PDA

View Full Version : Alex Hutchinson: "AC3 trying to be as progressive as possible"



RatonhnhakeFan
07-18-2012, 06:33 PM
Great article/interview with Alex Hutchinson from Eurogamer: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-18-assassins-creed-3s-alex-hutchinson-stranger-in-a-strange-land

There's a separate thread (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/692332-Ubisoft-nervous-about-AC3-ending) created that focuses on the section of the article that deals with the ending of the game, but the rest of the article deserves its own thread and discussion too, especially since it's the main topic of the article.

SixKeys
07-18-2012, 07:23 PM
Thanks for posting. Interesting insights, even though the writing in the article was a bit clunky. I mean, what the heck is this: "Hutchinson, who speaks not in the soft tone of a forward-thinking apologist but in the clear and decisive timbre of a politician" ? :p

RatonhnhakeFan
07-18-2012, 08:00 PM
Thanks for posting. Interesting insights, even though the writing in the article was a bit clunky. I mean, what the heck is this: "Hutchinson, who speaks not in the soft tone of a forward-thinking apologist but in the clear and decisive timbre of a politician" ? :p
Yeah, this part was kinda "wut?", but still. Just hope the team actually sticks to what they're saying about progressiveness, esp. about Ratonhnhaké:ton's Native American heritage.

FirestarLuva
07-18-2012, 09:41 PM
"The game is set to begin as Connor watches his village burn. Hutchinson says he wants to get in people's heads, and let them see how it feels to be disadvantaged. Not for revenge, the driving force of previous games, but for justice."

Wait. if the game starts in 1753, does that mean Connor is born somewhere in 1740? This kinda confuses me, or is this scene suppose to be the 'you're gonna kill someone at the first 30 seconds of the game" like the scene at the beginning of Brotherhood where Ezio lungs at Cesare which is the scene near the end of the game?
I was thinking something like this, perfect example from the beginning to 03:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi4nfbfCKQM

Requiscent
07-18-2012, 09:57 PM
I've always liked Alex, he seems like really great guy. He reminds me of Patrice a little bit.

notafanboy
07-18-2012, 10:37 PM
I've always liked Alex, he seems like really great guy. He reminds me of Patrice a little bit.

he doesn“t have that combat beard though ...

Captain Tomatoz
07-18-2012, 10:45 PM
he doesn“t have that combat beard though ...

Also he has no where near as much passion for the game as Patrice did. When he showed off AC2 at e3 2009 he was incredibly proud of the game.

Requiscent
07-18-2012, 10:53 PM
Yeah no one can replace Patrice, but the game seems in good hands.

De Filosoof
07-18-2012, 10:59 PM
Nice article!!

This really gives me hope that the game will be awesome :).

RatonhnhakeFan
07-18-2012, 11:22 PM
Also he has no where near as much passion for the game as Patrice did. When he showed off AC2 at e3 2009 he was incredibly proud of the game.
That's subjective as hell. People express emotions differently.

EscoBlades
07-18-2012, 11:26 PM
Also he has no where near as much passion for the game as Patrice did. When he showed off AC2 at e3 2009 he was incredibly proud of the game.

Having met Alex, i can assure you he's extremely passionate. It isn't something you can fake.

Requiscent
07-18-2012, 11:29 PM
Patrice had that air about him that he genuinely loved the series. The way that Alex talks about the game, his ambition and passion for it is something that's rare in the industry nowadays, that's why he reminds me of Patrice.

notafanboy
07-19-2012, 12:18 AM
That's subjective as hell. People express emotions differently.

this, when im happy i just act as normal (looking angry because some one ****ed me in the face). Alex seem to hide his exitement alittle, maybe because he doesn“t want people to think he“s weird, who knows...

SixKeys
07-19-2012, 12:18 AM
That's subjective as hell. People express emotions differently.

^ This. It's the things he says about the game rather than outward giddiness that convince me that he cares about the game. Patrice was one of the original creators, of course AC was special to him. But he moved on of his own will and left the game in what I hope and trust are capable hands.

Captain Tomatoz
07-19-2012, 12:48 AM
That's subjective as hell. People express emotions differently.

