407 replies to this topic

[Aqua]

Well I'm fine with this. It sounds like a interesting concept. It had a bunch of history and events that could link with the series. I was hoping china but this was a runner-up. AS LONG as we have Roger craig smith still in the series somehow! Also sad that

Spoiler

Subject 16 is dead(well COMPLETELY gone now)

You think he'll make any more appearances?

Edited by The Amazing Spiderman, 31 January 2012 - 01:11 AM.

[SpikySprinter]

I'm done arguing politics and history for a little bit. I need a vacation, and I can imagine that if I didn't agree with myself I would be pulling my hair out reading some of my comments. So let me give my two cents on this Jefferson thing without injecting my conclusions/opinions about the man and his actions.

Regardless of what you believe Jefferson was, it is simply illogical to believe that he will be portrayed as a villain here. That would be a very stupid move for a series that wants to appeal to as many people as possible. People are stupid. They want a portrayal that falls in line with what they've been told by the media, not history. When you remove all the nitty gritty details, the media has generally been kind to Thomas Jefferson's public image (minus the regular poke at his sexual misadventures with his slaves), and the game developers will want to reflect the positive connotations that come with his name.

[Metal Gear (sting)RAY]

Regardless of what you believe Jefferson was, it is simply illogical to believe that he will be portrayed as a villain here. That would be a very stupid move for a series that wants to appeal to as many people as possible. People are stupid. They want a portrayal that falls in line with what they've been told by the media, not history. When you remove all the nitty gritty details, the media has generally been kind to Thomas Jefferson's public image (minus the regular poke at his sexual misadventures with his slaves), and the game developers will want to reflect the positive connotations that come with his name.

I wouldn't exactly put it past Assassin's Creed of all series to be partial enough to avoid contradicting the image of a nationally revered figure just because he's popular in America. Few of the people who actually work on the series are even American; nonamerican developers aren't likely to add that "America Fuck Yeah" flavor like ours do. Unless it's a Japanese developer, in which case they do it ironically (see Metal Wolf Chaos and Vanquish.)

Edited by SuperStingray, 31 January 2012 - 05:00 AM.

[ChaosSupremeSonîc]

Regardless of what you believe Jefferson was, it is simply illogical to believe that he will be portrayed as a villain here. That would be a very stupid move for a series that wants to appeal to as many people as possible. People are stupid. They want a portrayal that falls in line with what they've been told by the media, not history. When you remove all the nitty gritty details, the media has generally been kind to Thomas Jefferson's public image (minus the regular poke at his sexual misadventures with his slaves), and the game developers will want to reflect the positive connotations that come with his name.

You don't pay much attention to this franchise, do you?

The fact that the folks at Ubisoft had FDR as a Templar conspirating with Hitler for WWII for this series says otherwise, and I'm certain you know how much of non-villian FDR was. They're not going to put things in a heroic light just because they're American, if that wasn't obvious enough. I wouldn't put it past them to put Jefferson as a Templar if they felt inclined.

The Assassin's Creed series is known for playing with all this and integrating it into their portrayal of the war between the Assassin's and Templar orders, not whatever it is you happen to think they will do.

Edited by ChaosSupremeSonic, 31 January 2012 - 05:36 AM.

[turbojet]

Wow, okay, let's see now...



Hamilton wanted war with France at a time when America was ill-prepared to meet them on the battlefield. It is well known that he wanted the kind of glory and adulation that Washington had acquired, which was convenient because while he was beating the drums of war, Washington was too old to be capable of taking the field with his men; he'd be the figurehead while Hamilton would be the actual leader. He wanted to invade and conquer/liberate the Louisiana territories (later shrewdly bought by Jefferson), as well as Spanish Mexico and Spanish/Portuguese South America. That sounds rather like a Templar to me; greedy for conquest, hungry for power and glory.

Hamilton wanted war with a France that were going through a Revolution on their own that led to anarchy and eventually dictatorship. If anything that was a matter of practicality since the French never really settled in America and simply made small settlement ports along Louisiana. If Hamilton could have bought the Louisiana Purchase, he would have.

