PDA

View Full Version : Assassin’s Creed 3 not about “America Ra Ra”/ won’t “shy away” from slavery *READ*



pacmanate
05-12-2012, 07:48 PM
Mr Shade posted this on his twitter and the article is a very good read. Hopefully this will put the debate of killing only the English at rest. Here are two paragraphs from the article which you can read following the link below:


"
The time frame of the game helps minimise the controversy too because this isn’t the US of A as we know it now. ”The truth of the matter is that America didn’t exist until 1783 and that’s when our game ends,” states Turner. He points out that before this point the US was just an extension of England and the Revolution was considered a “civil war on foreign soil”.


“At that point it’s not about American or English; it’s about English and English and that’s something we want to be very clear on. It’s not about America Ra Ra it’s about freedom and community and about how people are treated in that kind of a situation. And how they want to find their own identity. I think that’s something that’s universal to anybody”.




Source: http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/05/08/assassins-creed-3-not-about-america-ra-ra-wont-shy-away-from-slavery-says-writer/

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 08:01 PM
Was`nt that what everyone on here was saying ? That its British vs British ?
THANK YOU, MATT TURNER..

Acrimonious_Nin
05-12-2012, 08:09 PM
I think that was just you ^ , but I completely agree lol

she-assassin
05-12-2012, 08:18 PM
Yeah, British vs. British. I know that's what the game is going to be all about, but the marketing is rather misleading. :(

BBALive
05-12-2012, 08:26 PM
Was`nt that what everyone on here was saying ? That its British vs British ?
THANK YOU, MATT TURNER..

It won't be British vs. British for the last 7 years of the game.

Mr_Shade
05-12-2012, 08:26 PM
Yeah, British vs. British. I know that's what the game is going to be all about, but the marketing is rather misleading. :(
Not really, considering the era it's set in..

Just over in the UK people don't really understand American history.. Which maybe handy to at least have a quick read up, considering the game is set there..

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 08:27 PM
It won't be British vs. British for the last 7 years of the game.
Because The Red Coats would`v left..

BBALive
05-12-2012, 08:29 PM
Not really, considering the era it's set in..

Just over in the UK people don't really understand American history.. Which maybe handy to at least have a quick read up, considering the game is set there..

That's a bit of a generalisation don't you think?

notafanboy
05-12-2012, 08:32 PM
That's a bit of a generalisation don't you think?
american history isn´t taught very much in europe

BBALive
05-12-2012, 08:33 PM
Because The Red Coats would`v left..

...Nope.

British troops remained until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed. Multiple campaigns (New York and New Jersey, Saratoga, Philidelphia, Siege of Yorktown) took place during, or after 1776. The only difference was that the Americans had gained independence and they were no longer part of the British Empire, hence why it won't be British vs. British.

BBALive
05-12-2012, 08:34 PM
american history isn´t taught very much in europe

I know, I live in England. But it's still a generalisation. Some people teach themselves.

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 08:35 PM
...Nope.

British troops remained until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed. Multiple campaigns (New York and New Jerset, Saratoga, Philidelphia, Siege of Yorktown) took place during, or after 1776. The only difference was that the Americans had gained independence and they were no longer part of the British Empire, hence why it won't be British vs. British.
Oh Yeah.... Thats right..
I stand corrected, Im sorry.

Mr_Shade
05-12-2012, 08:39 PM
I know, I live in England. But it's still a generalisation. Some people teach themself.
It is a generalisation.. But one which is basically very true..

One based on the UKs current history ciriculum - and past ones.

Its not taught in great detail in UK schools, while some may go on to further education, and choose it, it's not something that's taught in school - some may study it as a hobby, but its not common knowledge..

however in America, it's part of the normal teaching programme - as far as I am aware..

So, its entirly possible that not many people, outside of the US will be familiar with the people, places and events in ACIII, so it's important to help educate, rather than just assume people know..

US players may, but we are an international forum, so we need to cover the bases.

she-assassin
05-12-2012, 09:05 PM
It is a generalisation.. But one which is basically very true..

One based on the UKs current history ciriculum - and past ones.

Its not taught in great detail in UK schools, while some may go on to further education, and choose it, it's not something that's taught in school - some may study it as a hobby, but its not common knowledge..

however in America, it's part of the normal teaching programme - as far as I am aware..

So, its entirly possible that not many people, outside of the US will be familiar with the people, places and events in ACIII, so it's important to help educate, rather than just assume people know..

US players may, but we are an international forum, so we need to cover the bases.

Yeah, the American history is not taught in great detail in Europe in general. And I assume the Americans don't know so much about the history of particular European nations as we do here in Europe. That's just the way it is. Which makes me wonder how much they knew or at least suspected about the Italian Renaissance before AC2 came out...

lothario-da-be
05-12-2012, 09:15 PM
but an american once said he never learned about ancient Greece and the Roman empire in school, its so stupid you get so less history in school, i only have 2 houers a week, it would be much better if EVERYONE had 5 houers history and learn about all the continents in all time periods instead of teaching usseless things like music and faith.

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 09:18 PM
but an american once said he never learned about ancient Greece and the Roman empire in school, its so stupid you get so less history in school, i only have 2 houers a week, it would be much better if EVERYONE had 5 houers history and learn about all the continents in all time periods instead of teaching usseless things like music and faith.
Im sorry, but I do not like you calling Music and faith useless..
Had you implied your point through as your opinion, I would not have any problem with your post..
Music and faith are equally as important as history, IN MY HONEST OPINION..

lothario-da-be
05-12-2012, 09:20 PM
yes, but your from Egypt if you would live in belgium you would think differint NOBODY in belgium under 18 believes in god. Its hard but truth.

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 09:23 PM
yes, but your from Egypt if you would live in belgium you would think differint NOBODY in belgium under 18 believes in god. Its hard but truth.
That still doesnt make music useless..

lothario-da-be
05-12-2012, 09:26 PM
and for music, we watch 3/4 of the time movies and for the rest of the time we are talking about guitar hero.

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 09:31 PM
and for music, we watch 3/4 of the time movies and for the rest of the time we are talking about guitar hero.
GOD !! Music is in Movies, Streets, Plays, T.V and HELL VIDEO GAMES, MAN..
and again, we return back to point 0 that is just your opinion, you may see Music useless, but others find it their life..

lothario-da-be
05-12-2012, 09:33 PM
GOD Music is in Movies, Streets, Plays, T.V and HELL VIDEO GAMES, MAN.. but its still useless, they don't teach us anything with that.

IrishMason33
05-12-2012, 09:33 PM
Yeah, the American history is not taught in great detail in Europe in general. And I assume the Americans don't know so much about the history of particular European nations as we do here in Europe. That's just the way it is. Which makes me wonder how much they knew or at least suspected about the Italian Renaissance before AC2 came out...