I'm not saying Alex isn't passionate or anything. I'm incredibly happy that he's the creative director and seems very humble and happy with the game. I was just saying that Patrice just seemed more passionate, which is understandable since the whole AC series was his idea in the first place. :D

Sorry if I came across as criticising Alex or anything.

BBALive
07-19-2012, 02:57 AM
"The game is set to begin as Connor watches his village burn. Hutchinson says he wants to get in people's heads, and let them see how it feels to be disadvantaged. Not for revenge, the driving force of previous games, but for justice."

Wait. if the game starts in 1753, does that mean Connor is born somewhere in 1740? This kinda confuses me, or is this scene suppose to be the 'you're gonna kill someone at the first 30 seconds of the game" like the scene at the beginning of Brotherhood where Ezio lungs at Cesare which is the scene near the end of the game?
I was thinking something like this, perfect example from the beginning to 03:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi4nfbfCKQM

Connor was born in 1755.

LoyalACFan
07-19-2012, 03:13 AM
Connor was born in 1755.

That was according to a promo image that was later pulled. I recently cited the same source, only to realize that the game does, in fact, start in 1753, probably when Connor is this age.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120326112654/assassinscreed/images/thumb/4/49/ACIII-GI_%2812%29.jpg/1000px-ACIII-GI_%2812%29.jpg

Probably about 8-10, which would suggest a birthdate closer to 1743-1745. They can't very well start a game two years before his birth :p

BATISTABUS
07-19-2012, 03:50 AM
Awesome interview. I really like Alex and I know we won't be disappointed.

Kinda sucks about the masks and music though...hopefully they'll still be included in a more sensitive way.

WolfTemplar94
07-19-2012, 03:59 AM
Awesome interview. I really like Alex and I know we won't be disappointed.

Kinda sucks about the masks and music though...hopefully they'll still be included in a more sensitive way.

It's good that they got rid of them upon requests though. So far it seems like this game might be really groundbreaking on its portrayal of Native Americans. Glad to get something less cliche.

LoyalACFan
07-19-2012, 10:25 AM
It's good that they got rid of them upon requests though. So far it seems like this game might be really groundbreaking on its portrayal of Native Americans. Glad to get something less cliche.

It seems like removing the masks and music might actually hurt the overall portrayal, though. If they were going to go all-out to create an authentic representation of the people, it seems like this would be the kind of unique cultural phenomenon you would want to include. I'm not a Native American, so I don't know exactly why they're opposed to having their masks and music in the game. But when you start removing genuine aspects of the culture in a fictional portrayal, it becomes easier to slide back into stereotypes. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the team respected the Mohawks' wish to keep it out, but I don't understand why they wouldn't want their society to be portrayed as accurately as possible.

MasterSimaYi
07-19-2012, 10:42 AM
Connor was born in 1755.

Early sources said the game starts in 1753, while that one video says he was born in 1755. While this is not cleared up, you cannot say that Connor was born in 1755.

FirestarLuva
07-19-2012, 11:03 AM
Early sources said the game starts in 1753, while that one video says he was born in 1755. While this is not cleared up, you cannot say that Connor was born in 1755.

Maybe it was put in the video by mistake and the devs wanted it removed because they didn't wanted to spoil who Connor's father is, since many people might find out that Charles Lee had twins in 1755. That is, if they did make Lee his father. :P

dxsxhxcx
07-19-2012, 02:12 PM
it was confirmed by the devs or in any other video that Connor's birth year is 1755 or people are assuming that just because the year was shown in a video and then removed? Maybe people are assuming that if they removed the date is because they didn't want to spoil something (like play as Connor's father in these two years, what would be something new for the franchise), but anyone here already considered that the date might be wrong and that's why it was removed?

MT4K
07-19-2012, 02:13 PM
it was confirmed by the devs or in any other video that Connor's birth year is 1755 or people are assuming that just because the year was shown in a video and then removed? Maybe people are assuming that if they removed the date is because they didn't want to spoil something (like play as Connor's father in these two years, what would be something new for the franchise), but anyone here already considered that the date might be wrong and that's why it was removed?

