Assassins Creed 3 debut trailer released, information leaked

[Guest]

Most of the Founding Father's were known Freemasons. Why would an Assassin be helping them? Freemasons are Templars right? I could understand if Connor was just observing the British and Americans fighting and did his own thing. This right here is an example of how Ubisoft has lost itself in its own fiction. They really should have waited 2-3 years to make the installment. I hate yearly releases. If they really wanted to finish Ezio's life so bad, just release Brotherhood and Revelations as DLC for Assassins Creed II instead of standalone games, cause many can't afford to drop $60 every year. I'm still getting the game regardless but they better stop this yearly COD or sports game style crap.

 

[jackal2687]

I think the haters are looking into this too much. It should go without saying that if you like the series, you couldn't get enough of these games. Saying it is terrible before you have merit to say so is the reason some great games get such low Metacritic scores. Just because you sit and home and play video games, doesn't mean I'm gonna listen to your opinions on which games are good. People get paid to make those decisions, even then I am unconvinced. MW3 was one of those games that people seem to have a problem with, yet is the most popular FPS in modern history (sales reports). Obviously if people are buying the game, then there is a crowd for it. Stop making yourselves look so dumb by attacking something that can really make it without you.

 

[Guest]

Ok to all of you that don't know, what the game makers wanted to do was just ac1, ac2, and ac3. But so many people got into ezio, they decided to continue his story. Now they've come outh with ac3 and some of you are complaining. They've worked on it since brotherhood released so give them some credit. If you're gonna complain, get into the gaming industry and see if you can come up with anything better

 

[Guest]

Why is everyone bitching and moaning about the setting? There have, so far, been four AC games: 1 set in Asia, 2 set in Europe, and 1 set astride those two continents. Why all the crying? I'm a little surprised at the setting myself (I thought the French Revolution provided an excellent conflict to mine and would have been a natural choice), but I'm optimistic about this game. Hell, they could still do the French Revolution, since it took place later.

Anyways, my point is that I can understand that a lot of western games (perhaps even most) are America-centric. However, that doesn't mean that this game should be lamented. This is a period of history that certainly changed the world, has a very rich cast of historical characters from which to draw, and political intrigue abounded in the years leading up to the American Revolution. Moreover, it's a period that hasn't really been explored, except for the vastly different experience of Empire: Total War. There's a lot of great possibilities, and it's already shaping up to sound like an incredible game. Give it a chance, and quit whining.

 

[Guest]

Actually. They've been working on this specific title for three years now. According to Ubisoft, it's the biggest project they've ever undertaken. It's not quite like the previous two AC's.

 

[Guest]

I've heard that the game will visit Boston and the woods around it (that still exist just south of it). I can't help wondering how close to reality they'll stick when it comes to terrain and street layout (Boston has remained relatively unchanged in the area around Faneuil Hall and the Waterfront since the revolution).
Also, I kinda hope they cover U.S.S. Constitution (aka: Old Iron Sides), since the ship still exists and is in excellent condition, they could have Desmond visit it because of one of Connor's memories.

 

[Guest]

AC 1: Started and finished Altair's story
AC 2: Started Ezio's story
AC 3: Started "Connor's" Story

Any one see the pattern?
They release a AC (number) every new character's story