PDA

View Full Version : The Love/Hate of Assassin's Creed III



The_Kiwi_
04-17-2015, 12:01 AM
I thought I'd conduct a study today, because I remember saying that I enjoyed AC3 a lot because, as someone half a world away, I thought it was great fun playing a game about the American Revolution, so then I thought, maybe there's a connection?

I can't go as in-depth as I normally do with sociological studies, but out of the four options, choose the one that best suits you.

Let's try to get as many people voting as possible; the results are more coherent and reliable when numerous people participate.

ze_topazio
04-17-2015, 12:25 AM
What have you done? do you not know of the consequences?

The_Kiwi_
04-17-2015, 12:30 AM
What have you done? do you not know of the consequences?

This is what I do with my life
I am used to it
http://850512670896046563.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/9/0/27909197/9588914_orig.jpg

pacmanate
04-17-2015, 01:03 AM
^ That always reminds me of Mr_Shade for some reason...

SpiritOfNevaeh
04-17-2015, 01:40 AM
Voted :)

I-Like-Pie45
04-17-2015, 03:23 AM
I'm a dog

How should I vote? :confused:

SixKeys
04-17-2015, 03:30 AM
I'm a dog

How should I vote? :confused:

Go fetch Brian.

I-Like-Pie45
04-17-2015, 03:46 AM
Go fetch Brian.

I answer to no nation but my own, the United Brown Bear Syndicate. We refuse to bow down to these biased human options in your poll.

Shahkulu101
04-17-2015, 06:00 AM
I thought it was okay and I'm not American.

But I voted for dislike anyway since there are some aspects of the game I find offensively bad.

Namikaze_17
04-17-2015, 06:28 AM
Another AC3 thread...yay...

But to answer, it's loved and not American for me I guess.

Though it had aspects I liked and disliked.

The_Kiwi_
04-17-2015, 08:41 AM
I answer to no nation but my own, the United Brown Bear Syndicate. We refuse to bow down to these biased human options in your poll.

You are from Alaska, which is an American State
Soz Bri

Markaccus
04-17-2015, 09:40 AM
Don't like. Not U.S.

However, the revolution aspect is not why i dislike it, because it does not really make either side out to be "good guys".
The reason I disliked it was because the gameplay was mostly poor and boring.

JamesFaith007
04-17-2015, 11:10 AM
I really missed neutral option here.

For me were pro and cons relatively in balance so love/dislike are too strong words for me in this case.

Markaccus
04-17-2015, 12:09 PM
So far, No one who IS from the U.S. seems to dislike the game. Not sure what that means, but at a guess i would say it reflects the Uber-patriotic general attitude in the U.S. This just how it LOOKS from my POV. (If i am wrong, then ok. This is not intended as a dig at "Muricah")

The_Kiwi_
04-17-2015, 12:37 PM
I really missed neutral option here.

For me were pro and cons relatively in balance so love/dislike are too strong words for me in this case.

I'm not looking for neutrality, I'm looking for a correlation between being American and disliking AC3

I-Like-Pie45
04-17-2015, 03:35 PM
You are from Alaska, which is an American State
Soz Bri

we predate the founding of your pitiful human boundaries

ACZanius
04-17-2015, 05:17 PM
Sorry OP, very ****ty choices you gave there, there should be something like "neutral" or whatever since AC 3 for me and i believe for many people more was Fantastic and Fail at same time. Pros/cons

D.I.D.
04-17-2015, 07:10 PM
Sorry OP, very ****ty choices you gave there, there should be something like "neutral" or whatever since AC 3 for me and i believe for many people more was Fantastic and Fail at same time. Pros/cons

True, but more options might just make it more confusing.

Perhaps a more surgical question would be: "Can you honestly say you loved it? Yes or no". That might seem unfair, but I think it's important.

It's possible for us to like AC games that are objectively not good games because we enjoy the environment so much. We let them limp by, and that's not a bad thing necessarily. We can know a film is not a "good" film, but also be entertained by it, and that's alright. I really don't think, for example, that the matter of whether or not Revelations is a good game can be said to be a subjective matter. As a capital-G game, it just isn't. However, a lot of people were swayed by its environment and other extraneous factors. I'll happily admit that any of the ACs I like are not the cleanest forms of appreciation either, and involve a degree of this balancing that.

If I was asked this question about the ACs I loved playing, I'd have no hesitation in saying "yes". I might still qualify the good and bad after that, but the clear "yes" would come first. If it would be a "yyyyeeeeesssss?" or a "wellllll..." than that would be something else. And for some people, Revelations or III would be their no-hesitation "yes" game, but perhaps not so many.

phoenix-force411
04-17-2015, 08:02 PM
Still prefer it over ACIV.

Shahkulu101
04-17-2015, 08:07 PM
Still prefer it over ACIV.

Insanity.

:p

Megas_Doux
04-17-2015, 09:34 PM
The problem that I have with AC III is the bigger than life marketing that lead me to an unmatched level of exciment........


Cons, for me:

1 Dull setting with its the execution not helping either.
2 The most awful mission design ever!!!!!!! Unforgiven don'ts in the likes of only having 3 assassinations and missions such as the Midnight Ride......

Those two are the major complaints I have.

3 No background music.
4 Cringe worthy modern "climax" missions.
5 Beautiful but empty frontier.
6 Embarrising hunting mechanics.
7 A Prologue that was just too big.


Pros:

1 Original protagonist, too bad I didn┤t like its VA, though.
2 Fun combat.
3 Naval.
4 A good story with grey morals.

The_Kiwi_
04-17-2015, 11:35 PM
Sorry OP, very ****ty choices you gave there, there should be something like "neutral" or whatever since AC 3 for me and i believe for many people more was Fantastic and Fail at same time. Pros/cons

Did you not read what I said or something? I said I'm not looking for neutrality
No need to get angry when the info is right there

Assassin_M
04-18-2015, 12:39 AM
Sorry OP, very ****ty choices
Sorry, member, very ****ty signature you got there.











Jk

The_Kiwi_
04-18-2015, 06:16 AM
Sorry, member, very ****ty signature you got there.











