PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed III (1753-1783) - Connor was born in 1755



Gil_217
04-06-2012, 07:08 PM
I don't know if this was already addressed but Ubisoft revealed that Assassin's Creed III will take place between 1753 and 1783.
Later, it was shown that Connor was born in 1755. http://www.oxm.co.uk/40304/interviews/assassins-creed-3-the-most-rpg-like-assassins-creed-so-far/ ( Between 1:00 and 1:05)

So, what do you guys think about this year gap? Maybe we will be playing with his father first ( just a few missions, probably just one showing his father arriving in America and conceiving Connor or something), and then we'll play with Connor all the way to the end.

MetalCreed
04-06-2012, 07:10 PM
Yeah, probably..
Some background between Connor's British father and Mohawk mother.

Jexx21
04-06-2012, 07:14 PM
So.. when Connor becomes an Assassin he's 15? we'll be playing as a 15 year old?

doubt it.

Gil_217
04-06-2012, 07:16 PM
So.. when Connor becomes an Assassin he's 15? we'll be playing as a 15 year old?

doubt it.

You doubt what?

Jexx21
04-06-2012, 07:17 PM
that Connor is born in 1755.

RzaRecta357
04-06-2012, 07:18 PM
So.. when Connor becomes an Assassin he's 15? we'll be playing as a 15 year old?

doubt it.

Did you see the pictures of him as a kid? Do you remember playing as Ezio at birth and then truly beginning the play through at 17? What's two more years?

Gil_217
04-06-2012, 07:18 PM
that Connor is born in 1755.

Do you realize it was already shown that he was born in 1755

http://www.oxm.co.uk/40304/interviews/assassins-creed-3-the-most-rpg-like-assassins-creed-so-far/

Between 1:00 and 1.04

RzaRecta357
04-06-2012, 07:18 PM
Oh my bad. I see what's going on here now. Haha.

gp2razor
04-06-2012, 07:19 PM
So.. when Connor becomes an Assassin he's 15? we'll be playing as a 15 year old?

doubt it.

But we have been told that we will play Connor at different stages of his life..

BBALive
04-06-2012, 07:23 PM
I don't know if this was already addressed but Ubisoft revealed that Assassin's Creed III will take place between 1753 and 1783.
Later, it was shown that Connor was born in 1755.

So, what do you guys think about this year gap? Maybe we will be playing with his father first ( just a few missions, probably just one showing his father arriving in America and conceiving Connor or something), and then we'll play with Connor all the way to the end.

I doubt we'll be playing as Charles Lee (All but confirmed). It might just show a little bit of family backstory and then skip ahead to 1755 for Connor's birth, then skip ahead again.

Gil_217
04-06-2012, 07:24 PM
I doubt we'll be playing as Charles Lee. It might just show a little bit of family backstory and then skip ahead to 1755 for Connor's birth, then skip ahead again.

Is it even confirmed that Charles Lee is his father?

RzaRecta357
04-06-2012, 07:25 PM
Is it even confirmed that Charles Lee is his father?

Not confirmed but it's almost painfully obvious.

Gil_217
04-06-2012, 07:27 PM
Not confirmed but it's almost painfully obvious.

Am I missing something?

I have been way from everything AC related in the last days, so, if you can, explain to me.

DavisP92
04-06-2012, 07:27 PM
yea i think we might play as his father for a while, that's cool. I really hope that we play as 15 year old Connor for a while. I want to see what the assassins have him do for his training. See how they teach him parkour and how to kill.

Gil_217
04-06-2012, 07:30 PM
yea i think we might play as his father for a while, that's cool. I really hope that we play as 15 year old Connor for a while. I want to see what the assassins have him do for his training. See how they teach him parkour and how to kill.

It's almost guaranteed that we will be playing as 15 year old Connor, since they showed exactly his year of birth (1755) and the year he was inducted (1770), so yeah, I think that's an indication that we'll be playing as a 15 year old, at least one time.

oliacr
04-06-2012, 07:38 PM
i think in those years we will see some history, and we won't be able to play.

Gil_217
04-06-2012, 07:39 PM
i think in those years we will see some history, and we won't be able to play.

That's a possibility no doubt, but I think we will still play with a very young Connor.

there76
04-06-2012, 07:40 PM
Did you see the pictures of him as a kid? Do you remember playing as Ezio at birth and then truly beginning the play through at 17? What's two more years?

He looks younger than 15 in that picture or maybe he is, Than again, I could be wrong.

Gil_217
04-06-2012, 07:45 PM
One thing we can be certain about, the historic part of the game will start before Connor was born.

With this said, I don't know if we will play with another person at the very beginning of the historic part, or if it will only be a cutscene explaining some events.

there76
04-06-2012, 07:49 PM
We will most likely play as him before he becomes an Assassin. Will probably experience the time when his village is burned down, I think the developer already said we will play as him as a child. The developer also talked about him doing stuff before he is an assassin, probably vigilante stuff, and then he'll be noticed by the Assassins.

Gil_217
04-06-2012, 07:51 PM
Yeah but the objective of this thread is to speculate about the year gap between 1753 and 1755 (the year Connor is born)

there76
04-06-2012, 07:59 PM
Yeah but the objective of this thread is to speculate about the year gap between 1753 and 1755 (the year Connor is born)
I am guessing that it will start off by showing his mother, and Charles Lee shows up in 1755. It is known that he married a Mohawk chief's daughter and had twins. Do we know if Connor has a sibling or not?

LightRey
04-06-2012, 08:51 PM
I doubt Connor's father will be a historic figure. It wasn't the case with Alta´r or Ezio (or Desmond), even though they easily could have made it so. Just because some guy had a Native American kid at the time doesn't mean he's his father. Besides, I don't think I need remind you all that at the time of Connor's birth Charles Lee had not even ever set foot in North America, so it's just IMPOSSIBRU!

there76
04-06-2012, 08:54 PM
I doubt Connor's father will be a historic figure. It wasn't the case with Alta´r or Ezio (or Desmond), even though they easily could have made it so. Just because some guy had a Native American kid at the time doesn't mean he's his father. Besides, I don't think I need remind you all that at the time of Connor's birth Charles Lee had not even ever set foot in North America, so it's just IMPOSSIBRU!
He was born in 1755 according to sources shown earlier in this thread. Charles Lee entered North American in 1754, and got married in 1755.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 09:21 PM
He was born in 1755 according to sources shown earlier in this thread. Charles Lee entered North American in 1754, and got married in 1755.
oh, right. I was under the presumption that the whole theory of him not being there for Connor's birth was based on 1755 being Connor's Birthdate. Regardless, the other points still stand. I guess it's possible, but a few dates don't make it true. It would also mean that Connor would have a twin sibling.

Poodle_of_Doom
04-06-2012, 09:25 PM
I doubt we'll be playing as Charles Lee (All but confirmed). It might just show a little bit of family backstory and then skip ahead to 1755 for Connor's birth, then skip ahead again.


This is what I'm really worried about. If he's born in 1755, then we jump ahead 15 years,... we've wasted roughly half the span of the game just jumping ahead in time. People have been using that as an arguement as to how long the game actually is, but I hope you all see the folly in it now.

there76
04-06-2012, 09:40 PM
oh, right. I was under the presumption that the whole theory of him not being there for Connor's birth was based on 1755 being Connor's Birthdate. Regardless, the other points still stand. I guess it's possible, but a few dates don't make it true. It would also mean that Connor would have a twin sibling.

It still could be possible.

there76
04-06-2012, 09:41 PM
This is what I'm really worried about. If he's born in 1755, then we jump ahead 15 years,... we've wasted roughly half the span of the game just jumping ahead in time. People have been using that as an arguement as to how long the game actually is, but I hope you all see the folly in it now.

It's been confirmed will play a bit of him as a child.

Jexx21
04-06-2012, 09:56 PM
I honestly thought that using the 1753-1782 argument was stupid anyway. The events in AC2 rushed by very fast, with little details on the events themselves. It barely lets me connect to the events as they're happening. That's why I always thought that the story's of Brotherhood and Revelations felt better and more detailed, because they only took place in a couple of years.

IMO, it's better for the game to span a less amount of time than not. That's why some games that don't skip anything in the story feel better and more detailed. (See the Arkham games. Both games only took place in a single night)

Poodle_of_Doom
04-06-2012, 10:33 PM
It's been confirmed will play a bit of him as a child.

I certainly hope so.


I honestly thought that using the 1753-1782 argument was stupid anyway. The events in AC2 rushed by very fast, with little details on the events themselves. It barely lets me connect to the events as they're happening. That's why I always thought that the story's of Brotherhood and Revelations felt better and more detailed, because they only took place in a couple of years.

