Awful setting.

DumbGamerTag94
06-18-2014, 01:31 PM
Ok this is for all you Civil War Haters who think America is an awful setting. Im just gonna copy this here and see what everyone thinks. This is from a post I made a while back on the Future AC titles thread. And before anyone starts saying theres no tall buildings. Take notice that most of the buildings in the city pictures are between 4 and 6 stories some as high as 8-10. Its an optical illusion that most look short because the things next to them are also tall. And btw that would make it the tallest setting yet. Hell Damascus hardly had anything but spires over 2 stories. and average for the other games is like 3 or 4 stories.

One of my personal favorite suggestions for an AC game, The U.S. Civil War.

Setting: U.S.A 1855-1865. Region: Virginia, West Virginia(part of VA at the time), Maryland, and parts of Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A7QlflwFDWI/TOU-lT-if7I/AAAAAAAAAU0/sqyoode7gz8/s400/Eastern%2BTheater%2BMap.jpg

Major Cities: Washington D.C., Richmond VA, Baltimore MD,

Washington D.C.
http://civilwarscholars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Washington_DC_1860.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/13/69/c9/1369c99cb3b91b5e2ca8985a89944e90.jpg
http://ghostsofdc.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/3c27628u-1024x629.jpg
http://photocolorizing.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/1865-lincoln-funeral-procession-washington-dc.jpg?w=545&h=408
http://hd.housedivided.****inson.edu/files/images/HD_WashingtonMon1860.preview.jpg

Richmond VA:
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/2f/24/2f247b9737d26e6785f91468f5e8f890.jpg?itok=xGXQUOV5
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/View_East_on_Main_Street%2C_Richmond%2C_Virginia_P ostcard_1.jpg/325px-View_East_on_Main_Street%2C_Richmond%2C_Virginia_P ostcard_1.jpg
http://americanphotocolorizing.com/APC-1860-113-T.jpg
http://galleryplus.ebayimg.com/ws/web/130353123274_1_0_1/1000x1000.jpg
http://img0027.popscreencdn.com/107254939_civil-war-reprint-richmond-virginia-burnt-district-.jpg
http://static.greatbigcanvas.com/images/singlecanvas_thick_none/getty-images/the-fall-of-richmond-virginia-american-civil-war,1669000.jpg?max=540

Baltimore MD:
http://www.mvmills.com/sites/mvmills.com/files/1860_litho.jpg
http://www.mapsphotos.net/map/landscape/crop/pm002532b2.jpg
http://www.kilduffs.com/Harbor_235_Baltimore_1860s.jpg
http://hd.housedivided.****inson.edu/files/images/HD_MarylandInstituteBalt186.jpg
http://lfc8s2i7mgzhixd845zx38h11.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/10/civil-war-1861-baltimore.jpeg

And the 1863 Baltimore Riot:
http://perspectives.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Baltimore_Riot_1861-noburn-800x527.jpg

Smaller Possible locations:
Gettysburg PA
http://stevenddeacon.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bayonet-charge-of-the-unions-20th-maine-at-little-round-top-at-the-battle-of-gettysburg.png
http://stevenddeacon.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/painting-of-battle-of-gettysburg-july-3-1863-picketts-charge.png
http://hendrickscommunications.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/img_6945-blog.jpg
Antietam MD:
http://www.trbimg.com/img-50552822/turbine/hm-battle-of-antietam-bloody-lane-reenactment--019/500/332x500
http://memirr.com/Living%20History%20images/AntietamPhotos/antietam_072.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/9b/70/5d/9b705dd190bd25b72731079944f3e54c.jpg
http://sharpsburgmd.com/wp-content/uploads/Lee-War-Council-Building-Sharpsburg.jpg
Fort Fisher NC:
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/nc-fort-fisher-1865-granger.jpg
Petersburg VA:
http://www.civilwar.org/photos/galleries/petersburg/petersburg-1864-images/full-size-760x500/the-cockade-city.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d0/ce/09/d0ce09e260555bf940d71b7942572628.jpg
among others like Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Harpers Ferry etc.

Plantations like these:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5243/5371431220_70ca14b9b4_z.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/4b/6d/a6/4b6da6012cd3edbf32ce378330d6e8c0.jpg
http://traveltips.usatoday.com/DM-Resize/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/18/191/87776536_XS.jpg%3Fw%3D560%26h%3D560%26keep_ratio%3 D1
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DpfwMjR-jWU/TMibB6Cd6RI/AAAAAAAAAGE/xZx-qifIkQo/s1600/Arlington+House.jpg

People:
Robert E Lee, Lincoln, Ulysses S Grant, J.E.B. Stuart, Stonewall Jackson, George McClellan, Jefferson Davis, John Wilkes Booth, etc.

Premise: You are an escaped slave in the 1850s who runs north on the underground railroad with help from the assassin Harriet Tubman, and escape to the north in Gettysburg Pennsylvania. There you fall in with the assassins, and learn of a man named John Brown trying to liberate the slaves in Harpers Ferry VA, and on that raid with him something goes wrong, the slaves do not rise up, Brown and his accomplices are surrounded, but you escape in time, You witness the hanging of brown by soldiers under Robert E. Lee(Templar), and continue the fight for slavery, from there you attempt to free slaves on the underground railroad, but war breaks out in Charleston SC(maybe a mini sequence there). From that point on you fight to remove Templar control of the Southern U.S., and for the freedom of all people, yadda yadda yadda, an epic journey ensues.

What do we think?

rprkjj
06-18-2014, 02:20 PM
Ok this is for all you Civil War Haters who think America is an awful setting. Im just gonna copy this here and see what everyone thinks. This is from a post I made a while back on the Future AC titles thread. And before anyone starts saying theres no tall buildings. Take notice that most of the buildings in the city pictures are between 4 and 6 stories some as high as 8-10. Its an optical illusion that most look short because the things next to them are also tall. And btw that would make it the tallest setting yet. Hell Damascus hardly had anything but spires over 2 stories. and average for the other games is like 3 or 4 stories.

One of my personal favorite suggestions for an AC game, The U.S. Civil War.

Setting: U.S.A 1855-1865. Region: Virginia, West Virginia(part of VA at the time), Maryland, and parts of Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A7QlflwFDWI/TOU-lT-if7I/AAAAAAAAAU0/sqyoode7gz8/s400/Eastern%2BTheater%2BMap.jpg

Major Cities: Washington D.C., Richmond VA, Baltimore MD,

Washington D.C.
http://civilwarscholars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Washington_DC_1860.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/13/69/c9/1369c99cb3b91b5e2ca8985a89944e90.jpg
http://ghostsofdc.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/3c27628u-1024x629.jpg
http://photocolorizing.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/1865-lincoln-funeral-procession-washington-dc.jpg?w=545&h=408
http://hd.housedivided.****inson.edu/files/images/HD_WashingtonMon1860.preview.jpg

Richmond VA:
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/2f/24/2f247b9737d26e6785f91468f5e8f890.jpg?itok=xGXQUOV5
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/View_East_on_Main_Street%2C_Richmond%2C_Virginia_P ostcard_1.jpg/325px-View_East_on_Main_Street%2C_Richmond%2C_Virginia_P ostcard_1.jpg
http://americanphotocolorizing.com/APC-1860-113-T.jpg
http://galleryplus.ebayimg.com/ws/web/130353123274_1_0_1/1000x1000.jpg
http://img0027.popscreencdn.com/107254939_civil-war-reprint-richmond-virginia-burnt-district-.jpg
http://static.greatbigcanvas.com/images/singlecanvas_thick_none/getty-images/the-fall-of-richmond-virginia-american-civil-war,1669000.jpg?max=540

Baltimore MD:
http://www.mvmills.com/sites/mvmills.com/files/1860_litho.jpg
http://www.mapsphotos.net/map/landscape/crop/pm002532b2.jpg
http://www.kilduffs.com/Harbor_235_Baltimore_1860s.jpg
http://hd.housedivided.****inson.edu/files/images/HD_MarylandInstituteBalt186.jpg
http://lfc8s2i7mgzhixd845zx38h11.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/10/civil-war-1861-baltimore.jpeg

And the 1863 Baltimore Riot:
http://perspectives.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Baltimore_Riot_1861-noburn-800x527.jpg

Smaller Possible locations:
Gettysburg PA
http://stevenddeacon.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bayonet-charge-of-the-unions-20th-maine-at-little-round-top-at-the-battle-of-gettysburg.png
http://stevenddeacon.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/painting-of-battle-of-gettysburg-july-3-1863-picketts-charge.png
http://hendrickscommunications.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/img_6945-blog.jpg
Antietam MD:
http://www.trbimg.com/img-50552822/turbine/hm-battle-of-antietam-bloody-lane-reenactment--019/500/332x500
http://memirr.com/Living%20History%20images/AntietamPhotos/antietam_072.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/9b/70/5d/9b705dd190bd25b72731079944f3e54c.jpg
http://sharpsburgmd.com/wp-content/uploads/Lee-War-Council-Building-Sharpsburg.jpg
Fort Fisher NC:
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/nc-fort-fisher-1865-granger.jpg
Petersburg VA:
http://www.civilwar.org/photos/galleries/petersburg/petersburg-1864-images/full-size-760x500/the-cockade-city.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d0/ce/09/d0ce09e260555bf940d71b7942572628.jpg
among others like Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Harpers Ferry etc.

Plantations like these:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5243/5371431220_70ca14b9b4_z.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/4b/6d/a6/4b6da6012cd3edbf32ce378330d6e8c0.jpg
http://traveltips.usatoday.com/DM-Resize/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/18/191/87776536_XS.jpg%3Fw%3D560%26h%3D560%26keep_ratio%3 D1
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DpfwMjR-jWU/TMibB6Cd6RI/AAAAAAAAAGE/xZx-qifIkQo/s1600/Arlington+House.jpg

People:
Robert E Lee, Lincoln, Ulysses S Grant, J.E.B. Stuart, Stonewall Jackson, George McClellan, Jefferson Davis, John Wilkes Booth, etc.

Premise: You are an escaped slave in the 1850s who runs north on the underground railroad with help from the assassin Harriet Tubman, and escape to the north in Gettysburg Pennsylvania. There you fall in with the assassins, and learn of a man named John Brown trying to liberate the slaves in Harpers Ferry VA, and on that raid with him something goes wrong, the slaves do not rise up, Brown and his accomplices are surrounded, but you escape in time, You witness the hanging of brown by soldiers under Robert E. Lee(Templar), and continue the fight for slavery, from there you attempt to free slaves on the underground railroad, but war breaks out in Charleston SC(maybe a mini sequence there). From that point on you fight to remove Templar control of the Southern U.S., and for the freedom of all people, yadda yadda yadda, an epic journey ensues.

What do we think?

I'd play it. The, "assassin," Harriet Tubman just sounds hilarious though. I think she was somewhat overweight, correct me if I'm wrong.

LatinaC09
06-18-2014, 02:21 PM
WTF? Just play the Mafia series. I don't understand how people can shoot down the American Civil War "because guns" and "because the setting sucks"(cuz iz be a elitist Euro who tink Europe izzz deeee bezzzztt eva! and know nothin bout Merica cept AC3)(and for some reason considers the Caribbean to be the same as America(lol))

Talk about a gun problem lol. 1920s America is not the way to go. And besides Al capone and Chicago, and the small city Atlantic City is today. it is mostly a myth besides those two places that the Prohibition crime happened in cities. In fact MOST was in the midde of Midwestern cornfield small towns.

People like John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, Babyface Nelson, and others mainly tended to operate in very rural areas of Missouri, Indiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Illinois.

So in all seriousness Atlantic City would be almost as bad as AC3s new York, and 99.999% of that game would take place in flat areas with no trees in the Midwest. So literally no parkour opprotunities and machine guns everywhere! Awful setting.

No where did I state that I was against AC in the American Civil Ware and I also never said guns were the way to go.....I was simply commenting on the fact that I think the Roaring 20s would be an interesting setting. Of course there are better setting and periods that I would like to see in AC but this is one that I like as well. In the end it's all up to personal opinion anyways, some people didn't like AC3, I loved it. I loved the locations and the history. It was never boring to me. If they put out an AC set in the American Civil War I would play that too.

Dome500
06-18-2014, 04:23 PM
Well to be honest, the pictures don'T do your argument any good.

Main reasons why I would not like the Civil War as setting atm (at the moment):

1. We already had America with AC3
2. We already had Slavery as a topic (AC4:FC)
3. The architecture. It's just pretty flat and has wide streets... like AC3. There is not so much to Parkour around and the Plantations themselves are pretty flat. Basically we would have a big mix of AC4:FC and AC3 at out hands, not much new, similar time period, big battles (like AC3), Plantations and Slaves and Plantation Manors (like AC4:FC), not highly-populated cities with wide streets and flat buildings (like AC3). You could add things like economy, hunting, tree-running, filed/plantation-stealth (nothing new) and that's about it.

Some day in the future? Sure...
Within the next 2 - 3 games? Please not, there are more than enough settings with more interesting and appealing architecture, historical events and cultures

Only my personal opinion of course.

Ureh
06-18-2014, 08:10 PM
I'd play it. The, "assassin," Harriet Tubman just sounds hilarious though. I think she was somewhat overweight, correct me if I'm wrong.

Assassins and Templars accept people of all statures. Templars had Abul Nuqquod and the Assassins had that dude in Ivan's underground library.

Kakuzu745
06-18-2014, 08:17 PM
Nah...there are more entertaining setups to explore now than the US Civil War...maybe after we have visited some other important empires or civilizations I would go back to the US.

If we indeed go back to US sooner I would prefer something with Connor, maybe a CO-OP game with Aveline as I have mentioned. Creating a new assassin for the US Civil War would be kind of meh for me.

Perk89
06-18-2014, 09:08 PM
Civil War would be cool, but if we're going US the Wild West or 20's Chicago would be cooler. Lol at anyone saying "durr the landmarks!"


Learn to geography, son

DumbGamerTag94
06-18-2014, 10:45 PM
I'd play it. The, "assassin," Harriet Tubman just sounds hilarious though. I think she was somewhat overweight, correct me if I'm wrong.

Ehhh Harriet Tubman was actually a fairly average build. Here is a picture where you can see she has a rounder face, but a thin waist. You also must take in to account that the picture is from after the civil war so circa 1866 at the earliest. She would have been even younger and most likely fitter in her prime in the 1850s.
http://pragmaticobotsunite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Harriet-Tubman5.jpg

She was also infamous for here stealthy missions. She was never caught and successfully saved hundreds of slaves. She was also notorious for carrying a revolver not only for protection, but she threatened to shoot anyone that turned back, as they would be a danger to the rest of the group.


No where did I state that I was against AC in the American Civil Ware and I also never said guns were the way to go.....I was simply commenting on the fact that I think the Roaring 20s would be an interesting setting.
Sorry for the confusion. I really didn't intend for that to be targeted specifically tward you. I was venting my irritation with European hypocrites on here who claim AC3 and AC4 are practically the same setting and say theres been too much America lol. and others complained about guns. I was only addressing all those things while using your post as an example. and others have suggested 1920s America as well. I was just pointing out that there are a lot of issues that make that period borderline impossible for AC. Nothing personal. Sorry if I came across wrong. I was just responding to multiple issues at once with that. Probably should have multi quoted. Sorry!


1. We already had America with AC3
That is probably the weakest argument ever. We had already had Italy with AC2 and ACB gave us more Italy(not even a different time period). Also ACR gave us the middle east again which we had already seen in the original AC. Now we will be getting ACU set in France. That will be 3 games set on Continental Europe. I understand that Europe is not all the same thing. But honestly to throw in the Caribbean with AC3 is just as bad a generalization. So the "we already had it" argument is a joke and is more of a bias than anything.


2. We already had Slavery as a topic (AC4:FC)
True we did. But that was also only a DLC, and hardly the majority of players ever got around to it. Also it was only a topic.....nothing ever came of it. It wasn't ended, it wasn't crippled as an institution, Hell the Maroons don't even launch their revolution in that game. Sure they talked about it and you saved some slaves from plantations and whippings, but you never actually Accomplished anything on the issue. Only pointed out the brutality of it.(which IMO make for a great set up for ACW when coupled with Connor's disgust at the New York slave auction at the end of AC3)


3. The architecture. It's just pretty flat and has wide streets... like AC3.
While yes some is similar to AC3 because a few of those style buildings were still around in the 1800s, there was also the newer buildings that took off in that era. Such as Neo Classical architecture that abounds in Washington DC. Prime Examples of this would be the Capital Building, and White house(and any other government building or even banks). There is also the Victorian style homes that were becoming in style at the time as well.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4S-ZcvywI6E/UENGIsoVwDI/AAAAAAAAAkM/SaIU9C5hf0s/s1600/HD_USGeneralHospPhila.preview.jpg
http://0.tqn.com/d/dc/1/7/O/t/1/Calvary-Baptist-Church.JPG
and heres a few residential streets in DC circa the 1850s 60s and 70s(time of the civil war + or -10years)
http://docteurseb.com/wpblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/dc_houses.jpg
http://www.washdcrealestate.com/images/capitol_hill_row_houses-_washington_dc_480.jpg
http://www.districtoneproperties.com/images/slideshow/1364895274.jpg


There is not so much to Parkour around and the Plantations themselves are pretty flat.
Really??? Just look at the Gardens and Trees around the plantations! US plantations aren't like the Crap we saw in AC4 and Freedom Cry they were immaculately beautiful and taken care of with massive gardens and landscaping on par with the Chateaus and Palaces we will be seeing in ACU but far more rural and with more trees, barns, slave housing, and fields to parkour in.
http://www.sanfranciscoplantation.org/images/clip_image001.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-95K3hQB7U9k/TW1UI_2WyAI/AAAAAAAAAFc/bclU1PufpIc/s1600/OakAlley05.jpg
http://south-carolina-plantations.com/berkeley/i/mulberry/mulberry-plantation-garden.jpg
and as far as flat. Are you kidding me? Have you ever seen the mountains and cliffs of West Virginia?!!? Not to mention the forests and coal mines that would have to make up the frontier in a Civil War game. So from tidewater Virginia covered in beautiful plantations, to hilly forested countryside of Pennsylvania and Maryland, to the Mountains cliffs and coal mines of West Virginia. I would definitely call the frontier area very parkour worthy. Especially with some of the tall buildings in small towns like Petersburg.


Basically we would have a big mix of AC4:FC and AC3 at out hands, similar time period, big battles (like AC3), Plantations and Slaves and Plantation Manors (like AC4:FC), not highly-populated cities with wide streets and flat buildings (like AC3).

A combo of AC3 and Freedom Cry?! Whats wrong with that? Take the best elements from both and add new features and areas(like interiors, imagine going inside the capitol building, or White House, or one of those Beautiful mansions on the plantations). I would play the hell out of a game that borrowed the best elements of AC3 and Freedom Cry!

Similar Time Period???!!!! are you kidding me? seriously? The American Civil War was nearly 100 years after the revolution. Almost Exactly that much actually if you count events like the Boston Massacre or Tea Party as the Revolution. Technology, politics, weaponry, architecture, culture, had all come a LONGGGG way in 1860 from the days of the American Revolution.

Big Battles! sign me up! I loved that in AC3, just as long as we aren't in command of troops and there is a target related reason to be there im perfectly ok with that. I don't really want to be in the fight, but if I was pursuing a target with a battle raging around me kind of Bunker Hill style I would be perfectly cool with it.

I would of course want more of a stealth related approach of smuggling slaves out of plantations much like the real underground railroad(even better if it were whole side missions where you had to get them safely to the nearest safe house in a town) rather than Freedom Cry's system of killing 20 overseers.

And I would very much have to disagree with you about the cities being like AC3, sure some parts may have some resemblance, but

Dome500
06-18-2014, 11:17 PM
That is probably the weakest argument ever. We had already had Italy with AC2 and ACB gave us more Italy

Which is ONE of the reasons I didn't like Brotherhood that much :)


Also ACR gave us the middle east again which we had already seen in the original AC.

A very different middle east in culture, atmosphere and structure.


ow we will be getting ACU set in France. That will be 3 games set on Continental Europe.

Which is a generalization. Europe was always very diverse in architecture, culture, religions and traditions as well as people in general, so I see no problem there (Italy <> Constantinople <> Paris = very diverse IMO)


While yes some is similar to AC3 because a few of those style buildings were still around in the 1800s, there was also the newer buildings that took off in that era. Such as Neo Classical architecture that abounds in Washington DC. Prime Examples of this would be the Capital Building, and White house(and any other government building or even banks). There is also the Victorian style homes that were becoming in style at the time as well.