All high students are required to study world history in the 10th grade America. My world history class studied the Italian Renaissance for a whole 2 months, and my teacher made us remember the art which he put on tests. Most high school kids would knew about the ac2 when it came out if they passed the class. The Italian renaissance was one of the main subjects we talked about behind ancient China and pre-Babylon.

she-assassin
05-12-2012, 09:35 PM
and for music, we watch 3/4 of the time movies and for the rest of the time we are talking about guitar hero.

Then there's a problem with your teacher and not with the Music class itself, don't you think? Also, you're getting a bit off-topic...

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 09:36 PM
but its still useless, they don't teach us anything with that.

The correct sentence would be "Music is useless, In my opinion"

lothario-da-be
05-12-2012, 09:38 PM
The correct sentence would be "Music is useless, In my opinion" sorry that i'am just 15 and i got English for about 1 year and a half. And yes there are some things wrong with the teacher "in my opinion"

Assassin_M
05-12-2012, 09:40 PM
sorry that i'am just 15 and i got English for about 1 year and a half. And yes there are some things wrong with the teacher "in my opinion"
Regarding the teacher, thats not just your own opinion.. Its mine as well..
And no need to say sorry :D Its not like you told me I was inbred ;)

she-assassin
05-12-2012, 09:46 PM
All high students are required to study world history in the 10th grade America. My world history class studied the Italian Renaissance for a whole 2 months, and my teacher made us remember the art which he put on tests. Most high school kids would knew about the ac2 when it came out if they passed the class. The Italian renaissance was one of the main subjects we talked about behind ancient China and pre-Babylon.

Wait, you're trying to tell me you studied world history only for one year?! We had two history classes a week for 5 years at the primary school and 4 years at the grammar school. And we pretty much covered the whole world history, plus our national history. Now I feel over-educated...O_o

NewBlade200
05-12-2012, 09:47 PM
AC3 isn't about Brits against America? Lets all talk about music and the public school system!

Black_Widow9
05-12-2012, 10:41 PM
Please read the Article and reply to the Topic at hand...

Biomedical-Fire
05-12-2012, 11:58 PM
I think that I have covered this already in another thread about the United States not having any kind of National identity during the American Revolution. At that time they were just 13 British colonies that was comprised of the Loyalists who wanted to remain a part of Britain and the Federalists who wanted to split from the crown. There was no John Rambo, there was no John Wayne and no Team America running around and screaming "America, heck yeah!" during that time.

Locopells
05-13-2012, 12:06 AM
but an american once said he never learned about ancient Greece and the Roman empire in school, its so stupid you get so less history in school, i only have 2 houers a week, it would be much better if EVERYONE had 5 houers history and learn about all the continents in all time periods instead of teaching usseless things like music and faith.

Sounds like you had a naff Music teacher then.

And Faith and History are inseparable - the one generally influences the other...

Locopells
05-13-2012, 12:08 AM
Oh, and this topic is really starting to cross with this one:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/674485-What-s-up-with-all-the-American-hate-for-this-game

So check it out before rehashing old arguments...

tH3PatRi0Tx1776
05-13-2012, 01:07 AM
Wait, you're trying to tell me you studied world history only for one year?! We had two history classes a week for 5 years at the primary school and 4 years at the grammar school. And we pretty much covered the whole world history, plus our national history. Now I feel over-educated...O_o

Nah, World History is taught every year in Elementary, History has always been my favorite subject, but's it's not until the 10th Grade when we get into full detail. Where we learn about the Crusades, Italian Renaissance, India, Roman Empire, British Empire etc. etc. Then we have U.S. History, where we go into detail on our history, starting from the first colonies in 1607 with Jamestown and moving all the way up to the 90's. It might be a little different for other students, depending on whether you take regular history classes in High School or AP classes, which are college level classes that go into more detail.

pdw1992
05-13-2012, 01:30 AM
The US curriculum is kinda strange. Although there is a federal level curriculum, it is mostly handled on our state level. So, the curriculum gets a little messed up depending on which state you go to. On the whole, though, most US students will go through some kind of World History class. So, a lot of kids nowadays have some basic background on things like ancient Rome or Greece leading through major events throughout Europe, including the Renaissance. But, like some others have mentioned it is not nearly as extensive as the UK would learn of, or other European nations.

And obviously, US students learns a lot about our country. So, if you guys have any questions about American history or important figures just ask. :)

pdw1992
05-13-2012, 01:31 AM
Nah, World History is taught every year in Elementary, History has always been my favorite subject, but's it's not until the 10th Grade when we get into full detail. Where we learn about the Crusades, Italian Renaissance, India, Roman Empire, British Empire etc. etc. Then we have U.S. History, where we go into detail on our history, starting from the first colonies in 1607 with Jamestown and moving all the way up to the 90's. It might be a little different for other students, depending on whether you take regular history classes in High School or AP classes, which are college level classes that go into more detail.

This. This is how things are normally set up.

De Filosoof
05-13-2012, 01:47 AM
The US curriculum is kinda strange. Although there is a federal level curriculum, it is mostly handled on our state level. So, the curriculum gets a little messed up depending on which state you go to. On the whole, though, most US students will go through some kind of World History class. So, a lot of kids nowadays have some basic background on things like ancient Rome or Greece leading through major events throughout Europe, including the Renaissance. But, like some others have mentioned it is not nearly as extensive as the UK would learn of, or other European nations.

And obviously, US students learns a lot about our country. So, if you guys have any questions about American history or important figures just ask. :)

Did you also learn how the federal reserve came into existance?
And i'm very eager to know if you also learn the bad things America did instead of the good things like learning history of WW1 and WW2.

gamertam
05-13-2012, 01:51 AM
Nah, World History is taught every year in Elementary, History has always been my favorite subject, but's it's not until the 10th Grade when we get into full detail. Where we learn about the Crusades, Italian Renaissance, India, Roman Empire, British Empire etc. etc. Then we have U.S. History, where we go into detail on our history, starting from the first colonies in 1607 with Jamestown and moving all the way up to the 90's. It might be a little different for other students, depending on whether you take regular history classes in High School or AP classes, which are college level classes that go into more detail.

To think about it now. From years of education from grades schooling to junior High(middle school) and up to High School. I (pupils) didn't really going in-depth into American History just the basic of important dates and events and figures revelant what were teaching at the time. Why? political reasons. Same reason why some High School won't allowed their students read books like Huck Finn. Not until higher learning we have professors goes into more detail. I should know because i've lived it. To drive my point home on this, a major network NBC or ABC did a very informative segment about the distorted, water-down history that been taught in class rooms across America. Textbooks were omitted important details like the Native Tribes which includes scalping or lack thereof and the robbing of their land. That's all i could remember. Oh yea- you can look it up. Trust me on that.


