Viridian Dreams Forum

Announcement Trailer has just come out. I have to admit, I'm actually a bit surprised by the choice of setting.



This is going to be a pretty tricky ground for Ubisoft to go over, methinks. There was already grumblings of discontent over making the Greek Independence Movement (in support of the Byzantines admittedly, but Greek Independence nonetheless) in the Ottoman Empire puppets of the Templars in Revelations. This is a little more contemporary and will probably feature a lot of iconic people and leaders being thrust into the 'Templar vs Assassin' conflict where people, British or American, won't want them.

Expect a lot of butt-hurt from a lot of people if Benedict Arnold ends up an Assassin while Washington turns out to be a Templar. (Hey, they hinted that Rasputin was an Assassin, so there's precedent for that kind of weirdness)

I was surprised by the new setting. At first glance seems very removed from the setting of the previous games, but looking closely at it, it's actually quite appropiate.

I don't personally care too much about the historical implications, to tell the truth.

Fair dues. As for the setting, I dunno, I was still kinda surprised. Granted, ACI to ACII's jump was around 300 years too, but still we're getting right on up to the American Revolution? You'd think that Ubisoft would find fertile ground to base games on around the Protestant Revolution or the English Civil War.

Then again, this is going to be the last game before their 'December 21st, 2012' deadline, so it might just be that they're jumping past a lot of history out of necessity for Desmond's plot.

Isn't the GPS location found in ACII in America? In that case it makes sense that the new assassin is connected to events that took place in that area, there has to be a reason Desmond is watching his memories.

I don't mean so much from a story telling perspective. If Desmond's goal is in America then yes it would make sense for memories from the past to take place in said locations.

What I mean is why this was chosen in the first place. Ubisoft had the power to take the story anywhere they would've want it to be set between the 1500s and the modern day, and they choose Revolutionary War America. I'm just saying I'm surprised by their choice is all.

Quite frankly, it seems like Assassin's Creed has taken the backseat or at least how its popularity is rated compared to the other games that have recently come out.

Everyone was big on AC before and it was the talk of the town, but the hype has subsided since. I am not sure that is because of a not so impressive game experience or there are just a lot of greater games that have taken over its rank.

I am excited if this new release will give it some sort of rebirth

At this point the game has a large enough following that the company doesn't need to spend quite as much time, money and effort into promoting it as they did with the first one. The community itself will promote the game for them. Kind of like how Diablo 3 hasn't had more than a handful of ads come out, and yet the Blizzard community is still all over it.

To be honest, the historical implications may get people to ask some questions. Considering that the Assassin protagonist is Native American, I doubt Washington will be portrayed in an entirely positive light, especially if he's from the Ten Nations. He is still called the Town Burner by them for a reason. I realize some (make that, a lot) people will be butt-hurt over this, but just like with the Byzantine-Ottoman conflict, the Assassins take their allies as they come.

I don't entirely think the Templars will be on the side of the Colonies in this one. They also might not be on the side of the English, either, since France had a stake in the matter with prolonging the war to hurt England economically with American independence not necessarily desired, but could be lived with. It actually would not surprise me if the French, or even the Spanish, played a role in some of this. While Ubisoft does try to go with making things as accurate as possible historically, they do take some license here.

Someone actually brought my attention to a banner used by game informer on its site for Assassin's Creed III. The banner itself is actually smaller than the total picture, but the space the banner would've taken up is transposed on the original image.



So it is starting to look like an Assassin preference for the American colonialists, if all the dead red coats from the trailer is combined with this image. In addition we got a little information on our new Assassin.

His name's Ratohnhaké, and he's of Native American-English heritage and apparently he's adopting the name Connor. I hope we get a last name from him, otherwise I just know the fanbase will forever refer to him as 'Connor Macleod'.

Or possibly Conner Kent?

Alright, so I beat Revelations last night. I liked how it ended Ezio's part of the story, but I am pretty disappointed with how it handled what happened at the end of Brotherhood. It really didn't give any details on why it happened. Just a few lines from other characters during loading screens that said to me "It happened, too bad, deal with it, haha!" If 3 doesn't give some more info in the first 20 minutes, I'm probably going to be kind of ticked.