PDA

View Full Version : Cut content from the series



BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-13-2013, 07:26 AM
I always love seeing concept art and learning about cut content from video games. It's just interesting to 1. see what might have been and 2. it's interesting because I would like to get into game design. Anyone know of some cool content cut from any of the Assassin's Creed games?

I remember AC3 originally included scalping and the hook blade before they were cut. Also, Connor's outfit was originally primarily white and red (like the Jamestown outfit) with a more closed hood like Altair before it was switched to white and blue with an open hood like Ezio.

Apparently, AC1 was originally going to have an entire cooperative mode that was cut due to not meshing well with the modern day animus aspect.

Aaaand, the last things I can think of... Originally, the Armor of Altair was to be an invention of Da Vinci which makes WAY more sense in terms of the final design of the outfit being total Renaissance. I also know the Helmshmied Drachen armor was originally going to be white instead of black -- would've been cool to get both variants for that outfit but I love the look of the black and how it differs from the black dye and the Armor of Altair which both look more flat as if it's just the normal cloth robes while the Drachen armor is almost a leathery black.

Anyway: any other things that they've mentioned being cut? Be it huge aspects like a coop mode or scalping to small things like switching colors for an outfit?

pirate1802
12-13-2013, 07:53 AM
AC3 was initially meant to have the hookblade? :eek:

Farlander1991
12-13-2013, 08:08 AM
Well, to be fair, regarding Armor of Altair, judging by the Codex, the Renaissance cloth parts are not what Altair has created, just the metal parts.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120615113761/assassinscreed/hu/images/8/87/Zw-codex-19.png

Regarding AC3 and cut content, while writing up my AC3 level design blog series, I noticed that in Lexington and Concord mission Barrett says to defend his troops if the British will get past the river. In the game, though, they can't get past the river, but this dialog implies that the original idea was to have them go through the bridge/river and us having to run around and fight them if that happens.

poptartz20
12-13-2013, 08:13 AM
Omg... I'm so glad there was no Hookblade in AC3 that gimmick garbage! ( Say it with a french accent lol)

But as far as the scalping goes. They did have that but once they consulted with the people of the Mohawk tribe about this issue in the game (as not to offend anyone) They said that traditionally their tribe did not scalp their enemies.

pacmanate
12-13-2013, 08:19 AM
AC3

1. In winter lakes would freeze over so you can get to new places
2. In winter, branches would become slippery.

poptartz20
12-13-2013, 08:24 AM
^ yeah, that and Canoes.

soooo many possibilities with AC3. It's such a diamond in the rough! Still love it though.

pirate1802
12-13-2013, 08:27 AM
Omg... I'm so glad there was no Hookblade in AC3 that gimmick garbage! ( Say it with a french accent lol).

It was fun in ACR, ziplining across. But can't think of how it would be possibly of any use in AC3..

poptartz20
12-13-2013, 08:30 AM
It was fun in ACR, ziplining across. But can't think of how it would be possibly of any use in AC3..

yeah.. I found it cool the first 5 times. :| Then I really didn't see the point that much unless the game forced me to use it again. On the hand I do agree that I don't see how it would have been used in AC3. Maybe on boats? Lol!

Farlander1991
12-13-2013, 08:32 AM
Speaking of AC4, the "Fireship" mission:

Vane says that the Galleon that we have captured in Seq. 3 was commandeered by Lobsters, so we have to clear it out before setting out, but after the cutscene we get straight into the sea, no Man'o'War in sight either (though I think it was supposed to be stationary in the harbor, since it was for defense purposes only). My guess is that it was cut because they couldn't get the Nassau/open-sea seamless transition working properly with the current-gen limitations.

Sigv4rd
12-13-2013, 08:43 AM
Ziplines were going to be in AC3...

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-13-2013, 08:46 AM
AC3 was initially meant to have the hookblade? :eek:

Yeah, it was supposed to also have a chain, I believe, that could be used to yank enemies to you but apparently testers kept saying "GET OVER HERE" so the concept evolved into the Rope Dart instead.


Well, to be fair, regarding Armor of Altair, judging by the Codex, the Renaissance cloth parts are not what Altair has created, just the metal parts.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120615113761/assassinscreed/hu/images/8/87/Zw-codex-19.png

Regarding AC3 and cut content, while writing up my AC3 level design blog series, I noticed that in Lexington and Concord mission Barrett says to defend his troops if the British will get past the river. In the game, though, they can't get past the river, but this dialog implies that the original idea was to have them go through the bridge/river and us having to run around and fight them if that happens.

Interesting note about the river. As for the armor: true but the armor does still look a little....flashy don't you think? Like look at the shoulder bits and the like...part that flares out near the middle. It doesn't seem too Middle Ages to me but yeah, point still taken.



But as far as the scalping goes. They did have that but once they consulted with the people of the Mohawk tribe about this issue in the game (as not to offend anyone) They said that traditionally their tribe did not scalp their enemies.

Yeah, definitely. This isn't about whether the cut ideas made sense or not, just interesting. I'm glad they scalped the scalping because it would have just been too much. Not Assassin-y and not even accurate. Remember how Altair swiped the blood of his enemies with a feather? Or how Ezio said "Requiescat in pace." Would've been a little wird to see Connor just scalp 'em instead. I much prefer his native dialogue to them.