Enough with history, lets talk about Templar ideology just to make sure you got what I got out of Revelations. Templars aren't always the bastards. Edison was Templar as opposed to Tesla(and rightly so because Edison was a dick). JFK, FDR, Churchill, Stalin and Hitler...Templars. Reading up on Suleiman, I fully expected his father to be a Templar or at least the Jannisaries. Nope. It was the peaceful philosopher who wanted to end fighting. The idealist who is wrong.

As for Adams, he deserves more recognition. Yes, he gets blackballed in favor of sexier presidents. It is a shame.

Plantation owners or their family members having sex with slaves, and them bearing the owners' children, was a common occurrence well before Jefferson's time, he was hardly alone in what he did with Sally Hemming. I don't know if I'd call it rape though, she might have been an entirely willing participant in the affair. IIRC, they were life-long companions, after a fashion, and Jefferson needed something like that as his beloved wife was dead.

Just because every other slave owner did it doesn't excuse Jefferson, the guy who plagiarized the Declaration of Independence, and what choice did Hemming have? She had three children through Jefferson who he hid from fear of public scrutiny.

The man was a walking contradiction. He saw nothing wrong with his slave ownership, but at the same time detested and despised the entire institution of slavery. This, to him, was an entirely natural state of affairs, and made him into a great big enigma to his compatriots. I can't answer for him though, he made a lot of bad mistakes in government (the trade embargo, failing to build Adams' navy, mistreating native tribes, not giving the Louisiana people a say in the US' government for years etc) and was so enthralled by revolutionary ideals that he was seemingly blind to the atrocities of the French Revolution, or those that the tyrannical majority might impose in a democratic country.

The tell tale signs of an inept leader. One whose cognitive dissonance is so high that he refuses to see the reality of his beliefs. That smells like a Templar.

Regardless of what you believe Jefferson was, it is simply illogical to believe that he will be portrayed as a villain here. That would be a very stupid move for a series that wants to appeal to as many people as possible. People are stupid. They want a portrayal that falls in line with what they've been told by the media, not history. When you remove all the nitty gritty details, the media has generally been kind to Thomas Jefferson's public image (minus the regular poke at his sexual misadventures with his slaves), and the game developers will want to reflect the positive connotations that come with his name.

What series have you been playing? Ubisoft, for one, are French and they portrayed the Catholic Church as a bunch of crooked bastards, showed both sides of the Crusades as a-religious pricks, and depicted Jesus as a liar. They don't care besides that discretion they put up for every game that tells people that this is just a damn game. Ubisoft gets their tales and information from historians. Historians don't mince words about anybody in history. Why? Because it is history. Jefferson is long dead and his misdeeds have already came to the light. You don't deny the truth about a man's character. Also, Hamilton was a founding father as well, even more so than Jefferson.

[Shirou Emiya]

Let's go over modern figures who turned out to be templars, shall we?

- Henry Ford (ACII actually stated that he supported Hitler's planned 'purge' of Europe)
- Thomas Edison (he was a dick in real life, not big surprise)
- Harvey Firestone
- Ranny Olds
- Tsar Alexander II
- Tsar Alexander III
- Joseph Stalin (Lenin was actually an ally of the Assassins)
- Adolf Hitler (Obviously. Tried to use a body double to fake his death, but an assassin was waiting outside his bunker, so that ended badly for him.)
- FDR
- Winston Churchill
- Lyndon B. Johnson (JFK was assassinated because he had a piece of Eden and he didn't share the Templars' motives)
- Lee Harvey Oswald and Abraham Zapruder (JFK's murderers)
- William Greer (the guy who drove JFK's car, stole the piece of Eden during the confusion)
- Margaret Thatcher (honestly, I'm not really surprised.)
- Vladmir Putin

Oh, and the 2000 US election? Rigged by the Templars. The Assassins tried to back Al Gore, but then Daniel Cross happened.

So, yeah, all bets are off for whoever happens to be a Templar in this next game. Anyone with questionable ideals is a potential candidate.

Speaking of Daniel Cross, I will be very disappointed if Desmond doesn't get to fight him. In a playable fight. Seriously.