IMO, it's better for the game to span a less amount of time than not. That's why some games that don't skip anything in the story feel better and more detailed. (See the Arkham games. Both games only took place in a single night)

I agree.

albertwesker22
04-06-2012, 10:34 PM
I honestly thought that using the 1753-1782 argument was stupid anyway. The events in AC2 rushed by very fast, with little details on the events themselves. It barely lets me connect to the events as they're happening. That's why I always thought that the story's of Brotherhood and Revelations felt better and more detailed, because they only took place in a couple of years.

IMO, it's better for the game to span a less amount of time than not. That's why some games that don't skip anything in the story feel better and more detailed. (See the Arkham games. Both games only took place in a single night)

Plus if Connor joins the Assassin's in 1770, and is fully trained for duty by say 1773, that's still ten years as an active Assassin. More than enough time if you ask me, and the game will still be longer than AC 2.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 10:37 PM
It's been confirmed will play a bit of him as a child.
Yeah. I'm expecting them to use his childhood to get the player familiar with the controls. You'll probably get the regular stuff during his childhood, then the attack on his village possibly introducing us to basic combat and then his recruitment and training to become an assassin.

Poodle_of_Doom
04-06-2012, 10:43 PM
Yeah. I'm expecting them to use his childhood to get the player familiar with the controls. You'll probably get the regular stuff during his childhood, then the attack on his village possibly introducing us to basic combat and then his recruitment and training to become an assassin.

This would make a great intro.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 10:46 PM
This would make a great intro.
I think Sequence 1 of ACII is quite similar. :P

albertwesker22
04-06-2012, 10:50 PM
I think Sequence 1 of ACII is quite similar. :P

It makes sense that we would atleast hunt some animals in the first sequence. I imagine a hunter teaching Connor to track and skin animals and such.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 10:51 PM
It makes sense that we would atleast hunt some animals in the first sequence. I imagine a hunter teaching Connor to track and skin animals and such.
Certainly. Maybe the first weapons we'll use will be the tomahawk and the bow.

albertwesker22
04-06-2012, 11:01 PM
Certainly. Maybe the first weapons we'll use will be the tomahawk and the bow.

That is how it should be. It would make a nice transition, seeing him go from hunting in his small village, then embrace his European side more as the game builds up.

frogger504
04-06-2012, 11:05 PM
Certainly. Maybe the first weapons we'll use will be the tomahawk and the bow.

More likely that we will get a knife first ime. Seeing as it is an Assassin Tomahawk I'm guessing that maybe they are commonly used by some (Native) Assassins in those days. The bow is likely though.


Also, the near confirmation of Charles Lee being Conner's father! Also, the twin brother?

LightRey
04-06-2012, 11:13 PM
More likely that we will get a knife first ime. Seeing as it is an Assassin Tomahawk I'm guessing that maybe they are commonly used by some (Native) Assassins in those days. The bow is likely though.


Also, the near confirmation of Charles Lee being Conner's father! Also, the twin brother?
Charles Lee's wife had twins.

You're right about the knife and the Tomahawk. That does make more sense.

dxsxhxcx
04-06-2012, 11:19 PM
More likely that we will get a knife first ime. Seeing as it is an Assassin Tomahawk I'm guessing that maybe they are commonly used by some (Native) Assassins in those days. The bow is likely though.


Also, the near confirmation of Charles Lee being Conner's father! Also, the twin brother?

maybe he had a standard tomahawk before he joined the assassins and then he decided to customize it a little after he joined the order...

Grazel69
04-06-2012, 11:19 PM
MUWHAHAHA I KNEW IT *****ES!!!!
I Called it!

birthdate 1755: CHECK!

LightRey
04-06-2012, 11:27 PM
MUWHAHAHA I KNEW IT *****ES!!!!
I Called it!

birthdate 1755: CHECK!
Ok now. Calm down. Here's your cookie:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Cookie.gif
Congratulations.

Poodle_of_Doom
04-06-2012, 11:55 PM
^

That's funny.

frogger504
04-07-2012, 12:00 AM
Ok now. Calm down. Here's your cookie:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Cookie.gif
Congratulations.
My same reaction, he's not here so I shall take that cookie!
nomnomnom

Anyways, in my previous post I meant, what could be the story with the twin brother if it is Charles' son?

Lost twin? Dead twin?