AC3

1. In winter lakes would freeze over so you can get to new places
2. In winter, branches would become slippery.

Aw man, that's actually really cool. would've been AWESOME.


^ yeah, that and Canoes.

soooo many possibilities with AC3. It's such a diamond in the rough! Still love it though.

Oh yeah, totally forgot the canoes!

I hate the parkour; the cities were bland IMO -- not too visually different from one another, streets too wide, buildings too low, not enough towers, not enough liberties taken (HAHA it's funny 'cause liberty) with the architecture to make it more pleasing to free run around. It was TOO accurate. I liked Connor as a character, liked Achilles, loved the relationship between everyone, loved the historical story, but hated the modern story. Desmond's story, that was building up to so much potential for him to be a badass just fizzled out like they didn't know what to do. Lame. But yeah...it's not bad and people whp hate the game are...well, entitled to their opinion, it's just I disagree a lot.


It was fun in ACR, ziplining across. But can't think of how it would be possibly of any use in AC3..

Ziplines were the only thing I liked the hook blade for. I HATED that it would automatically speed up climbing buildings -- I like climbing, I don't want it sped up like that. Plus it wasn't even realistic. I also hated how it was used to flip over enemies. Tripping civilians and breaking the wooden structures was also cool but flipping over people is ridiculous the way it was represented.


Speaking of AC4, the "Fireship" mission:

Thanks for hiding the content. I haven't played AC4 yet so any potential AC4 spoilers should be labeled as such (for everyone, not just me lol)

pirate1802
12-13-2013, 08:46 AM
Btw, Galleon means Man o' War right? Since I'm a noob in all stuffs related to ships, for too long I kept hearing Galleon and kept thinking its an even higher level ship than a Man o' War, and was excited by the prospect of hunting and boarding them. Oh well.. :/

That captured galleon from sequence 3 was in Abaco Island btw, I was delighted to see it after that sequence and even climbed to the highest possible point :D

And coming to think of it, hookblades would have suited AC4 as compared to AC3 more, with all that rope on the ships, don't you think?

DarktheMagister
12-13-2013, 08:49 AM
I miss ziplines.


The fight with El Tiburon was cut.

DarktheMagister
12-13-2013, 08:49 AM
Btw, Galleon means Man o' War right? Since I'm a noob in all stuffs related to ships, for too long I kept hearing Galleon and kept thinking its an even higher level ship than a Man o' War, and was excited by the prospect of hunting and boarding them. Oh well.. :/

That captured galleon from sequence 3 was in Abaco Island btw, I was delighted to see it after that sequence and even climbed to the highest possible point :D

Galleons are the really big ships... so yeah Man-O-Wars essentially.

Farlander1991
12-13-2013, 08:51 AM
As for the armor: true but the armor does still look a little....flashy don't you think? Like look at the shoulder bits and the like...part that flares out near the middle. It doesn't seem too Middle Ages to me but yeah, point still taken.

Well, Altair has based this on his visions from the Apple (like the hidden gun as well, for example), so I don't think it's that big of a deal that it's not exactly Crusader-era looking.


Thanks for hiding the content. I haven't played AC4 yet so any potential AC4 spoilers should be labeled as such (for everyone, not just me lol)

No worries :)


Btw, Galleon means Man o' War right? Since I'm a noob in all stuffs related to ships, for too long I kept hearing Galleon and kept thinking its an even higher level ship than a Man o' War, and was excited by the prospect of hunting and boarding them. Oh well.. :/

It's been long since I dabbled in sea-faring info (at the time the Caribbean period of 1600-1700s was one of my favourite periods that I researched a lot), but if I remember correctly, a Galleon is a multi-decked ship, and Man-of-War is just a sub-type of a Galleon that's got three decks.

pirate1802
12-13-2013, 08:52 AM
Thanks for hiding the content. I haven't played AC4 yet so any potential AC4 spoilers should be labeled as such (for everyone, not just me lol)

I salute your bravery good sir. All the time between October 30th and when I got my hands on the game about a month later, I was hiding from the world like a scared puppy

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-13-2013, 09:24 AM
I salute your bravery good sir. All the time between October 30th and when I got my hands on the game about a month later, I was hiding from the world like a scared puppy

Meh. I haven't been spoiled by anything really. I've been getting certain vibes about story plot points but nothing concrete yet. Surprisingly.

Farlander1991
12-13-2013, 09:30 AM
Meh. I haven't been spoiled by anything really. I've been getting certain vibes about story plot points but nothing concrete yet. Surprisingly.

The big plot twist is that Edward's a woman, and is his own mother.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-13-2013, 09:41 AM
The big plot twist is that Edward's a woman, and is his own mother.

GOD DANG IT!

*flips table*

haha god, could you imagine if 1. any game's plot was ever about that and 2. if it was actually AC that did it?

DinoSteve1
12-13-2013, 09:42 AM
That get over here chain sounds awesome, why would they cut that, although it looks like the dlc may have it.

pirate1802
12-13-2013, 09:46 AM
How can someone be his own mother? A PoE must be involved..