Yeah but a lot of houses around that were just smaller, and even with those houses in your pictures all we would end up with would be an Assassins Creed which is a mix of AC3 and more old versions of a GTAV-like environment (the more modern houses you showed). Still side streets, not many trees, flat buildings in general. AC3.


Really??? Just look at the Gardens and Trees around the plantations! US plantations aren't like the Crap we saw in AC4 and Freedom Cry they were immaculately beautiful and taken care of with massive gardens and landscaping on par with the Chateaus and Palaces we will be seeing in ACU but far more rural and with more trees, barns, slave housing, and fields to parkour in.

Yeah, and around the Gardens countless flat fields. So in general AC3 and AC4 all over again. Sure, beautiful landscape, but just a few trees in the garden to climb, that's all.


Are you kidding me? Have you ever seen the mountains and cliffs of West Virginia?!!? Not to mention the forests and coal mines that would have to make up the frontier in a Civil War game. So from tidewater Virginia covered in beautiful plantations, to hilly forested countryside of Pennsylvania and Maryland, to the Mountains cliffs and coal mines of West Virginia. I would definitely call the frontier area very parkour worthy. Especially with some of the tall buildings in small towns like Petersburg.

Mountains are wilderness, good for hunting, Frontier-spirit and killing some soldiers, tree-running, and mountain-climbing, etc.
I spoke about the architecture not the nature. Nature is only a filler, can be fun for some time but the Assassins work is where the people are, and the people are in the villages and towns, which have an overall flat architecture of the style and height of the AC3 buildings, maybe a little bit bigger.
It's just not appealing to me.
The frontier was cool for hunting, but once you were finished with the side missions and all the "wilderness" and "mountain-climbing" the cities themselves were not really impressive, even if beautiful from an art and landscape POV.


A combo of AC3 and Freedom Cry?! Whats wrong with that?

A lot for me personally.

Not much social stealth, no good parkour (due to architecture and city structure), very rural building styles (mixed with some manors and neoclassical buildings), wide streets, another ground war, lots of rural areas with small villages and cities, no building height.

I mean sure the theme is interesting, but it needs more than a single theme to hold a game. You need the fitting story, you need the requirements for gameplay or find a way to compensate for the lack of certain gameplay elements, need to find something to fill the world with, etc.

It just doesn't seem right for me, especially if it is SO close to AC4 and AC3 which we JUST RECENTLY had.
There are more interesting settings to explore before that.

I'm not saying "no, make that never". I'm just saying please not at the moment.

MasterAssasin84
06-18-2014, 11:58 PM
Please, no more US. Blandest setting ever.

Can you Elaborate on Bland as we have only seen Boston New York and the North American Frontier during the Revolutionary period !

The US is a big place dude .

BabyKobes
06-19-2014, 12:01 AM
If they were going to do the Civil War they could add in history's first first duel between ironclad warships, The Monitor and The Merrimackhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/MonitorMerrimac.jpg

Matknapers18
06-19-2014, 12:19 AM
Can you Elaborate on Bland as we have only seen Boston New York and the North American Frontier during the Revolutionary period !

The US is a big place dude .

I think, what he means is that, going back to the US isn't really going to take the franchise anywhere. Assassins creed is all about exploring history and, let's all be honest, the US has minimal history. If im visiting USA I want to climb famous, tall, landmarks like the white house or statue of liberty. Not the local chapel. And with the negative response to AC3, another game set in America is just going to be negative advertising. I know that, personally, I want to explore the world in AC games. Going to a different American state isn't really doing that. Sure, AC brotherhood simply changed city, but that was different. It had to be done in order to develop Ezio's storyline. Going back to USA is ridiculous and I'm certain that it won't happen.

LatinaC09
06-19-2014, 01:16 AM
Sorry for the confusion. I really didn't intend for that to be targeted specifically tward you. I was venting my irritation with European hypocrites on here who claim AC3 and AC4 are practically the same setting and say theres been too much America lol. and others complained about guns. I was only addressing all those things while using your post as an example. and others have suggested 1920s America as well. I was just pointing out that there are a lot of issues that make that period borderline impossible for AC. Nothing personal. Sorry if I came across wrong. I was just responding to multiple issues at once with that. Probably should have multi quoted. Sorry!

It's cool! I kind of misinterpreted what you said as well. Sorry! And I don't understand the people who say that the locations for AC3 and AC4 are the same lol. I live in Ohio (borders Pennsylvania) and if that's the same thing as Florida, Cuba and Jamaica please tell them to quit hogging all of the sun, palm trees and sandy beaches! ;)

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 01:20 AM
I think, what he means is that, going back to the US isn't really going to take the franchise anywhere. Assassins creed is all about exploring history and, let's all be honest, the US has minimal history. If im visiting USA I want to climb famous, tall, landmarks like the white house or statue of liberty. Not the local chapel. And with the negative response to AC3, another game set in America is just going to be negative advertising. I know that, personally, I want to explore the world in AC games. Going to a different American state isn't really doing that. Sure, AC brotherhood simply changed city, but that was different. It had to be done in order to develop Ezio's storyline. Going back to USA is ridiculous and I'm certain that it won't happen.

Well in all fairness AC3 was set soooooo early in America's history that it is nowhere near fair to say that seeing primitive colonial America is all that it has to offer. I mean in AC3 the only serious landmark of the entire game is the Old North Church in Boston which is still fairly famous today everything else is admittedly blah.

But as far as landmarks. By The American Civil War there were several built or in construction. For example the White house would be fully explorable inside and out in the 1860s, same for the US capitol building(even cooler because the dome was under construction until 1863). Theres also Arlington House(the main building of Arlington National Cemetery, and the Washington Monument was about half finished during the Civil War. So there would be several landmarks to scale in a Civil War AC. Washington DC of course having the most iconic of them.

Not to mention that in the nearly 100 years between the Revolution and the Civil War the population spiked at an immense rate. Partially due to Europe blowing itself up during the Napoleonic Wars and Wars in Germany and Italy over Unification along with the Irish just trying to escape the British. By the 1850s and 60s the small import driven port cities we see in AC3 had boomed in population, architecture, and became massive industrial centers. And began to be surpassed by more industrial cities nearer to railroads or natural resources such as Pittsburgh or Baltimore.

A game set there would be very different from AC3 if anyone from Europe would care to take the time to research the period.

And to say there isn't much history in the US you must either be a fool or incredibly uninformed. Theres only The Revolution, War of 1812, The trail of Tears and Indian conflicts, The Civil War(which is the deadliest conflict of the Western Hemisphere, and was deadlier than America's Losses in both world Wars), Mexican War, Spanish American War, The Wild West, The Great American Industrialists that allowed us to surpass Europe at just about every kind of manufacturing and living standards and just about everything else. We crammed so much history into our nation in 200 years we managed to go from a nothing colony that you see in AC3 to a world superpower by the turn of the 20th century.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 01:34 AM
It's cool! I kind of misinterpreted what you said as well. Sorry! And I don't understand the people who say that the locations for AC3 and AC4 are the same lol. I live in Ohio (borders Pennsylvania) and if that's the same thing as Florida, Cuba and Jamaica please tell them to quit hogging all of the sun, palm trees and sandy beaches! ;)

Hey its cool. I'm actually from Pennsylvania! Havent been to Ohio though. Farthest west Ive been is Pittsburgh. And I know right! If PA and Ohio are the same thing as Havana I suppose I better just walk down to my nearest beautiful tropical beach and sit under a palm tree and drink margaritas......oh wait.......that'd be one hell of a long walk lol.

I cant help but laugh at these Euros who get mad because other people lump together Europe as one big thing, but then turn around and act like both continents of North and South America are all the same thing as the US. Or that they seem to think America is desolate or all trees in every time period just because the only thing they've ever seen represent us is either the barren landscapes of the 1700s or NY or LA in modern day GTA games. lol its rather funny. They act like theres no in between. like we just suddenly became huge in the 1920s or 40s or something lol. We had some pretty big cities in the 1860s and competed pretty close in many markets with Europe back in those days. But theyre too busy smelling their own farts and saying it smells like roses to look in to the matter. Theyre only argument they keep falling back on is "AC3 tho....." or the totally false "but they already did Murica twice.....". Yet we are supposed to suffer Euopeans for 3 straight games, plus Unity in Paris, plus the fact that everyone in AC4 was from Europe. And we are the ones who have been over represented. HAHAHA

Rugterwyper32
06-19-2014, 02:03 AM
The US is indeed rather varied, being as big as it is, and then you have the rest of the continent which has enough to make you keep talking about variety. Even here in Guatemala, we're a small country yet you'll see jumps from relatively dry plains to huge mountains and volcanoes to the rainforest of Peten and then the coast which is closer to what was seen in AC4. And we're talking about a continent that has changed rather fast, the US being one of those cases.
I, for one, wouldn't mind a Civil War game there, it has potential. Or the other topic that had been discussed of the late 19th century with Chicago, San Francisco and St. Louis, I wouldn't be opposed to that either. For the time being I'd prefer jumping back in time for a few games to locations that have yet to be explored (eastern or southeastern Asia, I'd take either China or Cambodia/Vietnam for Asia, myself; and Africa, I'd roll for Portuguese Angola and/or Mozambique) but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to at all if they went there.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 02:06 AM
The Caribbean was a totally different setting from the Americas.

Time period honestly shouldn't matter either.

If it made you feel better we could go to Canada, home of the main Assassin's Creed devs.

I-Like-Pie45
06-19-2014, 02:12 AM
Meow say eh to that

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 02:38 AM
murican civeel wer would be cool i think

I like it

make the protoganist shoshonee

I-Like-Pie45
06-19-2014, 02:48 AM
You mean Shoshone

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 02:52 AM
yes that's what I meant

they're the last nation i played as in Civilization V

was great

I-Like-Pie45
06-19-2014, 02:57 AM
there could also be mexican revolution (anti-french ed) dlc 'if a Civil War game ever gets made

cause reasons

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 03:12 AM
there could also be mexican revolution (anti-french ed) dlc 'if a Civil War game ever gets made

cause reasons

That would actually be kind of cool IMO. Kind of the ultimate tie in between ACU AC4 and Liberation(which featured Mexico and touched on the issue of slavery(but did nothing about it)) I think it would be a fitting setting for a DLC campaign to tie all the last several games together. And would also show the more global implications of the Civil War like France seizing the opportunity to invade Mexico and install an Emperor.

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 03:17 AM
That would actually be kind of cool IMO. Kind of the ultimate tie in between ACU AC4 and Liberation(which featured Mexico and touched on the issue of slavery(but did nothing about it)) I think it would be a fitting setting for a DLC campaign to tie all the last several games together. And would also show the more global implications of the Civil War like France seizing the opportunity to invade Mexico and install an Emperor.

Somehow with all they've said so far, I think they want to forget about their last couple of games.

Lord knows I do.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 03:19 AM
I don't think it sounds like that at all.

Besides, AC3 and AC4 are pretty good games.

And a civil war game would be great!

Rugterwyper32
06-19-2014, 03:31 AM
That would actually be kind of cool IMO. Kind of the ultimate tie in between ACU AC4 and Liberation(which featured Mexico and touched on the issue of slavery(but did nothing about it)) I think it would be a fitting setting for a DLC campaign to tie all the last several games together. And would also show the more global implications of the Civil War like France seizing the opportunity to invade Mexico and install an Emperor.

Plus, you'd get some fantastic landmarks, and if we keep going the way Unity's going with lots of interiors, it'd certainly make for a good amount of content. You have locations such as...

Chapultepec Castle:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Castillo_de_Chapultepec_%28Museo_Nacional_de_Histo ria%29.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Escalier_entr%C3%A9e_ch%C3%A2teau_Chapultepec.jpg/1280px-Escalier_entr%C3%A9e_ch%C3%A2teau_Chapultepec.jpg



The Metropolitan Cathedral:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Catedral_de_M%C3%A9xico.jpg

http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac138/arquicolima/CATEDRAL%20MEXICO%20INT/2928418302_51cf714dda_b.jpg



And the National Palace:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Palacio_Nacional%2C_M%C3%A9xico_D.F.%2C_M%C3%A9xic o%2C_2013-10-16%2C_DD_119.JPG/1280px-Palacio_Nacional%2C_M%C3%A9xico_D.F.%2C_M%C3%A9xic o%2C_2013-10-16%2C_DD_119.JPG

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o190/Netito70/Mexico/BotanicalGardenoftheNationalPalace.jpg

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 03:34 AM
I don't think it sounds like that at all.

Besides, AC3 and AC4 are pretty good games.

And a civil war game would be great!

Debatable.

3 is ultra restrictive, ruins the parkour, over simplifies the already over simplified combat, kills the stealth once and for all and has a mere 6 targets to assassinate.

4 does nothing to fix the stealth or combat and only mildly improves the parkour by setting and has even less to do with assassins.

Then they come out with this "going back to the roots" "a fresh start"

It could very easily mean they'd rather forget those last two.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 03:35 AM
I don't think it sounds like that at all.

Besides, AC3 and AC4 are pretty good games.

And a civil war game would be great!
I have to agree. I mean ideally I would prefer to have an American Trilogy. With Connor and the Revolution. And then a Civil War game with its sequel set in the American West in the latter part of the 19th Century beginning with the aftermath of the Civil War and how. Tie in the Mexican Revolution with the American Civil War as a DLC and I would be a very happy man. All that would pretty much take care of the important events of North America all while each setting would feel entirely different.

The 1800s in Central Atlantic states during the Civil War, Mexico during its revolution against the French, and the Plains,Rockies,Deserts,Redwood Forests, and Modern Cities of the American West in the turn of the century. The shear variety of it makes me crave a series of games set there. Then I would never need another game set in North America as most of the good stuff/ seriously Major events in the regions history would have been covered.

But I realize that's a bit much to ask lol. And I would like to see some other settings too like India or Asia. I just REALLLLLLY REALLLLLY want the Civil War. Or at least the west.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 03:43 AM
Debatable.

3 is ultra restrictive, ruins the parkour, over simplifies the already over simplified combat, kills the stealth once and for all and has a mere 6 targets to assassinate.

4 does nothing to fix the stealth or combat and only mildly improves the parkour by setting and has even less to do with assassins.

Then they come out with this "going back to the roots" "a fresh start"

It could very easily mean they'd rather forget those last two.

I will say that AC3 was flawed, immensely, however I wouldn't say its a bad game or even the worst of the series for me anyway.(for me its probably Brotherhood it just feels like a chore on every play through). And 4 while not having you play as an Assassin the entire time it is more about finding your own creed and showing the flaws of the different sides. So while considered by many not a "true" AC game it was incredibly fun and very open to play. I felt very free playing it myself. It was a kind of 18th century pirate GTA lol. But it did ultimately tie in with the AC series and was overall a fairly satisfying experience IMO.

Now with the seeming reboot and back to the roots mentality I think ACU is going to be incredible! And a new start for the series could just as much mean a new start in north America in a different century! I mean where would you ever have to be more stealthy than trying to smuggle slaves to freedom?(and not a half assed kill all the overseers like Freedom Cry. That's not how the Civil War would have been nor would that be representative of what a Civil War AC would be like)

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 03:51 AM
Debatable.

3 is ultra restrictive, ruins the parkour, over simplifies the already over simplified combat, kills the stealth once and for all and has a mere 6 targets to assassinate.

4 does nothing to fix the stealth or combat and only mildly improves the parkour by setting and has even less to do with assassins.

Then they come out with this "going back to the roots" "a fresh start"

It could very easily mean they'd rather forget those last two.

AC3 actually pushed forward the stealth a lot.. so I don't understand that complaint.

If they want to forget AC4 and AC3 then why do they still talk about them? Especially when they compare the size of Unity's map to Black Flag.

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 03:52 AM
I will say that AC3 was flawed, immensely, however I wouldn't say its a bad game or even the worst of the series for me anyway.(for me its probably Brotherhood it just feels like a chore on every play through). And 4 while not having you play as an Assassin the entire time it is more about finding your own creed and showing the flaws of the different sides. So while considered by many not a "true" AC game it was incredibly fun and very open to play. I felt very free playing it myself. It was a kind of 18th century pirate GTA lol. But it did ultimately tie in with the AC series and was overall a fairly satisfying experience IMO.

Now with the seeming reboot and back to the roots mentality I think ACU is going to be incredible! And a new start for the series could just as much mean a new start in north America in a different century! I mean where would you ever have to be more stealthy than trying to smuggle slaves to freedom?(and not a half assed kill all the overseers like Freedom Cry. That's not how the Civil War would have been nor would that be representative of what a Civil War AC would be like)

It's all subjective of course.

When I first started AC my first annoyance was with the parkour, it really pissed me off how they simplified it even more, now there was no option to not climb a wall since they removed jogging, then on top of that they added tackling into that button. So now you either walk horribly slow or you run ultra fast throughout the games.

Then they had those x-ray vision guards that made it impossible to enjoy the roof tops or hide after you were seen.

THEN they changed the combat buttons unnecessarily and gave you a window of time after pressing the parry button long enough to make a sandwich, come back and still be able to choose counter, throw, or disarm.

Then they just added those invulnerable enemies to make a false difficulty which really wasn't difficult just more time consuming.

They just butchered everything imo... to this day I'm still disgusted with it.

AC4 was merely disappointing, the animations in combat were hideously choppy and unimaginative, the variety in combat was at an all time low, here's your double swords or your double knives in combat, there you go buddy enjoy your TWO meele weapon types. The sailing was overdone, the stealth was even worse and most of the islands were pointless only playing host to a few useless animals or treasure chests with a mere pittance of 200 reales within.

Neither of them pleased me, AC4 did very little to make up for the flaws of 3, it just covered them up in other distractions to try to take your mind off of it but I HATED the gameplay of 3 and 4's was worse in some cases... The ONLY time I enjoyed it a little bit were the little dungeons that reminded me of the tombs or the original assassination missions from AC1.

Personally I'd like to forget they existed and I'm hoping that Unity gives me a reason to forget the atrocities they committed.

pirate1802
06-19-2014, 03:56 AM
4 does nothing to fix the stealth or combat and only mildly improves the parkour by setting and has even less to do with assassins.

That's debatable as well. :p I'd write a longass essay on how AC4 has definitely to do with Assassins (moreso than AC2 and its ilk) but this probably isn't the place. AC4 did a lot to repair the broken faith in the series after AC3. It's okay to like/not like a game, but at the same time we should be objective about the general reception of the game. Like I wasn't even that unhappy with AC3 but I'd be lying if I say the general fanbase wasn't super disappointed with it. AC4 has among the best mission design in the series. And while stealth has it's issues it's functional, unlike some other recent AC games.


Then they come out with this "going back to the roots" "a fresh start"

It could very easily mean they'd rather forget those last two.

Or it could mean they look to provide a more traditional experience. Tomb Raider has an upcoming game out that looks like old-school. By this logic I'd say they want to forget about the reboot. But they aren't. Either way both of those games sold handsomely and most of the fans and critics praised AC IV atleast, so don't see why they'd want to forget them.


If they want to forget AC4 and AC3 then why do they still talk about them? Especially when they compare the size of Unity's map to Black Flag.

And why is Edward still staring at us from the background? :p

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 04:02 AM
@Sheseenku You do know you still can jog in the AC3 and 4 games by controlling the amount of pressure on the trigger of the controller. Unless of course you play on PC which sucks for you because these games were designed with console controls in mind lol. If that's the case I suggest using a controller with the PC or switching to a console.

As for the combat and psychic enemies. Like I said the game was flawed but it didn't completely destroy the experience for me. I have noticed a lot of the severe haters are PC gamers. Which may have something to do with it since they kind of design these games for consoles now adays.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 04:05 AM
Plus, you'd get some fantastic landmarks, and if we keep going the way Unity's going with lots of interiors, it'd certainly make for a good amount of content. You have locations such as...

Chapultepec Castle:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Castillo_de_Chapultepec_%28Museo_Nacional_de_Histo ria%29.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Escalier_entr%C3%A9e_ch%C3%A2teau_Chapultepec.jpg/1280px-Escalier_entr%C3%A9e_ch%C3%A2teau_Chapultepec.jpg



The Metropolitan Cathedral:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Catedral_de_M%C3%A9xico.jpg

http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac138/arquicolima/CATEDRAL%20MEXICO%20INT/2928418302_51cf714dda_b.jpg



And the National Palace:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Palacio_Nacional%2C_M%C3%A9xico_D.F.%2C_M%C3%A9xic o%2C_2013-10-16%2C_DD_119.JPG/1280px-Palacio_Nacional%2C_M%C3%A9xico_D.F.%2C_M%C3%A9xic o%2C_2013-10-16%2C_DD_119.JPG

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o190/Netito70/Mexico/BotanicalGardenoftheNationalPalace.jpg



Rugterwyper.......this just clinched it for me. I now DEFINATELY want an American Civil War game with a DLC about the Mexicans fighting off the French while America was a wee bit tied up with things lol.

