Is... is that camoflage in the forest?
Still... a robed and hooded man in revolutionary America? Why not dress him up like a fucking French mime artist and have done with it?
| UUDDLRLRBA Multiplatform Gaming http://uuddlrlrba.co.uk/forum/ |
|
| Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sense http://uuddlrlrba.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=7155 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Smokey [ Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sense |
Inspired by this article that claims it DOES make sense, but considering that it was written by an Aussie claiming that the Spanish Army played a major role in the war, I don't put a lot of stock in that claim. First of all, the article claims that making the protagonist a Native American allows the story to be told from beyond the perspective of red vs blue. That's untrue, considering that almost without exception, the tribes that resided in what would be come the eastern US did indeed pick sides, either because one side paid them for their service in some manner, or because an enemy tribe had aligned itself with one faction, so they picked the other. The only notable exception I can think of was the Iroquois Confederacy, and to my knowledge, it hasn't been confirmed that the protagonist comes from one of the Iroquois member tribes. Secondly, Colonial America didn't have the sprawling urban landscapes that the previous AC games are so intrinsically tied to. Yes, it had relatively large population centers for the day, but they didn't go much larger than two-or three story buildings made of wood back then, even for churches or other locations of note. This idea that Plunkett puts forth that, well, they had really tall trees and mountains, so that makes up for it is garbage, as well. I wouldn't mind the occasional woodland romp if it served the purpose of the story, but remember that the conflict between Assassin and Templar is a shadow war that takes place in the halls of power, not in the back end of no where. I'd rather climb the Colosseum than some tree in the middle of a forest, thanks. Plunkett tries to answer complaints that the game doesn't take place in an established realm of intrigue by saying that stuff happened in England and France during the course of the war, as well, so it wouldn't it make sense that you'd wind up there at some point? Yeah, it would if you wanted to spend most of the game crossing the Atlantic for a single payoff. Remember, modern shipping didn't exist at that point, so the fastest way to cross the Atlantic back then was by sail, and that took months, IF you were lucky and you didn't just sink a few days out of port. I seriously doubt that Ubisoft would take this route under any circumstance. In the article, Plunkett says that there are a variety of different factions at play that you could interact with; to name some, he lists the British Army, the British Navy, the Continental Army, the Continental Navy, the French Army, the French Navy, local militia, various tribes, the Hessian mercs that fought for the Brits, and random slaves. He also makes mention of the Spanish Army, but that's too retarded, so I'm leaving it out. First of all, it's stupid to believe that the army and navy of one country would be two separate factions; yes, there are internal politics between two branches of the military, but they're just that - internal, meaning within one entity. Also, I seriously doubt that doing anything for the Hessians would be any different than doing it for the Brits, so that eliminates another faction; same goes for the vast majority of tribes involved in the conflict, as well any local militia or slave contingents. Realistically, you're left with three factions: the US, the Brits, and the French; anything else would be done on an individual basis, as in a side quest. On another note, remember the mercenaries, courtesans, and thieves you could count on for assistance in myriad forms? I highly doubt they will exist in this game, certainly not in the way they have in the previous games. For one thing, there won't be mercs for hire; any fighting man has already either been drafted by the Continentals or is fighting in a La-li-lu-le-lo or Loyalist militia, not playing the field and holding out for the biggest payout. I could see you interacting with some kind of thieves guild, but there's no way in hell are you gonna find courtesans wandering the streets of 18th century Philadelphia, considering that attitudes were much more conservative about everything, especially sex. So what would take their place? Would we go back to the idea of hiding amongst members of an obscure religious order? Or would we be trying something different? What could allow us to blend in to the populace, especially in a get-up like the protagonist is wearing? Finally, just as a minor concern, if there's scalping, I'm gonna be severely disappointed in Ubisoft and their researching skills. Unless the protagonist is a Plains tribesman that got lost and somehow wound up getting involved in the Revolution (which would make no goddamn sense at all), there is no reasonable explanation for why the protagonist would scalp anybody, and there's nothing that can be said to convince me otherwise. |
|
| Author: | Raiku [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
So basically, Did Not Do the Research? Yeah I can see it that way. Then again I'm meh on the series. |