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-13-2013, 10:16 AM
That get over here chain sounds awesome, why would they cut that, although it looks like the dlc may have it.

The Tyranny of King Washington has it? I just remember seeing the "special powers" as the new items.

Anyway...I believe you can yank enemies to you WITH the rope darts. Can't remember if you can in AC3 but you definitely can in AC4 as I've seen a youtube video with it.

DinoSteve1
12-13-2013, 10:44 AM
Yeah I done it with the rope dart, but I can imagine doing it with a chain would work different, and look cooler.

roostersrule2
12-13-2013, 11:02 AM
They cut the fun out of AC3.

Seriously though there was a plethora of things cut from AC3.

Frozen lakes, canoes, battles, dynamic world, snow that sticks to Connor/Haytham, at least ten of the two dozen animals promised, a longer story, a polished game.

Sukramo
12-13-2013, 11:04 AM
Lets move away from the terrible game that was AC3.

Here is another on topic thing: In the Da Vinci DLC for Brotherhood, Ezio mentions having met the Hermetics before, probably when he had the apple in AC2. This content of their previous enccounter is completely unknown and must as such be treated as cut AC2 content.

Farlander1991
12-13-2013, 11:11 AM
I don't see any reason why it should, to be honest, since there's absolutely no indication in AC2 (or related material) that Hermetics could be possible adversaries.

EDIT: Speaking of AC2, we do know that the game was supposed to end in 1503 (Rodrigo's death) at first (based on early interviews). And IIRC there was a mention somewhere Rome was supposed to be a full city there. But it got moved back to 1501 and Rodrigo didn't die.

DarktheMagister
12-13-2013, 12:26 PM
But then they just took that last bit of game and extended it into Brotherhood.

pirate1802
12-13-2013, 12:28 PM
Which is why Brotherhood sucked. It was the **** shat out of AC2 *runs at full speed*

Farlander1991
12-13-2013, 12:31 PM
Yeah. Interesting point, I guess, Brotherhood started off as a DLC series which was called "Assassin's Creed II Episodes", and then it became, well, Brotherhood.

BUT. Things would've been REALLY different for Ezio had the original ended in 1503, because he wouldn't leave Rodrigo alive - an action that has cost him his Villa and his uncle's life. I personally think that Ezio's character progression would work either way, it's just that with the 1503 ending he would've put the Assassin duties above personal ones, while in 1501 he did the opposite.

DarktheMagister
12-13-2013, 12:33 PM
Which is why Brotherhood sucked. It was the **** shat out of AC2 *runs at full speed*

I take it then that you didn't like that one?

pacmanate
12-13-2013, 12:42 PM
I actually really enjoyed AC:B, its my favourite Ezio game for sure but its just wayyy to damn short.

Sukramo
12-13-2013, 12:48 PM
I respect people who dont like Brotherhood. After all it was the easiest game (Not that AC2 was hard by any means, 15X Medicine), only had one year in development so it was shorter. It also played out more like an action movie than an ordinary Assasain game (Which it has in common with AC4)

Me, I enjoyed Brotherhood. I liked the atmosphere, the hillariously OP Assasain recruits, the bad guy being more involved, Borgia Towers, Da Vinci Machines, the Multiplayer and the fast pace of the story.

It is a matter of tastes after all. Personally id date them from Best to worst: AC4>>ACB>>AC2>>ACR>>AC1>>AC3

The biggest flaw of ACB is it being abit rushed so things were missing, like an entire sequence to explain Cesare going to Spain and Ezio following him, it was scrapped due to time.

I could also feel great about killing Guards in ACB. There were simply corrupt Soldiers and every appearence painted them as evil.
In AC3? They are ordinary British/Colonial Men who joined the army. I just dont see any real justification for killing them.

And I hate Connor. Such a poor Character.

DinoSteve1
12-13-2013, 01:01 PM
Yeah. Interesting point, I guess, Brotherhood started off as a DLC series which was called "Assassin's Creed II Episodes", and then it became, well, Brotherhood.

BUT. Things would've been REALLY different for Ezio had the original ended in 1503, because he wouldn't leave Rodrigo alive - an action that has cost him his Villa and his uncle's life. I personally think that Ezio's character progression would work either way, it's just that with the 1503 ending he would've put the Assassin duties above personal ones, while in 1501 he did the opposite.

tbf though, it was Cesare who attacked the villa not Rodrigo, Ezio defeated Rodrigo in AC2 by destroying his will to go on, in ACB you can clearly see he is worried about what will happen because Cesare restarted the fight with Ezio and the Assassins. So ACB could have happened whether or not Rodrigo was there.

Farlander1991
12-13-2013, 01:05 PM
tbf though it was Cesare who attacked the villa not Rodrigo, Ezio defeated Rodrigo in AC2 by destroying his will to go on, in ACB you can clearly see he is worried about what will happen because Cesare restarted the fight with Ezio and the Assassins.

I remember there were some dialogues (between Ezio and Machiavelli, and between Rodrigo and Cesare too I think) that indicated the attack wouldn't have happened if Rodrigo were dead, though it's been long since I last played AC:B, so might be mistaken on that account.

