Well, would Americans have seen the irony of a line like that, at the time? Seems to be the right time in history for them to have said something like that and not quite realized how wrong they were.

But those markets won't really lose sails. Intense "fuck yeah, our country!" nationalism is much more of an American thing. The british thing is mostly "Britain is a cold terrible place, why do we live here- let's move to france".

You're right in the sense that those kinds of lines were definitely spoken at the time.
My point isn't that it's an inaccurate representation of Washington's beliefs. It's that despite its 'accuracy,' it really isn't appropriate to portray unironically and positively in a ninety second trailer for a game being released in the 21st century.

The trailer's playing the line straight, as if Washington's entirely right in his assertions. And I dunno, I expected something a tad more nuanced? And even if in the game Washington's presented as a wholly admirable guy, there are better lines to write for him than the one chosen when marketing this game to a 21st century audience.

...But like, it totally makes sense for Washington to say lines like this in the game, then not long thereafter indirectly point out the hypocrisy to the player by having Connor interact with a slave. That kind of layering showed up all the time in Red Dead Redemption's deconstruction of Wild West mythology.
It just doesn't make sense to include this as his stump speech in a ninety second ad, is all.

That makes perfect sense, and I hope that for all their assurances of a nuanced story, that it actually is grayer in the actual game. I mean, there have been statements assuring us of that, and I doubt they could have a Shaun-written database without at least bringing up the other side.

But yeah, this wasn't the best choice of a trailer if they wanted to assure people that the story isn't going to be "AMERICA!" all the time. I suppose it's a decent hype-trailer, but it's not exactly making the game's story position look very good, does it?

edit: Actually, American slaveowners are pretty likely to be some of Connor's targets at some point in the game. After all, the guy's supposed to hate inequality and all that jazz. It's in pretty much direct opposition to basic Assassin ideologies, as well. Maybe spit back the "free men, or slaves" line in one of his rest-in-peace speeches.

In slightly related news, is it wrong that I'm already looking forward to the inevitable direct sequel to AC3 released next year, in which Connor will inevitably travel to either London or Paris?

...Well I mean that's what I'd do if I were involved. London and Paris were awesome scenes at that point in history, and it'd be interesting to combine new AC3 mechanics with AC2 style building climbing.

EDIT: Due to the timing of the French Revolution I'll wager $50 on Paris as the next setting.

With Ben Franklin accompanying him and showing him around Paris in one of the opening missions.

Assassins Creed III part II: The French Revolution: The Beheadening

I will actually be legit surprised if there are any black people in AC3.

Some of my best friends are advertisers. Ad students. I have one friend.
 

But the best choice in video trailers right now is always "AMERICA!" Gotta get them Modern Warfare numbers. Anyone you'd offend by a lack of nuance is either... no, this is better:

It's like, anyone who knows about the game already is pretty set in whether they're going to buy it or not at this point. They (you're part of "they," by the way, since you're reading this thread) are completely irrelevant to any advertising. I mean, the ad department could come up with an amazing trailer that gets an Oscar nod or something and maybe convince a few people who already know about the game but don't plan to buy it to change their minds. Or, they can advertise to the not-us "they," the guys watching TV who think every video but calladudy is "gay" because "you don't even shoot people," and catch a magnitude more sales by appealing to their "AMERICA!" sensibilities. Oh, and that comes with the smug-tastic bonus of being able to say "Don't like it? Don't buy it," to any criticism aimed at the the trailer with the sure knowledge that, even if a few people in the "they" category which we fall into actually do change their minds about making that purchase, they've been replaced by the mass of idiots. Because that's who all ads—whether for videos, hamburgers, or politicians—are aimed at: idiots. Plato agrees with me, and as a dead white guy, his agreement makes me right.

I've played about ten minutes of Assassins Creed 2, and I was too drunk to remember what happened. I think I climbed up a building.

It worked for Dead Island, and that was a thoroughly meh game that got far more sales than it ordinarily would have achieved.

So will Andrew Jackson be a Templar?

That's also a good point, Phil_.

Those of us who get our information on games through the internet and forums and such will be the ones more likely to have seen those articles where they promise a more nuanced story.

And I guess an "AMERICA!" trailer is more likely to catch the eye of those who aren't into the series itself enough to have heard about it on the Internet.

So, with that in mind, it's a decent trailer, but I do hope that the game itself is more grey in terms of morality.

If not I am still hunting that ass down and stabbing him with shanky and the axe.