There is not one Indian in the whole of this country who does not cringe in anguish and frustration because of these textbooks. There is not one Indian child who has not come home in shame and tears.---Rupert Costo


So it's not that Americans are stupid or dumb. Just that they were never been taught the real history before colleges.

i'm not saying your wrong at all.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 01:53 AM
This Thread is taking a rather unpleasant direction...

De Filosoof
05-13-2012, 01:56 AM
So it's not that Americans are stupid or dumb. Just that they were never been taught the realhistory.

Because that wouldn't produce proud countrymen, would it ;).

De Filosoof
05-13-2012, 01:59 AM
This Thread is taking a rather unpleasant direction...

I think it's a very nice discussion :D.
Nice to hear different opinions, views and experiences about the educational system from different people living in different countries :).

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 02:01 AM
I think it's a very nice discussion :D.
Nice to hear different opinions, views and experiences about the educational system from different people living in different countries :).
I understand, but there are some words, that I will point out, that some may consider offending..

gamertam
05-13-2012, 02:02 AM
Because that wouldn't produce proud countrymen, would it ;).
hahahah, alrighty.
cool.

De Filosoof
05-13-2012, 02:07 AM
I understand, but there are some words, that I will point out, that some may consider offending..

True, but whose fault is that. The guy "offending" people or the people that are being "offended".
People should be more open for other peoples views and put their pride and ego aside so they can learn from eachother.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 02:13 AM
True, but whose fault is that. The guy "offending" people or the people that are being "offended".
People should be more open for other peoples views and put their pride and ego aside so they can learn from eachother.
People putting aside their ego to understand each other ?
Meanwhile in heaven...

De Filosoof
05-13-2012, 02:18 AM
People putting aside their ego to understand each other ?
Meanwhile in heaven...

Lol.
Yeah it's hard but it's something people can learn (if they want).
Most of the people like their ego too much to get rid of it sometimes :p.

Assassin_M
05-13-2012, 02:20 AM
Lol.
Yeah it's hard but it's something people can learn (if they want).
Most of the people like their ego too much to get rid of it sometimes :p.
And that is why, my friend, we`re still on this earth, because we continue to act very Inhumane towards each other..

pdw1992
05-13-2012, 03:54 AM
Did you also learn how the federal reserve came into existance?
And i'm very eager to know if you also learn the bad things America did instead of the good things like learning history of WW1 and WW2.

The Fed came into existence through the Federal Reserve Act. Though, I can't actually recall learning the specifics behind it beyond general economic panics by Americans. As for the bad things, yes we do end up learning the bad things. Unfortunately it isn't covered extensively. But things like slavery or the genocide of the Native Americans or the Vietnam War. Though, there are some schools in America that will read excerpts from a book called A People's History of the United States 1492-Present by Howard Zinn which is quite different from the run of the mill history textbooks. It delves into history through the eyes of, well, the oppressed. It's quite compelling.

telcontar7
05-13-2012, 06:34 AM
but an american once said he never learned about ancient Greece and the Roman empire in school, its so stupid you get so less history in school, i only have 2 houers a week, it would be much better if EVERYONE had 5 houers history and learn about all the continents in all time periods instead of teaching usseless things like music and faith.
They teach faith in American schools? o_O

infamous_ezio
05-13-2012, 07:17 AM
Im sorry, but I do not like you calling Music and faith useless..
Had you implied your point through as your opinion, I would not have any problem with your post..
Music and faith are equally as important as history, IN MY HONEST OPINION..

Why teach something without their being any evidence of it being their? i think faith is a bit useless.

Calvarok
05-13-2012, 07:26 AM
Why teach something without their being any evidence of it being their? i think faith is a bit useless.
You don't have an issue with faith, you have an issue with certain things that people put their faith in, yes? If you didn't think faith was useful you would never trust anyone, or even your own senses.

infamous_ezio
05-13-2012, 07:57 AM
You don't have an issue with faith, you have an issue with certain things that people put their faith in, yes? If you didn't think faith was useful you would never trust anyone, or even your own senses.

hmm, no. Faith is useless, i make conclusions based on logical reasoning. Believing faith is useful is just an excuse to follow an irrational decision "like zomg i have faith in you do it".

pdw1992
05-13-2012, 08:33 AM
They teach faith in American schools? o_O

No. Not in public schools anyway. There are private schools that are based around religions and base their curriculum on those religions. So, on the large, faith is not taught in American schools.

Calvarok
05-13-2012, 08:55 AM
hmm, no. Faith is useless, i make conclusions based on logical reasoning. Believing faith is useful is just an excuse to follow an irrational decision "like zomg i have faith in you do it".
Most of the time, you can't be sure of what's going to happen if you trust someone. Logic is great, but it can only get you so far. If you don't have faith in people at some point, you'll spend most of your life extremely stressed out. It's not an excuse to follow irrational behavior. It's having confidence in something. It's useful, because if people only strived for things that already existed in obviously provable ways, slavery would never have been abolished. The airplane would never have been invented. Throughout history, great people have had faith in themselves and their goals, and though sometimes it can lead you astray, more often than not it leads to greatness.

pacmanate
05-13-2012, 09:03 AM
Faith gives you hope. In stressful times you need to put faith into something to drive you forward, even if it is for a little while.

tH3PatRi0Tx1776
05-13-2012, 09:32 AM
To think about it now. From years of education from grades schooling to junior High(middle school) and up to High School. I (pupils) didn't really going in-depth into American History just the basic of important dates and events and figures revelant what were teaching at the time. Why? political reasons. Same reason why some High School won't allowed their students read books like Huck Finn. Not until higher learning we have professors goes into more detail. I should know because i've lived it. To drive my point home on this, a major network NBC or ABC did a very informative segment about the distorted, water-down history that been taught in class rooms across America. Textbooks were omitted important details like the Native Tribes which includes scalping or lack thereof and the robbing of their land. That's all i could remember. Oh yea- you can look it up. Trust me on that.


There is not one Indian in the whole of this country who does not cringe in anguish and frustration because of these textbooks. There is not one Indian child who has not come home in shame and tears.---Rupert Costo


So it's not that Americans are stupid or dumb. Just that they were never been taught the real history before colleges.

i'm not saying your wrong at all.