At any rate, Cesare could attack the Villa either way I suppose (with different reasons, though).

pirate1802
12-13-2013, 01:24 PM
Don't soil your breeches lads, I was joking. I like Brotherhood as well. Just less than other ACs. But still more than other non-AC games.



There were simply corrupt Soldiers and every appearence painted them as evil.
Not all of them. How do you know that lowly guard resting over there is EVIL!!! ?


They are ordinary British/Colonial Men who joined the army. I just don't see any real justification for killing them.
Welcome to the ironical way of the Assassins. And its not just present in AC3.

Farlander1991
12-13-2013, 01:30 PM
When I played AC3 for the first time, I killed soldiers only in high-conflict/high-tension situations like big battles, ship boardings, etc., but in all other cases used hand to hand combat for non-lethal kills (there are two, problems, though: a) in some animations Connor snaps the people's necks, even though they're still clearly alive after that, but still looks weird, and b) half of double counters with fists take the weapons away and kill the soldiers with them, and that's, uhm... yeah, not good for non-lethal runs).

Sukramo
12-13-2013, 03:17 PM
Not all of them. How do you know that lowly guard resting over there is EVIL!!! ?


The moment they put on that armor, they DIED!

Still, there is significant differenced between my willingness to kill guards in different games:

AC1: Most fights are against bodyguards of men who want to do some pretty nasty things. I dont have much of a problem killng them.

AC2: Same as AC1 but its even more of a difference between normal guards who can even accept you with cloaks of the city and the guards of those in the conspiracy.

ACB: The most corrupt guards of the series. Love to wipe em out and free Rome. It just gives me the most immersion.

ACR: I cant take Byzantine guards seriously. I mean it makes no sense for them to be around 60 years after the fall of Constantinople and run around in such huge armies as they do.

AC3: Killing in this game is really wierd. I mean its a war with both sides being Soldiers. Why should I kill Redcoats or Patriots at all? Connor even goes so far as killing a group of Smuggler/Pirates because they found a piece of a treasure map before he did and therefore they have to die.

AC4: You never see any kinds of civilans on the ships you attack. All of them have uniforms (Or pirate hunter uniforms) Still its a pirate game and pirates did kill but only when the ship didnt surrender.

Farlander1991
12-13-2013, 03:22 PM
Connor even goes so far as killing a group of Smuggler/Pirates because they found a piece of a treasure map before he did and therefore they have to die.

I didn't kill anyone. :p (And I used non-lethal fists for the 'running assassination' moves for the full synch objectives so in my eyes that's canon as it fits Connor's character :p )

Though, to be honest, some of the optional objective in AC3 are REALLY against the character of Connor, some (like the 'running assassination' one) can still be interpreted in favor of the character. Still would be better without things like that, I think, just some side-objectives related to missions (like in AC3, there's an optional objective to disable cannons - stuff like that, the 'what' and not the 'how')

After all, as a player in any AC game you can go on a killing spree even when it doesn't make any sense, but at least there's the Animus for it not necessarily to be how the character actually is (after all, if we kill 1000 soldiers in game that doesn't mean the ancestor did it).

poptartz20
12-13-2013, 03:29 PM
It's funny because I never really thought about the motive behind Connor killing... considering he had no "affiliation" with either side even though it still come off as he did. but still in the frontier either side would come after you.


now I see why AC3 was terrible. Haha. (totally kidding)

pirate1802
12-13-2013, 03:38 PM
The moment they put on that armor, they DIED!

Yes, but its the same thing as other games. They could have put on the armour for a thousand reasons. Maybe he was forced into working, maybe something else. Yes, Ezio in that game did say something on this topic, but it never sat right with me. They deserve to die because they never question the orders given to them? Seems like a bit too extreme.


I now I see why AC3 was terrible.

This place.. it changes people.

poptartz20
12-13-2013, 03:42 PM
Yes, but its the same thing as other games. They could have put on the armour for a thousand reasons. Maybe he was forced into working, maybe something else. Yes, Ezio in that game did say something on this topic, but it never sat right with me. They deserve to die because they never question the orders given to them? Seems like a bit too extreme.



This place.. it changes people.


But honestly Ezio never really questioned anything about the brotherhood. :| He went along with everything. just because the templars killed his family he became gung ho into a group he didn't know anything fully about at the time. So was he really one to talk? Haha.

MnemonicSyntax
12-13-2013, 03:52 PM
Lets move away from the terrible game that was AC3.

Here is another on topic thing: In the Da Vinci DLC for Brotherhood, Ezio mentions having met the Hermetics before, probably when he had the apple in AC2. This content of their previous enccounter is completely unknown and must as such be treated as cut AC2 content.

No, the title is for the whole series. While it's fine to have an opinion, it seems to me like you're just hating on AC3 because it's cool. As a previous poster mentioned, you don't have to actually kill anyone in that mission.


It's funny because I never really thought about the motive behind Connor killing... considering he had no "affiliation" with either side even though it still come off as he did. but still in the frontier either side would come after you.


now I see why AC3 was terrible. Haha. (totally kidding)

It didn't make sense for the Patriots to attack Connor, but then again, either side could have Templar Puppetmasters who might lead a patrol or a troop, and would command their soldiers to attack Connor on sight, because he's an Assassin. I mean, think about it: A Templar, using a small military (or a large one depending how much ish you start) for Templar gains unknowingly to the other soldiers? Then other Red/Bluecoats see their mates fighting and it's like "We'd better go help them!" and have a shoot first, never ask questions later.