LightRey
04-07-2012, 12:02 AM
My same reaction, he's not here so I shall take that cookie!
nomnomnom

Anyways, in my previous post I meant, what could be the story with the twin brother if it is Charles' son?

Lost twin? Dead twin?
No idea. All I could find about Charles Lee (regarding this) is that he married the daughter of a Mohawk chief and she had twins.

Poodle_of_Doom
04-07-2012, 12:48 AM
My same reaction, he's not here so I shall take that cookie!
nomnomnom

Anyways, in my previous post I meant, what could be the story with the twin brother if it is Charles' son?

Lost twin? Dead twin?

Would be interesting wouldn't it?

twenty_glyphs
04-07-2012, 05:23 AM
That's weird that the video linked to in this thread shows Connor as being "Born in the Mohawk Valley, 1755". It's weird because the official version of that same video everywhere I can find it on YouTube, including official Ubisoft accounts, just says, "Born in the Mohawk Valley". It just seems strange that they would have the game start two years before he's born.

As for Charles Lee, I've finally found some info on his time with the Mohawks. He first came to America in 1754, but he was adopted by a Mohawk tribe and got married to the daughter of the chief in 1756. By 1758 he may have left the Mohawks behind, and in 1760 he returned to Europe and didn't come back to America until 1773. That timeline makes him very unlikely to be Connor's father, whether he was born in 1753 or 1755.

http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-lee

If the picture from the Game Informer article is Charles Lee, which it appears to be, that means that confrontation with Connor probably happened between 1756 and 1760. Based on the picture of Connor, I'd say he's at least 5 years old and he looks slightly older than that to me.

gamertam
04-07-2012, 07:18 AM
From reading all posts from page one to five. My understanding is what's the story before Connor was born correct?

my speculating is that for a couple of years, we would witness the tyranny manners of the British on this new land. On their own people...um to some degree, and the Natives tribes. We will witness the Natives in their most purest being. Meaning they were living without any organize hierarchy system like laws, regulations, servants etc. Living as one with the environment, and spiritually. I'm speculating there will be cross inter-marriages.

frogger504
04-07-2012, 07:31 AM
That's weird that the video linked to in this thread shows Connor as being "Born in the Mohawk Valley, 1755". It's weird because the official version of that same video everywhere I can find it on YouTube, including official Ubisoft accounts, just says, "Born in the Mohawk Valley". It just seems strange that they would have the game start two years before he's born.

As for Charles Lee, I've finally found some info on his time with the Mohawks. He first came to America in 1754, but he was adopted by a Mohawk tribe and got married to the daughter of the chief in 1756. By 1758 he may have left the Mohawks behind, and in 1760 he returned to Europe and didn't come back to America until 1773. That timeline makes him very unlikely to be Connor's father, whether he was born in 1753 or 1755.

http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-lee

If the picture from the Game Informer article is Charles Lee, which it appears to be, that means that confrontation with Connor probably happened between 1756 and 1760. Based on the picture of Connor, I'd say he's at least 5 years old and he looks slightly older than that to me.


Ubi talked about Wiki being source, something about a 30 second Wiki search. In a 30 second search you quickly find that he had 2 children in 55.
Also, they can edit it to fit the story better, like the events in Cappadocia actually happened in 1511, not 1512 like the game states.

MoneyForBoobs
04-07-2012, 09:40 PM
Ubi talked about Wiki being source, something about a 30 second Wiki search. In a 30 second search you quickly find that he had 2 children in 55.
Also, they can edit it to fit the story better, like the events in Cappadocia actually happened in 1511, not 1512 like the game states.

i`ll believe the game because its more reliable

Calvarok
04-07-2012, 09:43 PM
I doubt they'll be editing time as much in this game, since they have very clear and precise information and records of what went down in that era.

MoneyForBoobs
04-07-2012, 09:44 PM
I doubt they'll be editing time as much in this game, since they have very clear and precise information and records of what went down in that era.

im wit dis ^

Poodle_of_Doom
04-08-2012, 04:00 AM
Ubi talked about Wiki being source, something about a 30 second Wiki search. In a 30 second search you quickly find that he had 2 children in 55.
Also, they can edit it to fit the story better, like the events in Cappadocia actually happened in 1511, not 1512 like the game states.

Actually, what you're thinking of is the part where they said something to the effect of not putting something into the game if you could prove them wrong with a 30 search on wikipedia. Basically, they only take liberties when the history books are ambigious.