Umm...I graduated from High School already and from what I experienced, we were taught the real history, the dirty stuff that our government has done to the Natives and minorities, I am a minority just to be clear, like the deportation of Mexican-Americans during the Great Depression, which was very messed up because they were American citizens. Also, what President Andrew Jackson did to the Native Americans. Politics is very dirty business. We also read Huck Finn and many other controversial books in English classes, such as Fahrenheit 451. From my experience, we were taught everything and our textbooks weren't biased. For one, we don't refer to Native Americans as Indians in schools because we know that Indians are from the country of India and not from America. Also, we learned that the Mexican-American war was provoked and started by the U.S. to expand the U.S. to the West during the Great Expansion, which in turn led to the U.S. going to Mexico City and killing young kids that were defending their country. I learned a lot from my U.S. History class and teacher about the U.S. and it's many mess ups and faults. But I took advance classes through all of elementary and High School, so maybe that has to do with the way I was taught?

De Filosoof
05-13-2012, 10:28 AM
The Fed came into existence through the Federal Reserve Act. Though, I can't actually recall learning the specifics behind it beyond general economic panics by Americans. As for the bad things, yes we do end up learning the bad things. Unfortunately it isn't covered extensively. But things like slavery or the genocide of the Native Americans or the Vietnam War. Though, there are some schools in America that will read excerpts from a book called A People's History of the United States 1492-Present by Howard Zinn which is quite different from the run of the mill history textbooks. It delves into history through the eyes of, well, the oppressed. It's quite compelling.

Interesting :).

telcontar7
05-13-2012, 11:24 AM
No. Not in public schools anyway. There are private schools that are based around religions and base their curriculum on those religions. So, on the large, faith is not taught in American schools.
That makes sense. Thanks for the info.

gamertam
05-13-2012, 07:39 PM
Umm...I graduated from High School already and from what I experienced, we were taught the real history, the dirty stuff that our government has done to the Natives and minorities, I am a minority just to be clear, like the deportation of Mexican-Americans during the Great Depression, which was very messed up because they were American citizens. Also, what President Andrew Jackson did to the Native Americans. Politics is very dirty business. We also read Huck Finn and many other controversial books in English classes, such as Fahrenheit 451. From my experience, we were taught everything and our textbooks weren't biased. For one, we don't refer to Native Americans as Indians in schools because we know that Indians are from the country of India and not from America. Also, we learned that the Mexican-American war was provoked and started by the U.S. to expand the U.S. to the West during the Great Expansion, which in turn led to the U.S. going to Mexico City and killing young kids that were defending their country. I learned a lot from my U.S. History class and teacher about the U.S. and it's many mess ups and faults. But I took advance classes through all of elementary and High School, so maybe that has to do with the way I was taught?

i must admit i wasn't exactly an academic student when in High School. What i do remember about my history class now is next to a quarter or less of what was taught. There were no real discussions, no real horror descriptions of war, genocides like in Colleges. One example: what i still remember from the Vietnam War is the picture of a little girl with her skin burnt off as she was running down the middle of the road naked. Crying helplessly. I don't remember that been talked about. Not to mentioned the side effects of Agent Orange and the deforestation from napalms. Anyway, i didn't took any AP classes so i'm not exactly sure know what taught or not.

(ughh, you nnerd you.) lol.

I don't know which part of the country you went to school. Here in California, not everything were taught from Grades schools up to some High Schools.

freddie_1897
05-13-2012, 07:41 PM
in England were not taught much about the american revolution which is a shame, i guess the schools like to focus on wars which we, um, win

Locopells
05-14-2012, 01:00 AM
in England were not taught much about the american revolution which is a shame, i guess the schools like to focus on wars which we, um, win

What's to teach? The basic facts are all we really need to know, unless you're interested or American. I doubt they get taught the exact whys and howfores of the English Civil Wars.

Locopells
05-14-2012, 01:02 AM
That said, I'm always happy to learn history I don't know.

Biomedical-Fire
05-14-2012, 05:13 AM
To anyone interested in learning about American History might I suggest watching the History Channel and I'm sure those outside of N.A. can find their programs somewhere on the net, like youtube or another video service. They also show quite a bit of world history as well. Also it doesn't matter what country you're from, no one government likes to openly show the atrocities that they have commited throughout human history.

lfc908
05-14-2012, 03:18 PM
What's to teach? The basic facts are all we really need to know, unless you're interested or American. I doubt they get taught the exact whys and howfores of the English Civil Wars.

Actually I live in England and I'm doing an A level in History and it's about the English civil war and soviet Russia :-) (A-levels are the step before university)

FilipinoNinja67
05-14-2012, 04:33 PM
Lol.
Yeah it's hard but it's something people can learn (if they want).
Most of the people like their ego too much to get rid of it sometimes :p.

Oh my gosh. You need to post in the MP forums...

ShadowRage41
05-14-2012, 05:15 PM
Judas priest.. I do not see why this is even an issue. It's just a game. I doubt Ubisoft has some Patriotic American agenda. they are located in Europe. It would appear they will spin it as British Vs British to placate their European fan base. Knowing how much anti American sentiment there is in Europe. so this comes as no surprise to me at all.

For a little more history on the topic reference the War of 1812 when Fort McHenry successfully defended Baltimore harbor from an attack by the British Navy in Chesapeake bay. It was during the bombardment of the fort that Francis was inspired to write "The Star Spangled Banner" the poem that would eventually be set to the tune of "To Anacreon in Heaven" and become the national Anthem of the United States... In other words skirmishes and attempts by the British to reclaim America continued despite the treaty. well after the War of Independence.

tH3PatRi0Tx1776
05-14-2012, 05:31 PM
I suggest you watch America: A History of Us. I started watching it last night and it's pretty good, but not very in depth. I've also heard of LIBERTY! from PBS, which I heard was good, here's a link to the website http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/liberty_menwomen.html

Here's another link to another documentary and it's called The American Revolution and it's from the history channel, it's 10 episodes long http://www.ovguide.com/tv/the_american_revolution.htm#

D173120T
05-14-2012, 10:26 PM
Was`nt that what everyone on here was saying ? That its British vs British ?
THANK YOU, MATT TURNER..

Ahhhhh,i get it now!Its "Traitorous,Rebellious Scum" versus "The Rightful and Lawful Government",thats cool then.

Assassin_M
05-14-2012, 10:28 PM
Ahhhhh,i get it now!Its "Traitorous,Rebellious Scum" versus "The Rightful and Lawful Government",thats cool then.
What ?

Locopells
05-15-2012, 12:21 AM
Actually I live in England and I'm doing an A level in History and it's about the English civil war and soviet Russia :-) (A-levels are the step before university)

I meant in the US. Of course we do it, it's our history, that was kinda my whole point.