Jk

Lol you're not kidding
You want to slap him for being an Ezio fanboy
But because of the over the top love he has for ACB, I think it's him just being facetious
That or he is a true diehard Ezio fanboy

dontstabme_bro
04-18-2015, 07:48 AM
i didn't dislike the time period, i just thought the gameplay was utter ****

The_Kiwi_
04-18-2015, 07:55 AM
The results aren't showing as I expected them to
Perhaps the bias of the fanbase that uses the forums is creating unreliable data
I'd need further research to be able to draw a definitive conclusion, but I doubt I could be bothered
For now, I'll just watch the polls increase

VestigialLlama4
04-18-2015, 08:54 AM
The results aren't showing as I expected them to
Perhaps the bias of the fanbase that uses the forums is creating unreliable data
I'd need further research to be able to draw a definitive conclusion, but I doubt I could be bothered
For now, I'll just watch the polls increase

I think the main reason for the prejudice is the setting. It kind of has that baggage of American propaganda, so people instinctively reject it. Although weirdly the people who are outside America and like it have a higher vote too. Generally people want something that appeals to a facile cynicism like Red Dead Redemption (made by England's rockstar games) and packaged with some of the worst (and frankly racist) cliches cobbled from spaghetti westerns.

The_Kiwi_
04-18-2015, 09:24 AM
I think the main reason for the prejudice is the setting. It kind of has that baggage of American propaganda, so people instinctively reject it. Although weirdly the people who are outside America and like it have a higher vote too. Generally people want something that appeals to a facile cynicism like Red Dead Redemption (made by England's rockstar games) and packaged with some of the worst (and frankly racist) cliches cobbled from spaghetti westerns.

That is my thought exactly
I thought that not being exposed to American history all your life might make you enjoy the experience more, all the while those who have been exposed to the history and "propaganda" all their life would make them resent the experience
But alas, the results don't support this hypothesis

GunnerGalactico
04-18-2015, 09:53 AM
I don't think that the choices are ****ty at all. It is surprising to see the amount of people in this forum who like AC3 and don't fall under the category of patriotic Americans. :rolleyes:

rrebe
04-18-2015, 09:56 AM
I loved it :o

The_Kiwi_
04-18-2015, 10:14 AM
I don't think that the choices are ****ty at all. It is surprising to see the amount of people in this forum who like AC3 and don't fall under the category of patriotic Americans. :rolleyes:

Yes it was quite an interesting result none-the-less
People should make more polls like this
Thank you :o

Markaccus
04-18-2015, 11:43 AM
The choices were perfect for the question kiwi asked. Why were there even complaints?

I for one was genuinely interested in how this would come out, and the results are indeed intriguing.

Cheers,Kiwi :)

The_Kiwi_
04-18-2015, 12:28 PM
The choices were perfect for the question kiwi asked. Why were there even complaints?

I for one was genuinely interested in how this would come out, and the results are indeed intriguing.

Cheers,Kiwi :)

Thank you, I appreciate it
I'm glad quite a few people voted, really helped the results

AzfarXV
04-18-2015, 01:10 PM
I really loved this game, and I loved it more because of Haytham Kenway, best character of Assassin's Creed series, though he was a Templar.
Everything was fine except Connor's outfit and his attitude. A lot of opportunities and side missions in Boston and New York, the Frontier too. Summer wasn't much good as winter in this game. If you compare it to Rogue and Black Flag, you'll find the other two games a little boring after beating the game, but not Assassin's Creed 3. Homestead missions are lovely, with many things to do.

The plot might not be good, but yes, the free roaming was good, really good. Assassin's Creed had no free roaming options after beating the game except the little room in Abstergo, and the missions were repeatative. Assassin's Creed 2, Brotherhood and revelations were good, but parkour was not much advanced nor was the graphics. Revelations seemed much boring for playing with almost a fifty years old Ezio. Black Flag's configurations weren't friendly, and everything seemed same, with no Assassin recruits and Edward seemed to be a pirate rather than an Assassin. Shay Cormac was good, not as Connor's adventures and the game was too short, but was good that Haytham made apperence, bringing Adewale's story to an end and finishing the whole tragedy of Achilies Davenport.

shobhit7777777
04-18-2015, 02:20 PM
**** ac 3

SixKeys
04-18-2015, 02:49 PM
Assassin's Creed had no free roaming options after beating the game except the little room in Abstergo

Just pointing out that this is false. You can get back into the Animus after beating the game.

AzfarXV
04-19-2015, 12:03 PM
Just pointing out that this is false. You can get back into the Animus after beating the game.

I know, i meant you can't free roam after getting in the Animus, just play missions, that's all.

Dead1y-Derri
04-19-2015, 07:40 PM
I personally loved AC3, I mean yeah the ending was kind of poor but in all honesty it was a good game and I enjoyed it. I played through it twice and was going for the platinum at one point but I kind of couldn't be bothered doing a lot of the tedious stuff.

Same reason I'm not in getting the Plat for Unity, too many collectables and stuff that is quite frankly boring and should NEVER have been in the game. I mean why do we need over 100 collectables of each thing. 400 odd collectables in total is taking the mick really.

SixKeys
04-20-2015, 05:06 PM
I know, i meant you can't free roam after getting in the Animus, just play missions, that's all.

You can absolutely free roam by starting a memory and then just going off and doing other stuff.

Markaccus
04-20-2015, 06:09 PM
You can absolutely free roam by starting a memory and then just going off and doing other stuff.

It is a while since i played ac1 (probably 4 years in fact) but don't you de-sync if you go too far from a memory starting point?

SixKeys
04-20-2015, 09:44 PM
It is a while since i played ac1 (probably 4 years in fact) but don't you de-sync if you go too far from a memory starting point?

Nope. You can replay any sequence from the start and then just roam about in the cities or Kingdom after Al Mualim's debriefing. After you've talked to the bureau leaders I'm not sure you can leave the city, though I've never tried.

Megas_Doux
04-20-2015, 10:45 PM
Nope. You can replay any sequence from the start and then just roam about in the cities or Kingdom after Al Mualim's debriefing. After you've talked to the bureau leaders I'm not sure you can leave the city, though I've never tried.

You can with the exception of the last memory of killing Al Mualim! Thing is the earlier sequences you relieve to free roam, the less areas you can access. Despite the lack of any interesting stuff to do during free roam I love the atmosphere of that game. The problem is that every time I want top to such thing, I have to through the respective Al Mualim speech haha.