Edited by Masaru Daimon, 31 January 2012 - 07:35 AM.

[Patticus]

Hamilton wanted war with a France that were going through a Revolution on their own that led to anarchy and eventually dictatorship. If anything that was a matter of practicality since the French never really settled in America and simply made small settlement ports along Louisiana. If Hamilton could have bought the Louisiana Purchase, he would have.

Hamilton practically demanded war be made on France, because French ships were attacking and capturing American shipping*. America, however, wasn't fit for war at this time; it had no real navy or a standing army, and its coastal defences hadn't improved at all since the French and Indian War. Even if it raised an army and a navy, France would still have been able to outfit armies and navies far superior to America's efforts, and could consequently have steam-rolled through the US' meagre defences. At the time, however, the outcome of the French Revolution wasn't certain, so preparing for a land war when war itself was not inevitable was not practical, and proved unnecessary.

Also, while at the time France only possessed Louisiana, there was a substantial French population in Canada; formerly the vast French colony of New France, which had only passed into British hands 16 years earlier. Those provinces would also have been invaded and likely taken in the event of a North American Napoleonic War. In fact, there might have been uprisings within them if the French invasion was seen to be imminent.

Although, the war with Britain would have lessened Napoleon's efforts in America as a matter of practicality, so it is difficult to know exactly how the US might have fared.


*This was because the unpopular-but-necessary Jay Treaty had lately been adopted by the Washington administration and upheld by the Adams government.

Just because every other slave owner did it doesn't excuse Jefferson, the guy who plagiarized the Declaration of Independence, and what choice did Hemming have? She had three children through Jefferson who he hid from fear of public scrutiny.

It doesn't excuse him by any means, I'm merely trying to explain that it was pretty normal for a slave owner to engage in sexual activities with those slaves he found attractive, and to bear children by them. It wasn't talked about openly, but it happened, and therefore that Jefferson too did it becomes about as surprising as finding out George Washington had a penis.

Also I'm pretty sure that the plagiarism thing was brought up during his presidency by the Federalist press and was debunked.

The tell tale signs of an inept leader. One whose cognitive dissonance is so high that he refuses to see the reality of his beliefs. That smells like a Templar.

When you're dealing with the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence (well, following Adams' recommendation that he do so), one of the most famous signers of that document, it becomes much harder to write him off as a leader based on internal dichotomies that are only partly evident at the time when that very independence is won.

[Shirou Emiya]

Also, there's a couple of topics of interest that came to me while mulling this whole "who could be a Templar" business...

Firstly, how the developers are going to further Desmond's character development. They've been making an active effort to try and develop Desmond's character in the last three games in multiple ways (mostly by expanding the stuff he's able to do outside the Animus, and in Revelations, the "Desmond's Journey" sequences). The ending (and the aforementioned sequences) of Revelations kinda gives us a big hint to the direction Desmond's character development is going - reconciling with his parents, whom he became estranged from (especially his dad) and ran away from home partly because of it. Desmond, by the end of the Journey sequences, is willing to admit he made mistakes and wants to apologize to those he wronged, but whether his father is willing to accept such an apology and admit he made mistakes of his own in raising Desmond is another matter entirely. It's a fantastic opportunity for character development that, hopefully, the developers won't squander... But then again, they kinda left Subject 16's cryptic message to Desmond in Brotherhood by the wayside when the former turned up in Revelations, so...

Also, there's the part of how the Templars operate in the modern world. They've changed tactics ever since the Borgias were beaten, and now they're using Capitalism as a tool for controlling the people, via Abstergo. They've been influencing governments worldwide to give corporations more power, and they orchestrated the Soviet Union's collapse because they saw communism as a threat to their power. Fancy that. I can only imagine SOPA and PIPA would, in this setting, be Templar-backed attempts to try and control the internet. Fascinating to think about, ain't it.

[Speederino]

Whether it's China or America, I'll be happy either way. I've been looking forward to seeing China, especially after all of the build-up. But I've also wanted to see the American Revolution for some time now. I'd like to see both of these settings explored at some point.

Edited by Speederino, 15 February 2012 - 09:50 PM.

