Assassin's Creed III

It looks like the next game in the series will be set in Revolutionary America:
http://kotaku.com/5889489/is-this-th...sins-creed-iii
http://kotaku.com/5889536/game-infor...eed-iii-image-[update]

It's an interesting choice. Lots of fun to be had in a new and very different location. Several different interest groups as well to play around with, namely Revolutionary Colonials, Loyalist Colonials, British, French, and Natives. It also is a relatively modest chronological progression from the end of the Enzio story, so it should provide for a smooth assassin's tech arc. My main concern is the architecture. There were, quite frankly, not a whole lot of tall buildings to climb at that time, and almost no significant landmarks that anyone would recognize today. It will be interesting to see how they adapt to that situation. Maybe more climbing around on terrain instead? Running through the trees and killing people, Last of the Mohicans style?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Last of the Mohicans style?

---

This is the impression I get too; colonial America had some modest settlements at the time, but no real architecture that's comparable to the Renaissance era locales we've seen in Ezio's games. It would be nice to see the fledgling cities of New York and such alongside the open fields and forests, though.

I can imagine this character being even more dexterous and tactical than his predecessors, fluidly vaulting up trees and using foliage and so on to hide. The weapons themselves, well I really like the idea of using a tomahawk and longbow, it maintains the assassin roots in melee combat and silent kills while highlighting how they will need to adapt to stay alive. In an era of advancing firearm technology, mobility and stealth aspects would be more important than the generally high profile behaviour of Ezio.

I'm really looking forward to seeing more information. :3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secura

I can imagine this character being even more dexterous and tactical than his predecessors, fluidly vaulting up trees and using foliage and so on to hide.

---

I could see that too. Just so long as they get rid of the stupid hook blade.

Hm. The America setting is clearly for commercial reasons. A Revolutionary France setting would have been much more interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Hm. The America setting is clearly for commercial reasons. A Revolutionary France setting would have been much more interesting.

---

Commercial reasons? There's no reason for them to pander more heavily to the American market; AC already tops the charts in the US. They could have made it in pre-contact Easter Island and it still would have sold superbly.

Regardless, I think we will see Revolutionary France. Revolutionary America precedes France chronologically, and the French are certain to be heavily involved in the plotline. Since Enzio's story was covered over three games, it makes sense that this next fellow will also get multiple games for his story. It would make perfect sense for the protagonist to move to Revolutionary Paris in a follow-up game.

Great news. I was hoping for either this or Napoleonic Europe. They've been focusing way too much on Ezio, so the last two since AC2 have not interested me.

I was hoping for a Victorian England setting, personally; chronologically though, we may still see that happen at some point. :3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secura

I was hoping for a Victorian England setting, personally; chronologically though, we may still see that happen at some point. :3

---

I think it's likely. Like Paris, London would be a very popular location to explore. I also think they will stretch out the timeline so that they hit a lot of locales prior to WWI. From WWI onwards, they start approaching the modern era very quickly, and the main hooks of the AC games are the historical locations. Running around modern NYC wouldn't really feel like a proper AC game.

Since it is set in revolutionary America any Englishmen in the game are more likely to be Templar affiliated.

Quote:

---

Commercial reasons? There's no reason for them to pander more heavily to the American market; AC already tops the charts in the US. They could have made it in pre-contact Easter Island and it still would have sold superbly.

---

True, but I think this will work well in getting new fans on board.

Quote:

---

Regardless, I think we will see Revolutionary France. Revolutionary America precedes France chronologically, and the French are certain to be heavily involved in the plotline. Since Enzio's story was covered over three games, it makes sense that this next fellow will also get multiple games for his story. It would make perfect sense for the protagonist to move to Revolutionary Paris in a follow-up game.

---

Good points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Running around modern NYC wouldn't really feel like a proper AC game.

---

Well, he'd basically just be Spiderman with a shank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

Since it is set in revolutionary America any Englishmen in the game are more likely to be Templar affiliated.

---

My money is on both sides having lots of bad dudes, like in AC1 (I barely remember AC2's story for some reason)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

Since it is set in revolutionary America any Englishmen in the game are more likely to be Templar affiliated.

---

Unless they flip it on it's ear and half the founding fathers are Templars. And that the US is a templar project.


Also I'd assume this guys name is Miles.

Quick note, in AC1 and 2 we were able to go to different cities. Could it be possible that it would be partially set in the Americas, and partially set in Paris/London during the same era?

And I do agree that revolutionary France would've been probably better, but it'll be nice to see how they handle colonial America. Maybe a good thing to break from tradition, maybe a bad thing. Guess we'll find out :D

Ubisoft have released images of the game's box art, which confirms the American Revolution setting and a Native American protagonist.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's interesting that the box art depicts the assassin killing a Redcoat; I wonder if this based on the plot or simply because of how iconic the military attire of the British was in that period.

Hehe, it means my assumption might well be spot on.

Far safer to portray fictitious imperialist soldiers and generals as the bad guys rather than risk tarnishing the image of respected freedom fighters and revolutionaries.

I mean imagine the headlines were ACIII to portray General Washington or Benjamin Franklin as evil Templars....Fox News will have a field day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secura

Ubisoft have released images of the game's box art, which confirms the American Revolution setting and a Native American protagonist.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's interesting that the box art depicts the assassin killing a Redcoat; I wonder if this based on the plot or simply because of how iconic the military attire of the British was in that period.