Sabutto
04-20-2015, 10:58 PM
Disliked

Markaccus
04-21-2015, 10:14 AM
Nope. You can replay any sequence from the start and then just roam about in the cities or Kingdom after Al Mualim's debriefing. After you've talked to the bureau leaders I'm not sure you can leave the city, though I've never tried.

Ah right. Part of me wants to go back and try that now. Trouble is, it means unpacking the ps3 again :D

AzfarXV
05-10-2015, 01:54 PM
You can absolutely free roam by starting a memory and then just going off and doing other stuff.

Yes, but its not free roam, just starting a mission, watching all the cutscenes and then you get to free roam, just a backdated version of free roaming like in Assassin's creed II, Brotherhood, (I'm not sure if in revelations cause i didn't beat the game), Ac3, Black Flag and Rogue.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 03:57 PM
Interestingly, my feelings about the flawed incompletion that is AC3 have oscillated over the past two years after its release: I loved it with a passion in my first playthrough, as I was spared any display of glitchiness, but then I loathed it after realizing how many missed opportunities the game had and the selective adoption of details in the world. I love it currently, and I am playing through the campaign again, albeit slowly as I distract myself with the absurd amount of collectibles and side 'missions'.

I am a born Brit but naturalized American, by the way. I love America more.

Civona
05-10-2015, 05:31 PM
As a Canadian I didn't ever go that in-depth with the american revolution. It was interesting to learn more of the details through a story that explored all aspects of the conflict, not just the most shiny and heroic ones.

Megas_Doux
05-10-2015, 06:08 PM
Taken from Audacity thread:




Well you are just prejudiced against America. ;) Just because Colonial America has historical figures that matter to no one but Americans, just because Colonial America lacks trendy Architecture and touristy vistas, just because it had no art and culture in terms of music and painting...okay I can see where you are coming from. That's part of the reason why AC3 was so gutsy. It deliberately cut away from the tourist aspects of the Ezio games.



Not USA as a whole, but Colonial America instead. After all I really dig the GTA and Mafia series for instance, in fact I would have preferred the New York Draft Riots era to the American Revolution, talking about architecture and such. You know, regarding AC, I┤m looking for huge, crowded urban environments full of big buildings and/or different styles of architectures at least mixed with some rural stuff. Thing is that Boston and NY don┤t satisfy "my needs" and the Frontier, whereas eye candy, feels pretty empty while lacking any "revolution/war" atmosphere.




Are you suggesting I am using it lightly? Just so I am asking. It's a fair observation and certainly there's evidence in support of it in AC3. Racism is a cultural construct after all, and games are cultural artifacts that are product of its time.


Well, if someone doesn┤t like AC III and/or Connor you tend to immediately bring the race card. To me, that┤s using racism lightly.....

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 08:24 PM
You know, regarding AC, I┤m looking for huge, crowded urban environments full of big buildings and/or different styles of architectures at least mixed with some rural stuff. Thing is that Boston and NY don┤t satisfy "my needs" and the Frontier, whereas eye candy, feels pretty empty while lacking any "revolution/war" atmosphere.

The point of AC3 was give you a sense of being a Native American. Native Americans or at least the Mohawk were generally not very urban. So once they settled on that, you had to build the Frontier, and once you build a Frontier you needed a period to fix that around, create unique traversal and options, and then out of that everything else came. They had to find the right historical time period for AC Game (i.e. Templars vs Assassins with history in the balance = the American Revolution), also you had to find cities that accomodated the Frontier and out of that came Boston and New York, and Boston is one of the best AC cities. Out of that came hunting, tree-running and the Naval mechanics as well, since privateers played a big part in that, and it provided unique gameplay. As far as an AC game set in America with a non-white hero, the Colonial Era was their only option, either that or the Seven Years War. Earlier than that, you will have no cities and pure frontier, later then that, not enough. It's the right middle area. By the time they went to the Gangs of New York or the Civil War, Native Americans were displaced from the East Coast and sent West. And if you follow that, it becomes a Western game albeit with you as a Native American fighting cowboys and believe me, Ubisoft will never greenlight that game. No gaming company will sell a Western game where you are not the cowboy. Its a great concept sure, but realistically Ubisoft or even Valve for that matter, will not do it. That's something even movies don't do.


Well, if someone doesn┤t like AC III and/or Connor you tend to immediately bring the race card. To me, that┤s using racism lightly.....

Well, the fact is its rarely been acknowledged on these forums and I brought it up because I didn't see other people discussing it, when it is the elephant in the room. All I saw was people bashing the game for inane reasons most of the time, misquoting dialogues, using only one bad copy of the game and a playthrough as a guide, and then glorifying Haytham who is essentially a white imperialist fantasy (being Colonial James Bond and all). Ubisoft never considered making the game with a white guy because then AC3 would be a rah-rah "The Patriot : The Game" and they never wanted to do that. At the time the ethos was to do things no other franchise did and do eras and perspectives that were never represented. The easiest thing is to make a game set in America with a white dude. That way, every period of American history is open and the world is your oyster, you don't have to think too much about social stealth and how a non-white would blend in a certain period.

In Red Dead Redemption, John Marston even if he's a simple American farmer gets to be a hero of the Mexican Revolution (where he's the white guy shedding a tear about how stupid these latino people are), gets to serve as sub-sheriff and has an endless range of activities he could do, that kind of freedom is plausible, even in Rocksteady's satirical Old West landscape, because that guy is white. If John Marston was African-American, Red Dead Redemption would have to become a completely different game on every level. You talk about "crowded urban environments, big buildings, different styles of architecture" for an AC game. For that to work, you have to have social stealth and believe me until the mid-late 20th Century, you can't really have a non-white protagonist in an American city because social stealth would be unbelievable, you can't have a non-white person in an American city in the 19th Century climbing buildings and doing stuff in broad daylight. The Colonial Era still allowed some wiggle room, since its a fact that America became more racist after the Revolution then in the Colonial Era since the nationalist tensions and need for social identity hadn't yet completely destroyed settler-native relations.