I got a nice...tin...cover...art thingy for preordering AC3 today.

New details

Still acting under the assumption that historical accuracy means "America's myth about the revolution," but whatever.

Apparently their solution for the cities being to small back then is to pretend that they aren't. Hahahaha...

Also, you get to paddle a canoe.

EDIT: "You won't just be killing the British in Assassin's Creed 3! You'll kill Native Americans, too!" ahahahahaha oh fuck

EDIT2: Okay, cool, I'm hearing one of the screenshots is of stalking down an American general. Worries assuaged.

WWWWHHHHHHYYYYYYYYY

Man there's just no reason to do this. If AC3's going to be all colonial America it should be all about the pristine rural beauty of nature and shit and gameplay mechanics should change correspondingly. It shouldn't be like, "Let's transform colonial era Boston into a city where the exact same mechanics you relied on in Renaissance Venice are appropriate." It should be, "This is a new game in the series and we should do new things with it and make it play quite differently."

Gameplay > Realism. And if I'm getting an Assassin's Creed game, I expect lots of things to climb and stab. I guess they could reinvent the wheel, but that kind of goes against franchise logic to me. A few new things, refinements, sure. Big departure from other games in the main series, not so much.

You are protecting him from the evil British and Native Americans.

(or hes a traitor of some kind, secretly British, you know this because you saw him eating crumpets)

I find this argument is often misused. "Realism", for instance, is not the target here, "Sense" is. As in, "Does it make sense to set the new AC game all the way in the Americas if they're going to just make it feel like Europe all over again?".

Neither Sense nor Gameplay should have to sacrifice one another. Surely there's more to the feel of AC than prowling through busy city streets, jumping off tall buildings and into haystacks. Setting it in the Americas is the perfect opportunity to bring a certain refreshing change to the paradigm and refusing to do that seems a bit of a waste.

More importantly, whyyyy? I thought it'd be sweet to be walking around in game somewhere where I've actually been, but noooo.

Well it's just, like:
Colonial America wasn't known for its sprawling urban areas or its gargantuan feats of construction.
It was known (and has been romanticized) for its pristine forests and its open spaces and an abundance of primeval land to explore.

If you're going to make the game about Assassin's Creed 2 mechanics, you'd be better off hosting the events in eighteenth century London or Paris.
I thought the entire idea about switching things up and visiting America was to introduce new and foreign mechanics and to ensure a very different Assassin's Creed experience.

The notion that their solution to the conundrum of "What to do about the small towns?" was simply to make the towns artificially bigger, as opposed to simply upping the countryside, suggests that the developers are scared to move too far away from the AC2 mechanics and they want to keep you jumping from rooftop to rooftop. But this is Boston, not Rome. The additional urban space is going to feel empty because there just aren't enough intriguing landmarks with novel construction to incorporate. It'll actually, if anything, feel like a worse and less interesting version of AC2 and its sequels to explore, as opposed to being what it should be, which is something markedly different.

Just my two cents. I'm hoping that Boston turns out to be a relatively small part of the game, because really, if you're going to go to colonial America, it shouldn't be to explore Boston or New York or any other 'urban' area. That's not where the excitement was.

EDIT: Like, remember how Brotherhood, -- in my opinion the worst of the Ezio trilogy, though still a fine game -- had all those wide open spaces outside of Rome and you hated those spaces because there wasn't really anything to do there, because it was clear that AC2 was designed for rooftop-to-rooftop urban combat and not for just wandering around open vistas?
...That's what I'm worried about here. AC3 should introduce new mechanics to -- if anything -- make it more fun to explore the forests and hilltops of America and less fun to hop from one unassuming two-story residential building to the other.

Snake you magnificent bastard stop being me and having the same reasons for hating rural Roma.

Seriously part of what I loved about Assassin's Creed from the days of Altair was running across rooftops murdering guards and couriers like a Renaissance Batman without a no-kill rule.

The landscape outside of urban Roma was fucking horrible. You had to have a fucking horse to get anywhere.

That said! I am looking forward to AC3, because now we're going to be tree hopping and mountain climbing and (possibly zip-lining? lets hope that's a thing that happens cuz it was fun in ACR) fuck, so many possibilities! Also I hope to God the hidden blade makes a return or I'll be a tad disappointed.

I have yet to finish Brotherhood because Roma is so bloody crappy.

Also making my hometown(ish) 3 times bigger makes me mad, cause it would of been neat to jump around in a place I am very familiar with, but I do not think I will get the same appeal in it's altered state.