That's how it played out in my mind anyway.

poptartz20
12-13-2013, 03:57 PM
good point! that really could be the case!

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-13-2013, 04:12 PM
See the thing about killing guards is...it has to be there. Whether it fits the character or not. The series would be significantly less popular if every person, civilian and guard, you kill pops up with a message saying "You ancestor did not kill any civilians or guards or soldiers...killing another will result in..." it would just be ridiculous and at that point -- why bother making it open world when we're told who we're allowed to kill and any deviation in any way results in penalties?

As for Connor...I STILL don't get why people dislike him. Yeah, he wasn't likable in the same sense as Ezio was but I found him to be more interesting than Altair from the first game. Altair, as a character, only got better right near the end and after no longer playing as him. When AC2 comes out and they talk of Altair as a legendary Assassin -- it's awesome. And I get why he should be "the best" Assassin but the game was meh and he, as a character, was little more than an ignorant and arrogant ******. Connor's story is good. It's sad -- you know that, no matter what he does, we know how history ends and the Templars were right...the colonists found a reason, found a justification to kick his people out of their homes. He's naive with the best of intentions -- wanting everyone to be free, a goal he can never reach but will never quit striving for. A commendable trait to be sure.

If you want a justification for him killing the guards, well look no further than the slave trade and how horribly his people are treated. While he wouldn't go on a spree or anything, you could justify him killing in defense -- be it redcoat or blue. In the end, they're all against HIM and his people. I also thought having a character not like Ezio was good and loved the dynamic between him and Achilles: the grumpy and funny old man who's a realist and the serious and stoic young man who's an idealist -- at odds throughout though both respect the other in the end. The dynamic between Haytham and Connor is also nice. I like the theory on why the Templars seem to start out normal and then turn into straight villains due to the POV of the ancestor: the memories of Haytham, a Templar, depict his Templar allies as just and righteous whereas Connor's memory depicts them as ruthless and evil but Haytham's the only one who remains more or less the same throughout and that can attributed to Connor knowing it's his father and later reading his father's journal and stuff like that.

In the end... Connor was not horrible.

As to Brotherhood: yup, pretty obvious that it was essentially just the end of AC2 that got cut out (more or less). I think it's why I liked Brotherhood a lot. First of all...I liked the outfit more as it felt like a set of Assassin robes with Renaissance flair whereas AC2's outfit looked more like a Renaissance outfit with Assassin flair. I know some hate the white and red robes but I personally love the look of them and the way they update the outfit to match the time period. Connor's outfit is a set of Assassin robes with Colonial flair while Edwards is a pirate outfit with Assassin flair. But more importantly, it felt like it finished Ezio's story that began in AC2 finally. You FINALLY defeat the f*cking Borgias and their allies. It may have taken the better part of your lifetime but you did it. From Uberto Alberti to de'Pazzi to the Barbarigo to breaking Rodrigo's will to killing Cesare. It was finally...done.

Revelations, on the other hand, while still a good game... didn't feel as connected. He was older and we don't see how it goes from Brotherhood to now, it just begins with Ezio in Masyaf. The game as a whole felt like filler: Desmond's character arc never really goes anywhere since he's in limbo and I believe it's been stated that ACR was never really meant to happen so as to stave off having to continue the modern story, they decided to go with the coma idea and have as little of the outside modern world as possible. That said, it was a nice conclusion or epilogue to Ezio's tale and it was great to see a much more interesting and likable Altair and see the end of his story.

SixKeys
12-13-2013, 05:11 PM
It seems nobody has mentioned the swimming beavers (AC3) yet. A minor thing, yes, but I was so excited when I first saw them in screenshots. :( Land-based animals and water-based animals! I imagined beavers would be really slow on land, but chasing them in the water with your canoe (sigh) would have been really tough. In the final game they were pretty much sitting ducks and I felt bad killing them.

The Great Fire of New York was also cut from AC3. Alex Hutchinson made a big deal out of it in pre-release interviews, but ultimately they couldn't get the AI to work properly.

The early trailers for ACR showed Desmond trapped on Animus Island with glimpses of messages from Subject 16 saying "Lucy - you will know the truth". This suggests that the content that was eventually moved to The Lost Archive DLC was supposed to be part of the main game.

Speaking of TLA, the DLC itself was originally envisioned quite differently. There was supposed to be a creepy section where Clay was being chased by a ghostly Lucy wearing a wedding dress. It sounds like Clay supposedly had a crush on Lucy and thought his feelings were reciprocated. All that was cut for because of who knows why, maybe time constraints.

guardian_titan
12-13-2013, 06:20 PM
Wasn't Charles Lee supposed to have pomeranians with him? Also recall Aveline was originally intended to be Connor's love interest but it was scraped.