If the date was simply incorrect. Why not change it rather than remove it completely?

BBALive
07-19-2012, 02:21 PM
The fact that the game starts in 1753 doesn't mean Connor has to be born in 1753. Connor's father and mother are also Desmond's ancestors. It's perfectly possible to play the first two years of the game as one of them, even if it's just a string of cutscenes/cinematics to establish some context and convey some backstory.

I just don't why the developers would put Connor's year of birth on a trailer, only to remove it later, unless it was true and somehow spoiled parts of the plot. If the date was a mistake, surely they would have just changed it, rather than removing it completely?

dxsxhxcx
07-19-2012, 02:36 PM
If the date was simply incorrect. Why not change it rather than remove it completely?

because they didn't want to pass through all the trouble of correcting the date when the year the game will begin is already known, I'm not saying that it isn't possible Connor's birth year be 1753, but people shouldn't jump into conclusions so fast, we should at least ask the mods or devs if that was a mistake or there was something more with that date... they can't deny the fact that the date was there and people saw it, if they do this they're just being stupid, because no one would be asking for spoilers of what will happen in those two years, we would just want to make things clear instead of accept this as a fact and discover when we play the game that it was just a mistake,I know I wouldn't like that and I bet many people would be disappointed as well...

RatonhnhakeFan
07-19-2012, 02:38 PM
because they didn't want to pass through all the trouble of correcting the dateRemoving the date requires as much video editing as changing it to a different date

dxsxhxcx
07-19-2012, 02:40 PM
Removing the date requires as much video editing as changing it to a different date

the confusion that a wrong date in a video would bring would cause much more trouble than that...

RatonhnhakeFan
07-19-2012, 02:45 PM
the confusion that a wrong date in a video would bring would cause much more trouble than that...

But you said the year the game starts is already known. So everyone would easily accept "yep, was a mistake". Instead, they removed the date.

Everything's still possible, but giving all the facts and clues, I simply think "Lee = father" will happen

WolfTemplar94
07-19-2012, 02:48 PM
It seems like removing the masks and music might actually hurt the overall portrayal, though. If they were going to go all-out to create an authentic representation of the people, it seems like this would be the kind of unique cultural phenomenon you would want to include. I'm not a Native American, so I don't know exactly why they're opposed to having their masks and music in the game. But when you start removing genuine aspects of the culture in a fictional portrayal, it becomes easier to slide back into stereotypes. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the team respected the Mohawks' wish to keep it out, but I don't understand why they wouldn't want their society to be portrayed as accurately as possible.

They're extremely cultural people. It mentions how they don't want the music to be used for entertainment purposes, because it's a sacred thing to them. I guess it would be the same with the masks.

dxsxhxcx
07-19-2012, 02:54 PM
But you said the year the game starts is already known. So everyone would easily accept "yep, was a mistake". Instead, they removed the date.

Everything's still possible, but giving all the facts and clues, I simply think "Lee = father" will happen

people wouldn't think this way, many would firmly believe that the wrong date is right and assume whatever they want to happen until the play the game and realize it was a mistake, IMO be dissapointed isn't the right way to start a game... like I said, I never said that this isn't possible and Connor's birth year is in fact 1755, but until the devs confirm this, people should see that date as a mistake of their part (knowing that the game is set to begin at 1753) and not create theories about why they remove the date... at least this way instead of dissapointment, they'll receive a surprise when they finally play the game and see that his birth year was 1755 and we'll start the game playing as his father (or even his father before he meets his mother and then from the moment of conception until Connor's birth with his mother what would also be interesting) or whatever kind of gameplay style they've prepared for us...

DarkSolitude-X
07-19-2012, 02:56 PM
I wish people would quit using race and "sensitivity" as a crutch. It's so... pansy. Just treat everyone with respect and quit worrying about "insensitivity".

SixKeys
07-19-2012, 04:46 PM
I wish people would quit using race and "sensitivity" as a crutch. It's so... pansy. Just treat everyone with respect and quit worrying about "insensitivity".

That kind of attitude is exactly what breeds racial insensitivity. You can't know for sure when you are being disrespectful of someone's heritage if you don't listen and take their concerns seriously.