The Russia angle's interesting, though that also supports what other people have said about more world history being included in higher courses.

berserker134
05-15-2012, 04:30 PM
oh guys they may have not showed connor killing americans but..... they did showed him saying he would kill his enemy REGARDLESS OF THEIR ALEGEANCE this is for all u england peapole who "feel bad because of this game" u just have to accept that the english were the ones who tried to take over america and they burned down connors village so he will be seeking mostly the british but he will also be killing the americans

berserker134
05-15-2012, 04:33 PM
example is like when u killed lorenzo's guards in AC2 even though they were lorenzo's guard
so it must be likely to be the same in this game

Locopells
05-15-2012, 07:00 PM
oh guys they may have not showed connor killing americans but..... they did showed him saying he would kill his enemy REGARDLESS OF THEIR ALEGEANCE this is for all u england peapole who "feel bad because of this game" u just have to accept that the english were the ones who tried to take over america and they burned down connors village so he will be seeking mostly the british but he will also be killing the americans

I, like many people, don't doubt what he says about allegiance, what irritates most people is what the advertising people did with the shot of Stars and Stripes they show when is is talking about 'Those who are truly free'. Also America didn't exist at this point, it was British Colonists fighting for independence from British rule not repelling an invasion... Plus Connor's village was actually bunt down by the Colonists...

freddie_1897
05-15-2012, 07:01 PM
the truly free thing was unbelievably patriotic, no one is truly free, not anywhere, truly free would be anarchy

EmmaBemma
05-15-2012, 07:29 PM
hmm, no. Faith is useless, i make conclusions based on logical reasoning. Believing faith is useful is just an excuse to follow an irrational decision "like zomg i have faith in you do it".
Religion is an integral part of cultural variation, I think it makes sense to learn about it in school.

We actually learnt a little about the US Civil War in my school in the UK, mainly because we were looking at the Atlantic Slave Trade. I would have liked to have done more World History. We seemed to focus far too much on the Tudor and Victorian periods, and the World Wars (but almost entirely from a European perspective, very little was said about the Japanese and Chinese). Most of the world history was the Ancient Greeks and Romans. It would have been cool to study something like the Italian Renaissance, perhaps even some of the history of the Far East and the Arab world.

CrazySN
05-15-2012, 07:45 PM
the truly free thing was unbelievably patriotic, no one is truly free, not anywhere, truly free would be anarchy

It's only patriotic if you interpret it as patriotic. The "truly free" saying could be merely interpreted as referring to the Assassins, as they answer to no laws, but to their Creed. But even then, the Creed serves more of a guideline than actual law, and the Assassin's are free to make their own decisions by themselves.

Locopells
05-15-2012, 07:52 PM
It's only patriotic if you interpret it as patriotic. The "truly free" saying could be merely interpreted as referring to the Assassins, as they answer to no laws, but to their Creed. But even then, the Creed serves more of a guideline than actual law, and the Assassin's are free to make their own decisions by themselves.

In which case they should have shown the Assassin logo, not the flag...

CrazySN
05-15-2012, 08:41 PM
In which case they should have shown the Assassin logo, not the flag...

Lol, this is exactly what was being discussed in my other topic. Anyways, let me just re-post what I said there:

You don't need to be on anyone's side in order to aid them. However, despite what Ubisoft representatives might say, I do think the Assassins will lean more toward the Colonists side for the majority of the game, rather than the British. Since Connor is clearly on good terms with high ranking Colonial officers such as George Washington, as we can see with the information released about the game, it's very unlikely that Connor would be in good terms with the British. It also makes sense for Connor to aid them, since he fights for the liberty of his people and bargaining with the Colonist to help them win the war could accomplish that, rather than destroying them outright.

With everything we know about this game, this shouldn't even be a problem though. We know for sure that this game won't be an "America **** yeah" game. That, and I'm sure that with Connor's relationship with the Colonials, we'll see the good and bad side of them and the good and bad side of what it means to fight for liberty. That's why I think it's important for Ubisoft to show the American flag in the trailers for this game. Because back then, the American flag didn't mean "America **** yeah." Back then, it was the symbol for liberty, which was exactly what Connor, the Colonials, and the Assassins fought for. Did they get it? Well, we'll see that in final game won't we?

ShadowRage41
05-15-2012, 08:52 PM
People are being entirely too sensitive about this game. I am a Free Mason. So? I should be angry they are framing us as power hungry bent on destroying the world society. I am Catholic. How many Priests did Ezio kill? I mean come on people. Christians have a right to be angry about there is no God but aliens Scientology slant, Not once did Ubisoft say Hey we are not singling you Catholics out as "Evil" or you Free Masons as Evil. We are not advocating that a terrorist group still active in the middle east is the bastion for truth and justice... But this time they feel the need to sooth hurt feelings . ROFLMAO. Everyone gets the same into. about the game being a work of fiction "Based on historical events" by a group of individuals with various religious beliefs." I mean come on people. What group have they not offended? only people who view this as something more than fiction

pdw1992
05-15-2012, 09:25 PM
I think everyone should recognize that Ubisoft is first and foremost a business. And because of that, the trailers your see are nothing more than marketing strategies primarily geared to the United States.

Rakudaton
05-15-2012, 09:39 PM
People are being entirely too sensitive about this game. I am a Free Mason. So? I should be angry they are framing us as power hungry bent on destroying the world society. I am Catholic. How many Priests did Ezio kill? I mean come on people. Christians have a right to be angry about there is no God but aliens Scientology slant, Not once did Ubisoft say Hey we are not singling you Catholics out as "Evil" or you Free Masons as Evil. We are not advocating that a terrorist group still active in the middle east is the bastion for truth and justice... But this time they feel the need to sooth hurt feelings . ROFLMAO. Everyone gets the same into. about the game being a work of fiction "Based on historical events" by a group of individuals with various religious beliefs." I mean come on people. What group have they not offended? only people who view this as something more than fiction

This is frankly pretty misleading.

I don't know of the exact relationship between masons and templars -- anyway, that point of yours is fair enough. But the Christianity thing? Come on. I ask you in return, how many people of other religions did the assassins kill? In fact, Sibrand implied that all the top level templars were atheists. Should I, as an atheist, be offended? Of course not -- they weren't killed BECAUSE they were atheist, any more than the priests were killed for being Catholic. They were killed because they were working for the assassins' enemies, the templars.