On AC3, there is actually a reason for why the patriots and British would attack Connor. At the time, many of the native tribes were siding with the British. The Mohawks were one of them which is eluded to by Kanen'to:kon's story and ultimate end.
Connor was a Native American and a Mohawk. You think people stopped for 2 seconds to think, "Hey, this guy's on our side. Don't shoot."? They saw he was a Native American and shot first, asked questions later. There was also a few wars going on in the western part of the United States at the time concerning the militia and settlers versus the various tribes. This stirred a lot of hostilities on both sides that continued for quite some time.

So much of this is often ignored in history such as the events in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky (northwest territory area) from around 1785-1795. Native Americans were slaughtered by settlers and the US military just for trying to protect their homes and send the settlers back east. There's no question as to why they sided with the British in the War of 1812.

Connor was neutral because he fought for his people and his home. That goal happened to align with the Americans in the Revolution. Just so happens the game focused more on the British as the main threat when the Americans were just as bad and even worse in some regards. Although when you look at it, Pitcairn was the only one of the Templars that remained with the British. Lee joined the US military. Johnson never really had a chance to pick a side. Hickey likely sided with the US. Can't say for sure on Church. And Haytham was siding with the US despite his beef with Washington. So really, Connor killed mostly Americans, not British, when it came to his assassinations. If figures like Sir Henry Clinton were included, then perhaps there might have been more emphasis on the British side of things. But when you look at which side Connor's targets were on, he killed more Americans than Brits. So stands to reason, he was neutral and attacked who he saw as a threat. The events Connor partook in (Boston Tea Party, Battle of Monmouth, Battles of Lexington and Concord, etc) focused on the British as the threat. So he fought both sides but for different reasons. The Americans he killed for being Templars (and to protect his people) and the British he killed to protect his home. Stands to reason some of Connor helping the Americans was to spite his father, especially after it came out what Washington did in 1760. Connor didn't want to help Washington anymore after that, but perhaps his hatred of his father was stronger than his hatred of Washington. Connor could've just said **** it and sabotaged both sides yet continued to help the Americans despite it meaning it was helping Washington. But if Forsaken's any indication, Connor eventually forgave Haytham and likely forgave Washington if ToKW is any indication. So seems Connor can't hold a grudge for very long after the American Revolution. Probably give him an ulcer if he did.

I know it likely won't happen now, but if Ubisoft did a War of 1812 game, I can see Americans like Andrew Jackson being shown as a potential targets (even though Jackson didn't die at the time). A follow up with the War of 1812 would be an interesting contrast to the American Revolution to show the British in a better light and the Americans in a negative one. Certainly better than ToKW and just showing Washington in a negative light ... although he did deserve it. Rather funny how his attitude toward the native tribes changed when he was older. Makes you wonder why (and I'm talking in real life). Although does stand to reason Washington might have had a mulatto kid with one of his slaves so that might have sparked him having a change of heart in other areas.
On being your own mother:
I caught someone explaining how you can be your own grandfather and have it not be via incest so being your own mother is also possible if looked at in a similar light. But if you want to be technical, it'd have to be via step-parentage because otherwise it wouldn't be possible.

You really want to be confused, http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/05/06/proof-that-a-man-can-be-his-own-grandfather/. Actual case of a kid being his own grandfather and no incest involved. There's other sites that explain it as well.

pirate1802
12-13-2013, 06:28 PM
Well, in a rum-fueled dream once I dreamed of falling in love with the female version of myself from another universe. Had just finished Bioshock Infinite, hence all that weirdity.

TorQue1988
12-13-2013, 06:46 PM
In the early preview videos for AC2 (around E3), the devs hinted that Leonardo will make lots of gadgets for you and you can BUY them. Also there were supposed to be more inventions, besides the flying machine. Even the hidden gun and smoke bombs were supposed to be built by Leonardo, based on his own ideas (the whole codex thing probably wasn't in the plot at that time).
Most of those things of course were in Brotherhood, which was supposed to be just a DLC. I still loved Brotherhood nonetheless. despite being too easy and having a somewhat short and uninspired story (especially the awful sequence with the apple).

I-Like-Pie45
12-13-2013, 11:50 PM
Wasn't Charles Lee supposed to have pomeranians with him? Also recall Aveline was originally intended to be Connor's love interest but it was scraped.

On AC3, there is actually a reason for why the patriots and British would attack Connor. At the time, many of the native tribes were siding with the British. The Mohawks were one of them which is eluded to by Kanen'to:kon's story and ultimate end.
Connor was a Native American and a Mohawk. You think people stopped for 2 seconds to think, "Hey, this guy's on our side. Don't shoot."? They saw he was a Native American and shot first, asked questions later. There was also a few wars going on in the western part of the United States at the time concerning the militia and settlers versus the various tribes. This stirred a lot of hostilities on both sides that continued for quite some time.

So much of this is often ignored in history such as the events in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky (northwest territory area) from around 1785-1795. Native Americans were slaughtered by settlers and the US military just for trying to protect their homes and send the settlers back east. There's no question as to why they sided with the British in the War of 1812.