|
| Author: | Smokey [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
Yeah, if they were gonna do an AC game set in the States at all, I would think they'd need to wait at least 'til Reconstruction. Population centers in the US were well-established by then, you actually had the urban landscapes that set the tone in AC games, and since rail lines were starting to get fairly prolific at that point, there would be ways to get across the country at a reasonably quick pace. Also, immigration from all corners of Europe started to open up at that point, not just Northern Europe, and you also got Asian immigrants in droves and droves on the West Coast, as well, so it would seem much more plausible for an ancestor of Desmond's to have made the jump to the States then it would have a hundred years or so prior. |
|
| Author: | DoFuss [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
Pretty sure its legit. Ubisoft partners are pushing it as fact. That said I wouldnt discount a heavier leaning to the modern with Desmond and this playing a smaller role this time. |
|
| Author: | Smokey [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
Yeah, I know this is pretty much happening in some form. I'm just really skeptical as to how it's gonna turn out. |
|
| Author: | Joe [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
Yo, it's a video game with a magic chair that extracts memories from DNA, shit hasn't made sense from the start. |
|
| Author: | Blokeymon [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
>army >navy >same thing Dude, say that to anyone in the navy (or even the air force, although they're not mentioned because there was none in that time) and I guarantee that you're going to die, likely very quickly and definitely very painfully. Thats like saying the Republicans and the Conservatives and the Liberals are all the same, as they're all politicians, just with "internal differences". Not quite. The army and navy may fall under the "armed forces" branch, just as REP/CON/LIB fall under the "politicians" branch, but they are completely separate entities. That aside, anyone remember saying that GTA set in the Wild West would suck? I remember a fair few saying that. Anyone remember how it turned out? |
|
| Author: | SugaFree [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
Joe wrote: Yo, it's a video game with a magic chair that extracts memories from DNA, shit hasn't made sense from the start.
|
|
| Author: | Smokey [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
Joe wrote: Yo, it's a video game with a magic chair that extracts memories from DNA, shit hasn't made sense from the start. You're really gonna go with that copout? Weak sauce. @Blokeh - I didn't say they were the same thing. I said they were two arms of the same body. Doing something for one would essentially advance the cause of the other, so it wouldn't make sense to have them as separate factions. And don't even play the Wild West GTA card, dude. RDR was so much more than that, not to mention that it's a series separate from GTA to begin with, so that example doesn't even have any parallels to AC. |
|
| Author: | Terradude [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
This thread should be titled "Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America is the best idea in forever and will be the best vidya in centuries" And the OP should just be completely different. |
|
| Author: | Blokeymon [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
Is... is that camoflage in the forest? Still... a robed and hooded man in revolutionary America? Why not dress him up like a fucking French mime artist and have done with it?
|
|
| Author: | Matthew [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
Those screenshots look so good. |
|
| Author: | Smokey [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
That looks a lot more like concept art to me, especially the last one. |
|
| Author: | HGW XX/7 [ Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
Someone make a thread titled "Why Smokey is a toolbag." and then complain about how it doesn't make sense that he went from a small child to a man-child. Shit changes, son. I welcome the change of getting rid of the tall buildings. Maybe now you'll actually have to evade enemies rather than run to the closest structure and climb it. The wilderness has lots of other tall shit that isn't trees (scaling a cliff, mebbe?). There'd better be at least one point where you jump from the top of a waterfall. Just 'cause. Also, I expect to be able to kill wild animals with my bare hands. Also, I will paint with all the colors of the wind. Seriously though, I preferred AC1 over AC2 for reasons I can't really explain (I honestly don't know, structure maybe?). So getting it somewhere completely different with a different gameplay focus (hopefully) will work wonders on the series for me. |
|
| Author: | Smokey [ Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Assassins Creed in Colonial America doesn't make sen |
If being extremely skeptical of the new direction makes me a toolbag, then hook my ass up with Bob Villa so he can dig a hole, fill it with water, and call it a lake so you can go jump in it. BTW, if the only way you could evade enemies was to climb a building, you were doing it ridiculously wrong. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|