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 04:10 AM
That's debatable as well. :p I'd write a longass essay on how AC4 has definitely to do with Assassins (moreso than AC2 and its ilk) but this probably isn't the place. AC4 did a lot to repair the broken faith in the series after AC3. It's okay to like/not like a game, but at the same time we should be objective about the general reception of the game. Like I wasn't even that unhappy with AC3 but I'd be lying if I say the general fanbase wasn't super disappointed with it. AC4 has among the best mission design in the series. And while stealth has it's issues it's functional, unlike some other recent AC games.

I did say at the absolute top of my post that it's all subjective.


Or it could mean they look to provide a more traditional experience. Tomb Raider has an upcoming game out that looks like old-school. By this logic I'd say they want to forget about the reboot. But they aren't. Either way both of those games sold handsomely and most of the fans and critics praised AC IV atleast, so don't see why they'd want to forget them.

Yours is possible and mine is also possible.


And why is Edward still staring at us from the background? :p

Ubisoft needs to move their *** and put a Unity background, tired of looking at Edward already ;P


@Sheseenku You do know you still can jog in the AC3 and 4 games by controlling the amount of pressure on the trigger of the controller. Unless of course you play on PC which sucks for you because these games were designed with console controls in mind lol. If that's the case I suggest using a controller with the PC or switching to a console.

Uh no... it doesn't suck for PC players they can just buy a gamepad and I have one. You can't keep that exact pressure when you turn though so inevitably you end up speeding up faster when you turn until you adjust, it's not the same.


As for the combat and psychic enemies. Like I said the game was flawed but it didn't completely destroy the experience for me. I have noticed a lot of the severe haters are PC gamers. Which may have something to do with it since they kind of design these games for consoles now adays.

Why does it have to do with the fact I'm a PC gamer? I started this series on PS3, I played both 1 and 2 on PS3 first and PC later. I just think it's an atrocity that ruins all the features that the previous games built up. Its annoying as **** restrictions and other ********... AC4 did well because it capitalized on the failure of 3 by providing more freedom and because it added Pirates which obviously attracted all those people complaining about pirate games being ****ty. Being better than 3 isn't enough for me.

It really did ruin my experience, especially sequence 12 it was awful... I can't tell you how many times I failed the stupid HMS Jersey mission because some NPC somehow saw through the wood of the ship and caused desync... Then the stupid final mission where you chase Charles Lee.. it expects you to know what path to take and how to get to the path.. the game goes from restrictive and hand holding to telling you NOTHING.

It's better now after some patches but the game is still lackluster imo.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 04:23 AM
Uh no... it doesn't suck for PC players they can just buy a gamepad and I have one. You can't keep that exact pressure when you turn though so inevitably you end up speeding up faster when you turn until you adjust, it's not the same.

Why does it have to do with the fact I'm a PC gamer? I started this series on PS3, I played both 1 and 2 on PS3 first and PC later. I just think it's an atrocity that ruins all the features that the previous games built up. Its annoying as **** restrictions and other ********... AC4 did well because it capitalized on the failure of 3 by providing more freedom and because it added Pirates which obviously attracted all those people complaining about pirate games being ****ty. Being better than 3 isn't enough for me.

It really did ruin my experience, especially sequence 12 it was awful... I can't tell you how many times I failed the stupid HMS Jersey mission because some NPC somehow saw through the wood of the ship and caused desync... Then the stupid final mission where you chase Charles Lee.. it expects you to know what path to take and how to get to the path.. the game goes from restrictive and hand holding to telling you NOTHING.

It's better now after some patches but the game is still lackluster imo.

Hmmmm that is strange. I play AC3 on an xbox360 and I never have the issue of speeding up unwantedly. If anything I slow down unwantedly because I forget i need to pull the trigger all the way down for a dead sprint. Ive never had the issue with an xbox controller. That's odd. Idk i really cant help you there besides suggesting you try it on xbox. I must say i never really cared for PS controllers very much i don't find them comfortable or the trigger layouts....personal preference really just never got to like it. Always bothered me.

As for the HMS Jersey mission and psychic guards. I thought they put out some patches for that. Now when i replay i make it through the Jersey mission with no problems(it was a pain in the *** for me two when the game was new). They guards in the regular city are still a bit too sensitive, but it definitely has been improved IMO. But i guess its all fairly subjective.

Just thought id offer some suggestions for a better experience with the game is all. Didn't mean to offend about the PC player thing. Its just that i usually hear issues with run speeds or dropping down to hang over a ledge from PC players and not console. Didn't mean it to be insulting. I just think its a fundamental issue because it was intended for consoles. And I feel like with the new generation of consoles and how incredible they seem that the golden age of PC gaming may be coming to a close not far down the road.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 04:33 AM
I play on PC but I use a controller for AC games now that I have one.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 04:41 AM
Just thought id offer some suggestions for a better experience with the game is all. Didn't mean to offend about the PC player thing. Its just that i usually hear issues with run speeds or dropping down to hang over a ledge from PC players and not console. Didn't mean it to be insulting. I just think its a fundamental issue because it was intended for consoles. And I feel like with the new generation of consoles and how incredible they seem that the golden age of PC gaming may be coming to a close not far down the road.

There is no golden age of PC gaming...

With every console generation games take a leap up on both consoles and PC because with the new generation setting a new hardware standard, games can push themselves more and more in the technical department. Near the end of every console generation the technical prowess of games start to plateau and that includes PC games. Once the next generation of consoles arrive the games start to become bigger and better again.

PC games are generally better in a technical aspect because PC players aren't held to specific hardware that they can't upgrade . So thus PC games generally have extra graphical options that make them look better that can be used by better hardware.

There is no "golden age" because this will always be the case as long as consoles don't allow you to upgrade them.

I-Like-Pie45
06-19-2014, 04:49 AM
who cares if its a golden age or not or if one thing looks prettier than the other

games sud be fun

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 04:54 AM
There is no golden age of PC gaming...

With every console generation games take a leap up on both consoles and PC because with the new generation setting a new hardware standard, games can push themselves more and more in the technical department. Near the end of every console generation the technical prowess of games start to plateau and that includes PC games. Once the next generation of consoles arrive the games start to become bigger and better again.

PC games are generally better in a technical aspect because PC players aren't held to specific hardware that they can't upgrade . So thus PC games generally have extra graphical options that make them look better that can be used by better hardware.

There is no "golden age" because this will always be the case as long as consoles don't allow you to upgrade them.

Yeah I see what you mean. I probably should have phrased that differently. What I mean is that consoles are getting to a point where they look so damn good and realistic that PCs primary advantage(higher quality visuals) is beginning to lose its potency. Once re reach a certain point we won't be able to the the difference between the PC version or the Console version with the human eye within another generation or two. What will eventually happen is people will begin to drop PC gaming for the simpler, easer to move and set up, more comfortable, and cheaper, consoles eventually. Not now of course but when there starts to be a negligible difference between PC and Console visuals. Could be 15 years from now or 40. I can't tell from here. Just a prediction tho. Could be wrong could be right. Can't really tell unless we both remember this discussion and check back on here in 40 years lol

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 04:58 AM
who cares if its a golden age or not or if one thing looks prettier than the other

games sud be fun
I have to agree with this pie. Sure PC looks prettier. But with having to buy a rig that costs out the nose and suffering the technical difficulties of playing a console game that isn't adapted properly for PC gaming and such would be far more of a headache than looking at a slightly crappier picture. Id rather have a simple comfortable control scheme and interface and just have fun playing my games smoothly on the platforms they were designed for than worry about things looking super mega HD. Just my prioreties I guess. To each his own just a matter of preference.

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 04:59 AM
Hmmmm that is strange. I play AC3 on an xbox360 and I never have the issue of speeding up unwantedly. If anything I slow down unwantedly because I forget i need to pull the trigger all the way down for a dead sprint. Ive never had the issue with an xbox controller. That's odd. Idk i really cant help you there besides suggesting you try it on xbox. I must say i never really cared for PS controllers very much i don't find them comfortable or the trigger layouts....personal preference really just never got to like it. Always bothered me.

As for the HMS Jersey mission and psychic guards. I thought they put out some patches for that. Now when i replay i make it through the Jersey mission with no problems(it was a pain in the *** for me two when the game was new). They guards in the regular city are still a bit too sensitive, but it definitely has been improved IMO. But i guess its all fairly subjective.

Just thought id offer some suggestions for a better experience with the game is all. Didn't mean to offend about the PC player thing. Its just that i usually hear issues with run speeds or dropping down to hang over a ledge from PC players and not console. Didn't mean it to be insulting. I just think its a fundamental issue because it was intended for consoles. And I feel like with the new generation of consoles and how incredible they seem that the golden age of PC gaming may be coming to a close not far down the road.

The trigger... No no no, the analog stick. I've always used PS controller layouts, the stick being at the top left is foreign to me, I can use both just fine though. The analog stick is the problem.

I did say the game is better after patches.

The golden age of PC gaming ending? If there was a golden age it was probably during the 80's or 90's, consoles have been more common after that.

That said what you say is unlikely. A console will never be able to match a top of the line PC and still be affordable, there's really only 3 main reasons to buy a console over PC

-> Way cheaper

-> Easier

-> Exclusives

The most expensive upcoming GPU's will have 10 full gb's of VRAM for example, 6 more GB's than what the PS4 devotes as VRAM. Obviously the gpu alone costs 3-4 times as much as a PS4.

Not saying the PS4 is **** but if you mean the consoles seem great because of graphics PC has always been capable of graphics like Unity. If you mean because of games then it's just as doubtful. PS2 was friggin amazing with a ridiculously robust game library but that didn't mean people never played on their PC's.

As long as PC has it's own advantages

-> Better Graphics

-> Better Frame Rate

-> Upgradeable

-> Fully customizable

the age of PC will not close. It has it's market and console has it's market. Just like consoles have their market and tablets have their market.

Syler99
06-19-2014, 05:17 AM
Yes I'd like a civil war setting but with a fem hero instead its alot more interesting for starters.

But if Ubi wanted to also implement the first choose your gender hero and either A) split the SP campaign into two ways based off your choice aka witcher 2 style or B) they split in story occurs because you made a few choices like the wither 2 actually does so in wouldn't matter if your female or male you could say join the Templar (Roache's quest) or the assassins ( elf quest).or C) the choice is made via the hero you pick aka female is always Assassin and male is always Templar by default.

The war itself isn't a states rights issue as its seen by most or a free the slaves war by others what it is is a large scale turff battle over the US being that templars are order and assassins are chaos North is Templar along with Lincoln and South is assassin along with Booth. Many civilians are just pawns on the chess board and you begin as one of them. The war is essentially which fraction gets to rule the US because it can't be both of them. The tempars obvioiusly win this fight because this war also sets up one of the last wars that can be done to establish the modern day Templar rule.

For a selectable hero it can be done in three ways:

First method

1. If its done by choosing a gender as non realatives the fem hero would as an easter egg enlist under the unpicked male hero's name (if they're unrelated to each other). She wouldn't be limited by occupation as women concealed their gender in all aspects mounted Calvary, snipers, explosive experts both cannon and tnt, infantry, and message running, ect Its only a matter of how much ubi wants to limit itself. Ether gender will have a side they start on (ubi picks or makes the game randomly do so) you start the game either a few months into war already being underway or two years into it both enlist because patriotism to their side. They play a battle for training then one (or more if ubi wants to get a the player noticed by both sides of the order fight) he/she gets shot in the chest if male it serious enough the doctor says he will be discharged for a recovery if a woman she's found out and the doctor states he will inform her Commander and she will be discharged dishonorably in both cases a templar (if you're North) or an assasins (for south) will stop the discharge in the woman's case a bribe or murder of the doctor. You're informed that the order has watched your progress and this person will now be taken you to them tonight. Being injured you're hidden in a wagon and transported to the order's house where you will recover and learn more moves specific to your house's fighting style. You will fight several missions for them then encounter the other side and be offered to join them the player gets to pick which house to be under and from this point is where the SP campaign will split for a mission or two then converge in battles (Gettysburg, Shilo, ect) that will suit the story or events (specific assasins of generals or Lincon) that both sides share.

2. If its done by choosing a gender and they are related they would be something like brother and sister who where orphened due to the war and don't want to separate or husband and wife. She will enlist as the male hero's brother reguardless of if you pick her as your PC or not. The same happens as method one you learn a war trade (horse riding, cannon shooting, sabatoge, ect) get shot in the chest saved/kidnaped by the order of your side and later get to actually pick which side you will fight for.

Second method

3. You start like above for either related or not. I imagine the choice of which side to offical be apart of would come through injury. Your unit is eventually over taken by the enemy you and your captain retreat he is badly injured you take them into some shelter and hold off/defeat the enemy chasing you. After the battle you come to relize not only is it you and your injured captain but an enemy captain or other high rank is also in there with you! Both are in states that require you to help them fast. The man on your side is part of one order (but didn't tell you) the enemy is also part of the other order but is offering you some great perks for the aid while your captain is telling you to just kill them. If you take the time to aid one the other will die from blood loss or shock (as each one's inujury is different) helping your enemy will lead you to have to also help him to a nearby unit of his order who will take you with them to the offical way point where you will be allowed to join them. If you help your man you will need to get him to a unit where he will tell you to go to a location and will give you something to take on is behalf you do so and become an offical member of your sides order.

Third method

3. If its strictly tied to which gender you pick then thats what it is. The unused gender still goes off and joins their respective side then in pre-determined story convergances either by event or battle then the two will meet as they fight for each order's ideals betraying a family bond (if they are indeed that) as they go changing each character in their own ways.

On a side note for scenerio 3 I think it would be awesome if the hero taged as assassin becomes Booth and kills Lincon (as I said he's the order and Templar of the story) to try to give what he/she thinks is the an advantage to the assasin order (as the real booth thought he was doing for the South) the hero tagged as templar is either on gaurd duy at the opera house or is on a seperate mission on Lincon's orders to deal with a high up assassin regaurdless of which scenerio this hero will become part of the groups looking for the assassin in the days after the assassination, but ubi can rewrite does the player die (if they picked the hero tied to assassin order ) or do they kill the unsued hero (as the player in this case picked a templar tied hero) How the modern day will explain this to our modern selves would be becasue our assassin tied hero or unused hero signed up under the alisis during the war or for the contract post war of Jhon W.B. and the templars simply made up what the W and the B were and because booth "died in a fire" there was no need to produce a body. The whole died in the fire bit covers both cases of if ubi wants to kill or not the player/unused hero ie the templars just said he/she died regurdless of if in reality. The templars said this to calm the nation down letting them rule it faster.

For a female only lead

Its very similar to the pair above but she will actually have more of a persona from the start. Her past life could be anything but if she's actually doing something against culture from the start ("male" dock worker, "male" miner, "male" insert profession) it already establishes she's been living outside the culture box for years already so joining up as a man for the war with way better pay isn't going to just pass her by. Ubi decides what job she'll have this job will allow players to like before learn things like cannons, horse riding, or any other special features they'd like to have the game have. Going through a battle or two then suffering a shot to the chest or shoulder will again have her ousted and saved by either the order she will be in the entire game under or if its a player choice flex thing (aka TW2 style) then again its save/kidnaped by order and later player can stay or turncoat on them.

One thing ubi will have to hash out is how did the North get to be Templars and the South assassins? Because aren't the assassins all for freedom and such? Well they're also chaos they just keep killing and destabilizing regions too. I'd say the reason why the South goes to the assassins yet you can also have slavery and lack of freedom is because the assassins aren't in the lawmaking community they're weak but do have friends and connections they at least convinced some states to go along with the split not cuz we want slaves but because the pressure of the templars is too great we can't fight alone and can only really band our limited power together if we're one slice of the pie using the men who want to wage war as our backers to build ourselves up to take on the templars. Basically they're using whatever they need to to try and fight off their templar enemies who're wining the behind the scenes war.

The templars on the other hand keep showing up as the law bringers the glue in the seems of the world we're in so they're a more natural fit for the North as it was starting the war to get order back more or less.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 05:34 AM
I believe it's already been confirmed that Booth was a Templar am I right or wrong on that? I thought Lincoln worked with the Assassins? Also I would see no reason the Assassins would want to uphold slavery lol. That's absurd. And btw the Civil War was NEVER a states rights issue or a control/secession issue lol. That's an invention created by southern history revisionists and was never even a thing until the 1890s or something like that. Look it up. It was the souths way to not sound so disgusting. If it was about states rights what state right were they trying to protect? The right to have slaves. The right to OWN anther human being. Yes what a noble cause indeed lol :rolleyes:

Not to mention that to say the North was about Control and the South about Chaos/Liberty or whatever word you used is not only disgustingly inaccurate and ironic considering the south was partaking in the most literal form of control a person can pursue, but it is also an incredibly oversimplified view of what the war was all about.

I would assume you have to either be foreign or from the south to come up with nonsense like that lol. I suggest you look into the civil war a bit deeper.

As for the female protagonist/brother sister/husband wife or whatever. I really don't care what sex or race the character would be. However I do feel it would make a bigger impact on the protags personal life if they were an African American. But any race or sex would be fine with me.

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 05:36 AM
Yes I'd like a civil war setting but with a fem hero instead its alot more interesting for starters.

But if Ubi wanted to also implement the first choose your gender hero and either A) split the SP campaign into two ways based off your choice aka witcher 2 style or B) they split in story occurs because you made a few choices like the wither 2 actually does so in wouldn't matter if your female or male you could say join the Templar (Roache's quest) or the assassins ( elf quest).or C) the choice is made via the hero you pick aka female is always Assassin and male is always Templar by default.

The war itself isn't a states rights issue as its seen by most or a free the slaves war by others what it is is a large scale turff battle over the US being that templars are order and assassins are chaos North is Templar along with Lincoln and South is assassin along with Booth. Many civilians are just pawns on the chess board and you begin as one of them. The war is essentially which fraction gets to rule the US because it can't be both of them. The tempars obvioiusly win this fight because this war also sets up one of the last wars that can be done to establish the modern day Templar rule.

Wait wait wait wait wait...

So you're telling me, the Templars who seek to control wills are against slavery?

Whut nao?

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 05:43 AM
[/SIZE]Wait wait wait wait wait...

So you're telling me, the Templars who seek to control wills are against slavery?

Whut nao?

Hahaha I know right?! This person is either trolling or they're the most horribly misinformed person in the world. They obviously have no idea what the civil war was about. And if they think they do they probably heard it from a southern high school teacher that insists the south won or their family member who learned all about it at their clan meeting lol

pirate1802
06-19-2014, 05:45 AM
Didn't the Grandmaster in AC IV give Rodgers a nice one regarding slavery? And wasn't Rodgers eventually expelled from the Order for his insistence on keeping slaves?

BoBwUzHeRe1138
06-19-2014, 05:49 AM
I would be down for a Civil War Assassin comic.

I think for the games, they need to make sure the established gameplay would work. My biggest gripe about AC3 were the cities, neither looking TOO difference from one another (there were differences of course), and just too....blah. The frontier was interesting for a brief time but also got boring quick. A game set during the 1800s would just be... no.

That said.. Other avenues such as comics, books, even animated short films are the perfect avenue for locations and settings that would just be bland for an AC GAME. For instance...a a WWII AC comic would probably be cool. A WIII AC game? Yeah, no thanks.

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 05:49 AM
Hahaha I know right?! This person is either trolling or they're the most horribly misinformed person in the world. They obviously have no idea what the civil war was about. And if they think they do they probably heard it from a southern high school teacher that insists the south won or their family member who learned all about it at their clan meeting lol

Has a terrible grasp on the Templars and Assassins, he apparently doesn't know that the assassins have political power and have officials.. The Templars have power but before the MD they never really had a ton more than the Assassins.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 05:50 AM
Didn't the Grandmaster in AC IV give Rodgers a nice one regarding slavery? And wasn't Rodgers eventually expelled from the Order for his insistence on keeping slaves?

I thought it was Laurens Prinz who he criticized for slave trading. And idk if Rogers was even removed from the Oder was he? I know he was removed from his post as Governor of Jamaica. But that was historically accurate for debt reasons or something like that. And the King had him recalled. If anything I'm AC4 he seemed like Torres's right hand man. He was the one who as to get the blood samples from the British parliament.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 05:57 AM
I would be down for a Civil War Assassin comic.

I think for the games, they need to make sure the established gameplay would work. My biggest gripe about AC3 were the cities, neither looking TOO difference from one another (there were differences of course), and just too....blah. The frontier was interesting for a brief time but also got boring quick. A game set during the 1800s would just be... no.