Ubisoft to its credit took on an amazing challenge and created a setting, story and open world gameplay that was based on the fact that the hero was a minority. It didn't succeed fully yes but simply for changing and radically giving a new idea of how an open-world game could be like, it deserves something in the video-game hall of fame. That's what Assassin's Creed games were about, challenging cliches, looking at the past in a new way and trying to make us think via open-world gaming. Even Black Flag, followed that with a game that made you a real Pirate and showed that the Pirates were better than the slaveowning empires they plundered. After that, the magic has gone. Now youhave the fan-requests, ROGUE the white Imperialist game where you have a sub-Bmovie earthquake machine story providing a guilt-free excuse for the hero to hunt down African American, women, and other minorities while serving the cause of White People. Then UNITY, where despite an era rich in possibility and gameplay, you have an aristocratic tourist fiddling around a clean and lifeless Paris with a snooty English accent while complaining about the evil poor morons asking for rights.

Namikaze_17
05-10-2015, 08:27 PM
*Three years later*

rprkjj
05-11-2015, 04:33 AM
The point of AC3 was give you a sense of being a Native American. Native Americans or at least the Mohawk were generally not very urban. So once they settled on that, you had to build the Frontier, and once you build a Frontier you needed a period to fix that around, create unique traversal and options, and then out of that everything else came. They had to find the right historical time period for AC Game (i.e. Templars vs Assassins with history in the balance = the American Revolution), also you had to find cities that accomodated the Frontier and out of that came Boston and New York, and Boston is one of the best AC cities. Out of that came hunting, tree-running and the Naval mechanics as well, since privateers played a big part in that, and it provided unique gameplay. As far as an AC game set in America with a non-white hero, the Colonial Era was their only option, either that or the Seven Years War. Earlier than that, you will have no cities and pure frontier, later then that, not enough. It's the right middle area. By the time they went to the Gangs of New York or the Civil War, Native Americans were displaced from the East Coast and sent West. And if you follow that, it becomes a Western game albeit with you as a Native American fighting cowboys and believe me, Ubisoft will never greenlight that game. No gaming company will sell a Western game where you are not the cowboy. Its a great concept sure, but realistically Ubisoft or even Valve for that matter, will not do it. That's something even movies don't do.



Well, the fact is its rarely been acknowledged on these forums and I brought it up because I didn't see other people discussing it, when it is the elephant in the room. All I saw was people bashing the game for inane reasons most of the time, misquoting dialogues, using only one bad copy of the game and a playthrough as a guide, and then glorifying Haytham who is essentially a white imperialist fantasy (being Colonial James Bond and all). Ubisoft never considered making the game with a white guy because then AC3 would be a rah-rah "The Patriot : The Game" and they never wanted to do that. At the time the ethos was to do things no other franchise did and do eras and perspectives that were never represented. The easiest thing is to make a game set in America with a white dude. That way, every period of American history is open and the world is your oyster, you don't have to think too much about social stealth and how a non-white would blend in a certain period.

In Red Dead Redemption, John Marston even if he's a simple American farmer gets to be a hero of the Mexican Revolution (where he's the white guy shedding a tear about how stupid these latino people are), gets to serve as sub-sheriff and has an endless range of activities he could do, that kind of freedom is plausible, even in Rocksteady's satirical Old West landscape, because that guy is white. If John Marston was African-American, Red Dead Redemption would have to become a completely different game on every level. You talk about "crowded urban environments, big buildings, different styles of architecture" for an AC game. For that to work, you have to have social stealth and believe me until the mid-late 20th Century, you can't really have a non-white protagonist in an American city because social stealth would be unbelievable, you can't have a non-white person in an American city in the 19th Century climbing buildings and doing stuff in broad daylight. The Colonial Era still allowed some wiggle room, since its a fact that America became more racist after the Revolution then in the Colonial Era since the nationalist tensions and need for social identity hadn't yet completely destroyed settler-native relations.

Ubisoft to its credit took on an amazing challenge and created a setting, story and open world gameplay that was based on the fact that the hero was a minority. It didn't succeed fully yes but simply for changing and radically giving a new idea of how an open-world game could be like, it deserves something in the video-game hall of fame. That's what Assassin's Creed games were about, challenging cliches, looking at the past in a new way and trying to make us think via open-world gaming. Even Black Flag, followed that with a game that made you a real Pirate and showed that the Pirates were better than the slaveowning empires they plundered. After that, the magic has gone. Now youhave the fan-requests, ROGUE the white Imperialist game where you have a sub-Bmovie earthquake machine story providing a guilt-free excuse for the hero to hunt down African American, women, and other minorities while serving the cause of White People. Then UNITY, where despite an era rich in possibility and gameplay, you have an aristocratic tourist fiddling around a clean and lifeless Paris with a snooty English accent while complaining about the evil poor morons asking for rights.

Tell me, what would happen if you made an argument that wasn't complete sophistry? Would your head simply explode because the ******** you vent would stockpile and you wouldn't be able to take it? Seriously, it's unsubstantiated claim this and baseless conjecture that with you. You definitely played a wholly different Rogue than I did if you think the game was about helping white people and killing minorities, but I think the more reasonable explanation is that you're full of **** and are trying to continue to spin this cute little narrative.

VestigialLlama4
05-11-2015, 04:57 AM
I am answering this from the UBISOFT'S AUDACITY thread:http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1104420-Ubisoft-s-Audacity
as per Locopells, it was getting out of hand.


That bit in the game is written from a Templar perspective and takes place in the fictional AC universe as opposed to our real world (so no, Ubisoft never acknowledged what you're suggesting). That's like saying Ubisoft "acknowledged" that Americans are all tosspots because Shaun Hastings said so.

Abstergo Entertainment is intended to be an obvious spoof of Ubisoft itself. It's them making fun of themselves and the franchise. There's a reason why it looks like a vast video game corporation based in Montreal, modelled on their own campus with a lot of the characters being exaggerated spoofs of Ubisoft employees. They also include jokes like why modern day AC will not work very well. The Altair and Ezio videos were over-the-top silliness but for Connor they used real-world Connor objections in that video and them saying that a big portion of the audience won't take to his story because it lacks a white guy to provide it balance is essentially attacking fans for not understanding people who are different.


AC3 deserves five or six negative articles because it was just. That. Bad.

Well the initial review for AC3 was very positive. Written by a different reviewer, Stephen Totilo:
http://kotaku.com/5957510/assassins-creed-iii-the-kotaku-review

Then the other guys got on the bandwagon. These same guys also defended UNITY and said that they liked Arno (a character with zero traits), so you can make that of what you will.


What most? You keep saying "most" people are racist towards Connor, yet you offer no support for this claim. Only one single opinion piece from a single website.

I can quote a lot but that's far too much work at such a short notice. It took a lot of reading, time and effort to make that ACU-History Fact Check Post I made happen after all. Gimme some time and I will try and answer this too. On short notice I took obvious examples. I will return with a longer post and article with more research but that kind of unpaid pro-bono work takes a little time.


Adewale, Alta´r, Shao Jun and Aveline are all fairly popular characters and rarely do we get bigots here complaining about how they don't want to play as X race.

Adewale is the star of a Single DLC to Black Flag, so its essentially "niche". Shao Jun is so popular that Ubisoft wasted her on a turgid Cheapjack 2D side-scroller. Aveline is popular solely because she's on PS-Vita. None of these are major title characters, intended to be generally representative of the brand. Connor was. Even the great Altair of AC1 suffers from being Arab-But-Not-Too-Arab. He has Desmond's face in AC1, he's never seen with his hood down in that game. So he stands apart from Malick and Al Mualim as well as all the Saracen Templars he targets. Philip Shahbaz also voices him with an American accent, while the supporting cast sound more stereotypically like Middle Easterners. In other words, they made sure that Altair was more Middle-Eastern than the Prince of Persia, but less so than his supporting cast and the villains so it would be easier for white audiences to relate to him. AC3 was different. Connor sounds and speaks in a manner different from the entire cast because he's a minority and that's intended to get gamers to explore views from a different perspective. Who knows if AC3 had Haytham and Connor was the star of his DLC you will have people clamouring for Connor to get his own full game and be more understanding. It's a classic double standard.

VestigialLlama4
05-11-2015, 04:59 AM
My reply to SixKeys was getting too long, so I am dividing it into two:


Before AC3's release, there was a huge amount of hype about Connor. The backlash started after the game's release when people got a proper glimpse of his true character in the game: irrational, illogical and with a voice actor who sounded like he was reading the phonebook. Alta´r got criticized back in the day for having a bad voice actor too. They changed the actor for ACR and suddenly the character was much better received. How does that fit into your "everyone's a racist" theory?

It's not a theory, its an observation based on empirical assessment. Did AC3 have flaws? Yes it did. But then no AC game is really perfect. They were always these unwieldy messy games. People who are angry about the Desmond resolution and pay-off, the AC3 MD, well that can't be blamed on Connor either. It's a fact that most people who buy the AC game don't buy it for Desmond and MD, they buy it for the guy on the cover-art. As for Connor's voice actor, he had the same voice in the trailers and promotional material as he did in the final game. So why did people have no objections about his voice before the game was released? And yes the missions in AC3 were too linear, but whose fault is that, is it because of Connor...no most of the linear sections of the game are the ones where you either play as Haytham or hang out with him. So people who like Haytham and want non-linear levels, totally misunderstand the game. The most non-linear parts of AC3 are the ones with Connor entirely on his own. And you know the same people didn't complain too much about how linear the story missions in Brotherhood and Revelations are, why because its Ezio, who cares.

So that's why I find a lot of the arguments against Connor to be fairly suspicious and the main thing it comes down to is, "being a Native American isn't as fun as being his white Dad in the prologue" and that should lead people to ask why is that its hard to imagine a non-white guy being fun in games. Why must the freedom and promise of open-world adventure be restricted to a white dude? Why is it hard to reconfigure gameplay around a non-white protagonist.

Because you know when San Andreas came out, people didn't like Carl Johnson either. They wanted to be Tommy Vercetti. That was a game where the major white characters were few and only in minor roles with most of the cast were African-American, Hispanic and Chinese-American. San Andreas sold very well (the actual people who buy the games, the ones who don't post online are more diverse and smart than the ones here) but that didn't lead to more African-American or non-white protagonists. Saints Row which is San Andreas spin-offs leaves you to create your own character as an avatar, a classic gutless move there.

And by the way, I thought you preferred Philip Shahbaz in AC1 over Cas Anvar in Revelations?

VestigialLlama4
05-11-2015, 05:15 AM
Tell me, what would happen if you made an argument that wasn't complete sophistry?

Look why don't you tell me what you understand by the phrase sophistry, that way I can pretend to understand where you come from.


You definitely played a wholly different Rogue than I did if you think the game was about helping white people and killing minorities...

If you ever take a humanities course or come across a gentlemen by the name of Roland Barthes, you will know a phrase called, "The structuring absence of the text", you can google it. It's a broad state of unstated assumptions without which a narrative doesn't work.

In ROGUE, you play Templars...aka white dudes in Colonial America (with one token black guy who isn't allowed to voice why he's a Templar but is there for cover-our-a-- purposes). Now, logically given what we know of Templars, that they are usually wealthy, seek to order society from above and want to herd people and as per Haytham, "Merely need the world to be as it is" they represent evil colonialist white people. The Templar targets that Assassin!Shay kills at the start include a slaveowner and another guy who committed massacres against Native tribes. Later when Shay becomes a Templar, Christopher Gist guilt-trips Shay about killing these guys. So the Templars in the game itself are evil white colonialist dudes. The only reason Shay supports them is a totally moronic Earthquake plot and that adds up to, "Put a black guy in charge, and he'll sink the world in a series of earthquakes and its up to noble, benevolent white people to stop these nuisances."

You know, much more palatable on the whole than AC3.

rprkjj
05-11-2015, 05:49 AM
Look why don't you tell me what you understand by the phrase sophistry, that way I can pretend to understand where you come from.



If you ever take a humanities course or come across a gentlemen by the name of Roland Barthes, you will know a phrase called, "The structuring absence of the text", you can google it. It's a broad state of unstated assumptions without which a narrative doesn't work.

In ROGUE, you play Templars...aka white dudes in Colonial America (with one token black guy who isn't allowed to voice why he's a Templar but is there for cover-our-a-- purposes). Now, logically given what we know of Templars, that they are usually wealthy, seek to order society from above and want to herd people and as per Haytham, "Merely need the world to be as it is" they represent evil colonialist white people. The Templar targets that Assassin!Shay kills at the start include a slaveowner and another guy who committed massacres against Native tribes. Later when Shay becomes a Templar, Christopher Gist guilt-trips Shay about killing these guys. So the Templars in the game itself are evil white colonialist dudes. The only reason Shay supports them is a totally moronic Earthquake plot and that adds up to, "Put a black guy in charge, and he'll sink the world in a series of earthquakes and its up to noble, benevolent white people to stop these nuisances."

You know, much more palatable on the whole than AC3.

To kill 2 birds with one stone: your entire stance on Rogue is sophistry. Sophistry meaning an argument based on fallaciousness, because your reasoning for why Rogue is some racist fantasy are flimsy and don't hold together to the point of being bold-faced lies. My reasoning is that since you think because the templars (good guys in this game alone) are predominantly white, with one black guy who you don't even consider black apparently, and that they are represented as good whilst the assassins are primarily women or minorities with 2 white guys (who you don't even mention) who are allied with the French white people, and employ gangs (white people) to do their dirty work (you're primarily killing white people the entire game) that the game is a racist fantasy. Sorry, what? Is that the criteria for racist fantasy? Too many minority bad guys and too many white good guys? What kind of racist criteria is that? Even then your theory doesn't hold up. How does that in any way translate to some deep seeded message about black prople ****ing things up and white people having to fix it? It does only of you think that was Ubisoft's intentions; something you have no knowledge of. Even then that would be the loosest and most contradictory analogy ever.

The_Kiwi_
05-11-2015, 07:48 AM
Perhaps I should get rprkjj to write my essay on racism in prisons

Seems to know a lot :rolleyes:

SixKeys
05-11-2015, 07:27 PM
Abstergo Entertainment is intended to be an obvious spoof of Ubisoft itself. It's them making fun of themselves and the franchise. There's a reason why it looks like a vast video game corporation based in Montreal, modelled on their own campus with a lot of the characters being exaggerated spoofs of Ubisoft employees. They also include jokes like why modern day AC will not work very well. The Altair and Ezio videos were over-the-top silliness but for Connor they used real-world Connor objections in that video and them saying that a big portion of the audience won't take to his story because it lacks a white guy to provide it balance is essentially attacking fans for not understanding people who are different.

Duh. But you're conflating Ubisoft the corporation with Darby McDevitt, the Ubisoft employee who came up with that idea. That's like me claiming that Ubisoft acknowledges me as a legit AC universe character just because Darby wrote an Easter egg into AC4. I also disagree with your assessment that the soundfile is necessarily an "acknowledgment" of racism within the fanbase and more a nod towards the discussions that happen in the fandom every so often. A light-hearted prod at the passionate discussions among fans, just like the file that essentially went "oh, poor Connor, it's a shame we can't reveal what really happened to him in the end", poking fun at the insane amount of campaigns to give fans a proper "conclusion", because they just wouldn't accept that AC3's ending was a conclusion.


Well the initial review for AC3 was very positive. Written by a different reviewer, Stephen Totilo:
http://kotaku.com/5957510/assassins-creed-iii-the-kotaku-review

Then the other guys got on the bandwagon. These same guys also defended UNITY and said that they liked Arno (a character with zero traits), so you can make that of what you will.

I don't understand your point. One of Kotaku's many writers gave AC3 a positive review whereas another one gave a negative review. They later duked it out with a third reviewer in another article, each giving varying arguments for their POV. How does this prove your initial assessment of everyone being racist towards Connor?

In the weeks and months following Unity's release, almost every single article (even non-AC related ones) mocked Unity.


I can quote a lot but that's far too much work at such a short notice.

Of course it is. :rolleyes:


Adewale is the star of a Single DLC to Black Flag, so its essentially "niche". Shao Jun is so popular that Ubisoft wasted her on a turgid Cheapjack 2D side-scroller. Aveline is popular solely because she's on PS-Vita. None of these are major title characters, intended to be generally representative of the brand. Connor was. Even the great Altair of AC1 suffers from being Arab-But-Not-Too-Arab. He has Desmond's face in AC1, he's never seen with his hood down in that game. So he stands apart from Malick and Al Mualim as well as all the Saracen Templars he targets. Philip Shahbaz also voices him with an American accent, while the supporting cast sound more stereotypically like Middle Easterners. In other words, they made sure that Altair was more Middle-Eastern than the Prince of Persia, but less so than his supporting cast and the villains so it would be easier for white audiences to relate to him. AC3 was different. Connor sounds and speaks in a manner different from the entire cast because he's a minority and that's intended to get gamers to explore views from a different perspective. Who knows if AC3 had Haytham and Connor was the star of his DLC you will have people clamouring for Connor to get his own full game and be more understanding. It's a classic double standard.

You're right that the main series currently has more white protags at this point than minority ones, but by AC3's release that was not so. Desmond's saga started with an Arab, continued with a white European and culminated with a Native American.

The problem with your assessment of Alta´r was that the initial complaints against his character were that he wasn't Middle-Eastern ENOUGH. After AC1's release, everyone complained about him being the only person in the Holy Land to have an American accent. So they "fixed" it in ACR, by giving him a non-American accent that most people accepted as Middle-Eastern. Of course, it wasn't really, it just matched people's ideas about what they thought an Arab accent should sound like, but fake-accent-Alta´r was far better received due to him finally being more clearly Arabic (they also gave him his own face instead of Desmond's this time). And yes, I personally prefer Philip Shahbaz, but I know I'm in the minority.


So that's why I find a lot of the arguments against Connor to be fairly suspicious and the main thing it comes down to is, "being a Native American isn't as fun as being his white Dad in the prologue" and that should lead people to ask why is that its hard to imagine a non-white guy being fun in games. Why must the freedom and promise of open-world adventure be restricted to a white dude? Why is it hard to reconfigure gameplay around a non-white protagonist.

