Not anti british? lmao

#1 Posted by delt81 (2 posts) -
Having been a massive AC fan since the first game was released I can't wait for any new AC sequel to be made. So leading up to AC3 being released I read all the press good and bad especially in regard to it being anti british, I just thought it was all stupid, plus the devs said over and over again that the revolutionary was was just a backdrop to the assassins vs templers story line and that "Conner took no sides". Well having competed the game I can now say that what the developers said was LIES!! Takes no sides? Yeah whatever! 90% of the enemy that conner kills are British, attacking british forts and raising the "AMERICAN" flag (I mean come on), taking control of patriots to fire uppon and fend off the british (more than once), all convoy attacks are by british, naval missions are against the british (the greatest navy ever but taken out by one ship lol), basically everything conner does is to help out the patriots! Even Conner's outfit has the patriot blue in it!! How the hell can the developers say that Conner takes no sides??!! "Conner is half english though", yeah and his english father turns out to be a bloody templer and bad guy! Playing through the game felt more like the killing of templer missions were more like side missions. Ubisoft cut scenes from a trailer of conner killing patriots that was released in the US, I wonder why? Lol Still saying there's no anti british or pro american theme here? Whatever ubisoft lol Anyone ever think that a french canadian company will make a brit the hero? Not in our life time. Well I've had my rant, thanks for reading guys lol
#2 Posted by KevinConklin (1620 posts) -

It is not so much "anti-British" as it is pro-freedom. Connor has no vendetta against the British Kingdom per say, he just does not like the fact that they are trying to control the freedoms of Americans. The whole conflict surrounding this era is freedom. The British believe that America is simply another branch on the British tree, when in actuality Europeans fled Britain to get away from the Kingdom, to be free.

 

Granted, at the beginning of the game, when the British presence is extremely heavy, of course you will be killing lots of Redcoats. However, once you start liberating sections of town, have you not noticed all of the Patriots roaming around who appear as red dots on the map? Connor simply wants everyone to be free, and the fact that Britain is trying to control the colonies is a problem. In a way, this makes England a somewhat antagonist to this game. 

 

However, William Johnson is not English (he is Irish), Thomas Hickey is a Patriot (American soldier), and even Haytham Kenway despises the his home country!

 

While the British are frequently shown in a bad light, as are the Patriots. 

 

This game is not about Patriots versus Redcoats, or Britain versus America; this game is about the battle for freedom. 

#3 Posted by delt81 (2 posts) -
I hear and respect what you're saying. I realise that that game is not supposed to be anti british directly but it certainly looks that way. That war as never about america vs britain anyway, I do realise that. It was a british domestic war on foreign soil, there was no such thing as americans then....well apart from the natives (indians) who's country it really was. I know this. Having the revolutionary war as a backdrop doesn't bother me at all as I know the history of it and I'm not at all that ignorant. Lets just say that ubisoft have been very clever with what they did. Like I said in my last post, they cut scenes out of the US trailer of patriots being killed (by conner anyway), if it was really all equal then why would they feel the need to do that? The war was very complex and in this game it was totally simplified behond the truth which makes the british look like A holes. Also it wasn't just about british colonists vs the british sovereignty anyway, the french, spanish and dutch were involved. Ubisoft covered this very well, not giving too much of the truth away but havimg just a tiny bit in there so any arguments could be justified. If ubisoft realy does put a lot of time in to their history research thsn they need to either fire their researchers or stop using "extensive history research" as part of their sales pitch. The game just didn't feel like the old assassins vs templers thing. Oh and I'm not english by the way lol if thats what anyone was thinking ;-)
#4 Posted by SNESNOSTALGIA2 (409 posts) -

Brotherhood I think that was the one was incredibly racist and bluntly cliched to the point  it was insulting except it was too hilarious and cliche to be insulting. I came to this forum to get some impressions of the game only to see that nothing has changed 

#5 Posted by Darcia (1 posts) -

It is not so much "anti-British" as it is pro-freedom.KevinConklin

Which just raises more questions. Freedom is a Western concept, and not one shared by the Native cultures. Conner would support hierarchy and a strong sense of honor, he would be against freedom. He would, technically, be against both the British and the Americans for invading his land. Meh. My friend, who is a native American, told me he was sickened by seeing Conner raise the American flag. Given the decades his people spent fighting the British, Americans, and Spanish it's no wonder. He should have raised an assassin flag if anything.

#6 Posted by Rickta (127 posts) -

To be fair, there's plenty of criticism aimed at the Patriots as well, particularly George Washington. It's just done in a much more subtle way.

Let's not let this sort of thing bug us too much anyway. Portraying us Brits as evil may be relatively new to gaming, but for decades now we've been Hollywood's go to evil-doers, and I think that's kinda cool.

And besides, it was a really long time ago and thus has no bearing on any of us (as individuals or nations) these days.

#7 Posted by Roanark (2467 posts) -

Agreed, but whether or not we admit it, we all expected this from the beginning.

 

#8 Posted by maxp84 (389 posts) -

brits aren't usually the go to evil doers!! but you do get to shine in this game as the evil doers... mostly it's the russians or arabs these days...

#9 Posted by Lord_Tulak_Hord (210 posts) -

I was bothered as well. They said there were templars on both sides, that Connor wouldn't take any sides... They made it sound like it was going to be a deep, interesting story. Guess what, it wasn't! It was a pro-American story which I didn't enjoy at all. I'm not saying they should've supported the British but I'd be happy if Connor was neutral, just working for the good of the Assassin order. Instead, he doesn't even mind that G. Washington is destroying native American villages, he still serves him. Such bull...

#10 Posted by ShadowJax04 (3346 posts) -
Anyone who says this is a pro-american story is an idiot. We all knew the colonists would 'win' in the end and besides, if you actually follow the story you would know that CONNOR is only interested in keeping his people free and safe.
#11 Posted by ShadowJax04 (3346 posts) -
He even threatens to kill George Washington if he crosses him, so there.
#12 Posted by rosen22 (127 posts) -

Not sure why its a big deal if it is Anti British; we did try to use our navy to take over the western world. However it does feel a little like ubisoft bowed to sales ethics probably fearing a drop in sales in america if the history was too "heretic." I am surprised they didnt go down the alternative history conspiracy route really. End of brotherhood suggested it was heading that way with the masonic eye.

#13 Posted by Lord_Tulak_Hord (210 posts) -

He threatens to kill him (Washington) but later still works for him as if everything is good and jolly. Besides, Washington was a freemason who are a continuation of Templars. I mean why the game ignored that is beyond me. (probably because Templars are bad guys in the game and they didn't want to show Washington as the bad guy due to American market). Washington would have probably despised Assassins if such organization had indeed existed in that time period.

#14 Posted by nethervvoid (3 posts) -
Just historically accurate as far as outcome.