On the other hand, directly taking a side in a conflict such as this -- siding with the Americans over the British -- is very different. I don't think anyone is upset at Connor being against the British (which, let's face it, he IS, regardless of what the devs are trying to suggest) per se; that would be pretty childish as many games take sides in conflicts. But the problem is that Assassin's Creed has always been about the greyness of morality, and about the war of assassins vs templars running parallel to any other ongoing conflicts. Altair did not take a side in the Crusades; Ezio did not take a side in the siege of Vianna. The fact that ACIII is going to feature heavy American jingoism (which we can get enough of from other games, films, literature, and real life, thank you very much) irks me in the light of this. It's turning the AC franchise into YET ANOTHER "America-is-best" mindlessly patriotic piece of propaganda.

This is why some people are annoyed. That, and the fact that Ubisoft are trying to claim that Connor will not take sides -- while releasing trailers that exclusively show him killing redcoats.

Seriously, all they need to do is show him kill a non-Brit. But they won't do that, because they would be accused of being anti-American.

(By the way, I'm not anti-American; I just dislike misinformation. OTT patriotisim basically IS misinformation.)

/rant

CrazySN
05-15-2012, 09:51 PM
This is frankly pretty misleading.

I don't know of the exact relationship between masons and templars -- anyway, that point of yours is fair enough. But the Christianity thing? Come on. I ask you in return, how many people of other religions did the assassins kill? In fact, Sibrand implied that all the top level templars were atheists. Should I, as an atheist, be offended? Of course not -- they weren't killed BECAUSE they were atheist, any more than the priests were killed for being Catholic. They were killed because they were working for the assassins' enemies, the templars.

On the other hand, directly taking a side in a conflict such as this -- siding with the Americans over the British -- is very different. I don't think anyone is upset at Connor being against the British (which, let's face it, he IS, regardless of what the devs are trying to suggest) per se; that would be pretty childish as many games take sides in conflicts. But the problem is that Assassin's Creed has always been about the greyness of morality, and about the war of assassins vs templars running parallel to any other ongoing conflicts. Altair did not take a side in the Crusades; Ezio did not take a side in the siege of Vianna. The fact that ACIII is going to feature heavy American jingoism (which we can get enough of from other games, films, literature, and real life, thank you very much) irks me in the light of this. It's turning the AC franchise into YET ANOTHER "America-is-best" mindlessly patriotic piece of propaganda.

This is why some people are annoyed. That, and the fact that Ubisoft are trying to claim that Connor will not take sides -- while releasing trailers that exclusively show him killing redcoats.

Seriously, all they need to do is show him kill a non-Brit. But they won't do that, because they would be accused of being anti-American.

(By the way, I'm not anti-American; I just dislike misinformation. OTT patriotisim basically IS misinformation.)

/rant

All of your points have already been discussed in my thread:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/674485-What-s-up-with-all-the-American-hate-for-this-game

Besides, Connor helping the Colonists isn't really different from Ezio helping out Prince Suleiman in AC:R.

ShadowRage41
05-15-2012, 10:19 PM
This is frankly pretty misleading.

I don't know of the exact relationship between masons and templars -- anyway, that point of yours is fair enough. But the Christianity thing? Come on. I ask you in return, how many people of other religions did the assassins kill? In fact, Sibrand implied that all the top level templars were atheists. Should I, as an atheist, be offended? Of course not -- they weren't killed BECAUSE they were atheist, any more than the priests were killed for being Catholic. They were killed because they were working for the assassins' enemies, the templars.

On the other hand, directly taking a side in a conflict such as this -- siding with the Americans over the British -- is very different. I don't think anyone is upset at Connor being against the British (which, let's face it, he IS, regardless of what the devs are trying to suggest) per se; that would be pretty childish as many games take sides in conflicts. But the problem is that Assassin's Creed has always been about the greyness of morality, and about the war of assassins vs templars running parallel to any other ongoing conflicts. Altair did not take a side in the Crusades; Ezio did not take a side in the siege of Vianna. The fact that ACIII is going to feature heavy American jingoism (which we can get enough of from other games, films, literature, and real life, thank you very much) irks me in the light of this. It's turning the AC franchise into YET ANOTHER "America-is-best" mindlessly patriotic piece of propaganda.

This is why some people are annoyed. That, and the fact that Ubisoft are trying to claim that Connor will not take sides -- while releasing trailers that exclusively show him killing redcoats.

Seriously, all they need to do is show him kill a non-Brit. But they won't do that, because they would be accused of being anti-American.

(By the way, I'm not anti-American; I just dislike misinformation. OTT patriotisim basically IS misinformation.)

/rant

You made my point concerning other religions. and people were not offended. it's just a game man. not a political statement. It's just based on historical events. as for you being anti patriotic that is fine with me. Having served in the Military for two tours I know what it means to be patriotic. I understand the sacrifice of those who fought with me and before me I understand that without those sacrifices the society and freedoms I enjoy would not be possible.. So yes I absolutely love my country. It's not all all perfect. But I have been places where it is a heck of a lot worse. where due process of law simply does not exist.. But what I said is not at all misleading... the point is ANY number of individuals or groups could have been offended by the content of the past games. But no one complained or became bent.. Because most everyone understands it's a work of fiction not a political statement. I am all for freedom of speech. and have traveled through countries where Freedom of speech is an arcane idea. It simply does not exist. So your opinion is fine with me but to infer it's anymore objective than what I said is not true. It could be said the British crown or General's were evil. not Great Britain as a whole.. that taxation without representation is corrupt.. I have never traveled to a country where I felt the entire society was without some form of virtue. But I have personally witnessed what I would consider atrocities by individuals in power, as well as laws and beliefs I would consider to be unjust. Be happy that there were people in your country who were patriotic enough to stand against tyranny.and provide you with the opportunities freedoms you now enjoy. XD Next time you see a Vet or former Vet. thank him. your freedom did not come cheap.

DavisP92
05-15-2012, 10:34 PM
This is frankly pretty misleading.

I don't know of the exact relationship between masons and templars -- anyway, that point of yours is fair enough. But the Christianity thing? Come on. I ask you in return, how many people of other religions did the assassins kill? In fact, Sibrand implied that all the top level templars were atheists. Should I, as an atheist, be offended? Of course not -- they weren't killed BECAUSE they were atheist, any more than the priests were killed for being Catholic. They were killed because they were working for the assassins' enemies, the templars.

On the other hand, directly taking a side in a conflict such as this -- siding with the Americans over the British -- is very different. I don't think anyone is upset at Connor being against the British (which, let's face it, he IS, regardless of what the devs are trying to suggest) per se; that would be pretty childish as many games take sides in conflicts. But the problem is that Assassin's Creed has always been about the greyness of morality, and about the war of assassins vs templars running parallel to any other ongoing conflicts. Altair did not take a side in the Crusades; Ezio did not take a side in the siege of Vianna. The fact that ACIII is going to feature heavy American jingoism (which we can get enough of from other games, films, literature, and real life, thank you very much) irks me in the light of this. It's turning the AC franchise into YET ANOTHER "America-is-best" mindlessly patriotic piece of propaganda.