That said.. Other avenues such as comics, books, even animated short films are the perfect avenue for locations and settings that would just be bland for an AC GAME. For instance...a a WWII AC comic would probably be cool. A WIII AC game? Yeah, no thanks.
As I have shown and discussed many times the cities do not look the same as AC3. The frontier would be different. And there would be added fun stuff like trains or steam ships. And no weapons technology did not advance that far by the Civil War. The standard weapon was still a rifled musket. The combat and effect of guns on gameplay wouldn't be any different from what we've seen already in AC games. Sure the Gatling gun and repeating rifles were invented during the war. But hardly saw any combat and to say they would be an issue to work around is a HUGE stretch.

Simply put America circa 1860 is not like America circa 1770. There's a lot of change and time in between.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 05:57 AM
I actually think that the Templars would be against slavery.I don't think that the Templars are so clear out "we want to control peoples' minds" rather they seek to manipulate them in general, not necessarily by literal mind control. Although it certainly seems like that's the way Abstergo was going with the Apple and the satellite launch..

pirate1802
06-19-2014, 06:02 AM
I thought it was Laurens Prinz who he criticized for slave trading. And idk if Rogers was even removed from the Oder was he? I know he was removed from his post as Governor of Jamaica. But that was historically accurate for debt reasons or something like that. And the King had him recalled. If anything I'm AC4 he seemed like Torres's right hand man. He was the one who as to get the blood samples from the British parliament.

"Eventually, for his continued trading in slaves and his hot temper, Woodes was expelled from the Templar Order and, by 1723, languished in a debtor's prison"
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Woodes_Rogers

Torres admonishes Rogers during the mission "Imagine my surprise". He calls it a despicable practice and reasons as such: Control people's bodies and their minds will rebel. Control people's minds and they will remain bound forever.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 06:03 AM
As I have shown and discussed many times the cities do not look the same as AC3. The frontier would be different. And there would be added fun stuff like trains or steam ships. And no weapons technology did not advance that far by the Civil War. The standard weapon was still a rifled musket. The combat and effect of guns on gameplay wouldn't be any different from what we've seen already in AC games. Sure the Gatling gun and repeating rifles were invented during the war. But hardly saw any combat and to say they would be an issue to work around is a HUGE stretch.

Simply put America circa 1860 is not like America circa 1770. There's a lot of change and time in between.

I think that the muskets we've seen in AC3 and AC4 already mostly control similarly to civil war era rifles in terms of reloading speeds. As far as I'm aware, they were still single shot as well.

Honestly, an American Civil War AC game would be awesome. Trains and steam ships would be awesome as well.

I'm a person that actually really liked Boston and New York as cities, but if you included them in a Civil War game they would look tons different.

Bmark, what kind of protagonist would you want for the game? I'm particularly fond of Native American choices, and I was thinking that a Shoshone protagonist (possibly female) that was being beaten by some colonials but was saved by the Assassins and then trained would be particularly neat, but I'm not sure if that would go with a Civil War story well, plus there's the whole fact they already did the "Native American taking part in a historical, well documented, American War."

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 06:03 AM
I actually think that the Templars would be against slavery.I don't think that the Templars are so clear out "we want to control peoples' minds" rather they seek to manipulate them in general, not necessarily by literal mind control. Although it certainly seems like that's the way Abstergo was going with the Apple and the satellite launch..

You just said it yourself. Obviously they aren't against it because they attempted to implement it lol. And on top of that if a large number of people are already in bondage that's one more group they don't have to even worry about manipulating into they're control. As they already would be under control. So while I don't think the Templars would support slavery I do think they would tolerate it as it suits their purpose. Thus Lee is a perfect Templar as I don't recall if he owned slaves or not but I believe I read somewhere he was indifferent to the slave issue and only fought for the south because his home state of Virginia joined the Confederacy.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 06:08 AM
Head templar in Liberation helped free slaves.

I would actually think it would be cool if both the Assassins and the Templars were on the side of the North and that it's basically a fight of over who gets to control America. Actually the Templars would probably have agents on both sides, just like always.

But as I said, there have been examples of templar leadership being against slavery. Templars aren't evil, just like Assassins aren't good.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 06:09 AM
"Eventually, for his continued trading in slaves and his hot temper, Woodes was expelled from the Templar Order and, by 1723, languished in a debtor's prison"
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Woodes_Rogers

Ah. I see. Well apparently the Templars are against trading slaves. But nowhere does it say they don't tolerate it. Even Torres was cooperating with Woodes and Prins. He would speak out here or there about how he thought it was wrong but didn't do anything about it. Hell he was dead when Rogers was kicked out.
So if he was willing to let it slide why couldn't a southern Templar order let it slide also seeing as it would suit their needs.

I-Like-Pie45
06-19-2014, 06:10 AM
what if Lincoln was a Templar

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 06:14 AM
what if Lincoln was a Templar

Wouldn't be shocking. Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he believed it was right, he just wanted peace.

pirate1802
06-19-2014, 06:16 AM
Ah. I see. Well apparently the Templars are against trading slaves. But nowhere does it say they don't tolerate it. Even Torres was cooperating with Woodes and Prins. He would speak out here or there about how he thought it was wrong but didn't do anything about it. Hell he was dead when Rogers was kicked out.
So if he was willing to let it slide why couldn't a southern Templar order let it slide also seeing as it would suit their needs.

Collaborating with Prins, I thought was more of a necessity. Just like Ezio collaborated with slave-owning Ottomans? Btw for historical reasons or otherwise you can see a conspicuous absence of slaves in Havana outside plantations, so it is consistent with Torres being against it. And well, sure Rogers was expelled long after he died but the fact that he was expelled, on these grounds show that there must be someone higher up the chain of commands, holding the same thoughts.

Torres's reasoning was pretty clear on why slave-owning doesn't work even for the Templar's 'control all' agenda. And as Jexx points out, the head Templar in Liberation helped free slaves. So yes, sure some Templars could be slave-owners. But to suddenly turn this into the Order's official stance would be ...inconsistent.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 06:22 AM
I think that the muskets we've seen in AC3 and AC4 already mostly control similarly to civil war era rifles in terms of reloading speeds. As far as I'm aware, they were still single shot as well.

Honestly, an American Civil War AC game would be awesome. Trains and steam ships would be awesome as well.

I'm a person that actually really liked Boston and New York as cities, but if you included them in a Civil War game they would look tons different.

Bmark, what kind of protagonist would you want for the game? I'm particularly fond of Native American choices, and I was thinking that a Shoshone protagonist (possibly female) that was being beaten by some colonials but was saved by the Assassins and then trained would be particularly neat, but I'm not sure if that would go with a Civil War story well, plus there's the whole fact they already did the "Native American taking part in a historical, well documented, American War."

I'm glad at least someone understands that AC3 isn't representative of all of America until the 20th century lol. Well as far as the Native protag issue....The natives really were a non issue in the eastern US at that time and ever since the 1820s. With the Indian wars of the 1790s and war of 1812 almost all of the northern tribes had run west or were a non threat. And after the 1820s the Indian Removal Act had all natives east of the Mississippi unless already on designated reservations forcibly moved to the Western Territories on Reservations. So no a native protag would not make sense for the Civil War. I personally think a black man would be the best fit for character. The concept of the back story beginning the game off by escaping the south and falling in with the assassins would be pretty cool. I don't think a female protagonist really would fit well in this particular setting. Especially the region and era given the level of racism and such. While im not opposed to the protag being female Idk that it would be the best place for one yet.

And I also agree that Templars should be spread on both sides. As Templars would play their cards right to have a horse in both races should one side fail they want to maintain control in the new system(just as they have always done). And it would be good to see ones that do support slavery and others that don't belive in it. As obviously the concept of slavery is a huge no no in the Assassins, but to the Templars I feel like it could be more of a grey area, where some tolerate it and others don't support it.

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 06:33 AM
I'm glad at least someone understands that AC3 isn't representative of all of America until the 20th century lol. Well as far as the Native protag issue....The natives really were a non issue in the eastern US at that time and ever since the 1820s. With the Indian wars of the 1790s and war of 1812 almost all of the northern tribes had run west or were a non threat. And after the 1820s the Indian Removal Act had all natives east of the Mississippi unless already on designated reservations forcibly moved to the Western Territories on Reservations. So no a native protag would not make sense for the Civil War. I personally think a black man would be the best fit for character. The concept of the back story beginning the game off by escaping the south and falling in with the assassins would be pretty cool. I don't think a female protagonist really would fit well in this particular setting. Especially the region and era given the level of racism and such. While im not opposed to the protag being female Idk that it would be the best place for one yet.

And I also agree that Templars should be spread on both sides. As Templars would play their cards right to have a horse in both races should one side fail they want to maintain control in the new system(just as they have always done). And it would be good to see ones that do support slavery and others that don't belive in it. As obviously the concept of slavery is a huge no no in the Assassins, but to the Templars I feel like it could be more of a grey area, where some tolerate it and others don't support it.

With dreads please.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 06:36 AM
Wouldn't be shocking. Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he believed it was right, he just wanted peace.

Well to be 100% fair to Lincoln he didn't think slavery was right. In fact he abhorred it. What he did do was think that it wasn't POLITICALLY right for the beginning of the war to end it. He still thought there was a chance at negotiating peace at that point. He felt that blood should not need to be spilled to solve a political issue. He is famously quoted as saying that "If I could end the war today without freeing a single slave I would do it, and if I could free some and leave others in bondage I would do that too". As you say his primary concern at that time was Peace. He did however strongly dislike slavery and would have preferred to eliminate it by political channels, as he was a senator for years before he was president.

But by 1862 or 3 I cant quite remember. It had become pretty clear the South was not willing to negotiate. So Lincoln decided to do what he wanted and basically said **** you to the Confederates. Issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and allowed for Blacks to fight in the war. He also began locking up people for sedition, spying, confederate sypethising, etc. He basically came to the realization that reconciliation was beyond being an option so settled in to the idea of Total War. And undertook a policy of undermining and destroying the south from the inside and out by whatever means necesscery. And got several pet projects through congress while The south was away too. Like the States of West Virginia and Nevada, the 15th amendment(I believe) which officially outlawed slavery, the land grant act, the Homestead Act, Transcontinental Railroad authorization through the north rather than the south, among a long list of other things.

So yeah. He didn't like slavery at all. Just was willing to bargain with it to stop the bloodshed, then just said **** those racist sons of *****es im the damn president! lol

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 06:40 AM
Well to be 100% fair to Lincoln he didn't think slavery was right. In fact he abhorred it. What he did do was think that it wasn't POLITICALLY right for the beginning of the war to end it. He still thought there was a chance at negotiating peace at that point. He felt that blood should not need to be spilled to solve a political issue. He is famously quoted as saying that "If I could end the war today without freeing a single slave I would do it, and if I could free some and leave others in bondage I would do that too". As you say his primary concern at that time was Peace. He did however strongly dislike slavery and would have preferred to eliminate it by political channels, as he was a senator for years before he was president.

But by 1862 or 3 I cant quite remember. It had become pretty clear the South was not willing to negotiate. So Lincoln decided to do what he wanted and basically said **** you to the Confederates. Issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and allowed for Blacks to fight in the war. He also began locking up people for sedition, spying, confederate sypethising, etc. He basically came to the realization that reconciliation was beyond being an option so settled in to the idea of Total War. And undertook a policy of undermining and destroying the south from the inside and out by whatever means necesscery. And got several pet projects through congress while The south was away too. Like the States of West Virginia and Nevada, the 15th amendment(I believe) which officially outlawed slavery, the land grant act, the Homestead Act, Transcontinental Railroad authorization through the north rather than the south, among a long list of other things.

So yeah. He didn't like slavery at all. Just was willing to bargain with it to stop the bloodshed, then just said **** those racist *******s im the damn president! lol

I see my lack of eloquence here left a hole for interpretation of a different meaning. My apologies, it's late.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 07:15 AM
Lincoln is my favorite president.

I was also born on his birthday!

SirTookTookIII
06-19-2014, 09:03 AM
I think that the muskets we've seen in AC3 and AC4 already mostly control similarly to civil war era rifles in terms of reloading speeds. As far as I'm aware, they were still single shot as well.

Honestly, an American Civil War AC game would be awesome. Trains and steam ships would be awesome as well.

I'm a person that actually really liked Boston and New York as cities, but if you included them in a Civil War game they would look tons different.

Bmark, what kind of protagonist would you want for the game? I'm particularly fond of Native American choices, and I was thinking that a Shoshone protagonist (possibly female) that was being beaten by some colonials but was saved by the Assassins and then trained would be particularly neat, but I'm not sure if that would go with a Civil War story well, plus there's the whole fact they already did the "Native American taking part in a historical, well documented, American War."

Someone from the Shoshone tribe wouldn't make any sense as they are in the West and would not want to help the North or South for any reason as they would be to focused on the Indian Wars in their area and wouldn't have a reason to travel there. During the Civil War the US Army was still focused on killing the natives in the west, stealing the land, and moving them off to the reservations along with the war. Also if you want a native character but also love Lincoln then you should see what he had done to natives. He ordered the largest mass execution in the history of the US in the hanging of 38 Dakota men. He only executed three (possibly more) Confederate soldiers for war crimes. Not to be a **** or anything, but you should look up some more history of the Indian Wars seeing as how the lasted for 302 years.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 03:02 PM
Someone from the Shoshone tribe wouldn't make any sense as they are in the West and would not want to help the North or South for any reason as they would be to focused on the Indian Wars in their area and wouldn't have a reason to travel there. During the Civil War the US Army was still focused on killing the natives in the west, stealing the land, and moving them off to the reservations along with the war. Also if you want a native character but also love Lincoln then you should see what he had done to natives. He ordered the largest mass execution in the history of the US in the hanging of 38 Dakota men. He only executed three (possibly more) Confederate soldiers for war crimes. Not to be a **** or anything, but you should look up some more history of the Indian Wars seeing as how the lasted for 302 years.
Well there was never really a US president before the 20th century that could be considered good to Native Americans. And to say the US Army was focused on killing the natives during the Civil War is a bit of a stretch lol. While yes there was some fighting going on in the west at that time it was typically very small skirmishes, and I highly doubt the US was trying to conduct offensive operations against any tribe at that time, as it would have drained resources that could be better used in the war effort against the south. The Army units that were still in the west were typically small detatchments of Cavalry. I know during the early part of the War the Natives took advantage of the Army's preoccupation in the South by attempting to snatch some land back. It sounds to me that the 38 men you speak of were most likely captured by the Army during one of these raids, and then executed as a dramatic example. The violence dropped after that I believe and Lincoln freed up those Army assets for better use against the Confederates. Also Lincoln served in the Illinois militia during the Black Hawk War and so I feel he most likely was indifferent on any native American issue.

And Lincoln executed a lot of Confederates. Based on my research around 500 men were executed during the Civil war by both sides(more than any other American War). And since the Confederates were not responsible for all of those it is only reasonable that the Union had at least more than 38 lol. Lincoln also ordered for spies to be executed, and many many people were locked in prison for sympathizing with the south or writing seditious articles about the Union.

Not to mention Lincoln allowed for confederates to be treated to a fate worse than death at the Union POW camps like Camp Douglas in Chicago where if you didn't die from disease, overcrowding, or starvation, you were lucky. The Confederates were just as brutal at Andersonville prison. Both sides killed thousands of people at the slow death of a filthy prison camp.

But I have to agree the Indian wars are quite fascinating stuff. I find the parts pre-1820 and post 1865 to be the most interesting as there is a rather big lull in between exept for maybe the Seminole Wars in Florida in between.

Farlander1991
06-19-2014, 03:17 PM
Looking at some of the later discussion, how Templars being against slavery doesn't make sense? They want everyone below them to be equal (and they would oversee this equality), of course they'd be against slavery - an act where the person controls another one for his personal gain and profit. (The difference between this and what Templars want to do is that Templars want to control people for the benefit of humanity, they see themselves more as shepherds of the civilization).

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 03:24 PM
Looking at some of the later discussion, how Templars being against slavery doesn't make sense? They want everyone below them to be equal (and they would oversee this equality), of course they'd be against slavery - an act where the person controls another one for his personal gain and profit. (The difference between this and what Templars want to do is that Templars want to control people for the benefit of humanity, they see themselves more as shepherds of the civilization).

Slavery for equality or slavery profit, same crime, different intention.

Farlander1991
06-19-2014, 03:32 PM
Slavery for equality or slavery profit, same crime, different intention.

Welcome to the world of AC, where intentions are what matters ;) Heck, they're for the most part the only things that differ Assassins from Templars (which reminds me, Amancio told in one of the ACU interviews that one of the themes of ACU is going to be dangers of fanaticism - how being too extreme in one ideology can transform you into the type of person you are against, it would be very neat to see something like this as it applies to Assassins and Templars) since they commit many of the same crimes (the main and most obvious one being murder).

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 03:37 PM
I find the Assassins and the Templars to be gray morality groups for different reasons: Assassins actually have pretty much the best of intentions, but they do it in some of the most heinous ways possible. Hence "We work in the dark to serve the light." Templars are gray in both intentions and method (their method is arguably more gray than the Assassins which is mostly black). They seek to manipulate others into being peaceful, but they mostly try to do it through diplomacy, but with bribing, blackmail, and other methods (including murder) included.

Neither are groups a person should really want to be a part of.

Farlander1991
06-19-2014, 03:44 PM
Assassins actually have pretty much the best of intentions, but they do it in some of the most heinous ways possible. Hence "We work in the dark to serve the light." Templars are gray in both intentions and method (their method is arguably more gray than the Assassins which is mostly black).

I wouldn't say that the Templar intentions are, in principle, any worse than Assassins. Peace, stability, order. Those are the Templar intentions. Pretty much the same as Assassins. Now how good are their methods to achieve those intentions is arguable and depends from PoV (hence why it's such a never-ending struggle in the series).

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 04:11 PM
Looking at some of the later discussion, how Templars being against slavery doesn't make sense? They want everyone below them to be equal (and they would oversee this equality), of course they'd be against slavery - an act where the person controls another one for his personal gain and profit. (The difference between this and what Templars want to do is that Templars want to control people for the benefit of humanity, they see themselves more as shepherds of the civilization).

Hmmm curious that that is the EXACT same argument the Southern States used to Justify slavery as a "positive good". They claimed that slavery taught black people hard work, and helped to civilize them, brought them in to Christianity, and manners/literacy(the latter mostly for house slaves only).

The argument at the time was that a black man after slavery was better suited for living in white society if they were ever releases. So essentially the South saw the institution as a way to eliminate other cultures(equality), solidify a power structure based on wealth and race along the lines of the feudal system of old europe(order/control).

The south saw themselves as preforming the "white man's burden" of civilizing "lesser" peoples and cultures so that they would fall more in line with white society. This same concept would later expand to many other races and cultures, such as native americans and Asians(once the US occupied areas like Hawaii and the Philippines).

So yes depending on how the individual Templars view slavery some would possibly see it as a means to their desired end. Or as something they allow because it suits their needs to have a large portion of the populace already subservient. But I would also like to see some that do not agree with it(sort of like Torres in AC4).

You see this very discussion is EXACTLY WHAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR! What is slavery? How do we define what it does? Is it good? Is it bad? Should it continue? Should it be stopped immediately? Should it be slowly phased out? Is it cruel? Is it beneficial? So on and so forth. Today it seems silly that the obvious choice is that it was wrong. But in those days some truly believed it was a positive thing. It wasn't as black and white as "the south=slavery" "the north=no slavery". That isn't so at all. Several Northern states like Kentucky and Maryland would have joined the Confederates if they weren't forced to stay. And parts of Alabama, Virginia(what became West Virginia), North Carolina and other regions within Southern states disagreed with slavery and tried to fight with the North. The war was the very thing that decided how we define slavery. It was brought about because there were so many conflicting views of what slavery was.

I would want that wide spectrum of views to be reflected in an AC game. I want Templars that are for it, against it, and in between. Possibly even a few assassins that support it too(or at least that fall victim to the "States Rights"/freedom from big government myth. A Civil War between The Templars and Assassins themselves. I mean this was literally a war that pit brother against brother. So I don't see why some assassins couldn't decide to back the south while most support the North. And vise versa for the Templars. I actually think it would be a rather interesting and deep plot point to pit close friends and literally "brothers" in the assassin and Templar orders against one another. To show just how brutal and dividing the conflict really was.

Matknapers18
06-19-2014, 04:44 PM
Well in all fairness AC3 was set soooooo early in America's history that it is nowhere near fair to say that seeing primitive colonial America is all that it has to offer. I mean in AC3 the only serious landmark of the entire game is the Old North Church in Boston which is still fairly famous today everything else is admittedly blah.

