Im thinking that the redcoats in the picks are mostly falling into the same slots at the guards in other AC games
we could be fighting both in different parts of the game.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/...ary/MERIKA.jpg
Not in this market. How dare you consider hurting American guards, they are all fearless freedom fighters while the British play soccer with the ball replaced with a puppy on the corpses of the people who died holding Bunker Hill. AND they call soccer football, backwards people real football is played with an egg-like ball in your hands.

GOD BLESS THE USA.

But we already have at least one statement that it's not going to be a black-and-white conflict.

And it's going to be a close secondary conflict, compared to the usual Assassins Vs Templars thing.

With the weirdo Assassin's Creed conspiracy theories, by the time the game is over we'll find out the British ACTUALLY WON.

The America as we know it today is nothing more than an illusion created by the Templars/Piece of Eden/Mayans/Ronald McDonald.

read thishttp://i.imgur.com/3PX3g.jpg

He says they try hard to make it so the Templars are not complete evil jerks, but that exactly how they come off.

Whatever, I kinda like the whole rural areas thing, reminds me of Red Dead Redemption which is one of my favorite more recent games. I am looking forward to it, might convince me to actually play though Brotherhood and Revelations.

I hate to say it but if they're trying to have the Templar appear as anything other than unashamedly evil bastards they're doing a pretty poor job of it. I could understand if they were saying they wanted to represent the Templar organization as something that was once good but has become corrupted, but almost every example we see of high ranking Templar screws with the idea that they're sympathetic villains who desire to save the world.
Exactly two of the Templar in AC1 had sympathetic motives which led into a sympathetic action. The Hospitaller Doctor and the slaver. And the slaver is pretty freaking gray to begin with.
Even The Doctor, arguably the most sympathetic Templar, has his first cutscene involving an order to brutally break both legs of an escapee.
He was trying to help the mentally incapacitated and injured, and most of his dialogue indicates he's geniunely trying to help... but that's not a good start, you spend the moments before the kill listening to him talk to patients, some of which are angry at having the treatment forced on them. Some of which, however, are just plain shocked that he's treated them even though they should be enemies. If I remember right, most are grateful.

He's exceptionally complicated, but he's the exception amongst the Templars. Every single Templar in II, from the lowest up to the Borgia were all corrupt, power mad monsters. Borgia especially, who goes out of his way to be evil, paints a dark picture of what exactly the Templar are. Even in I, where the characters have some sympathetic situations and circumstances, their actions make almost all of them seem villainous.

The Archer in Acre whos name I can't recall for example, speaks of how fearful of death he is. You can find some sympathy in that, and the paranoid behavior it brings. But as you look back on his actions you realize that a man who is so afraid of death should understand how terrible it is to take life from others, in spite of this he kills innocent monks and his own soldiers.

I mean, man! When was the last time the Assassins did anything remotely ambiguous?

I could easily see "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" being capitalized on by a hardcore destructive anarchist or completely self-serving personality.

That's part of why I'd personally like to see a well-done game or DLC that has you playing a Templar. Obviously not a hugely important one but significant enough that we could get a different perspective on the fight.

Now THAT would be interesting. Noble ambitions against a shadowy organization that mets out justice based on its own outlandish codes.

I think the problem with the Borgia is less that they're Templars, and thus evil, but more that they're part of the Borgia family, and thus royally screwed up, pardon the pun. I rather got the distinct feeling of them (or at least Cesare) going off and doing their own plans, regardless of what the Templar order wanted.

As for ambiguous assassinwork, there's always the scores of random schmuck guards you're always killing because they're working for the wrong people. I remember one of the repressed memories in Brotherhood, where Ezio's not-girlfriend urged him not to kill a bunch of guards just because they were in his way. That's not exactly a lesson that stuck with him. Or that French guard captain in Brotherhood who basically just made the mistake of being hired by Cesare.

I hate to use Lucrezia Borgia as a source of reliable information, but she does raise some perfectly valid points about Ezio being a hypocrite in his little... well, crusade against the Borgia/Pazzi/Templars. Heck, how often does Ezio go after Templars who don't happen to be part of his little personal revenge plot? (First, revenge for his father, then revenge for his uncle) I haven't played Revelations yet, so maybe that changes something.

I mean, the Assassins' mission statement is all about keeping people free, and all that, but they're still, well, assassins, with a fairly broad definition of "not an innocent".