What's wrong with wanting games to be fun? Yes, playing as Haytham was more fun. We went to the London Opera House with him, one of the few good missions in the entire game. He had great chemistry with his fellow companions and with Ziio. He was an intriguing character because we knew so little about him. Whereas Connor had very little chemistry with anyone, all but maybe five of his missions were dull and we saw him inexplicably switch personalities with Kanen'tˇ:kon between their teenage and adulthood years.

If they wanted to make a point about the restrictions faced by a playable minority character, they did it much, much better in Freedom Cry (which was later released as its own game). That game manages to have a ton of fun activities while also consrtantly reminding the player that Adewale doesn't have the same freedoms or carefree attitude as Edward.

VestigialLlama4
05-11-2015, 08:25 PM
Duh. But you're conflating Ubisoft the corporation with Darby McDevitt, the Ubisoft employee who came up with that idea. That's like me claiming that Ubisoft acknowledges me as a legit AC universe character just because Darby wrote an Easter egg into AC4.

I also disagree with your assessment that the soundfile is necessarily an "acknowledgment" of racism within the fanbase and more a nod towards the discussions that happen in the fandom every so often. A light-hearted prod at the passionate discussions among fans, just like the file that essentially went "oh, poor Connor, it's a shame we can't reveal what really happened to him in the end", poking fun at the insane amount of campaigns to give fans a proper "conclusion", because they just wouldn't accept that AC3's ending was a conclusion.

Darby McDevitt is a fairly sophisticated writer, he homaged Richard Farina, Thomas Pynchon's boon companion, in one of the achievements, so its definitely a self-parody, self-criticism and post-modernist critique of the gaming industry intended by him. Abstergo Entertainment is essentially making Pirates of the Caribbean:The Game, they wanted Edward to sound like a posh guy and not a poor Welsh dude, they want to remove Mary Read because she cross-dresses...and the funny thing is now that UNITY is out, it is suspiciously a lot like the kind of philosophy he was making fun of. So that's why I think the Black Flag Market Videos were a pretty frank assessment of how they felt people didn't respond to him. As for Connor's ending, the fact is Altair got Codex entries in AC2 (before Revelations). Adewale (Even Before Rogue) got those Letters from Eseosa on INITIATES. Haytham(and Edward) had Forsaken, Edward even got his own Journal novel with Black Flag (and again Ubisoft could have added a post-script with Connor noting he found this sometime later, and provide a nice ending).

So Ubisoft has zero right to suddenly act like fans are irrational for wanting some basic closure. If they wanted to say, "We don't always know the past", then what's the point of the Animus, the machine that allows accurate reconstruction and knowledge of the past? In ROGUE, a game that could have tied all knots, they give information on Connor's boat but not the hero, and to say that isn't internalized mockery and bad treatment of consumers, by privileging a disproportionate vocal minority is to be wilfully in denial and biased in the extreme. I don't like Arno myself, but yeah some people do and people should know what happened to him. I like Shay Cormac even less, but yeah if fans want to know, they should get it. It's basic decency.


I don't understand your point. One of Kotaku's many writers gave AC3 a positive review whereas another one gave a negative review.

In the weeks and months following Unity's release, almost every single article (even non-AC related ones) mocked Unity.

My point is the official Kotaku Review of AC3 was very positive and that upset the other two reviewers who kept posting article after article on the game to the point that the original review got buried. And then when the same writer gave a lukewarm review for UNITY again, Luke Plunkett and others defended UNITY online. There was a segment who tried to defend UNITY because they felt people made fun of it for "women-are-too-hard-to-animate" "BBC English" but wanted to defend stuff like how its a perfectly simple and dumb game with a totally simplistic and unchallenging protagonist. Most of what passes for gaming criticism is rationalizations for juvenilia after all.


The problem with your assessment of Alta´r was that the initial complaints against his character were that he wasn't Middle-Eastern ENOUGH.

I prefer AC1 Altair myself but I don't like the coding. I would have preferred Malik and Al Mualim being treated the same as Altair, with similar accents and equality, so that he's not the least-Arab of the Arab cast. That's a classic dirty trick in animation, its there in Disney's Aladdin where the hero and heroine are drawn as essentially tanned-Westerners while the other characters are shown as being visible stereotypes and the villain is the most Arab-looking of all. But then its Disney and they are the Slimeball Corporation with Teflon Coating. Ubisoft should be better. In terms of representation, Connor in AC3 was way more radical and challenging.


What's wrong with wanting games to be fun?

It's wrong because it assumes that only a certain kind of power fantasy is "fun", and that power fantasy is nearly exclusively confined to being white and male. I mean is Haytham a complex character? He isn't. He's far less complex in motivation than AC1 Templars like Abul Nuqood, none of his arguments are as challenging as Garnier Naplouse brutally treating lunatics but still providing better care then they would get elsewhere in that time and that society. As a personality, he's less likable than John Pitcairn and I find Thomas Hickey more charming as a honest a--hole. Haytham is only more complex than the Borgia Templars, a really low barrier, and he's a specific type, Colonial James Bond, a.k.a. a caricature of a cardboard-cutout but because of that, people respond to that more readily than someone different.


Yes, playing as Haytham was more fun. We went to the London Opera House with him, one of the few good missions in the entire game.

You mean the totally scripted, interactive cutscene. I thought you complained that AC3 was too linear. Where's the consistency? You cannot complain about AC3's linear missions and like Haytham. All his missions in the prologue are essentially movable cutscenes, highly scripted events almost without exception. Likewise when Haytham appears in the second half of AC3, all the missions (Thomas Hickey, Church, Lee-Haytham) get linear. So why is that its only when Connor is playable that the linear missions become a bother? How can you, self-professed devotee of non-linear non-casual gameplay, call a totally scripted 3 minute tutorial which you cannot fail, cannot get caught, cannot explore off-path, "one of the few good missions" of a game you dislike for being casual and too linear?

SixKeys
05-11-2015, 08:48 PM
You mean the totally scripted, interactive cutscene.

Like 99% of AC3? But I will admit you're right. It's a visually impressive mission with all those NPCs with their unique animations and the glamour of the building, which is why I somewhat enjoyed it the first time. But upon replay, it is indeed a dull mission. I actually can't really think of a Haytham mission I truly enjoy.

At least you made me realize AC3 has even fewer good missions than I thought. ;)


You cannot complain about AC3's linear missions and like Haytham. All his missions in the prologue are essentially movable cutscenes, highly scripted events almost without exception.

Um, yes, I can. I can like a character whilst not liking his missions. I enjoy his banter with Ziio whilst finding the missions involving her jarring and boring. I enjoy the relationship between Haytham and Charles Lee whilst being frustrated with the game mechanics involved in their missions. On the flipside, there are a few Connor missions I enjoy but I do not like his character. The only person he has good chemistry with are Achilles and Haytham and I enjoy their scenes the most.

BTW, I never called AC3 a "casual" game. I dislike the term the way it's often used by gamers in a negative way. I only use it to describe games that are clearly designed with broad appeal in mind, which IMO doesn't have to be negative. AC2 is perhaps the most casual game of the series (barring AC4) and those are good games. AC3 had some casualness but I've never denied its innovations.

VestigialLlama4
05-11-2015, 09:18 PM
Um, yes, I can. I can like a character whilst not liking his missions.

Well, next time when you say the gameplay matters more than the story, keep that in mind. Since all defenses about UNITY is "It's about the gameplay stupid" with the story criticisms essentially regarded as baseless.


At least you made me realize AC3 has even fewer good missions than I thought.

I never denied the game had its flaws. The fact is the main reason for the linear mission design is Haytham. The gameplay that is most open is the post-prologue and pre-New York section, that's the middle part of the entire game, or Connor's Adolescent period. Everything after that is shoehorned to this father-son relationship. The playable Haytham prologue is functionally useless since it doesn't do anything but provide a big plot twist, no extra lore, no golden nuggets or easter eggs.

In terms of AC3's development and why it cut features, my personal theory is that the Haytham sections were added later to the game. This is based on my assumption, which Farlander can correct me if I am wrong, that linear missions take less time to code than non-linear missions. Originally Connor wasn't supposed to have a white Dad but be fully native-American. I don't mind him being mixed-race since that wasn't a big deal among the Mohawk tribes, and by-and-large they didn't care about "pure-blood issues" (contrary to crap floated elsewhere here), and as Desmond's ancestor it would make sense for him being Half-White to justify why Desmond doesn't look Native American (since Connor is closer to his time period than Altair and Ezio are).

The main criticism about AC3 that should be directed at Ubisoft is that AC3 can only be defended for its potential and for its relative ambition since even then its a compromised product, because at the end of the day, the main emotional connection they brought for Connor was his conflict with his White Dad. I mean, even AC1 had you play as the Arab guy fully. And they were worried about it being "too alien" or as Abstergo Market Analysis put it "too foreign", so they added Haytham to provide a familiarity and that fed its way into the story as well.


BTW, I never called AC3 a "casual" game. I dislike the term the way it's often used by gamers in a negative way. I only use it to describe games that are clearly designed with broad appeal in mind, which IMO doesn't have to be negative. AC2 is perhaps the most casual game of the series (barring AC4) and those are good games. AC3 had some casualness but I've never denied its innovations.

I only said "casual" in terms of slang. I am a casual gamer myself and for me games, especially open-world games, are as much about the settings, level design and overall aesthetic, as they are about providing challenges for improvement. It doesn't matter if UNITY's missions are more open when ultimately there's no meaningful context and intense emotional engagement in that activity like there is in better stealth games.

SixKeys
05-11-2015, 09:34 PM
Well, next time when you say the gameplay matters more than the story, keep that in mind. Since all defenses about UNITY is "It's about the gameplay stupid" with the story criticisms essentially regarded as baseless.

I never called anyone stupid for favoring story over gameplay, stop putting words in my mouth. Nor did I say "gameplay matters more than story". I said that TO ME, personally, gameplay takes priority over story. I'm only more forgiving of Unity's story weaknesses because I enjoyed the gameplay and atmosphere. I can't say the same for ACR or AC3, hence why I criticize their stories more. It's a matter of different priorities.

VestigialLlama4
05-11-2015, 09:38 PM
I never called anyone stupid for favoring story over gameplay, stop putting words in my mouth.p.


I am merely taking that viewpoint (that is prioritizing gameplay over story) to the logical conclusion. I didn't mean to misquote you or anything.


Nor did I say "gameplay matters more than story". I said that TO ME, personally, gameplay takes priority over story. I'm only more forgiving of Unity's story weaknesses because I enjoyed the gameplay and atmosphere. I can't say the same for ACR or AC3, hence why I criticize their stories more. It's a matter of different priorities.

If you like Haytham and dislike Connor in AC3, and Connor's sections has objectively better gameplay than Haytham's sections, where does your priority skew then? That is what I am curious about.

SixKeys
05-11-2015, 09:42 PM
If you like Haytham and dislike Connor in AC3, and Connor's sections has objectively better gameplay than Haytham's sections, where does your priority skew then? That is what I am curious about.

I like Haytham as a character and prefer Connor's missions over his dad's. I prefer Alta´r as a character yet prefer Ezio's missions in ACR. Does that answer your question?

VestigialLlama4
05-11-2015, 09:45 PM
I like Haytham as a character and prefer Connor's missions over his dad's. I prefer Alta´r as a character yet prefer Ezio's missions in ACR. Does that answer your question?

No that's dodging the question. I specifically asked you to choose between Haytham and Weak Gameplay versus Connor and Good Gameplay? Which would be more entertaining to you?

Specifically those examples, not the ones with Altair and Ezio in Revelations.

SixKeys
05-11-2015, 09:48 PM
No that's dodging the question. I specifically asked you to choose between Haytham and Weak Gameplay versus Connor and Good Gameplay? Which would be more entertaining to you?

Specifically those examples, not the ones with Altair and Ezio in Revelations.

I didn't understand the question. I thought you were asking me which takes higher priority for me, character development or gameplay.

If I had to choose between those options, I would choose Connor and good gameplay. Too bad no such option exists.

VestigialLlama4
05-11-2015, 09:52 PM
I didn't understand the question. I thought you were asking me which takes higher priority for me, character development or gameplay.

I was just trying to figure where you were coming from, that's all.


If I had to choose between those options, I would choose Connor and good gameplay. Too bad no such option exists.

:cool: I totally agree with you on that score, not only the choice but also its bad that the option doesn't exist.