GLHS
04-08-2012, 06:04 AM
I don't understand why everybody thinks Charles Lee is Connor's father. His last name isn't Lee. It's Kenway. He just meets Lee.

there76
04-08-2012, 06:19 AM
I don't understand why everybody thinks Charles Lee is Connor's father. His last name isn't Lee. It's Kenway. He just meets Lee.

That's just the name he uses with the colonials. He made it up.

frogger504
04-08-2012, 06:31 AM
I doubt they'll be editing time as much in this game, since they have very clear and precise information and records of what went down in that era.

My point was that they aren't going for 100% historical accuracy. It isn't about missing information, it's about changing things to fit the story. With my example, they had the information of 1511 but they probably made it that date to be almost exactly 500 years before. This is still a work of fiction, only based on history, not supposed to be a perfect depiction. Some things that didn't happen will happen in the game.

Even then, my point was that the "source" they (Ubi) referred to says he had children in 55. If it fits the story they can make it so he came to America in 52 and had the kid in 53.
The other point being, Conner's birth, the start of the game, and the time Charles had children to a Mohawk woman (making the children half European and half Native), coincide.

Btw, Conner Kenway isn't a birth name, it is made up.

Calvarok
04-08-2012, 06:45 AM
I find it unlikely they he's related to someone so prominent on the colonist's side. Ubisoft specifically said that Connor's character was designed to be kinda removed from the actual sides of the conflict. An outsider who comes in and fights for justice wherever he sees it. That screen of him with Charles Lee is probably during the Colonist invasion of his village.

I know that they're not going to be totally accurate, but I highly doubt that it will be to the point of changing around dates by 2 years. That just seems silly. If they wanted Connor to be born to Lee they could easily have just changed Connor's birth date.

pirate1802
04-08-2012, 06:47 AM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18080660.jpg

frogger504
04-08-2012, 06:58 AM
I find it unlikely they he's related to someone so prominent on the colonist's side. Ubisoft specifically said that Connor's character was designed to be kinda removed from the actual sides of the conflict. An outsider who comes in and fights for justice wherever he sees it. That screen of him with Charles Lee is probably during the Colonist invasion of his village.

I know that they're not going to be totally accurate, but I highly doubt that it will be to the point of changing around dates by 2 years. That just seems silly. If they wanted Connor to be born to Lee they could easily have just changed Connor's birth date.

It was just an example to make my point clear, they can do it, never said they will. Also, he isn't taking sides because of his father, he's in a neutral state. If anything it helps the situation to balance it out. The Colonists took out his village but his father is a Colonist so he isn't exactly all revenge hatred against them. He's completely neutral. Also, how about the fact that it all coiincides. Oh yeah, just because his father is a colonist doesn't mean he will be one. He was raised by the Mohawks.

I am thinking they may have a little Star Wars moment near the end where Charles tell Conner, "I am your father" as he turns out to be the Templar (if that's the case), and Conner screams: "Nooo!!!"

Gil_217
04-08-2012, 12:03 PM
Ubi talked about Wiki being source, something about a 30 second Wiki search. In a 30 second search you quickly find that he had 2 children in 55.
Also, they can edit it to fit the story better, like the events in Cappadocia actually happened in 1511, not 1512 like the game states.

They don't need to edit it because they already shown that Connor's year-birth is 1755, the same year Lee had his twins.

With this said, this doesn't mean that Connor is Lee's son.

BeCk41
04-08-2012, 12:18 PM
I really don't know what happened during the 1700's without looking it up, but I'd imagine it was a time of an outbreak of Wars against some of the major nations like France, England and the Americas, it was also a time of the French and Indian War, if that might be in the story we'll have to see. and growing tensions between the American colonists and the settlers of the 'New World'.

GLHS
04-08-2012, 12:21 PM
They don't need to edit it because they already shown that Connor's year-birth is 1755, the same year Lee had his twins.

With this said, this doesn't mean that Connor is Lee's son.

Exactly. The wiki says he just meets up with Lee, but specifically states that he was born to an English father and Mohawk mother. It does not say that Lee is his father. Anywhere. Plus, again, his last name is Kenway, which is more than legitimate. Most people of different cultures have 2 names. One English name, and one of their native language. We know his Mohawk name (although nobody can pronounce it. Honestly, why would the devs give him a name that even they can't pronounce?), and we know he adopted the English name of Connor. Even if Kenway is a made up last name, "Kenway" is not anywhere close to "Lee."