But as far as landmarks. By The American Civil War there were several built or in construction. For example the White house would be fully explorable inside and out in the 1860s, same for the US capitol building(even cooler because the dome was under construction until 1863). Theres also Arlington House(the main building of Arlington National Cemetery, and the Washington Monument was about half finished during the Civil War. So there would be several landmarks to scale in a Civil War AC. Washington DC of course having the most iconic of them.

Not to mention that in the nearly 100 years between the Revolution and the Civil War the population spiked at an immense rate. Partially due to Europe blowing itself up during the Napoleonic Wars and Wars in Germany and Italy over Unification along with the Irish just trying to escape the British. By the 1850s and 60s the small import driven port cities we see in AC3 had boomed in population, architecture, and became massive industrial centers. And began to be surpassed by more industrial cities nearer to railroads or natural resources such as Pittsburgh or Baltimore.

A game set there would be very different from AC3 if anyone from Europe would care to take the time to research the period.

And to say there isn't much history in the US you must either be a fool or incredibly uninformed. Theres only The Revolution, War of 1812, The trail of Tears and Indian conflicts, The Civil War(which is the deadliest conflict of the Western Hemisphere, and was deadlier than America's Losses in both world Wars), Mexican War, Spanish American War, The Wild West, The Great American Industrialists that allowed us to surpass Europe at just about every kind of manufacturing and living standards and just about everything else. We crammed so much history into our nation in 200 years we managed to go from a nothing colony that you see in AC3 to a world superpower by the turn of the 20th century.

I agree with a lot of points you have made, and I can see why someone would desire an AC game in the civil war but its juts not for me. I just feel like, as a far as gameplay is concerned, its just wont be very unique. Regardless of the incredibly interesting, rich, and unique history the war has, to any ordinary gamer its just going to feel like an AC3 re-hash. With muskets, flintlocks and cannons returning for the 4th time in a row, the Civil war just won't be fun to play.

And I didn't mean to come across as offensive when I said USA had no history. All I mean is that, countries like England, Japan or Russia have so much more. Britain has history spanning over 1000 years, and we haven't visited it yet. I'm not saying that the next game HAS to be set somewhere else, I just think it seems un-justified to re-visit American when their is such a vast quantity of history in locations that we haven't explored. Everyone knows about the American Civil war. Lets learn about something we don't know. And thats why AC2 was so perfect for me. Before it, I was pretty oblivious to what 'Renaissance Italy' was.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 04:52 PM
But why shouldn't AC use a setting that really emphasizes how history is very connected, very linked? A Civil War setting that plays on the repercussions of the French Revolution would be great.

Locopells
06-19-2014, 05:08 PM
I seem to recall reading somewhere, that Lincoln wasn't even on the cards, for most of the Southern States, in the Presidential election he won, leaving them feeling like they had no representation in government, and wanting independence that DC wouldn't give.

Could have some fun with a Connor descendant drawing parallels with 100 years earlier...

BabyKobes
06-19-2014, 05:38 PM
Having Connors descendant would defiantly be cool.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 05:59 PM
I agree with a lot of points you have made, and I can see why someone would desire an AC game in the civil war but its juts not for me. I just feel like, as a far as gameplay is concerned, its just wont be very unique. Regardless of the incredibly interesting, rich, and unique history the war has, to any ordinary gamer its just going to feel like an AC3 re-hash. With muskets, flintlocks and cannons returning for the 4th time in a row, the Civil war just won't be fun to play.

And I didn't mean to come across as offensive when I said USA had no history. All I mean is that, countries like England, Japan or Russia have so much more. Britain has history spanning over 1000 years, and we haven't visited it yet. I'm not saying that the next game HAS to be set somewhere else, I just think it seems un-justified to re-visit American when their is such a vast quantity of history in locations that we haven't explored. Everyone knows about the American Civil war. Lets learn about something we don't know. And thats why AC2 was so perfect for me. Before it, I was pretty oblivious to what 'Renaissance Italy' was.
I can understand what youre saying. I too would like to see some other settings but I don't see how the American Civil War would be an AC3 Rehash? I think other areas could be explored before a Civil War game, but at the same time I really cannot think of a single time or place that lends itself so greatly to the series. Its late enough that it would feel very different from things we have seen. With the 1860s we can have trains, and steamboats, ironclad naval ships, the first functioning submarines, Gatling guns(perhaps as for a mission or two or like a Leonardo's weapons style side mission), revolvers, etc. Not to mention the forshadowing of WW1 the Civil War became in 1864 and 5 when the Confederates began to settle into Trench Warfare around places like Petersburg. As I have shown the architecture had changed, politics had changed, monuments and landmarks had been built, technology had changed, America in 1860s is not anything like AC3s loosely populated, non industrial, colonial crap cities.

You say "everyone knows the Civil War" yet I seem to be seeing countless people trying to say it would be just like AC3, or that there wasn't that much history there besides the war itself, or that there are no landmarks. All of which I have proven is not the case and is only thought to be that way because people ASSUME they know what the Civil War was like, but they really have no clue. From what I gather here is that most people seem to only know that it was North vs. South and over slavery. Nothing else. People have a fundamental misunderstanding and varying ideas of WHY the conflict happened, and its fairly apparent that they have almost NO idea whatsoever what the era even looked like or featured.

I mean to say going to America at a period that was different in many ways from AC3 is somehow overdoing the region or that it would be a rehash shows just how much you DONT KNOW about the Civil War, or the geography of the US. Its about like if I said we can never have a game set in Britain because ACU is set in France and thus we cant have another northern European country no matter the era. That's an absurd claim! But its equally absurd to make the arguments you are. Hell there are several states in America that are larger than entire Countries in Europe. And the US itself is fairly large enough to cover most of mainland Europe. Just because we don't speak a different language in every state doesn't mean each isn't different, and America changed so drastically in the 19th century that it is foolish to say the 1700s would look anything like the 1860s. We began that century in the aftermath of the War of 1812 a sparsely populated agrarian former colony, and by 1898 had grown to become the leading manufacturing center in the world, and a global superpower politically and militarily.

Sure we don't have as many YEARS of history as the older parts of the world, but we tackled so many MAJOR things in such a short period of time that what history we do have is incredibly rich and our nation immensely diverse. To say going back there 100 years after the revolution wouldn't be any different from the game set in 1776, just goes to show exactly how LITTLE you do know about it.

That said I'm not opposed to a different setting, I just feel that the Civil War is an incredible topic for an AC game. Not to mention it is really the only type of game that could ever do that period of history the proper justice it deserves. There is just about no video games that tackle the civil war. And the ones that do are either insanely bad, or focus solely on the battlefield, and not all the wide range of other issues.

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 06:03 PM
Having Connors descendant would defiantly be cool.

As I pointed out before a Native American protagonist wouldn't make any sense in the Civil War era. They were pretty much wiped out entirely east of the Mississippi River at that time. A Connor decendent or Connor himself would only make sense really in a game set during the War of 1812 which while interesting in its own way, doesn't even hold a candle to all the issues and conflicts, and most importantly a fresher setting that the Civil War has to offer.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 06:15 PM
Connor's descendant wouldn't necessarily be considered a Native American anymore. What if Connor married a colonist and had 1/4th native children, what if one of those children also went on to marry another colonist and then had 1/8th native children. Would be Connor's grandkid but not really a native american anymore.

I-Like-Pie45
06-19-2014, 06:22 PM
haven't you ever heard of plessy v ferguson

the 1/8th is what counts

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 06:41 PM
Connor's descendant wouldn't necessarily be considered a Native American anymore. What if Connor married a colonist and had 1/4th native children, what if one of those children also went on to marry another colonist and then had 1/8th native children. Would be Connor's grandkid but not really a native american anymore.

HAHAHA I actually find this kind of funny. Because as an American it seems like every person I meet claims that they are 1/16th Native American or something no matter if they are white as a ghost or black as midnight lol. Its a weird thing here in America that so many people claim to be part native while they make up a staggering minority of the overall population, so their claims cant possibly all be true lol. So I suppose that scenario would actually create a quite stereotypical American haha.

But in all seriousness. For the Civil War I feel a long time American citizen wouldn't be a good protagonist. I think either an Irish Immigrant or a Slave would be best suited to the times. The Irishman would arrive appalled at the system of slavery, and would sympathize with the slaves and their treatment, because the Irish of the 1860s were treated like complete ****(watch Gangs of New York to see what City life for immigrants during the Civil War was like). The Irish also had a pretty heavy split where some felt for the slaves, and others hated them because they could do their jobs(which the Irish did for insanely low wages) even cheaper. And a slave would be a very interesting viewpoint(as books from a slaves perspective like Fredrick Douglass's memoirs, 12 years a slave, or Uncle Tom's Cabin were very popular in the period). Freedom Cry slightly touched on that culture, but the slave culture in the US was unique and different from the Caribbean. It would be very interesting to experience that American sub culture in its infancy, where now black culture has been largely integrated into the American culture, at that time it was very unique to them. Not to mention the Theme and story would be incredibly personal if the Assassin were a slave himself.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 06:54 PM
I was actually thinking it would be slightly neat if the Assassin protagonist was actually enslaved by the Assassins themselves. Maybe they became corrupt, see Abbas taking over the Order when Altair left on a long-term mission.

But an Irish protagonist would be great. Get Darby on that shiz, just have him integrate side characters better :P

STDlyMcStudpants
06-19-2014, 07:06 PM
I actually thought maybe we played as a mystery assassin that had the primary weapon of an axe and then at the end of the game you kill your final target and he's like
What..what is your name....
'They call me lincoln... Abraham Lincoln'
*Pulls hood down and walks away slowly*


I was actually thinking it would be slightly neat if the Assassin protagonist was actually enslaved by the Assassins themselves. Maybe they became corrupt, see Abbas taking over the Order when Altair left on a long-term mission.

But an Irish protagonist would be great. Get Darby on that shiz, just have him integrate side characters better :P

Darby is already confirmed to be working on a Connor Story.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 07:10 PM
where

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-19-2014, 07:16 PM
I actually thought maybe we played as a mystery assassin that had the primary weapon of an axe and then at the end of the game you kill your final target and he's like
What..what is your name....
'They call me lincoln... Abraham Lincoln'
*Pulls hood down and walks away slowly*



Darby is already confirmed to be working on a Connor Story.

Dude...

1. Don't give me a heart attack. I almost spit out my drink DX

2. When DID Darby say that, or are you just trolling like he does? :rolleyes:

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 07:17 PM
I was actually thinking it would be slightly neat if the Assassin protagonist was actually enslaved by the Assassins themselves. Maybe they became corrupt, see Abbas taking over the Order when Altair left on a long-term mission.

But an Irish protagonist would be great. Get Darby on that shiz, just have him integrate side characters better :P

Well as I mentioned in an earlier post the Assassins would most likely be split by the war. As would the Templars. Primarily over the issue of slavery.

For example the Assassins would split based on two reasons.

The assassins that support the North= Seek freedom, equality and peace by freeing the slaves, and extending equal rights to all people no matter their race or nationality.

The assassins that support the South= Seek freedom by rebelling against large government attempting to decide the people's fate and lives(this faction buys in to the Whole "States Rights" argument/myth, and are willing to allow slavery to continue because they believe in the idea that it would eventually die out naturally(yet another of the period views on slavery. There was a very wide spectrum, not just "I like it" or "I hate it"). this faction is die hard set on not allowing government to take firmer control of the country(as they feel that would have irreversible consequences), and believes slavery will sort itself out(its days of being economically sensible were numbered to they thought it would end on its own anyway war or no war)

The Templars would be split solely on the issue of Slavery and weather it suits their goal of control.

The Northern Templars= Believe slavery is immoral and does not agree with the goals of the Templar order, The Northern Templars seek to exercise control by use of Stronger Government, force, and martial law.

The Southern Templars= Believe that slavery is a "positive good" and is ultimately helping the slaves to be better adapted and integrated into white style society. They feel that slavery helps their goal by keeping a large portion of the population already under firm control. Several in this camp may also be firm believers that slavery will die out on its own too just as the Southern Assassins. The Southern Templars would kind of be what we call.....a tad bit racist/white supremacist......as a result of their raising and personal beliefs, not Templar Teachings.

The wide spectrum of worldviews regarding slavery would drive both orders apart.

I think it would be interesting to see the Templars disagreeing from the start, while the Assassins begin as Unified before the war begins, but as things progress become divided, just like the nation around them.

It would be a very Unique take on AC as Templars would often share your same goal, but for different reasons, and you may have to Assassinate several of your former Brother assassins as well, since they are serving an entirely different cause. There would be massive infighting within the two orders, and the game would be cool, because you (most likely as a Northern Supporting Assassin) would have to Eliminate not only Templars on both sides of the Conflict, but your own estranged Brothers as well.

That would really capture the true divisiveness of the Civil War and its effect on communities, families, and the Nation as a whole. The person you loved most one year could be aiming a rifle at you the next, in a battlefield in our own family's farm field.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 07:20 PM
Yeah I see what you mean. I probably should have phrased that differently. What I mean is that consoles are getting to a point where they look so damn good and realistic that PCs primary advantage(higher quality visuals) is beginning to lose its potency. Once re reach a certain point we won't be able to the the difference between the PC version or the Console version with the human eye within another generation or two. What will eventually happen is people will begin to drop PC gaming for the simpler, easer to move and set up, more comfortable, and cheaper, consoles eventually. Not now of course but when there starts to be a negligible difference between PC and Console visuals. Could be 15 years from now or 40. I can't tell from here. Just a prediction tho. Could be wrong could be right. Can't really tell unless we both remember this discussion and check back on here in 40 years lol

I wanted to reply to this but forgot to. Anyway I prefer PC over consoles not only because of the graphics but because of the ease of access of different programs. I can switch from playing my game to browsing the internet and unlike with consoles browsing the internet on PC isn't crappy. I also much prefer Windows as an operating system to any console OS.

Graphical difference in terms of resolution and framerate will die down, yes, but with better hardware there will be better textures and other graphical effects in general. NPC density can reach enormous levels (even larger than Unity's 5000), and not to mention numerous other graphical features that could be developed. In the end, it's the graphical features that matter, not the resolution or the framerate. Better hardware will always provide a better experience.

Besides, consoles don't allow you to choose between gamepads or keyboard and mouse for controller options. I like to play at my desk on a monitor in my nice, comfortable recliner. And even if I had an actual desk chair, some desk chairs are actually extremely comfortable.

I also like building PCs, it makes it feel like it's my baby. I can't feel that way about a console. I will admit that consoles are cheaper though.

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 07:25 PM
Well as I mentioned in an earlier post the Assassins would most likely be split by the war. As would the Templars. Primarily over the issue of slavery.

For example the Assassins would split based on two reasons.

The assassins that support the North= Seek freedom, equality and peace by freeing the slaves, and extending equal rights to all people no matter their race or nationality.

The assassins that support the South= Seek freedom by rebelling against large government attempting to decide the people's fate and lives(this faction buys in to the Whole "States Rights" argument/myth, and are willing to allow slavery to continue because they believe in the idea that it would eventually die out naturally(yet another of the period views on slavery. There was a very wide spectrum, not just "I like it" or "I hate it"). this faction is die hard set on not allowing government to take firmer control of the country(as they feel that would have irreversible consequences), and believes slavery will sort itself out(its days of being economically sensible were numbered to they thought it would end on its own anyway war or no war)

The Templars would be split solely on the issue of Slavery and weather it suits their goal of control.

The Northern Templars= Believe slavery is immoral and does not agree with the goals of the Templar order, The Northern Templars seek to exercise control by use of Stronger Government, force, and martial law.

The Southern Templars= Believe that slavery is a "positive good" and is ultimately helping the slaves to be better adapted and integrated into white style society. They feel that slavery helps their goal by keeping a large portion of the population already under firm control. Several in this camp may also be firm believers that slavery will die out on its own too just as the Southern Assassins. The Southern Templars would kind of be what we call.....a tad bit racist/white supremacist......as a result of their raising and personal beliefs, not Templar Teachings.

The wide spectrum of worldviews regarding slavery would drive both orders apart.

I think it would be interesting to see the Templars disagreeing from the start, while the Assassins begin as Unified before the war begins, but as things progress become divided, just like the nation around them.

It would be a very Unique take on AC as Templars would often share your same goal, but for different reasons, and you may have to Assassinate several of your former Brother assassins as well, since they are serving an entirely different cause. There would be massive infighting within the two orders, and the game would be cool, because you (most likely as a Northern Supporting Assassin) would have to Eliminate not only Templars on both sides of the Conflict, but your own estranged Brothers as well.

That would really capture the true divisiveness of the Civil War and its effect on communities, families, and the Nation as a whole. The person you loved most one year could be aiming a rifle at you the next, in a battlefield in our own family's farm field.

Huh, almost seems like an opposite to AC Unity.

Let's call this game, Assassin's Creed: Division, :P

Or is that too close to The Division​?

DumbGamerTag94
06-19-2014, 07:30 PM
Huh, almost seems like an opposite to AC Unity.

Let's call this game, Assassin's Creed: Division, :P

Or is that too close to The Division​?

you've gotta admit though.....that whole infighting within the orders would make for a pretty kick *** plot. add in the intense action, battles, stealthily escaping plantaions, train surfing, gambling on riverboats, hangin at the white House, setting fire to plantation houses??All that the Civil War has to offer as a setting and more!!! I think it would end up being the Greatest and most morally grey Assassins Creed ever.

How bout Assassin's Creed: Rupture, Schism, or Disunion????

STDlyMcStudpants
06-19-2014, 08:30 PM
Dude...

1. Don't give me a heart attack. I almost spit out my drink DX

2. When DID Darby say that, or are you just trolling like he does? :rolleyes:

Its about Connor traveling to the bermuda triangle.. he ends up in WW2 and kills hitler.
Darby doesn't troll.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-19-2014, 08:47 PM
Its about Connor traveling to the bermuda triangle.. he ends up in WW2 and kills hitler.
Darby doesn't troll.

Lol..

And he did confess that he does troll :p:

http://i61.tinypic.com/2vlv9dj.png

Dome500
06-19-2014, 10:22 PM
AC3 actually pushed forward the stealth a lot.. so I don't understand that complaint.

Assassins Creed 3 is the AC game with the most broken Stealth mechanics I have ever seen in a game, no offense

Jexx21
06-19-2014, 11:20 PM
Assassins Creed 3 is the AC game with the most broken Stealth mechanics I have ever seen in a game, no offense

In reality it's really only guard detection that was "broken." The base stealth mechanics were greatly expounded upon.

by the way, when you add "no offense" it actually makes it feel more offensive (or at least it does in my experience looking back on it)

*takes mental note: don't use "no offense*

Sesheenku
06-19-2014, 11:42 PM
Assassins Creed 3 is the AC game with the most broken Stealth mechanics I have ever seen in a game, no offense

Agreed.


In reality it's really only guard detection that was "broken." The base stealth mechanics were greatly expounded upon.

by the way, when you add "no offense" it actually makes it feel more offensive (or at least it does in my experience looking back on it)

*takes mental note: don't use "no offense*

Care to explain how?

Just because they added a few different spots for stealth that functioned exactly the same as benches? Just because they decreased the amount of people required to blend?

A market stand is just a bench in a tarted up dress to make it seem new but it's the same thing.

Stalking zones aren't different than crowds either, they had to be there to make up for the lack of crowds but serve precisely the same function, stealth while on the move.

The only decent addition was sticking to corners. One feature is not enough to be considered "greatly expounded"

Jexx21
06-20-2014, 12:13 AM
The market stands were just rooftop gardens on the ground.

You no longer require to move around in groups of 4, making it more dynamic, interesting, and realistic, however this would have worked better if there was a larger crowd density and if the guard detection wasn't overpowered. Stalking zones were great because they were different from crowds in the sense that they allowed you a way to stealthily infiltrate restricted areas that were more open and/or outside. Whistling allowed you to attract guards which was a great addition. And yes, sticking to corners.

I'm not saying that there weren't systems that they could have improved to make the stealth experience much better than it was, but the base stealth mechanics were pretty great. They just weren't used efficiently.