I hope that in making Boston bigger they at least went ahead and looked at what it looked like in 1850 or something (minus whatever historical anachronisms had appeared since then, such as factories, I would suppose). AT least then they can lay claim to some historical accuracy, even if it is the wrong period.

...Okay so my faith in this game has been officially shaken.

So, apparently the Collector's Editions for UK and Europe were announced. There are two!
Now, keep in mind these are the Collector's Editions for the UK and Europe. 'The UK' is included in that sentence.

Okay so the two editions are called: "Freedom" and "Join or Die."
You know, the two American slogans for the war. Freedom from the British, and 'Join or Die' was the mantra with the Snake divided into the disparate colonies.

...The cover of the 'Join or Die' edition features the thirteen-star American flag.
And George Washington's Notebook is an item in both.

Here you go England, here's your Collector's Edition!

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17hn...g/original.jpg


...And seriously, the 'Lost Mayan Ruins?'
Guys the Mayans totally were hangin' out in ancient New England y'all!!!!
(That or: Guys folks living in Boston totally made the perilous journey through the wilderness and/or on a boat to Mexico all the flippin' time!!!) Common occurrence!

I do hope he goes to Mexico though, if it's like "Oh hey the Mayans had cities in territory corresponding with the modern northeastern United States!" I am just going to laugh.

EDIT: Also it's kind of hysterical that England's being sold a Collector's Edition in which the message on the box is apparently "Join the rebellion that is killing your countrymen, or die!"
That would be almost like advertising a German game where you play a Nazi and advertising it in America with the slogan "Join the Nazis or die!", except admittingly the American colonists weren't Nazis but still that's just weird
OH SHIT GODWIN'S LAW

EDIT 2: Lost Mayan Ruins screencap with the other, slightly less overtly offensive to British citizens edition:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17hn...g/original.jpg

EDIT 3: Also I believe George Washington's notebook is official proof that Washington is being retconned in this game from a Templar to an Assassin.
Because Georgie founder of 'Muricah can't be evil!

Mayan Ruins actually makes sense, as Assassin's Creed 3 is apparently somehow using the whole, "The Mayans predicted the world would end in 2012," thing in the story.

You're complaining about the Mayans being in outlandish locations when the whole series features an ancient race of predecessors including alien ruins, two apocalypses and other supernatural shenanigans. Hell, that's probably the twist behind that story, it's actually Those Who Came Before ruins. Saved ya money on DLC.

Snake, you have to remember that this series is set in a universe where the entire human race is a genetically engineered slave species created to serve an advanced alien race that colonized the planet pre-Ice Age that was wiped out due to rebellion by said slave race and the most recent magnetic pole shift, where all of human history since then has been manipulated in the course of a shadow war between two global factions trying to control the remnants of the extinct alien race's technology for their own purposes, and that everything from major world religions to war to scientific advances has been set up or faked in the name of advancing these faction's goals with the aid of said alien tech.

At some point, history tends to go out the window. Though the advertising is still balls-stupid.

EDIT: Sniped by Ocelot.

Seems more like a Templar thing to be a slave owner, but whatevs. Maybe they'll "fix" that, too. "Oh he owned slaves but he didn't want to, and he would've freed them if only he could have!"

Why does everyone of any cultural significance have to be either a Templar or an Assassin?

EDIT: I'm probably in the minority here when I say I'm not all that keen on these "Mayan/alien/apocalypse" shenanigans and was just happy with it being Assassins vs. Templar.

Because people of cultural significance are approached by one or the other to aid their cause.

Okay so maybe the Mayan mission is a modern mission or something
It still doesn't change the fact that this has to be the most hysterical way imaginable to market this game to the British
Man I'm sure English citizens are just like desperate to get their paws on that delicious looking stars-and-stripes cover

EDIT: Like how hard would it be to just have a Special Edition in Europe that like had the British flag and was like "Fight for the King" or "William Howe" edition or some shit
EDIT 2: I don't know which General or character in the Revolutionary War do the British love or admire?
EDIT 3: They don't even call it the Revolutionary War there do they? Is it like "The War of Colonial Insolence?" "The War of Greedy Slaveowners?"

It also contains a picture of King George being shit on by Larry the Cable Guy.