This is why some people are annoyed. That, and the fact that Ubisoft are trying to claim that Connor will not take sides -- while releasing trailers that exclusively show him killing redcoats.

Seriously, all they need to do is show him kill a non-Brit. But they won't do that, because they would be accused of being anti-American.

(By the way, I'm not anti-American; I just dislike misinformation. OTT patriotisim basically IS misinformation.)

/rant


I'm sorry but i still see it as both sides are British because well, they were. That's just history. Picking a side, actually Ezio did pick a side in AC2. he was with the Medici Family, he didn't kill any of them. In fact you killed only the Pazzi family, Ubisoft didn't even portray the Medici as cruel people which they were when they got back at the Pazzi by wiping their entire family out. Not just by killing them but by also making so that no one would want to marry them thus they died off.

Picking sides has been in the game before Altair didn't because he was on a third side which is great, i mean that is where the game started. The developers have stated that we will kill colonial British (again i state they were British) also because they probably will betray the fight for freedom (meaning they are templars). What is pretty illogical about most of the people complaining about the fact that in AC3 we will help (the majority of the time) the colonial army is that if they are a true fan of AC (meaning they know what the Assassins want, what they are fighting for) then they wouldn't say "why are we only helping the colonials" If we were playing a game called Templar's Creed then we would be mainly killing colonials (BRITISH PEOPLE).

- With AC1 the fight for freedom was only for the Assassins, the two armies in the game were just fighting each, not for freedom, so that is why we killed a lot of people (guards included) on both sides.

- In AC2 we killed the Pazzi family (not the Medici family at all), so we only fought one group. Yes we could kill some of the Medici guards but that was just dumb on the developers (sorry i have to say that).

-EDIT: In ACB we only fought the Borgia, but there wasn't two sides.

- In ACR we mainly fought the Byzantines and put even the innocent at risk in their cave (yea we could kill the Ottomans too, but they had a truce with us and even helped us if Byzantines attacked us. We even were helping protect the prince but we didn't help anyone from the Byzantines).

Now you're (referring to everyone that is complaining) going to complain because we are one a groups side again because they have the same goal as the Assassins... WOW

Assassin_M
05-15-2012, 11:10 PM
- In ACB we only fought the Borgia, who weren't even Templars (the main enemy in ACB) but there wasn't two sides.


Errrr What ?

DavisP92
05-15-2012, 11:26 PM
Errrr What ?

Cesare Borgia actually wasn't a member of the templar order. Or at least that's how i remember it. If he was then he didn't care about the order, because i remember the one moment in where you hear him talking to his generals and he insults the templar order. Also saying he doesn't need them

Assassin_M
05-15-2012, 11:31 PM
Cesare Borgia actually wasn't a member of the templar order. Or at least that's how i remember it. If he was then he didn't care about the order, because i remember the one moment in where you hear him talking to his generals and he insults the templar order. Also saying he doesn't need them
Nope He was a Templar..
He did not insult the Order, he merely insulted his father`s authority because Rodrigo gave up on the Templar`s goals..
Evident by him(Rodrigo) keeping the Apple safe and choosing not to use it and his constant bickering with his son over the attack of Monterrigionni..
Cesare was a Templar Yes..
Cesare was a power hungry Bastard true, but so was Rodrigo

DavisP92
05-15-2012, 11:33 PM
Nope He was a Templar..
He did not insult the Order, he merely insulted his father`s authority before Rodrigo gave up on the Templar`s goals..
Evident by him keeping the Apple safe and choosing not to use it and his constant bickering with his son over his attack of Monterrigionni..
Cesare was a Templar Yes..

ohh okay, thanks for clearing that up.

Locopells
05-16-2012, 12:31 AM
Lol, this is exactly what was being discussed in my other topic. Anyways, let me just re-post what I said there:

You don't need to be on anyone's side in order to aid them. However, despite what Ubisoft representatives might say, I do think the Assassins will lean more toward the Colonists side for the majority of the game, rather than the British. Since Connor is clearly on good terms with high ranking Colonial officers such as George Washington, as we can see with the information released about the game, it's very unlikely that Connor would be in good terms with the British. It also makes sense for Connor to aid them, since he fights for the liberty of his people and bargaining with the Colonist to help them win the war could accomplish that, rather than destroying them outright.

With everything we know about this game, this shouldn't even be a problem though. We know for sure that this game won't be an "America **** yeah" game. That, and I'm sure that with Connor's relationship with the Colonials, we'll see the good and bad side of them and the good and bad side of what it means to fight for liberty. That's why I think it's important for Ubisoft to show the American flag in the trailers for this game. Because back then, the American flag didn't mean "America **** yeah." Back then, it was the symbol for liberty, which was exactly what Connor, the Colonials, and the Assassins fought for. Did they get it? Well, we'll see that in final game won't we?

That's actually quite a good point, you've got there. Trouble is, as I've said before, your average schmuck on the street isn't going to think like that, and especially as this is supposed to be the stepping on point for new players who don't appreciate what the Assassins are all about...

After all, as I keep saying, my beef is not with the writers, who have assured us of most of what you said.

freddie_1897
05-16-2012, 03:46 PM
People are being entirely too sensitive about this game. I am a Free Mason. So? I should be angry they are framing us as power hungry bent on destroying the world society. I am Catholic. How many Priests did Ezio kill? I mean come on people. Christians have a right to be angry about there is no God but aliens Scientology slant, Not once did Ubisoft say Hey we are not singling you Catholics out as "Evil" or you Free Masons as Evil. We are not advocating that a terrorist group still active in the middle east is the bastion for truth and justice... But this time they feel the need to sooth hurt feelings . ROFLMAO. Everyone gets the same into. about the game being a work of fiction "Based on historical events" by a group of individuals with various religious beliefs." I mean come on people. What group have they not offended? only people who view this as something more than fiction
i didn't want to bring this up but you can't really talk about people being too sensitive about this issue, aren't you the one who said they won't buy another AC game if AC3 doesn't get a CE in north america?
it seems to me like you're being slightly hypocritical.
Ezio didn't kill many priests, the priests he did kill weren't real priests because they didn't believe in god, they were only in that position because they wanted power, but all the images, trailers and previews for AC3 have shown him going on a redcoat slaughter fest, now this is fine because the redcoats were arseholes back then. but so were the colonists, so they should show Connor killing both sides rather than having him appear to be one sided. even if he isn't one sided in the final product, Ubisofts marketing is dangerous, they are appealing to the US market and that's fine, but now that they've done that they should quit while they're ahead and start to show some images or trailers that are based so that everyone will be happy. it's all fine and dandy to say that he's going to kill men no matter what their allegiance, but a lot of people are getting annoyed at how they haven't shown this

ShadowRage41
05-16-2012, 04:55 PM
]i didn't want to bring this up but you can't really talk about people being too sensitive about this issue, aren't you the one who said they won't buy another AC game if AC3 doesn't get a CE in north america?
it seems to me like you're being slightly hypocritical.[/B]
Ezio didn't kill many priests, the priests he did kill weren't real priests because they didn't believe in god, they were only in that position because they wanted power, but all the images, trailers and previews for AC3 have shown him going on a redcoat slaughter fest, now this is fine because the redcoats were arseholes back then. but so were the colonists, so they should show Connor killing both sides rather than having him appear to be one sided. even if he isn't one sided in the final product, Ubisofts marketing is dangerous, they are appealing to the US market and that's fine, but now that they've done that they should quit while they're ahead and start to show some images or trailers that are based so that everyone will be happy. it's all fine and dandy to say that he's going to kill men no matter what their allegiance, but a lot of people are getting annoyed at how they haven't shown this


I never micro manage what the story arch to games are. being that it is just a games storyline... the opportunity to purchase something offered to the rest of the world is a real issue. not a game storyline. that is a make believe issue. Real issue of discrimination vs make believe storyline. there were no Assassin's Creed Assassins in the war of Independence. so we all understand it is a work of fiction based on historical events. if Connor kills colonist so be it. he was raised native American. I am not going to get all bent about that...

I watch movies all the time that do not bother me because they are make believe. however discrimination be it institutional individual or racist remarks do bother me. That is a real issue. I have reads no less than one hundred hateful posts and ethnocentric remarks towards my country. I may refute them. but I believe people should be allowed to express themselves with free speech. regardless of whether I agree with them or not. That is once again real life. I would not think to censer or complain to a writer of a fictional book because I did not like the content. or game. Secret wars MMO for Example the United States is the Illuminati back stabbers. power hungry ect. Europe is the Templars. they stand for justice and good ect. Asia is the Dragons which is Chaos, I do not have a problem with that. even though many here would have a cow over it and call it propaganda ect. It's just a game. Now if they offered the United states players the game for 60 bucks and no additional content. and the rest of the world received additional content I would complain. because that is a REAL WORLD ISSUE. not a make believe storyline issue. I cannot believe I have to sit here and explain the difference to you.

freddie_1897
05-16-2012, 07:16 PM
I never micro manage what the story arch to games are. being that it is just a games storyline... the opportunity to purchase something offered to the rest of the world is a real issue. not a game storyline. that is a make believe issue. Real issue of discrimination vs make believe storyline. there were no Assassin's Creed Assassins in the war of Independence. so we all understand it is a work of fiction based on historical events. if Connor kills colonist so be it. he was raised native American. I am not going to get all bent about that...

I watch movies all the time that do not bother me because they are make believe. however discrimination be it institutional individual or racist remarks do bother me. That is a real issue. I have reads no less than one hundred hateful posts and ethnocentric remarks towards my country. I may refute them. but I believe people should be allowed to express themselves with free speech. regardless of whether I agree with them or not. That is once again real life. I would not think to censer or complain to a writer of a fictional book because I did not like the content. or game. Secret wars MMO for Example the United States is the Illuminati back stabbers. power hungry ect. Europe is the Templars. they stand for justice and good ect. Asia is the Dragons which is Chaos, I do not have a problem with that. even though many here would have a cow over it and call it propaganda ect. It's just a game. Now if they offered the United states players the game for 60 bucks and no additional content. and the rest of the world received additional content I would complain. because that is a REAL WORLD ISSUE. not a make believe storyline issue. I cannot believe I have to sit here and explain the difference to you.
it's not that different, while AC3 may not be real world the setting is, and their marketing is. the real thing i'm annoyed about is their marketing strategy. they are appealing to the US, fine, but now they've appealed enough, i thing they should change their marketing strategy now into something that isn't so controversial, because if the game is made to appeal to americans then we are gonna have a pretty boring time.

if AC3 is made out to be colonists=good, redcoats=bad, then the game will be both boring, and incorrect. while the redcoats may have been complete arseholes back then and on the whole i agree with what your saying, it shouldn't be taken to seriously, as long as the game isn't based on appealing to the US market then I'm fine, i'll happily kill redcoats, but i want to be able to get through one LP on youtube where their aren't 4 million racist comments about English people coming from some nationalistic arsehole because frankly us British are hated enough already and anything that fuels that is a bad thing by my standards.

and about my comment, their doesn't have to be a similarity between the 2 types of sensitivity, a sensitive topic is a sensitive topic, an english person can be sensitive about someone telling them that they have bad teeth and are football hooligans (soccer), just like americans can be sensitive about people burning their flags, with different cultures comes different views, we have our controversial british humour, America has their patriotism, both things are viewed differently by either cultures, but both views are equally valid, what one person finds sensitive another does not, if i like carrots, you do not have to like carrots, if i like rock music, you can like classical, everyone views things differently, but neither views wrong, and what one person finds sensitive, the other doesn't have to.

DinoSteve1
05-16-2012, 07:28 PM
every time I see the title of this thread I end up singing that song of lady ga ga's

Sabastian_AC
05-16-2012, 10:52 PM
I’d like to address the whole “MURICA!” issue for a second by reminding people that this is, at the end of the day, an Assassin’s Creed game. It is not Call of Duty or Medal of Honor. Connor is not a soldier in the Colonial Army; the developers made him a Native American so that he would be removed from the obvious conflict. We have been shown gameplay of Connor killing redcoats, but what we don’t know is exactly why he is killing these men, and that is important.

This is pure theory, but I don’t think it’s completely out of the question to imagine that there is some kind of conspiracy involving a selection of British and Colonial figures (who died during the time period covered by the game) that Conor is trying uncover. I believe that these figures and their plot to exert control on the North American Continent (be it through Royal or Colonial control) will be the driving plot of the game.

If Conor is targeting a British general during a battle, it would make sense that he would have to cut his way through more than a few redcoats. Remember, if the targets in ACIII are going to be generals (like Pitcarin at Bunker Hill) who actually died during battles, then Connor will likely not be stabbing them in their beds.

To address the redcoat issue, it is important to remember that the British had a significant military presence in New York and Boston during the war, so it makes sense that they would be playing the part of “rooftop guard” in ACIII. Will we be killing a lot of redcoats? Yes, but I think, like the guards in other AC games, these redcoats will die simply because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Locopells
05-17-2012, 12:22 AM
We back at the beginning already?