DumbGamerTag94
06-20-2014, 01:22 AM
Ok it appears things have gotten to be just a tad off topic.....so ill remedy that by leaving this older post of mine copied here:

Anyway here's some more about the Civil War:

The people look different from what we've seen before:
http://www.bg
cnwnj.org/about%20us/history%20of%20movement/1860%20fashion%20men.jpg
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1864/february/men-fashions.jpg
http://s60.photobucket.com/user/Reka_87/media/1800-1897/1860-1897/1865.jpg.html

City life was pretty chaotic:
Riots were common
1861 Baltimore Riots:
http://chriscarnett.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/6th-mass-baltimore-riot-1861.png
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4186/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4186-17456.jpg
New York Draft Riots 1863:
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/18-new-york-draft-riots-1863-granger.jpg
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/19-new-york-draft-riots-1863-granger.jpg
The Draft:
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/civil-war-draft-granger.jpg
Martial Law:
http://mitchellarchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/harpers-1865-linc-asass-execution.jpg
Political Rallies(1860and1864):
Southerners burn Lincoln in effigy
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/rhea-address-images/savannah-rally.jpg
Lincoln Supporters:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/51/Wideawakeengraving.jpeg/300px-Wideawakeengraving.jpeg
Lincoln's inauguration:
http://imagehost.vendio.com/preview/ha/haats/HW1865P168927-Copy.jpg

Destruction of Cities like Richmond and Atlanta:
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/jpg/richmond2.jpg
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/20-civil-war-richmond-1865-granger.jpg
http://www.owensarchive.com/images/uploads/Civil%20War/3c17574v_View_of_Richmond_Va.,_at_the_close_of_the _rebellion_1865.jpg
http://collections.atlantahistorycenter.com/export/get_item_viewer_image.php?alias=/athpc&i=381&height=600&width=600

Naval would be pretty cool too:
USS New Hampshire:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/USS_New_Hamp_SOL-750px.jpg
CSS Nashville:
http://cdn2.americancivilwar.com/americancivilwar-cdn/pictures/CSS_Nashville_2.jpg
Ironclads:
http://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/civil-war-navy-920-28.jpg?w=920&h=673
CSS Virginia:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h84000/h84512k.jpg
USS Roanoke 2 turret ship:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/aa/76/03/aa760312d8f9e40359f5730dca1fb2b7.jpg

That's enough for now. I can go over the countryside and weapons or any other aspect people may want but this should do for the time being.

Bashilir
06-20-2014, 03:53 AM
Can we please get away from muskets?

Sesheenku
06-20-2014, 04:11 AM
Ok it appears things have gotten to be just a tad off topic.....so ill remedy that by leaving this older post of mine copied here:

Anyway here's some more about the Civil War:

The people look different from what we've seen before:
http://www.bg
cnwnj.org/about us/history of movement/1860 fashion men.jpg
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1864/february/men-fashions.jpg
http://s60.photobucket.com/user/Reka_87/media/1800-1897/1860-1897/1865.jpg.html

City life was pretty chaotic:
Riots were common
1861 Baltimore Riots:
http://chriscarnett.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/6th-mass-baltimore-riot-1861.png
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4186/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4186-17456.jpg
New York Draft Riots 1863:
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/18-new-york-draft-riots-1863-granger.jpg
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/19-new-york-draft-riots-1863-granger.jpg
The Draft:
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/civil-war-draft-granger.jpg
Martial Law:
http://mitchellarchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/harpers-1865-linc-asass-execution.jpg
Political Rallies(1860and1864):
Southerners burn Lincoln in effigy
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/rhea-address-images/savannah-rally.jpg
Lincoln Supporters:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/51/Wideawakeengraving.jpeg/300px-Wideawakeengraving.jpeg
Lincoln's inauguration:
http://imagehost.vendio.com/preview/ha/haats/HW1865P168927-Copy.jpg

Destruction of Cities like Richmond and Atlanta:
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/jpg/richmond2.jpg
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/20-civil-war-richmond-1865-granger.jpg
http://www.owensarchive.com/images/uploads/Civil War/3c17574v_View_of_Richmond_Va.,_at_the_close_of_the _rebellion_1865.jpg
http://collections.atlantahistorycenter.com/export/get_item_viewer_image.php?alias=/athpc&i=381&height=600&width=600

Naval would be pretty cool too:
USS New Hampshire:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/USS_New_Hamp_SOL-750px.jpg
CSS Nashville:
http://cdn2.americancivilwar.com/americancivilwar-cdn/pictures/CSS_Nashville_2.jpg
Ironclads:
http://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/civil-war-navy-920-28.jpg?w=920&h=673
CSS Virginia:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h84000/h84512k.jpg
USS Roanoke 2 turret ship:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/aa/76/03/aa760312d8f9e40359f5730dca1fb2b7.jpg

That's enough for now. I can go over the countryside and weapons or any other aspect people may want but this should do for the time being.

Look at those classy mother ****ers rocking dem top hats ;P

DumbGamerTag94
06-20-2014, 05:11 PM
Can we please get away from muskets?

I really don't see the difference between the muskets and swords we have seen and the swords only approach of previous games? It's the same hand to hand style of combat it's not like it changed anything? And besides good luck avoiding them. Considering they've been a mainstay of militaries ever since the 1500s. So anything post Ezio would be off the table. Even earlier in Asia where gunpowder was used for weapons for far longer.

So not only would that eliminate a minimum of 500 years of world history but also limit us to the repetition of swords. Only on every setting before then.

Dome500
06-20-2014, 05:28 PM
In reality it's really only guard detection that was "broken." The base stealth mechanics were greatly expounded upon.

by the way, when you add "no offense" it actually makes it feel more offensive (or at least it does in my experience looking back on it)

*takes mental note: don't use "no offense*


Yeah that was a main problem. But that is the point. Since the detection was completely broken and almost everything connected with it all the other mechanics and elements around it just didn't work. So all in all the Stealth system was completely broken.

Oh and btw: No offense means no offense, not my fault if you feel offended.

Bashilir
06-20-2014, 05:30 PM
I really don't see the difference between the muskets and swords we have seen and the swords only approach of previous games? It's the same hand to hand style of combat it's not like it changed anything? And besides good luck avoiding them. Considering they've been a mainstay of militaries ever since the 1500s. So anything post Ezio would be off the table. Even earlier in Asia where gunpowder was used for weapons for far longer.

So not only would that eliminate a minimum of 500 years of world history but also limit us to the repetition of swords. Only on every setting before then.

. They've been in every game since 3 and to me personally, have an annoying presence. Frankly more annoying in Black Flag when you were reloading 4 pistols every five minutes because the only other ranged weapon was the blow pipe and that isn't the funnest thing to use in the middle of a fire fight when two ships are locked in a boarding.

More or less, I just want a break from them for a little bit. Every enemy using a musket when you fight has gotten old in my eyes, and obviously not every enemy used muskets in IV but AC3 was much different from that statement. I don't want to completely move away from muskets, for the same reasons you said, but in my opinion, a small break from them would be nice.

Farlander1991
06-20-2014, 06:04 PM
. They've been in every game since 3 and to me personally, have an annoying presence.

Technically, muskets have been in the AC series since ACB (though only enemies had them in ACB/ACR).

And player-controlled guns we had ever since AC2 (which were a little bit more clunkier, but much more fast reloading than both AC3 and AC4 guns and much more deadlier).

Jexx21
06-20-2014, 06:15 PM
Yeah that was a main problem. But that is the point. Since the detection was completely broken and almost everything connected with it all the other mechanics and elements around it just didn't work. So all in all the Stealth system was completely broken.

Oh and btw: No offense means no offense, not my fault if you feel offended.
never argued that the stealth system wasn't broken

I argued that the base stealth mechanics were an improvement. I never said it was a better experience, because it wasn't.

m4r-k7
06-20-2014, 07:04 PM
They need to go back in time to the medieval period. I would love medieval Europe or Feudal Japan, China, England etc. I would hate the Civil War - emphasis on guns, boring cities, already done American Revolution, would prefer them to look at different countries.

Kaschra
06-20-2014, 07:11 PM
Yeah, the American Civil War is on top of my list... of settings I don't want to see in an Assassin's Creed game :rolleyes:

Jexx21
06-20-2014, 07:22 PM
I don't want to see Feudal Japan or Victorian London because they're so over-suggested nowadays it already seems boring as hell.

DumbGamerTag94
06-20-2014, 11:15 PM
. They've been in every game since 3 and to me personally, have an annoying presence. Frankly more annoying in Black Flag when you were reloading 4 pistols every five minutes because the only other ranged weapon was the blow pipe and that isn't the funnest thing to use in the middle of a fire fight when two ships are locked in a boarding.


The entire time you did still have swords to use.....or in AC3s case also a tomahawk and bow and arrow for quiet ranged weapon. The blow pipe did rather suck IMO. But I feel that if they brought back throwing knives and the option to carry a bow it could easily remedy the supposed "need" to use only firearms for ranged targets.

But I do agree we could use a break from periods with guns. But I felt the same way about the sword eras of previous titles. Swordplay just gets too repetitive to me. At least with the more recent games we had the option to change things up with either a hand to hand sword/tomahawk fight or a shootout if the mood struck me.

Personally I don't care about what era it is as long as the setting is different. I feel having the same century in the same country/era feels tiresome(like Brotherhood did after AC2) I wouldn't be opposed however to revisiting any setting as long as the era were at least a different century. I hope the next AC is either in the 1800s or pre 1700. We have had enough of the 18th century for a long while, and with the French Rev being covered in Unity, frankly all the major interesting periods in that century have been done lol.


I would hate the Civil War - emphasis on guns, boring cities, already done American Revolution

What? Emphasis on Guns?!
Look for yourself.....

American Revolution:
http://www.wetreasures.com/data/relichunter/200602.image3.jpg

Civil War:
http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/union-civil-war-soldier-reloading-randy-steele.jpg

there's hardly any more gun presence than before. The only advancement was faster reloads.(3 shots per minute I believe was Union Army standard training)
This little bugger is the only real gun difference, things like Gatling guns or repeating rifles weren't very common in the civil war though they did exist. This Colt Army revolver could only shoot 6 shots single action, and it had to be reloaded one by one without removing the cylinder one ball at a time powder first, and then rammed down the holes. So pretty much after you shot your 6 the gun was useless, and for ACs purposes it would only be used by an officer, coupled with a sabre.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4llJaBSn8B0/TSxgM8Auc8I/AAAAAAAAAY0/MlNec7kJYto/s1600/1032.jpg

Boring Cities Already done in American Revolution??? You do know that was like 100 years before the civil war right? and technology and architecture, and population/demographics had changed a lot by then. Not to mention the frontier was pretty much tamed.

How is this:
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/streams/2012/October/121030/1C4528556-faneuil-hall-screenshot.jpg

The same as This?:
These buildings are in Baltimore in the 1860s
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/f9/42/1e/f9421e8b1831012679077568617d6b7b.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jqSxcipaQMc/Tzg8CCS_P8I/AAAAAAAAAeE/XFuV3QTfJqk/s1600/Barnum+City+Hotel+2,+Baltimore.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/45/49/1d454932ed3f00263b83d53f309cf67c.jpg
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/images/places/parker_house.jpg

and a few more period style buildings circa 1860:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c4Fwm8V97wE/TWEPVEsQeMI/AAAAAAAACS4/ddbLO1z-5oM/s640/443+Broadway.JPG
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/issue/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/frontispiece-e1341077270781.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_g2ODat6NTw/Tn0FgsqXu1I/AAAAAAAADUs/jHnQ7vvm_0I/s400/louis%2Bprang%2BKings.jpg
This last one is our old pal NYC in 1850s that church in back was the rebuilt version of the one that was burnt in AC3. Yeah the city really looks the same as it did in AC3(laughs to self at ignorance of people) :rolleyes:
http://jeanzimmerman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/wall-street-1850.gif

And the more recognizable monuments of the period:
http://civilwarscholars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Washington_DC_1860.jpg
http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Capitol-of-the-United-States-Washington-D.C..jpeg
http://www.historydc.org/exhibits/lincolnswashington/Scanned%20Photos/CHS%2002064.jpg
Washington Monument under construction:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8474/8119131364_e5af60f2be_z.jpg
Library of Congress:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_404h/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/09/27/Style/Images/Treasury%20building,%20Civil%20War.jpg
Smithsonian Castle(now national museum):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/04/13/Style/Images/PHO-10Oct27-263531.jpg
Virginia State Capitol(overlooks all of Richmond in 1860s):
http://web3.encyclopediavirginia.org/resourcespace/filestore/1/5/3_abae2b7915156c2/153pre_5a9ab92fd5cadc3.jpg?v=2012-05-31+08%3A51%3A27
that's it in the background. Take a look at the city itself too.(Richmond would be the worst of a Civil War games Cities too, with Baltimore probably the nicest, and DC having all the most interesting landmarks.
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/2f/24/2f247b9737d26e6785f91468f5e8f890.jpg?itok=xGXQUOV5

So I don't know what people are talking about when they say that anything in a Civil War game would look or feel like AC3. Sure some of the poorer and older parts of cities would look similar. but just look at all the buildings I put on here. That was the style of the era. There's always some buildings that carry over in parts of cities no matter where you go, and they are gradually replaced.

And the frontier wouldn't just be emptiness either:
ridiculously opulent plantations(not to mention the mansions in the cities too)
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/fe/ee/d3/feeed36c545c8aa783bfd41f122a2fa4.jpg
http://www.virginialiving.com/downloads/4787/download/bitblt-620x515-054cdf139af2deeab96962bd22b72054017d7968/Mansion-1960s-001_mr.jpg

Trains, small towns, stations, lumber mills, coal mines,etc:
http://stonehamhistory.webs.com/BaltimoreRiot/Railroad.PNG
http://www.railroadphotographer.com/Photo-Lines/201311-Day-Trips-November/Nov-16-Lincoln-Steams-Into-His/i-fWjVcV4/0/XL/2013-11-16-0042-XL.jpg
http://www.jonestownship.com/history/GH_Middlefork_b.jpg
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/3333572-29th-december-1866-the-disaster-at-the-oaks-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=cFahAXdDmMtMsNF%2fcRXQWMwHnEZYqbge2G6P4GrgKCI%3d
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/d6/1c/d3d61c0acc2b869156d5bdcb8b06a8ff.jpg

I-Like-Pie45
06-21-2014, 02:48 AM
catchphrase - Where is Robert E. Lee?

also

if Japan is ever made into a game, and Meow hopes not since Japan is the most inferior of all settings in the glorious sector of East Asia, Meow hopes it set during the 19th century Meiji Restoration

**** feudal and the ninja-samurai assassin *** fantasies that no doubt inspired the desires for it :)

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 03:10 AM
catchphrase - Where is Robert E. Lee?


Haha that's funny :p. But I think he would be better off non affiliated with the Assassins and Templars. I would also like to see more targets that aren't Templars. People that are just so bad they need taken out just because they're evil. Not Templars per say. But just awful people. Or even assassins. As I said before I feel like a civil war game would be a great opportunity for a split within the assassins where you may have to assassinate one of your former brothers when they decided to back the opposite side.

I want to see assassinations that you really wouldn't WANT to do but you know HAS to be done! The type of target that it almost hurts to have to eliminate. Like Connors friend in AC3 or Lucy at the end of ACB

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-21-2014, 03:16 AM
Haha that's funny :p. But I think he would be better off non affiliated with the Assassins and Templars. I would also like to see more targets that aren't Templars. People that are just so bad they need taken out just because they're evil. Not Templars per say. But just awful people. Or even assassins. As I said before I feel like a civil war game would be a great opportunity for a split within the assassins where you may have to assassinate one of your former brothers when they decided to back the opposite side.

I want to see assassinations that you really wouldn't WANT to do but you know HAS to be done! The type of target that it almost hurts to have to eliminate. Like Connors friend in AC3 or Lucy at the end of ACB

You're cruel *sniff* :rolleyes: And to think you make some of the best posts of this forum :rolleyes:

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 03:19 AM
Bmark, you made me want Washington DC in an AC game, especially if we get to see all these monuments under construction. Would be very interesting.

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 03:24 AM
You're cruel *sniff* :rolleyes: And to think you make some of the best posts of this forum :rolleyes:

Well Humble I really only say that because that kind of hard choices/regret really would capture the who brother vs brother/ House Divided nature of the American Civil War. How it literally tore friends, families, neighbors, fellow countrymen apart and in some cases the conflict became a little too personal. Too close to home(sometimes literally your backyard could become a battlefield where you could be killed(a man killed at Gettysburg was actually the nephew of the man who owned the property he died on)). Your own hometown burned by advancing armies. And so on. It was an incredibly dark time in American History. And would make an Extremely Dark Assassins Creed.

And also thank you for the high praise :)


Bmark, you made me want Washington DC in an AC game, especially if we get to see all these monuments under construction. Would be very interesting.

I know! Imagine looking out over DC while standing atop a crane on the unfinished Capital Dome on a foggy night. With nothing but light from the moon and the torches and lanterns on the streets to light/silhouette the city. In the wisps of fog and night sky the words "Assassins Creed: V" appear across the screen with an amazing intro song. In the distance you can hear and see a train wistling as it approaches a station and the dinging of a steamship as it paddles up the Potomac. The faint sound of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" coming from a military band on the national mall.

It would be epic!

And I'm glad you can at least see what the cities of America in the 1860s had to offer lol

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-21-2014, 04:03 AM
Well Humble I really only say that because that kind of hard choices/regret really would capture the who brother vs brother/ House Divided nature of the American Civil War. How it literally tore friends, families, neighbors, fellow countrymen apart and in some cases the conflict became a little too personal. Too close to home(sometimes literally your backyard could become a battlefield where you could be killed(a man killed at Gettysburg was actually the nephew of the man who owned the property he died on)). Your own hometown burned by advancing armies. And so on. It was an incredibly dark time in American History. And would make an Extremely Dark Assassins Creed.

And also thank you for the high praise :)

I suppose, but as long as they don't make the feels too strong like in The Walking Dead Game Season One, then I can welcome it... I hope.

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 04:19 AM
I suppose, but as long as they don't make the feels too strong like in The Walking Dead Game Season One, then I can welcome it... I hope.

Haha I would hope for 1/3 Southern Templars, 1/3 Northern Templars, 1/6 just downright evil people unoffiliated with the Templars or assassins. And then 1/6 of the targets to be Assassins who split with the brotherhood and sided with the south(for a variety of reasons that aren't about slavery). They would be the people you'd have to kill but really wouldn't want to. And I loved walking dead! If they can make just one of the assassinations as hard as the choices in that game I would be happy(only it wouldn't be a choice to kill them in AC of course. Just hard to do)

travilanche
06-21-2014, 05:40 AM
I would enjoy an AC set during the Civil War. The character could be that sweet *** gunslinger assassin we saw in one of the e mails in Black Flag.

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 01:04 PM
I would enjoy an AC set during the Civil War. The character could be that sweet *** gunslinger assassin we saw in one of the e mails in Black Flag.


Regarding an AC during Civil War; I'm all for it, since I'm a sucker for everything wild west. Bland setting my shiny metallic ***. The very thought of roaming among dusty settlements, barging into a saloon and picking a fight with the Sheriff has me orgasmic.

*facepalms*............you people do realize that the Civil War is not the Wild West right?????? :rolleyes:

I mean there would still be saloons in the Civil War, but they'd be in a City, not a dusty one street town in the desert. And you couldn't be a "gunslinger". Since they really didn't exist until after the Civil War lol.

The west pre-civil war was the California Gold Rush and a handful of settlers(the fairly boring west) ca: 1840-1865

The west post-Civil War is the west with outlaws, cowboys, 10gallon hats, and such that everyone thinks of as the Wild West. ca: 1865-1912ish

The Civil War was completely different. It was fought mostly east of the Missippi, in FARRR more developed areas with landmarks you would recognize(see my pics on last page of thread). The far west largely ignored the conflict for the most part(since 90% of that area was territory not states and nobody even really lived there)

roostersrule2
06-21-2014, 01:09 PM
Colonial America just isn't the right place for AC.

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 01:14 PM
Luckily for you Rooster, the Civil War isn't in the era typically considered "Colonial America."

besides that I think Colonial America is just fine for Assassin's Creed.

roostersrule2
06-21-2014, 01:26 PM
Luckily for you Rooster, the Civil War isn't in the era typically considered "Colonial America."

besides that I think Colonial America is just fine for Assassin's Creed.Well the Early America's then.

I found the cities boring and considering AC3 had the best NPC life, animals and was the best graphically (at the time of release) immersion shouldn't of been a problem. IMO however, due to the cities not being suited to AC, there was little to no immersion.

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 01:28 PM
Colonial America just isn't the right place for AC.

HAHAHAHAHA good thing the Civil War is nearly 100 years removed from Colonialism haha :rolleyes:

To call 1860s USA "Colonial America". Is the same as me saying that the British Empire of today, is the same as the Mighty Global Powerhouse it was 100 years ago. A lot can change in 100 years lol. In that span of time Britain went from an Empire where the sun never set, to 1.3333 main islands, a few micro holdings that aren't much in the Caribbean and elsewhere(Places like the Falklands). And a list of countries that still hold the queen as a monarch, yet govern themselves lol. A far cry from the colossus the Empire was 100 years ago...hell even 60 years ago lol.

Time doesn't stand still when a European Power leaves :rolleyes: I know that's hard to believe for some euros since they seem to think they hung the moon in the sky lol. But the US changed A LOT in that 100 years since kicking out the Brits. And to call 1860s America the same as "Colonial America" is a joke. Hell even the areas outside of the cities was far fuller and had many more things to do in the 1860s than 1700s. Calling them the same is like saying the concrete foundation is the same as the entire skyscraper built on top of it hahaha

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 01:37 PM
Well the Early America's then.

I found the cities boring and considering AC3 had the best NPC life, animals and was the best graphically (at the time of release) immersion shouldn't of been a problem. IMO however, due to the cities not being suited to AC, there was little to no immersion.
New York and Boston were some of my favorite cities in the series so I disagree, and the cities looked a lot different during the civil war, greatly expanded, with more modern looking architecture but with the feeling like expansion was happening.

roostersrule2
06-21-2014, 01:38 PM
HAHAHAHAHA good thing the Civil War is nearly 100 years removed from Colonialism haha :rolleyes:

To call 1860s USA "Colonial America". Is the same as me saying that the British Empire of today, is the same as the Mighty Global Powerhouse it was 100 years ago. A lot can change in 100 years lol. In that span of time Britain went from an Empire where the sun never set, to 1.3333 main islands, a few micro holdings that aren't much in the Caribbean and elsewhere(Places like the Falklands). And a list of countries that still hold the queen as a monarch, yet govern themselves lol. A far cry from the colossus the Empire was 100 years ago...hell even 60 years ago lol.

Time doesn't stand still when a European Power leaves :rolleyes: I know that's hard to believe for some euros since they seem to think they hung the moon in the sky lol. But the US changed A LOT in that 100 years since kicking out the Brits. And to call 1860s America the same as "Colonial America" is a joke. Hell even the areas outside of the cities was far fuller and had many more things to do in the 1860s than 1700s. Calling them the same is like saying the concrete foundation is the same as the entire skyscraper built on top of it hahahaIt's almost as if I read this and gave a ****.

America is just not right for AC. The modern day maybe, but does the setting even matter in the modern day?

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 01:39 PM
Well the Early America's then.

I found the cities boring and considering AC3 had the best NPC life, animals and was the best graphically (at the time of release) immersion shouldn't of been a problem. IMO however, due to the cities not being suited to AC, there was little to no immersion.

Its not "Early America" either lol. 1864(near the end of the civil war was exactly 150 years ago). America had already been around for nearly a century by the time of the Civil War. If anything you could probably call it "Middle America" or "Industrial Revolution America". But it is a LONGGGG shot from Colonial, or Early America.


America is just not right for AC.
And that's merely an opinion anyway. Not to mention a horribly misinformed, and biased one at that. I'll give you AC3s setting wasn't very good for AC. But I must insist that the 19th Century is farrrrr different.

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 01:40 PM
It's almost as if I read this and gave a ****.

America is just not right for AC. The modern day maybe, but does the setting even matter in the modern day?

Let's just discount a nation full of history because "lol not gud 4 AC"

roostersrule2
06-21-2014, 01:41 PM
New York and Boston were some of my favorite cities in the series so I disagree, and the cities looked a lot different during the civil war, greatly expanded, with more modern looking architecture but with the feeling like expansion was happening.I and the majority of gamers felt differently, however opinions are opinions.

However, would you rather go to the same place we've been but slightly upgraded? Or, would you rather go someone new like Japan, China or Ancient Greece?

I would literally prefer a World War AC game over an Early American setting.


Its not "Early America" either lol. 1864(near the end of the civil war was exactly 150 years ago). America had already been around for nearly a century by the time of the Civil War. If anything you could probably call it "Middle America" or "Industrial Revolution America". But it is a LONGGGG shot from Colonial, or Early America.Doesn't matter what it's called, the fact of the matter is, America is a bad setting for AC.


Let's just discount a nation full of history because "lol not gud 4 AC"Well yea in an AC game it helps if you choose settings that are good for AC games.

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 01:44 PM
I wouldn't mind any setting just as long as I find it interesting. There isn't really any setting that is "right" or "wrong" for Assassin's Creed.

roostersrule2
06-21-2014, 01:49 PM
I wouldn't mind any setting just as long as I find it interesting. There isn't really any setting that is "right" or "wrong" for Assassin's Creed.Except American, and Australia, and New Zealand.

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 01:57 PM
Doesn't matter what it's called, the fact of the matter is, America is a bad setting for AC.
Then prove it. Without using AC3 for examples since that is a completely different era, and was executed poorly besides. Use 19th century examples and prove otherwise.


I wouldn't mind any setting just as long as I find it interesting. There isn't really any setting that is "right" or "wrong" for Assassin's Creed.
Agreed.


would you rather go someone new like Japan, China or Ancient Greece?
Im not opposed to any of those settings(except maybe feudal Japan but I'd deal with it if they set it there). Also I and nobody else said ACW would have to be right away. This is about debating if it would be a good AC setting or not, what it would be like, features that could be in it, etc. Nowhere on this thread does it say "Civil War HAS TO BE the next AC game". I wouldn't be opposed to a break before coming back(something they didn't do for Italy yet nobody complains about it cuz Godzio was there....they didn't even change the era for that one). See some more exotic settings for a game or 2. were already 2 main games removed from America(no the Caribbean does not count until I can leave my house and sit on a beautiful palm tree shaded beach...its not the same as the US). And with another game or 2 we would be 3-4 games removed and it'd be set in an entirely different century and cities. I don't see the problem with that at all.

SHADOWGARVIN
06-21-2014, 02:00 PM
VERY generalizing, since the entirety of the US is not Boston and NY alone, even at that I disagree that the US was the blandest setting ever...

to me, that honor goes to Rome...

You must be having a laugh? Rome was beautifull! Much better that those boring american cities! AC3 was definitely the worst AC game. I still liked it, but those american cities were so boring!

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 02:01 PM
My opinion: New York and Boston were better than Florence or Venice. Rome and Constantinople were great cities though, arguably the best in the series.

roostersrule2
06-21-2014, 02:09 PM
Then prove it. Without using AC3 for examples since that is a completely different era, and was executed poorly besides. Use 19th century examples and prove otherwise.

Im not opposed to any of those settings(except maybe feudal Japan but I'd deal with it if they set it there). Also I and nobody else said ACW would have to be right away. This is about debating if it would be a good AC setting or not, what it would be like, features that could be in it, etc. Nowhere on this thread does it say "Civil War HAS TO BE the next AC game". I wouldn't be opposed to a break before coming back(something they didn't do for Italy yet nobody complains about it cuz Godzio was there....they didn't even change the era for that one). See some more exotic settings for a game or 2. were already 2 main games removed from America(no the Caribbean does not count until I can leave my house and sit on a beautiful palm tree shaded beach...its not the same as the US). And with another game or 2 we would be 3-4 games removed and it'd be set in an entirely different century and cities. I don't see the problem with that at all.There's been no other AC game with an American setting, and I'm only saying America is a bad setting is for AC games. Some of my favourite games are set in America, hell my favourite game of all time RDR is probably the closest game to Civil War times. However, would an AC game work in that setting? No.

I never said that I only wouldn't like it if it was the next game, I'd be opposed to any American game really. Historical America just doesn't entice me like some other settings would. I don't count the Caribbean as an American setting either.

There weren't as many complaints for Ezio having three games because the setting was a masterstroke for AC games. The renaissance couldn't be covered in one game and it had too much historical value to miss out on. I'd agree that America still has a lot to offer in terms of storytelling and historical value, but the landscape just doesn't suit an AC game.

Top 3:
Constantinople
Florence
Damascus

Bottom 3:
Frontier
Kingdom
New York

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 03:05 PM
There's been no other AC game with an American setting, and I'm only saying America is a bad setting is for AC games. Some of my favourite games are set in America, hell my favourite game of all time RDR is probably the closest game to Civil War times. However, would an AC game work in that setting? No.


Then how can you say its all bad if the only thing you are using to judge is the infant colonies of 1776? That's like saying you don't like ice cream because the only ice cream you ever tried was vanilla, and you hated it, so therefore you hate All ice cream. What you are saying makes no sense and is based on nothing. I ask you to give me an example from the 1800s as to why it wouldn't work and you don't, because you don't know any good reason.

And NOOOOO Red Dead Redeption is not at all like a Civil War game would be. RDR is set in 1911. 50 years removed from the start of the Civil War. And RDR is also set in the freakin desert and plains, where there is nothing to climb on except for canyons and rock formations. Not to mention that the fictional setting of RDR is even more sparsely populated than the real life West of that time. Blackwater is supposed to be the biggest city of the game, on a river in the plains, and it only has like 3 streets. The real life equivalent would be St. Louis, and this is what it would have looked like in 1911:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Broadway_North_from_Olive%2C_St._Louis%2C_Missouri .jpg
http://stlouis.genealogyvillage.com/cityhall.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Louisiana_Purchase_Exposition_St._Louis_1904.jpg
RDR was a romanticized look at what people typically THINK of as the west. In the future AC titles thread I actually went pretty in depth as to why AC would work in the West circa 1870-1900. With Chicago, St. Louis, and San Francisco as the main Cities. But that's beside the point.

The Civil War is nothing close to the fictional, non historical RDR western setting.

This:
http://th00.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2010/050/5/9/36_wild_west_stock_by_dragon_orb.jpg

Is Not This!!!:
Baltimore
http://www.rare-maps.com/REPROS_FRAME_THUMB/BALT-1850.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jqSxcipaQMc/Tzg8CCS_P8I/AAAAAAAAAeE/XFuV3QTfJqk/s1600/Barnum+City+Hotel+2,+Baltimore.jpg
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/images/places/parker_house.jpg

Washington DC
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dgNPxBlFp40/S9CcDbVIXXI/AAAAAAAACGM/nsuYUEhDs9c/s1600/american-cities-024.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/b7/dd/3c/b7dd3ceff77bd44deed8b0aa1a734707.jpg
http://photocolorizing.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/1865-lincoln-funeral-procession-washington-dc.jpg
http://ghostsofdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/800px-ebbitt_house_washington_dc_1865.jpg
http://www.historydc.org/exhibits/lincolnswashington/Scanned%20Photos/CHS%2002064.jpg
http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/current/figures/anc.00155.003.jpg
http://img0055.popscreencdn.com/109764587_-iron-constructionwashington-dcunited-statesus1860-home-.jpg

RDR is NOTHING like a Civil War setting! The guns wouldn't even be the same either.

And the crappy deserts and mountains of RDR are not the same setting either. The Civil War was east of the Mississippi
RDR:
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/71450/wild_wild_west_t.jpg

Civil War:
http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/west-virginia/images/s/harpers-ferry.jpg
http://stonehamhistory.webs.com/BaltimoreRiot/Railroad.PNG
http://www.civilwarmiddletownmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/west-main-street.jpg
http://jchatoff.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/tampere_destroyed_in_civil_war.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2658/4137957697_67d8106a17_z.jpg?zz=1

Very Very Very different. Even RDR was very different from the actual historic west and the cities in it. But don't confuse the civil war with the west, or with colonial America.

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 03:08 PM
I want to be a Shoshone in an American West game :P

I-Like-Pie45
06-21-2014, 04:00 PM
why shoshone

you have a problem with crows or apaches or sioux or comanche or etc

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 04:23 PM
because I played as them in civilization

roostersrule2
06-21-2014, 04:31 PM
Then how can you say its all bad if the only thing you are using to judge is the infant colonies of 1776? That's like saying you don't like ice cream because the only ice cream you ever tried was vanilla, and you hated it, so therefore you hate All ice cream. What you are saying makes no sense and is based on nothing. I ask you to give me an example from the 1800s as to why it wouldn't work and you don't, because you don't know any good reason.

And NOOOOO Red Dead Redeption is not at all like a Civil War game would be. RDR is set in 1911. 50 years removed from the start of the Civil War. And RDR is also set in the freakin desert and plains, where there is nothing to climb on except for canyons and rock formations. Not to mention that the fictional setting of RDR is even more sparsely populated than the real life West of that time. Blackwater is supposed to be the biggest city of the game, on a river in the plains, and it only has like 3 streets. The real life equivalent would be St. Louis, and this is what it would have looked like in 1911:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Broadway_North_from_Olive%2C_St._Louis%2C_Missouri .jpg
http://stlouis.genealogyvillage.com/cityhall.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Louisiana_Purchase_Exposition_St._Louis_1904.jpg
RDR was a romanticized look at what people typically THINK of as the west. In the future AC titles thread I actually went pretty in depth as to why AC would work in the West circa 1870-1900. With Chicago, St. Louis, and San Francisco as the main Cities. But that's beside the point.

The Civil War is nothing close to the fictional, non historical RDR western setting.

This:
http://th00.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2010/050/5/9/36_wild_west_stock_by_dragon_orb.jpg

Is Not This!!!:
Baltimore
http://www.rare-maps.com/REPROS_FRAME_THUMB/BALT-1850.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jqSxcipaQMc/Tzg8CCS_P8I/AAAAAAAAAeE/XFuV3QTfJqk/s1600/Barnum+City+Hotel+2,+Baltimore.jpg
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/images/places/parker_house.jpg

Washington DC
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dgNPxBlFp40/S9CcDbVIXXI/AAAAAAAACGM/nsuYUEhDs9c/s1600/american-cities-024.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/b7/dd/3c/b7dd3ceff77bd44deed8b0aa1a734707.jpg
http://photocolorizing.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/1865-lincoln-funeral-procession-washington-dc.jpg
http://ghostsofdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/800px-ebbitt_house_washington_dc_1865.jpg
http://www.historydc.org/exhibits/lincolnswashington/Scanned Photos/CHS 02064.jpg
http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/current/figures/anc.00155.003.jpg
http://img0055.popscreencdn.com/109764587_-iron-constructionwashington-dcunited-statesus1860-home-.jpg

RDR is NOTHING like a Civil War setting! The guns wouldn't even be the same either.

And the crappy deserts and mountains of RDR are not the same setting either. The Civil War was east of the Mississippi
RDR:
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/71450/wild_wild_west_t.jpg

Civil War:
http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/west-virginia/images/s/harpers-ferry.jpg
http://stonehamhistory.webs.com/BaltimoreRiot/Railroad.PNG
http://www.civilwarmiddletownmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/west-main-street.jpg
http://jchatoff.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/tampere_destroyed_in_civil_war.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2658/4137957697_67d8106a17_z.jpg?zz=1

Very Very Very different. Even RDR was very different from the actual historic west and the cities in it. But don't confuse the civil war with the west, or with colonial America.You realise I said RDR was the closest to the time period, not it's in the same time period.

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 05:40 PM
You realise I said RDR was the closest to the time period, not it's in the same time period.

I understand what you said. But you also must understand that it's about as close to the same as 2011 is to 1961. Very big difference.

You also said how AC wouldn't work in RDRs setting. But it isn't the same time....and more importantly place. As I showed in that last post even the time period and area depicted in RDR isn't an accurate portrayal of the west nor are any of them actual places. The nearest thing to a real world blackwater is St. Louis. Which I showed above was a massive city in 1911 worthy of AC.

America isn't just emptiness like the romanticized west or spaghetti westerns. Nor is it just trees with nothing interesting like AC3s colonial times. Just look at the large cities Baltimore and DC were and all the landmarks that are still famous today, and the change to Victorian style architecture and buildings that are 6-10 stories tall. Civil War would give some of the tallest cities ever in AC. I don't see the problem?

StingrayX
06-21-2014, 06:45 PM
I think that is a great idea, they need to move to different parts of the world, We've been in Europe 5 times? Including Unity. That's why AC3 was such a huge hit because it was set during the american Revolution. the civil war would be nice to visit again.

SirTookTookIII
06-21-2014, 08:05 PM
I think it would be nice to see some more Native American or some eastern Asian cultures. The obsession with Europe is annoying, I'd rather play as an Apache than some dude in London with a top hat. The height of the buildings doesn't determine if I like the game or not.

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 08:20 PM
Well as I've said Native Americans wouldn't have much of anything to do with the Civil War. They pretty much weren't a thing anymore east of the Mississippi by 1860. The Civil War is not the Wild West.

However there would be a massive impact made by African Americans. A culture and type of protagonist we have not had in a main AC game. Only DLC and the crappy game that was Liberation. Which oddly enough doesn't evolve much liberating lol

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 08:23 PM
I understand what you said. But you also must understand that it's about as close to the same as 2011 is to 1961. Very big difference.

You also said how AC wouldn't work in RDRs setting. But it isn't the same time....and more importantly place. As I showed in that last post even the time period and area depicted in RDR isn't an accurate portrayal of the west nor are any of them actual places. The nearest thing to a real world blackwater is St. Louis. Which I showed above was a massive city in 1911 worthy of AC.

America isn't just emptiness like the romanticized west or spaghetti westerns. Nor is it just trees with nothing interesting like AC3s colonial times. Just look at the large cities Baltimore and DC were and all the landmarks that are still famous today, and the change to Victorian style architecture and buildings that are 6-10 stories tall. Civil War would give some of the tallest cities ever in AC. I don't see the problem?

He just simply doesn't feel like America is a good choice for Assassin's Creed. He doesn't have any true reasoning for it.

Unfortunately, that's probably how most gamers think..

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 08:27 PM
He just simply doesn't feel like America is a good choice for Assassin's Creed. He doesn't have any true reasoning for it.

Unfortunately, that's probably how most gamers think..

Well then the only way to show how great it would be is to make a Civil War AC and prove them wrong! :). I guarantee they'd be blown away!

Hans684
06-21-2014, 08:55 PM
I don't understand the fuss about asking for a specific era, sure there is that One era people would pray for but why not just let they do what they always do. And I'm sure if they had listened to the loud fans we would never have gone to America Revolution or the Golden Age of Piracy.

DumbGamerTag94
06-21-2014, 09:08 PM
I don't understand the fuss about asking for a specific era, sure there is that One era people would pray for but why not just let they do what they always do. And I'm sure if they had listened to the loud fans we would never have gone to America Revolution or the Golden Age of Piracy.

Granted I wasn't on these forums then but I was a strong advocate of the American Revolution before it was made. And my number one setting until now was French rev which they announced with Unity. So I'm on a roll(only one I missed was pirates I thought French Rev would have been last year instead of this).

And it's not like anyone is trying to force Ubi to set their game in one area or another. We are just discussing what settings would be great for the series. Honestly I'd be happy with whatever they do. I just enjoy guessing and speculating. And showing people my personal favorites

Which since French Rev has been announced my new favorite is American Civil War lol

Jexx21
06-21-2014, 09:10 PM
I always confuse you two, Hans and Bmark. can you get avatars or something :/

SirTookTookIII
06-21-2014, 09:12 PM
Well as I've said Native Americans wouldn't have much of anything to do with the Civil War. They pretty much weren't a thing anymore east of the Mississippi by 1860. The Civil War is not the Wild West.

However there would be a massive impact made by African Americans. A culture and type of protagonist we have not had in a main AC game. Only DLC and the crappy game that was Liberation. Which oddly enough doesn't evolve much liberating lol
Native Americans were east of the Mississippi and about 20 different tribes fought on both sides of the war. Some tribes in the war were the Delaware, Creek, Cherokee, Seminole, Kickapoo, Seneca, Osage, Shawnee, Choctaw, Lumbee, Chickasaw, Iroquois, Powhatan, Pequot, Ojibwe (Chippewa), Huron, Odawa, Potawatomi, Catawba, and Pamunkey (that's quite a lot). But who says we have to stay in the east, maybe we could travel. You talk to them about being ignorant about Americas history but you forget the natives.

Hans684
06-21-2014, 09:26 PM
Granted I wasn't on these forums then but I was a strong advocate of the American Revolution before it was made. And my number one setting until now was French rev which they announced with Unity. So I'm on a roll(only one I missed was pirates I thought French Rev would have been last year instead of this).
Which since French Rev has been announced my new favorite is American Civil War lol

Nor I but I delivered news to the Wiki and had a bad habit of reading the comments by the [loud] fans. My one setting is Scandinavia during Viking times, Norway to be specific. My list of era's is far less likely to be made than your that already is partly done. Mine is MD, during the time of the First Civ, Vikings, Mafia and a few more.


And it's not like anyone is trying to force Ubi to set their game in one area or another. We are just discussing what settings would be great for the series. Honestly I'd be happy with whatever they do. I just enjoy guessing and speculating. And showing people my personal favorites

In time they will, it's just the way of the world. At the moment Ubisoft was forced regarding diversity(cussed by no females in Unity), Ubisoft was forced to say that they will make more diversity in future games. Any setting fits the series, it's based on history. I'd don't see a reason to have unneeded limitations because it might not "suit" AC, AC should take advantage of everything it can to improve.