Connor was neutral because he fought for his people and his home. That goal happened to align with the Americans in the Revolution. Just so happens the game focused more on the British as the main threat when the Americans were just as bad and even worse in some regards. Although when you look at it, Pitcairn was the only one of the Templars that remained with the British. Lee joined the US military. Johnson never really had a chance to pick a side. Hickey likely sided with the US. Can't say for sure on Church. And Haytham was siding with the US despite his beef with Washington. So really, Connor killed mostly Americans, not British, when it came to his assassinations. If figures like Sir Henry Clinton were included, then perhaps there might have been more emphasis on the British side of things. But when you look at which side Connor's targets were on, he killed more Americans than Brits. So stands to reason, he was neutral and attacked who he saw as a threat. The events Connor partook in (Boston Tea Party, Battle of Monmouth, Battles of Lexington and Concord, etc) focused on the British as the threat. So he fought both sides but for different reasons. The Americans he killed for being Templars (and to protect his people) and the British he killed to protect his home. Stands to reason some of Connor helping the Americans was to spite his father, especially after it came out what Washington did in 1760. Connor didn't want to help Washington anymore after that, but perhaps his hatred of his father was stronger than his hatred of Washington. Connor could've just said **** it and sabotaged both sides yet continued to help the Americans despite it meaning it was helping Washington. But if Forsaken's any indication, Connor eventually forgave Haytham and likely forgave Washington if ToKW is any indication. So seems Connor can't hold a grudge for very long after the American Revolution. Probably give him an ulcer if he did.

I know it likely won't happen now, but if Ubisoft did a War of 1812 game, I can see Americans like Andrew Jackson being shown as a potential targets (even though Jackson didn't die at the time). A follow up with the War of 1812 would be an interesting contrast to the American Revolution to show the British in a better light and the Americans in a negative one. Certainly better than ToKW and just showing Washington in a negative light ... although he did deserve it. Rather funny how his attitude toward the native tribes changed when he was older. Makes you wonder why (and I'm talking in real life). Although does stand to reason Washington might have had a mulatto kid with one of his slaves so that might have sparked him having a change of heart in other areas.
On being your own mother:
I caught someone explaining how you can be your own grandfather and have it not be via incest so being your own mother is also possible if looked at in a similar light. But if you want to be technical, it'd have to be via step-parentage because otherwise it wouldn't be possible.

You really want to be confused, http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/05/06/proof-that-a-man-can-be-his-own-grandfather/. Actual case of a kid being his own grandfather and no incest involved. There's other sites that explain it as well.

Jefferson had the black kid, not Washington.

And also, wasn't Franklin supposed to play a bigger role, along with his inventions?

ze_topazio
12-14-2013, 12:00 AM
Well, in a rum-fueled dream once I dreamed of falling in love with the female version of myself from another universe. Had just finished Bioshock Infinite, hence all that weirdity.

I wouldn't mind that, at least we would understand each other perfectly.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-14-2013, 12:35 AM
Yeah Ben Franklin was supposed to be Connor's Da Vinci but the team scrapped the idea because his inventions were like ovens and lamps, NOT tanks and flying contraptions. That said, if you want to argue a case for Ben -- he at least actually MADE HIS inventions whereas Da Vinci's inventions, as brilliant as they were, never saw the light of day IRL.

Also Thomas Jefferson invented some things as well. Would've been cool to have invented equipment again. OH well. Guess it makes Da Vinci more unique which is cool.

Some of these ideas are crazy -- the thing with wedding dress lucy and 16 -- welcome to WTF-zone. haha

adventurewomen
12-14-2013, 12:43 AM
Lets move away from the terrible game that was AC3..
:rolleyes:

Lost interest in what you had to say after this sentence..

DarktheMagister
12-14-2013, 01:21 AM
Yeah Ben Franklin was supposed to be Connor's Da Vinci but the team scrapped the idea because his inventions were like ovens and lamps, NOT tanks and flying contraptions. That said, if you want to argue a case for Ben -- he at least actually MADE HIS inventions whereas Da Vinci's inventions, as brilliant as they were, never saw the light of day IRL.

Also Thomas Jefferson invented some things as well. Would've been cool to have invented equipment again. OH well. Guess it makes Da Vinci more unique which is cool.

Some of these ideas are crazy -- the thing with wedding dress lucy and 16 -- welcome to WTF-zone. haha


Besides, throughout the majority of the war, Franklin was in France "convincing" the French to aid the colonies....and paling it up with the ladies...and the Hellfire Club.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-14-2013, 03:52 AM
Besides, throughout the majority of the war, Franklin was in France "convincing" the French to aid the colonies....and paling it up with the ladies...and the Hellfire Club.

Very true. Like I said, Jefferson could have been used as well and at first I was disappointed they didn't utilize them that way but I got over it. It makes Leonardo more unique.

That said, I feel AC3 poorly underused the historical characters. Sam Adams was featured heavily, Washington was in a good deal and some of the soldiers were good but Ben Franklin was pretty much seen once or twice and that's it, Jefferson makes almost no appearance (I think we see him sign the Declaration and that's it), none of the FUTURE presidents like John Adams really do anything if at all. It was a good story but it just seemed odd to not interact with those characters. I'd guess some people don't like the idea of the protagonist being the most interconnected person in history at the time each game but it's all fantasy. I like that Ezio met with Da Vinci and Machiavelli and Lorenzo de'Medici, etc and was assassinating people like the Borgias.