[Eternal Xtreme]

Assassin's Creed 3's release date confirmed!

Assassin's Creed III Coming In October

Ubisoft today confirmed when it will release Assassin's Creed III this fall.
The game will arrive on October 30, 2012, the publisher said. No other details were announced.
"We will push the title a lot because it's a fantastic product that the team has been working for three years," said CEO Yves Guillemot. "What we have seen is just fabulous."
Ubisoft also said it shipped 7 million copies of Assassin's Creed Revelations so far through December 2011.

Well I guess this counts as new information. I expected another November release but ehh.

Edited by Eternal Spider, 15 February 2012 - 10:12 PM.

[Speederino]

^ I love how some sites are treating the mere announcement of AC3 like it's huge news, aside from the release date, that is. Oh yes, absolutely no one knew about this. What a shock.

[krazystitch]

So then, Assassin's Creed III is the confirmed name, I'm guessing? Because, if it is, I would honestly love that.

[Speederino]

If this artwork is anything to go by, it looks like we are indeed getting the American Revolution. Also, the new protagonist is a Native American, which is something I definitely didn't see coming. Despite the image, this hasn't been 100% confirmed, but it sounds like they're planning on telling us tomorrow.

BTW, that is one bad-ass tomahawk. Do want.

Edited by Speederino, 01 March 2012 - 05:20 AM.

[Aqua]

If this artwork is anything to go by, it looks like we are indeed getting the American Revolution. Also, the new protagonist is a Native American, which is something I definitely didn't see coming. Despite the image, this hasn't been 100% confirmed, but it sounds like they're planning on telling us tomorrow.

HOY SHYAAT THAT LOOKS BADASS! Seriously though that really surprised me. I hope it's true!

[Eternal Xtreme]

I was wondering how long it was going to take someone to post that picture here.

Seriously am I the only one who wants Ubi to only focus on Desmond? USA revolution does sound very interesting but I just want a full AC game only about Desmond. Especially since AC3 is suppose to end his era or whatever.

[Speederino]

HOY SHYAAT THAT LOOKS BADASS! Seriously though that really surprised me. I hope it's true!

Nothing is true.

Seriously though, I highly doubt this is fake. We'll know soon enough either way.

I was wondering how long it was going to take someone to post that picture here.

Seriously am I the only one who wants Ubi to only focus on Desmond? USA revolution does sound very interesting but I just want a full AC game only about Desmond. Especially since AC3 is suppose to end his era or whatever.

Meh, I'm rather indifferent to the idea of a modern day Assassin's Creed in general. It could work, but a lot of the appeal for me is the historical settings and combat system (Well okay, stealth is more important to me. But I still like the combat system). The former would be completely gone and the latter would have to be heavily revamped, if not downright abandoned to make way for third-person shooting elements. The other thing is, I honestly still don't care that much about Desmond as a character. I don't dislike him as much as some people do, but even after Revelations I still find him to be rather bland and undeveloped. Of course, putting him in a starring role may very well fix that.

Edited by Speederino, 01 March 2012 - 06:06 AM.

[Eternal Xtreme]

Nothing is true.

The other thing is, I honestly still don't care that much about Desmond as a character. I don't dislike him as much as some people do, but even after Revelations I still find him to be rather bland and undeveloped. Of course, putting him in a starring role may very well fix that.

I see what you did.

And honestly I think that's all he needs. Being back seat to all games he was in was kinda a dick slap to the face.

[Patticus]

Wow... I'm not sure I like that new Assassin costume, if it's real, but I'd need to see it in the game to assess better my liking of it. If the protagonist is a Native, that means plenty of killing ol' whitey, righty?

[Pawn]

http://kotaku.com/58...creed-iii-image

Game Informer uploaded this to their site a little prematurely it seems. I was a bit dubious about the location being America (because I liked all of the other possibilities), but a Native American assassin? Friggin' awesome.


EDIT:

http://uk.ps3.ign.co.../1219745p1.html

Also, according to IGN, a major announcement will be made on Monday.

Edited by Lungo, 01 March 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[Patticus]

This topic will be designated the official Assassin's Creed III discussion thread as soon as the game is officially announced and such.