---

Now that you mention it, a Redcoat is probably more recognizable to Americans today than American troops' uniforms from the war lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

Hehe, it means my assumption might well be spot on.

Far safer to portray fictitious imperialist soldiers and generals as the bad guys rather than risk tarnishing the image of respected freedom fighters and revolutionaries.

I mean imagine the headlines were ACIII to portray General Washington or Benjamin Franklin as evil Templars....Fox News will have a field day.

---

You exaggerate things greatly.

The game is on wait and see status with me, sad to say. I'm one of the few people who really liked AC1. AC2 was a great game, loved the gameplay refinements, the world, the characters, and the plot. The series felt like it was going places, and I was excited for 3. Instead we got Brotherhood. I really did not like AC: Bro. It felt so unnecessary, and had nothing interesting to offer either in gameplay or in plot. I encountered a lot of bugs and glitches whilst playing too. Revolutions? Haven't played it, probably won't. By all accounts it's even more pointless in plot than Bro, and in gameplay it expands on the problems I had with Bro.

The Embers short film is rather good, though. Fantastic end to Ezio's story. If you haven't seen it, go look it up.

I hope this rumour isn't true. I'm not interested in the setting, nor the history and the locations it offers. Give me Ancient Egypt or Etruscan Rome, or the so-called Dark Ages, or maybe the Aztecs, China, Sengoku Japan, or pretty much any of the other time periods the series has hinted at. I expect the rumour is true, since it's a rumour which refuses to die and is oh so very marketable. That means the gameplay will have to work harder in order to engage my interest. Wherever it's set, it's supposed to be a pretty big shake-up in gameplay compared to the rest of the series.

EDIT: Oh. It's true. Patriot's Creed. :sigh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secura

Native American protagonist.

---

Oooh, exciting. This could either be done very, very well, or incredibly badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Oooh, exciting. This could either be done very, very well, or incredibly badly.

---

stereotypical accents and names, here we come...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

You exaggerate things greatly.

---

All right maybe calling it a 'field day' was too much. I'm sure they've had juicier controversies. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

Hehe, it means my assumption might well be spot on.

Far safer to portray fictitious imperialist soldiers and generals as the bad guys rather than risk tarnishing the image of respected freedom fighters and revolutionaries.

I mean imagine the headlines were ACIII to portray General Washington or Benjamin Franklin as evil Templars....Fox News will have a field day.

---

Ubisoft Montreal is way smarter than that. I mean look at how they handled Rome. The Roman empire was a Templar scheme. And the popular faction of the Caesar was the Templars, and the patrician faction of Brutus and Cassius were the Assassins. You could easily make the Federalist writers Templars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

All right maybe calling it a 'field day' was too much. I'm sure they've had juicier controversies. :clown:

---

Maybe Fox News might bring it up, but what you're exaggerating is the reaction the general public would have. Maybe if a game tried really hard to make Abraham Lincoln honestly look like an evil, bloodthirsty tyrant, it would put people off. But by and large, ex-presidents (not even the founding fathers) aren't gods to people who don't read libertarian blogs, so no one would care if the game has templars working on the revolutionary side.

I only made a slight exception for Lincoln because...well, he's Lincoln. He's an empathetic folk hero who never told a lie, freed the slaves and preserve the union, and then died for our sins. He's as close to untouchable as it gets. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Hm. The America setting is clearly for commercial reasons. A Revolutionary France setting would have been much more interesting.

---

agreed. its a very weird change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

Maybe Fox News might bring it up, but what you're exaggerating is the reaction the general public would have. Maybe if a game tried really hard to make Abraham Lincoln honestly look like an evil, bloodthirsty tyrant, it would put people off. But by and large, ex-presidents (not even the founding fathers) aren't gods to people who don't read libertarian blogs, so no one would care if the game has templars working on the revolutionary side.

I only made a slight exception for Lincoln because...well, he's Lincoln. He's an empathetic folk hero who never told a lie, freed the slaves and preserve the union, and then died for our sins. He's as close to untouchable as it gets. :laugh4:

---

Don't forget the vampire killing.

Well perhaps I was measuring things by the wrong yardstick. The masses over here tend to get offended easily about such things.

Still I would've thought that anything against the fathers of the nation would not have been taken lightly. But then my knowledge of the average American comes from the international media and the news.

Proof he kills Americans too:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.c...12/03/ac35.jpg

I like that assassin tomahawk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

I like that assassin tomahawk.

---

I always wanted a real tomahawk

I'm worn out on this one. I feel about this the way I feel about TV series that clearly are written plot wise as they go, creating an arc only after they've survived the first season. I'm not nearly dumb enough to not notice when it's pretty obvious you're just making this up as you go.

For me we jumped on this one after the 2nd installment, but then that's just me. I guess the problem is not a new one, 2001 had the same issue, how do you go about introducing an alien god ending w/o looking a bit stupid? Certainly makes for intriguing build up though initially, but then that just makes the ultimate disappointment more palatable.

For further reference on my tv analogy, look no further than x-files for paint yourself in a corner plot development arc. So, that of course begs the question of what show I've seen is an example of an arc done correctly, right?

Answer: Babylon 5 through the first four seasons. And why did this one work where others have not? Because the arc was written BEFORE the show was started, by one guy, who had the complete vision, who then proceeded to make the show implementing that vision.

P.S. One more came to mind much like Babylon 5 that worked for the same reason: The Prisoner.

Be Seeing You.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

I always wanted a real tomahawk

---

Buy two. Send one to me. :grin: