View Full Version : Assassin's Creed 3 Inaccurate Hairstyles

05-06-2013, 02:02 AM
I know it's nitpicking, and I know you guys may think I'm a ******* and a trivial *****, but this really set me off. Most men back then has long hair tied back and clubbed. It's in every re enactment, movie, documentary, cartoon yet not here in this game. All soldiers cut their hair short in this game, which makes no sense sicne in the trailer E3 they had appropriate hair, so it's really frustrating. I don't understand why Ubisoft did this, did they think we'd be too dumb to differentiate Haytham and his buddies from the other plain NPC's. DOn't tell me it's about oh too many threads and strings and stuff because there are generic NPC's with appropriate long hairstyles, but they're stiff so no problem. Why couldn't Ubisoft give this hairstyle to soldiers? I just don't understand, it really broke the immersion for me. At least in Black Flag, the soldiers seem to have accurate hairstyles... Also, why did continentals have uniforms during the battles of lexington and concord? It was all militia, and ubisoft has militia skins in game so why didn't they... Ah forget it.

12-19-2013, 02:20 PM
I guess for those braiding hairstyles suits...It works positively on long hairs... :) try them out...

12-19-2013, 04:46 PM
Lice was a big issue at the time since people were lucky to take a bath once a month. People often kept their hair short and wore wigs instead. Look at most portraits of founding fathers and they wore wigs yet none appear to do so in the game. Lice was the big reason why ancient Egyptians wore wigs most of the time as well.

http://thehistoryofthehairsworld.com/hair_18th_century.html Deals mostly with France, but interestingly enough, I couldn't find anything that wasn't on France. But it is some history on the 18th century pointing out a good many of the upper ups wore wigs during the AC3 era. So really, every politician Connor met in AC3 as well as at least Charles Lee (who's real portrait did have a wig) would've worn wigs since that was the standard. Also points out it was typical of the military to also wear wigs. And yet no one really did in AC3 outside of maybe Washington. If anything, not wearing the wigs likely was to differentiate them. Hard to tell the difference between a bunch of men wearing white wigs.

Can't really base anything off anything Hollywood does. So toss out the movies and cartoons. They may claim they're accurate, but chances are something isn't. Even documentaries are known to take a creative flare with things even though they're supposedly based on what happened. And re-enactments are often done with people who dress themselves up. Think there's some guy standing by the main re-enactment tent saying no to each guy who shows up that's not period accurate? It's often on each person to ensure their getup is accurate. With a re-enactment like Gettsyburg, you got a few thousand partaking. Far too many to say yes or no to depending if their holster was on the right side. It'd be too expensive to dress and style every person in the enactment the day they arrive.

AC isn't really known for being the most accurate.

Sometimes locations are added that didn't exist at the time. AC4 has a few like the Queen's Staircase in Nassau that wasn't built until like 60 years after Edward was there.
In AC3, the Aquila apparently travels 60 knots despite Faulkner saying her top speed was 12.
Death dates and locations are also often moved. Charles Lee really died in Philadelphia, not Monmouth. Most of the AC1 Templars didn't die in 1181, etc.
Some events have been tweaked. Charles Lee couldn't have been in America when Connor's village burned in 1760 or at the Boston Massacre because he was in Europe fighting with the Portuguese military. I did some research and found Nicholas Biddle and Benjamin Church died within a week of each other and yet Haytham's not in Biddle's quest. It would've been impossible for Connor to kill Church, take Haytham back to New York, and then return to the Caribbean to take on Biddle.
Time wise, it'd be anywhere from 1-3 weeks for Haytham and Ziio to travel from where Edward Braddock fell to the Grand Temple yet the story suggests they occurred in the same day (Haytham wearing the same clothes is a big hint). The whole travel time in AC3 is rather off. Found Connor's birthday to be April 4, 1756 (according to Initiates) which suggests the scene we saw at the Grand Temple was his conception since that was July 9th, but then we shouldn't be able to see Charles's initiation afterward. So Connor would have to be conceived afterward. Best date I could come up with was 17-32 days afer Braddock's failed assassination putting Connor's birthday more likely in May, not April. If he was born a month early, it's possible, but also a death sentence for newborns at the time. Guess not only does the Aquila go 60 knots, but the horses must travel like 500 miles an hour which is highly unlikely.
There are a LOT of distance inaccuracies, such as the run from Valley Forge to Connor's village. That'd really take about 3 days yet Connor does it in under 5 minutes.
George Washington was already dealing with dentures although still had some of his teeth by the time Connor met him during the Revolutionary War. Yet the game skips over this.
Charles Lee lost 2 fingers in a duel while in Europe fighting with the Portuguese yet he still has all of his fingers in the game.
Charles Lee also had a Mohawk wife and twins that apparently must have died shortly after they were born since their names are unknown and nothing is known of them or his wife beyond her being the daughter of a chief. He owned an estate in West Virginia (Prato Rio) and owned no less than 6 Pomeranians that were known to constantly follow him. The estate is briefly mentioned by Haytham in Forsaken, but the wife, twins, nor dogs are ever mentioned.
Haytham mentions in Forsaken being fluent in various European languages like Spanish yet can't figure out how to pull apart Kaniehti:io to pronounce it. Guess he wasn't as fluent as he claimed. Any real multilinqual person can pick up on new languages faster than those who only know one.

Want some real inaccuracies? George Washington was never asked to become king nor ever cut down a cherry tree where he stated his never lie line. Betsy Ross did not sew Old Glory.

When so much is inaccurate, there's no real point latching onto one detail. You latch onto one detail, won't be long before you unravel a lot of other ones and become rather disenfranchised with the series as a result. If so much is inaccurate, how much else is inaccurate? Even within their own lore, how many holes can be poked? In the end, you have to remember it's a game. If you had fun playing it, then Ubisoft succeeded with it despite inaccuracies.

Put simply: Gameplay > realism. With the hair, you have to make the characters memorable or the game doesn't stand out. If everyone has the same look, they all start to blend into each other.

12-20-2013, 12:45 AM
History is full of inaccuracies but this is a game... people don't say picasso's paintings are inaccurate because people do not have cubism faces. And besides.... nothing is true, everything is permitted so the devs followed the creed ;)

12-20-2013, 12:57 AM
I'm not sure people know what "immersion" is anymore.

12-20-2013, 10:19 AM
Didnt AC1 established this already in one of the Vidic speaches? Everything you see in the Animus is true. Everything contradicting it is a lie.

12-20-2013, 10:48 AM
Didnt AC1 established this already in one of the Vidic speaches? Everything you see in the Animus is true. Everything contradicting it is a lie.
excellent point