Assassin's Creed

Oh, you bet the French were involved. They are one of the major reasons we "won" the war. If the British had been able to bring their full fleet over and not had to keep most of it at home in case of a French attack, there is very little chance that we would have been able to hold them off. Additionaly, the British withdrew more because of the war being too expensive (in resources and manpower) than because we were "winning."

edited 4th Apr '12 10:17:19 AM by Belian

And the expenses incurred by the French in aiding the Colonials were responsible in part for the French Revolution. Also, the game will cover the era of the French and Indian War, although we don't know how involved it will get in it.

edited 4th Apr '12 10:16:17 AM by Fighteer

Additional thought/"evidence" to back up my earlier post:

One of the reasons that the "George Washington Crossing The Delaware" painting is so popular as an image of the Revolutionary War is that we had very few victories of note and that one is the most eventfull. Not to mention that the only reason it worked was because it was Cristmas and there had been a European tradition that no fighting took place on Chistmas. The British army was taken completely by surprise.

(the facts and reason we won that fight are correct, but the "reason for the painting is so iconic" is something I just thought of that makes sense to me)

I'm guessing passing glance, though we'll see as we get more info on it.

The Colonials rather successfully employed guerrilla warfare tactics against the British, which went against the codes of warfare of the era. They repeated the same tactics in the War of 1812.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but there's a clear implication that the destruction of Connor's Mohawk village is related to that war. The dates match up too perfectly for it to be a coincidence.

edited 4th Apr '12 10:19:58 AM by Fighteer

Good ole' fashioned American ingenuity.

I really hope we get so see some Frontiermen as good guys. They were genuine badasses. They would just stay out of musket range and pick off the officers, causing the army's command structure to collapse.

They didn't like people being on their land.

Been jammin' Franklin became a celebrity in France and managed to leverage his fame against the King to convince him to bank roll the revolution, and later send troops.

The victory at Saratoga finally convinced the French that winning was feasible, so he did what Franklin asked.

edited 4th Apr '12 10:27:26 AM by TheProffesor

So the British side fought with honour like gentlemen while Americans had to resort to underhanded tactics? I'm not that suprised.

Britian I am impressed.

America I am disappoint.

Oh, I didn't know that. It'll have more relevance then I thought.

edited 4th Apr '12 10:34:20 AM by HellmanSabian

It's only underhanded when you're not using it.

Well, in all sincerity, in a war of principles, the underdog has little choice but to engage in guerrilla tactics if they can't stand up to their enemy in a straight fight. Whether this is considered a good thing or a bad is a case of Written by the Winners. Given that the Assassin's Creed series has focused on the relative morality of the sides in its conflicts as much as the basic facts of what's happening, I fully expect this dichotomy to be explored.

For example, Connor meets with Washington, who is angsting over having to use dishonorable tactics, and Connor tells him that he's fighting for the freedom of the human spirit, blah blah. Or vice versa, with Connor as the doubter. The point is that Ubisoft has very specifically assured us that the conflict won't be portrayed in Black-and-White Morality.

Guerilla Tactics=/=Terrorist Tactics.

We didn't blow up cities out of spite or mass murder civilians. We weren't Mexico. What we did to win was perfectly fine.

Besides, in wars where they do no respect your rights as prisoners, why should you respect their rights as soldiers?

@Proff:I was kidding about that, I don't want to start a discussion over it.

@Fighteer:I know Revelations started to go more in that direction. How much so would you say? I found that Assassin's Creed 2 and beyond fell into that trope easily.

I thought Americans only figured out guerrilla tactics because the Native Americans did the same before.

Well, Revelations is about Ezio's search for Altaïr's secrets, first and foremost. He views the conflict in Constantinople as... not really a distraction, but Yet Another Worthy Cause that he can't help but get roped into if he wants to achieve his personal goals. And, of course, he meets Sofia, who becomes the focus of his life even beyond his goal of getting into Altaïr's library.