MnemonicSyntax
12-14-2013, 04:17 AM
I loved 3. And I liked Sam Adams. But did he remind anyone else of a used car salesman? Such a manipulator.

Connor called him out a few times on it and he's just like "Look Connor, I'll include a free pair of tires with your car, if you help us dump this tea in the harbor"

pirate1802
12-14-2013, 05:47 AM
I liked AC3 and Connor too. Just not as much as AC IV. I like all AC games, when I criticize them, I only do so in respect of other AC games, in truth I think all the AC games together make the best franchise I've had the pleasure of playing. :D

But I think they're the forbidden words over here now. As soon as someone mentions them in a thread, its likely to get derailed soon. :rolleyes:

pirate1802
12-14-2013, 05:57 AM
I wouldn't mind that, at least we would understand each other perfectly.

Exactly. Match made in heavens.

SixKeys
12-14-2013, 06:14 AM
I loved 3. And I liked Sam Adams. But did he remind anyone else of a used car salesman? Such a manipulator.

Connor called him out a few times on it and he's just like "Look Connor, I'll include a free pair of tires with your car, if you help us dump this tea in the harbor"

Pretty much every important person except Achilles was a d*uchebag to Connor.

I had a love-hate relationship with Ben Franklin. There's something about his voice that is fascinating, so on the one hand I don't mind listening to him speak. Trouble is, he has so little to say that is interesting. He just would not shut up in that optional conversation with Haytham about sex with older women.

DarktheMagister
12-15-2013, 01:49 AM
Franklin was a notorious talker. He just had the speechcraft skill maximized.

As for Jefferson... yeah... he wasn't even in AC3. Even during the Declaration scene.... no Jefferson.

I was happy they added him as the leader of the rebellion in ToKW though.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-15-2013, 06:05 AM
Franklin was a notorious talker. He just had the speechcraft skill maximized.

As for Jefferson... yeah... he wasn't even in AC3. Even during the Declaration scene.... no Jefferson.

I was happy they added him as the leader of the rebellion in ToKW though.

I haven't played AC3's story in a while so I didn't remember. That's really... dumb.

Anyway, is ToKW good? It's way too overpriced for a game I didn't LOVE as much as the other ACs and for such short content (least it seems short from most people discussing it) AND is something that just seems odd with having wolf/bear/eagle powers. I'm sure they'll explain it somehow (I hope at least) but should I just watch videos of it instead of getting it?

DarktheMagister
12-15-2013, 06:24 AM
I haven't played AC3's story in a while so I didn't remember. That's really... dumb.

Anyway, is ToKW good? It's way too overpriced for a game I didn't LOVE as much as the other ACs and for such short content (least it seems short from most people discussing it) AND is something that just seems odd with having wolf/bear/eagle powers. I'm sure they'll explain it somehow (I hope at least) but should I just watch videos of it instead of getting it?

I liked it. But I'm probably not the best source of opinion on the matter. I'm probably biased.
I tend to buy all DLC for a game I enjoy...whether or not I'm into the concept. Its kind of a bad habit.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-15-2013, 06:49 AM
I liked it. But I'm probably not the best source of opinion on the matter. I'm probably biased.
I tend to buy all DLC for a game I enjoy...whether or not I'm into the concept. Its kind of a bad habit.

You're terrible. ;)

But I do love AC -- probably one of my favorite game series despite PISSING ME OFF so often. I'll probably just watch videos of it because I'd like to see what the story is about. I wish the outfit could be used in the standard game. Sigh.

killzab
12-15-2013, 10:44 AM
You're terrible. ;)

But I do love AC -- probably one of my favorite game series despite PISSING ME OFF so often. I'll probably just watch videos of it because I'd like to see what the story is about. I wish the outfit could be used in the standard game. Sigh.

Lol this, it PISSES ME OFF very often too, well lately Darby's the one who pissed me off but otherwise yeah, I have a love/hate relationship with AC.

DarktheMagister
12-15-2013, 09:31 PM
You're terrible. ;)

But I do love AC -- probably one of my favorite game series despite PISSING ME OFF so often. I'll probably just watch videos of it because I'd like to see what the story is about. I wish the outfit could be used in the standard game. Sigh.

It may be compulsory. Like I recall I spent near on $100 just getting all the Dragon Age DLC.....and like 2 of those sucked.

Its just that when I play a game and really enjoy it....and then DLC comes out....I go "Oh....more game.... if I don't get it, I won't have played the WHOLE story. I must get it." Next thing you know I'm swimming in DLC I really could've lived without. Like the epilogue to Prince of Persia.....or Undead Nightmare.

MnemonicSyntax
12-15-2013, 09:54 PM
Franklin was a notorious talker. He just had the speechcraft skill maximized.

As for Jefferson... yeah... he wasn't even in AC3. Even during the Declaration scene.... no Jefferson.

I was happy they added him as the leader of the rebellion in ToKW though.

That's because most people don't think he was present. The Declaration wasn't signed on the 4th by everyone. It was accepted the 4th, the Continental Congress voted to have it signed on the 19th and August 2nd was when it was first signed, but not by everyone on that date. Jefferson did draft the first Declaration, but there was some issues with it and Franklin and Adams modified it without Jefferson being present, primarily to remove the issue of slavery from the document.