DumbGamerTag94
06-22-2014, 12:11 AM
Native Americans were east of the Mississippi and about 20 different tribes fought on both sides of the war. Some tribes in the war were the Delaware, Creek, Cherokee, Seminole, Kickapoo, Seneca, Osage, Shawnee, Choctaw, Lumbee, Chickasaw, Iroquois, Powhatan, Pequot, Ojibwe (Chippewa), Huron, Odawa, Potawatomi, Catawba, and Pamunkey (that's quite a lot). But who says we have to stay in the east, maybe we could travel. You talk to them about being ignorant about Americas history but you forget the natives.

Ok I see how this could seem like I was being ignorant. So allow me to elaborate. The total population of Native Americans in the United States in 1860 according to the US census of 1860(meaning these would be all native tribes recognized by the government and living in the States, not territories(so therefore everything east of the Mississippi at that point) was only 339,421.

Compare that to the number of soldiers mobilized by the two sides. Union: 2,100,000 Confederate: 880,000

so the total number of Natives in the US at the time(east of the Mississippi) was not even equal to half of the total number of Confederate Soldiers. Add to that the fact that only 1/2 of those natives were males, and even fewer of them willing to fight in the war. So at the highest the estimation of Natives to fight in the war is about 169,711(and that's a high estimate assuming half of the populace is male and all fought.

so 169,711 vs. the basically 3million men(of white and black color) who served during the war.

Its not that there weren't natives east of the Mississippi in 1860, they just were such an extreme minority that they hardly even existed east of the Mississippi when compared to all the other demographics.

They also were not a major factor in the reasons for the war. The war was about different views on slavery and states relationships with the federal government, there was little to no controversy concerning the Natives that fueled the fires of the Civil War. As I said before on this thread after the 1820s and the Indian removal act the Natives were scarce east of the Mississippi
339,421 Natives out of a total population of 31,443,321. Thus making natives east of the Mississippi only 1% of the population.

Compare that to the nearly 4million slaves documented in the 1860 census. which makes up 13% of the population at the time. That's a huge difference.

Its not that Natives didn't exist east of the Mississippi during the Civil War, they were just so scarce and were not really an issue at all that contributed to the conflict. Sure there were many tribes and some served, but there were so few people in those tribes at that point in time it wasn't the same as the scenario in 1776.

As opposed to the Revolution when Natives were EXTREMELY common and the issue of expanding into their territory was a defining issue that was one of the causes of the American Revolution. The Civil War however had little to nothing to do with Native Americans.

Not to mention that African Americans had a wayyyy harder time during the Civil War. Firstly theres the whole Slavery thing. And the discrimination when serving. And massacres like Ft. Pillow. Where Confederates brutally murdered over 574 Black soldiers in one day after a battle to capture the fort(look it up its pretty disgusting). This opposed to the Natives worst mass killing during the Civil War where 38 Natives were hanged as an example to end conflicts with them so the Union could focus its power on the South. Hardly comparable.

I'm not trying to be ignorant to the natives. I was only trying to explain why it wouldn't make any sense to have a Native protagonist or a Native plotline in a Civil War AC game. It makes far more sense to tell the story from an African American's perspective or an Immigrant. AC3 had a very good reason to have a native as the protagonist given the historic context. I hope my explanation and the numbers show you why the Natives wouldn't make any sense as a subject or protagonist in a Civil War game. Now a Western AC would be a different story and a native would work perfectly there. But not the Civil War.

I hope that cleared things up for you. I didn't mean to sound biased or anything I suppose I should have phrased things better. And as for why a Civil War game would need to be east of the Mississippi....because that's where the major cities were, and the major theater of the war was the Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania theater. But I would be open to some travel missions(along the lines of ACBs Machine missions, or AC3s peg leg missions) to places like Vicksburg, New Orleans, St. Augustine, Charleston, etc.

dxsxhxcx
06-22-2014, 12:23 AM
no..

SirTookTookIII
06-22-2014, 01:10 AM
yes...

goob0t
06-22-2014, 01:49 AM
There's been no other AC game with an American setting, and I'm only saying America is a bad setting is for AC games. Some of my favourite games are set in America, hell my favourite game of all time RDR is probably the closest game to Civil War times. However, would an AC game work in that setting? No.

I never said that I only wouldn't like it if it was the next game, I'd be opposed to any American game really. Historical America just doesn't entice me like some other settings would. I don't count the Caribbean as an American setting either.

There weren't as many complaints for Ezio having three games because the setting was a masterstroke for AC games. The renaissance couldn't be covered in one game and it had too much historical value to miss out on. I'd agree that America still has a lot to offer in terms of storytelling and historical value, but the landscape just doesn't suit an AC game.

Top 3:
Constantinople
Florence
Damascus

Bottom 3:
Frontier
Kingdom
New York
Sorry but your logic is flawed. I agree, AC3 has some dull settings and this is due to the lack of buildings. But saying 1860 America wouldn't be a good setting because 1760 America isn't, is not very logical thinking. America by that time was very built up, meaning it would play like any other Assassin's creed game.

RagingDragon14
06-22-2014, 02:14 AM
I'd rather have Prohibition Era Chicago to be honest. More buildings to scale and add in car surfing too. I think the Civil War might work better as a somewhat linear game with exploration where you play as a Templar gone rogue having fallen out with his superiors' ideologies. Call it Assassin's Creed Renegade or something.

Jexx21
06-22-2014, 02:56 AM
Okay I know I said that any setting is good for AC, but I disagree with anything that adds cars.

travilanche
06-22-2014, 03:06 AM
Okay I know I said that any setting is good for AC, but I disagree with anything that adds cars.


Well, fortunately it won't happen. It was made pretty clear in Black Flag that there would be no AC game after cars became popular because the animus has problems pulling memories from that time period due to people zoning out all the time.

goob0t
06-22-2014, 03:30 AM
Well, fortunately it won't happen. It was made pretty clear in Black Flag that there would be no AC game after cars became popular because the animus has problems pulling memories from that time period due to people zoning out all the time.

I thought it was because then they would have to build mechanics for all the future tech like cars which would be a waste of resources?

DumbGamerTag94
06-22-2014, 04:00 AM
Sorry but your logic is flawed. I agree, AC3 has some dull settings and this is due to the lack of buildings. But saying 1860 America wouldn't be a good setting because 1760 America isn't, is not very logical thinking. America by that time was very built up, meaning it would play like any other Assassin's creed game.
Thank you for getting this!!!!! lol


Prohibition Era Chicago

Okay I know I said that any setting is good for AC, but I disagree with anything that adds cars.

While I'm generally pretty positive for many settings. I do have a time period cap. And my personal limit where I feel too modern for AC kicks in is anything after 1920.
Mainly because the minute that machine guns(like the Thompsons used by Mobsters) and semi automatic weapons(shotguns, M1garads, etc) are introduced the game becomes far too focused on guns and becomes a cover based shooter. The game would cease to be about stealth or being a blade in the crowd and just become a 1920s-30s era GTA. Which is fine.....If the game isn't part of the AC series.

I am ok with revolvers, muskets, bolt action rifles, possibly repeating rifles(if they had realistic reload times). I'm even ok with mounted machine guns such as the Gatling Gun or Maxim(because they are mounted and so large neither you or an enemy can carry them around) as long as they are used sparsely in an AC game. But once we get to hand held machine guns like the Thompson or BAR I feel there is no longer room for AC.

Cars on the other hand I don't mind so much, but due to my limitations on guns that limits cars to pre-1920s meaning maybe a Ford model T would be the most advanced piece of hardware lol. Or one of those crappy pre-mass production custom cars like in RDR.

So 1920s Chicago wouldn't be a good AC setting, however it would be awesome for a cover based shooter type game. Perhaps a throwback GTA deal(kind of like Red Dead was), or look in to the Mafia series. The original of that series i believe took place in the 20s or 30s(however it does now look quite dated), with the sequel in the 1950s(looks much nicer since it is more recent). That series is really good IMO. One of my personal favorites. Its not that i don't like the setting. Just not for an AC game.

I would rather not exceed the 1800s with the AC series(except for maybe WW1 or the Boxer Rebellion). Thus why my current favorite candidate for an AC game is the American Civil War(since my previous favorite was recently announced to be the next setting in ACU the French Revolution:))

I feel the ACW has everything a good AC game needs, and an AMAZING time period filled with intensity and drama. If it didn't eventually happen I would be EXTREMELY SURPRIZED. Everything about it just seems to lend itself naturally to the series and its themes and icons.

Jexx21
07-07-2014, 01:57 AM
Bringing back this topic because I really want an American Civil War AC game.

fanart I found on DA

http://th00.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2011/231/8/7/divide_by_demonsfearme-d476n1d.png

LoyalACFan
07-07-2014, 02:41 AM
I can't say I really want a Civil War game, but at the same time I wouldn't actively despise it. Melee combat wasn't completely obsolete by then; most standard-issue rifles still only held one shot if I recall correctly, so it wouldn't be much different gameplay-wise from the colonial era. I'm not sold on the parkour opportunities yet though; outside of major cities like Vicksburg, Atlanta, and Richmond, most of the events of the war took place pretty far away from urban areas.

If they're doing the 1800s though, I'd MUCH rather see a Victorian London game, or an Arno sequel during Napoleon's expeditions in Egypt and Syria.

DumbGamerTag94
07-07-2014, 03:18 AM
I can't say I really want a Civil War game, but at the same time I wouldn't actively despise it. Melee combat wasn't completely obsolete by then; most standard-issue rifles still only held one shot if I recall correctly, so it wouldn't be much different gameplay-wise from the colonial era. I'm not sold on the parkour opportunities yet though; outside of major cities like Vicksburg, Atlanta, and Richmond, most of the events of the war took place pretty far away from urban areas.

If they're doing the 1800s though, I'd MUCH rather see a Victorian London game, or an Arno sequel during Napoleon's expeditions in Egypt and Syria.

There were actually a great many events that took place in the cities during the civil war as well as the battlefields. Riots(put down by the military) spies, assassinations, battles(whole cites were laid siege, starved out, and burned down), major parades, political events and speeches(inaugurations), troop encampments, Lincoln's funeral procession. Etc. all of these happened in just DC, Richmond, and Baltimore alone. There were plenty of major events that occurred in the cities.

Also I'm all for anything Napoleon but would prefer the Napoleonic wars in Europe.

As for Victorian London I don't get the obsession people have with it. I mean besides looking pretty there's really Nothing of major historic significance going on there at the time. Talk about a lack of historic events in the city. Wow. What would they do. A whole game chasing Jack the Ripper...oh wait there's already a Sherlock Holmes game about that lol :rolleyes:

LoyalACFan
07-07-2014, 03:51 AM
As for Victorian London I don't get the obsession people have with it. I mean besides looking pretty there's really Nothing of major historic significance going on there at the time. Talk about a lack of historic events in the city. Wow. What would they do. A whole game chasing Jack the Ripper...oh wait there's already a Sherlock Holmes game about that lol :rolleyes:

I'm not asking for an abundance of actual historical events. AC3 already showed us how that can go badly wrong. I think AC should focus on reconstructing the mood and popular imagination of an era, not necessarily its specific events. Look at the first two games, aside from the battle of Arsuf and Giuliano de Medici's assassination they really didn't cover too many specific events, but they sure as hell made me feel like I was actually visiting Crusader Syria and Renaissance Italy. And Victorian London is such an iconic setting; who wouldn't want to see this setting get the Assassin's Creed treatment?

http://www.trueachievements.com/customimages/020740.jpg

Finding historical figures to stand in as the Templars wouldn't be a problem; hell, anybody who died during the era could be made a target. Plus it's not like we haven't gotten amazing fictional targets before (Haytham).

DumbGamerTag94
07-07-2014, 04:45 AM
That pic kind of proves my point tho. Those buildings on that street are hardly any different from American architecture of the 1860s. And ST Pauls has VERYYYY similar architecture to the US Capitol. That pic could just as we'll be Washington DC really

And there's no atmosphere to be created for the Civil War?? Are you joking?!? Lol :rolleyes:

LoyalACFan
07-07-2014, 04:58 AM
That pic kind of proves my point tho. Those buildings on that street are hardly any different from American architecture of the 1860s. And ST Pauls has VERYYYY similar architecture to the US Capitol. That pic could just as we'll be Washington DC really

And there's no atmosphere to be created for the Civil War?? Are you joking?!? Lol :rolleyes:

I never said, or even implied that. I just mean it would be more natural to do a Victorian England game that doesn't heavily rely on individual events. I fear a Civil War game would be a rerun of AC3, in that I don't want our protagonist to be the guy who fired first at Ft. Sumter, witnessed the Gettysburg Address, led Pickett's Charge, rode shotgun with Abraham Lincoln to Ford's Theatre, shot John Wilkes Booth in the barn, etc. AC3 got really cheesy with the amount of events they stuck Connor in.

Plus Victorian England has Big Ben :p

roostersrule2
07-07-2014, 05:12 AM
Lets just leave the 1700-1800's.

The only game that I think would be necessary after Unity in the 1800's would be the Napoleonic Wars, then there should be a drastic change.

I think it's time for an Ancient setting. Greece, Japan, Egypt, China or back to the Middle East should be where the next few games are headed IMO.

Jexx21
07-07-2014, 05:17 AM
You can have both you know rooster

LoyalACFan
07-07-2014, 05:22 AM
Lets just leave the 1700-1800's.

The only game that I think would be necessary after Unity in the 1800's would be the Napoleonic Wars, then there should be a drastic change.

I think it's time for an Ancient setting. Greece, Japan, Egypt, China or back to the Middle East should be where the next few games are headed IMO.

Well technically they could cover the Middle East in the Napoleonic War game, considering Napoleon spent a good few years in Egypt and the Levant. I think it would be awesome to have a game spanning roughly 1798-1814 with three drastically different playable maps in Egypt, Russia, and France, though that would admittedly be an insane amount of work.

roostersrule2
07-07-2014, 05:26 AM
No, no you couldn't.

The Napoleonic Wars are large enough to cover two game let-alone half a game, one game would suffice though.

They're also 50 years apart from each other and they have no correlation, so jumping from one to the other would not make sense.

Unless you're saying one for current gen and one for last gen.

Which would work but I'm not a fan of the American Civil War setting so I hope it doesn't happen.


Well technically they could cover the Middle East in the Napoleonic War game, considering Napoleon spent a good few years in Egypt and the Levant. I think it would be awesome to have a game spanning roughly 1798-1814 with three drastically different playable maps in Egypt, Russia, and France, though that would admittedly be an insane amount of work.That'd be amazing.

I could see it happening really, they could have different studio's work on different maps. If like Ubisoft Montreal developed the story, characters, gameplay ideas and tech used for the game and the other studio's built the cities and whatnot.

If they did that and pulled it off it would be indescribably amazing, imagine going from the sandy, humidity of Egypt to the perpetual snowing of Russia.

LoyalACFan
07-07-2014, 05:42 AM
No, no you couldn't.

The Napoleonic Wars are large enough to cover two game let-alone half a game, one game would suffice though.

They're also 50 years apart from each other and they have no correlation, so jumping from one to the other would not make sense.

Unless you're saying one for current gen and one for last gen.

Think he meant two separate games, possibly one for last gen and one for next gen.


That'd be amazing.

I could see it happening really, they could have different studio's work on different maps. If like Ubisoft Montreal developed the story, characters, gameplay ideas and tech used for the game and the other studio's built the cities and whatnot.

If they did that and pulled it off it would be indescribably amazing, imagine going from the sandy, humidity of Egypt to the perpetual snowing of Russia.

Yeah, the sheer diversity would be incredible. But like I said, the workload would be intense. I guess for the French/European map they could reuse a lot of assets, but the Russian and Egyptian ones would require all-new lighting and particle effects, dialogue, and architecture design. It would be like three games in one, essentially. But if they pulled it off, it'd be Game of the Century material.

I-Like-Pie45
07-07-2014, 05:48 AM
how about a ww2 ac game where we play from the perspective of the axis

roostersrule2
07-07-2014, 05:55 AM
Think he meant two separate games, possibly one for last gen and one for next gen.I know, I put that in my post haha


Yeah, the sheer diversity would be incredible. But like I said, the workload would be intense. I guess for the French/European map they could reuse a lot of assets, but the Russian and Egyptian ones would require all-new lighting and particle effects, dialogue, and architecture design. It would be like three games in one, essentially. But if they pulled it off, it'd be Game of the Century material.Russia and France would be similar, distinct but similar, like comparing Florence to Constantinople. The maps wouldn't have to be overly big, they'd just have to capture the essence of the cities.

Though the amount of varied NCP's you'd have to create and littler things like that would be intense.

It would really only be likely if they started development pretty much the same time as ACU and released it late next year.

Jexx21
07-07-2014, 06:50 AM
I never said do both in the same game, I meant they could do both for the series. It's not like we're talking about the NEXT game, just a possible Assassin's Creed game.

also can we get back to discussing an American Civil War AC game, you guys can make a Napoleonic Wars topic you want.

DumbGamerTag94
07-07-2014, 06:59 AM
Ok to return this thread to its topic (a US Civil War AC)

Firstly I agree we should either do a Unity sequel with Napoleon or switch back in time first before it ever happened.

But what if we got the best of both worlds with a ACW game. We get the main game with the Civil war(which doesn't have to shoehorn anything that's a dumb accusation. There is so many events that it can happen naturally in a well written story. Say for instance being present for the burning of Richmond or Gettysburg(preferably not commanding troops but using the battle itself to cover your approach for an assassination) could be in the story. But if I leave and the story takes me to Washington. There should be no reason to leave just to see the Gettysburg address(cough cough Connor and the Declaration of Independence))

But anyway what if we got ACW for the main game and then a standalone DLC in London during the same time period (Victoria was queen). Where you try to prevent The British from intervening(which they almost did) and stop them from building ships for the confederacy(which they did). And maybe a few AC3 style naval missions where you stop the British from supplying the rebels. Or the event where southern delegates were cought by the US navy on the way to England(which almost caused the Brits to enter the war).

I think if we could combine the two stories like that it would be awesome. And in one year we would get two amazing settings. The best of both. What do we think about that????

Jexx21
07-07-2014, 07:19 AM
What about instead of having it be a DLC it's just a current-gen game? :P

Assassin's Creed: Division, next-gen ACW game
Assassin's Creed: Coal, current-gen Victorian London game w/ naval

(in an alternate universe this is what we have instead of Unity and Comet :P)

Shahkulu101
07-07-2014, 07:25 AM
Lol AC: Coal

Jexx21
07-07-2014, 07:34 AM
I tried to come up with something that was the opposite of Comet. :/

DumbGamerTag94
07-07-2014, 07:56 AM
What about instead of having it be a DLC it's just a current-gen game? :P

Assassin's Creed: Division, next-gen ACW game
Assassin's Creed: Coal, current-gen Victorian London game w/ naval

(in an alternate universe this is what we have instead of Unity and Comet :P)

Yeah haha. The only 2 reasons I said DLC are...
1. I would hate to see either setting relegated to last gen quality.

2. London while absolutely gorgeous. Just doesn't have enough major history going on for enough material for a full game. And I wouldn't want to see that setting ruined with a complete ****ty story or a bunch of made up characters just to fill space to squeeze out a full game.

As DLC you would get the better deal out of both. Better story based on real history(ACs bread n butter). And current gen quality for both settings. It's a win win

m4r-k7
07-07-2014, 12:57 PM
I just don't think the Civil War would be interesting enough for an AC game. The cities just do not spark my interest during that period. The high emphasis on rifles would also annoy me. I know soldiers carried swords, I just think that guns are playing a more and more significant role in later AC games. I know the American Revolution and Civil War are two different and distinct events in history, but I can just see Ubisoft borrowing assets from AC 3 if they were to create a Civil War game. They could however create a great story with the backdrop of the Civil War. I think they need to go back in time. I really want a Medieval England game or perhaps abit later during the Tudor Dynasty. Other than that China or Feudal Japan would be amazing. Also would love Egypt. My favourite time period for an AC game so far still remains to be AC 1. Jerusalem and the other cities, along with the kingdom during the first crusade was simply astonishing.

goob0t
07-07-2014, 03:51 PM
I do think that a Napoleon game after unity would be the best route, I even think it should be an Arno trilogy with the third game taking place around the congress of Vienna which put a king back in France and not to mention took place in Austria which I believe Arno is half French and half Austrian right? Can't be a coincidence.

Anyway after it should be a civil war game for sure tho.

I-Like-Pie45
07-07-2014, 03:52 PM
Has anyone actually seen a city in Poodel Japan?

It would be worse for freerunning than AC3's cities. But I suppose that no one cares as long as they get their Samurai Ninja Assassin *** fantasies.