The people of Constantinople aren't given much in the way of moral shadings; the primary conflicts that Ezio must navigate are (a) the mostly exposited feud between Selim and Ahmet, with the Sultanate at stake, (b) the influence of the Templars who are trying to carry on their agenda of World Domination. If you look at it purely from the point of view of the political conflict, it's kind of Black-and-Grey Morality, with the Byzantine Templars as the Black and the Ottoman Turks as the Grey — or rather, the neutral.

The Assassins are pretty much uniformly White on the morality scale, and Suleiman is also, although this at least is very true to what we know of that legendary Sultan from history.

All in all, Revelations doesn't really touch on grand moral issues. The Templars are Evil, Ezio is Good, and everyone else is sort of muddling along. This is one of the reasons why Ubisoft wants III to reemphasize the moral conflicts that were much of the focus of the original game.

Yes, that is true, which reminds me of one of the less talked-about elements of the conflict — coming as it did on the heels of the French and Indian War which saw many Native American tribes fighting against the British Colonies. There were Indians on both sides in both wars, which is likely to give Connor a bit of ready-made conflict.

edited 4th Apr '12 2:20:42 PM by Fighteer

As someone IRL mentioned to me, it is fairly easy to be realistic and paint the templars as "black" and the assassins "white" durring the Renaissance time period. He even said that... the Beorgia guy probably deserved an even more brutal death. Lots of backstabing-to-gain-power at the time.

Another reason that they are so "Black and White" is Ezio's backstory. How could you not be on his side or not hate his enemies in the first two games after what he goes through?

Ugh, I wanted to try 1, but it doesn't have subtitles :/ How dare they...

edited 4th Apr '12 11:10:22 AM by Anfauglith

I noticed that, but somehow managed to play it anyway. Subtitles in games as a standard feature are a fairly recent "innovation", if you think about it, only becoming really prevalent in the last five or so years.

edited 4th Apr '12 11:32:12 AM by Fighteer

Hmm, will the Boston Tea Party play a role in Assassin's Creed III? I think it's the right time period, and Boston is in the game...

The problem isn't just the lack of subtitles, it's the lengthy dialogue scenes with somewhat incomprehensible voice acting.

edited 4th Apr '12 1:19:09 PM by JimmyTMalice

It is, in fact, precisely the right time period, so one imagines it'll have a wee tiny role. Heck, we might be privileged to witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and possibly the writing of the Articles of Confederation. Sadly the game seems like it will end before the Constitutional Convention.

I had no trouble understanding the dialogue in Assassin's Creed. YMMV.

edited 4th Apr '12 1:23:02 PM by Fighteer

I watched it on youtube, and while I didn't get to see every conversation in the game, I never had trouble understanding the ones I saw.

How far have you gotten on your AC video odyssey Wolf, since I've been meaning to ask you.

I've stalled in the middle of 2, right now. I've got a bunch of school stuff going on, unfortunately. :/

i mainly only play certain games while watching something else, so subtitles are fairly important for me.

no subtitles means i have to stop watching something else to play which means i get fidgety which means i play the game less often.

I can see doing that when playing a turn based game, but watching something else while playing an action game with the game's sound turned off... I don't see how you can focus on/get full enjoyment from two things like that.

what's the reason for no sound?

well most of what i watch is a rewatch. i mostly know whats coming. its pretty much there to stop me getting fidgety. i focus mostly on the game

but when i have to rely on sound to tell whats going on...

or when i literally cannot stop paying attention or i will die (like godhand or mass effect)

those are the only times it actually becomes a problem.

and assassins creed...usually does not cause a problem.

i do temporarily pause the program during a cutscene when i see it coming however. im not that stupid.

incidently, i dont turn the sound off for games, just lower them. even if im using subtitles, there could be stuff either not shown in subtitles or maybe just worth hearing a bit for later reference.

edited 4th Apr '12 3:13:07 PM by Tarsen