King George will totally be in a CGI sequence walking around London or something
And out of nowhere a bald eagle will descend from the heavens
And proceed to take a crap on him
No actually King George will be the final Templar Boss
His plans of raising taxes on tea was just the first step to global domination
And America actually saved the ENTIRE WORLD by declaring independence because they fostered an order of Assassins who sent bald eagles to England to crap on King George

Maybe Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton can be like a team of heroic Assassins in a spinoff television show for kids
And there'd be all this unresolved sexual tension between Hamilton and Jefferson and oh crap I'm back to the Jefferson/Hamilton yaoi
Damn you Jefferson/Hamilton YAOI!!!!!!

It's... not really like that at all? The British don't view the American Revolution as a particular dark spot in our history which we must always be vigilant to prevent from happening again. Might just be my perspective, but I don't see it as any worse than the hundred years war. It was pretty shitty from the general viewpoint that war itself is shitty. But arguably more justified than a lot of shit that we did during the Imperial days.

If you really wanted to make a Brit apologize, or feel like shit playing for our own side in a situation you'd set the game up in China and have the players getting people addicted to opium so that you could exploit them for resources.

Nah you missed the comparison I was trying to make. It's not about how apologetic the English (or Germans) should be, because I'm comparing England in that example to America, (in a WW2 context), not to Nazi Germany.

It's more like the idea of being sold on killing your countrymen and that your countrymen are the enemy

See, here I could bring up something that happened in my comic but I won't because this thread ain't about me.

It's about Snake's hopes and dreams never coming to fruition.

Oh, I kinda went off in the wrong direction th-
....Ha-...
Have we had this thread before? I swear to god I remember this exact freaking conversation somewhere.

I don't even want to know what that comic is supposed to be an allegory of, but man, that imagery, Speroni. That imagery.
The KKK didn't like hire you to draw propaganda for them, did they?

About Snake's hopes and dreams never being fulfilled? That's like every thread.

Uhhh..Not sure what you mean here...though if you're interpreting as something racist you're reading WAAAAAAAAAYYYY too much into it.

You know how much I love ya, Speroni. I'm joshin'.

Still to be completely honest if I saw that image completely out of context and didn't know the artist yeah, I'd be a tad worried

Man even I don't know this.
I think the American War of Revolution was just a small part of a larger, worldwide conflict against France and Spain at the time. A theater of the larger picture, where you were a pawn to be pushed against us by the French.
There's basically nobody to point to and say "HE WAS OUR HERO" because at the time and up to the modern era there's little fucks to give.

American War of Independence, or American War of Revolution. Here it's just "The Revolutionary War" because you've got such a short history there's nothing else to confuse it for. Just like you can say "The civil war" and everybody knows what you mean.
In Europe you say "The Civil War" we go "Which one?"

I don't even know. I just got massive deja vu reading Snakes post and then yours.

Snake, it's just you Americans who find it so difficult to kill your virtual country men. The rest of us are fine with it, you know because of the evils of socialism and all.

Aww c'mon man there's gotta be fans of Victorian England history out there
Also what decent British citizen wouldn't have a hard-on for the British General who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo
...You know, whoever he was

LOL Americans don't know non-American history
Like seriously I think I had a grand total of one mandatory semester of World History in high school and it was ancient Greco-Roman stuff for the most part
And I took a couple European history electives but I'll be damned if I remember any of that shit now
I think the extent of American studies of colonial era European history is like, "Look at those jerks with all their colonies! WE didn't have any colonies because we were awesome and we loved freedom! Now please forget all about the Philippines, slavery, the extermination of the Native Americans..."

Oh no! Not like, in general. Just for this one thing.

I mean if you wanted Napoleonic wars I'll give you mine right now: Admiral Motherfucking Nelson.

As far as I know, Britain really doesn't really care all that much about the American side of the Revolutionary War. They were far more concerned about the French, Spanish, and Dutch, who took the opportunity of the revolution to kick the King in the balls while he was distracted. They also had iron-tipped boots/clogs, unlike the relatively legless Americans.

It's like
imagine if Neo is fighting three Agents and one is France and one is Spain and the other is the Dutch.
And then a random civilian, seeing what he perceives to be law enforcement officers fighting a terrorist decides he's going to kick Neo in the balls, and after he's done that he brags about it for 200+ years.

That's the American Revolution for the British.

...Actually, it was Arthur Wellesley!
Though Admiral Nelson's more famous, he didn't defeat Napoleon at Waterloo.

EDIT: Just remember Brits, that random civilian who kicked you in the balls and bragged about it totally buffed up 150 years later and bailed you out when your uncle Adolf was about to beat you into submission
...Okay that Joseph guy did most the work but we participated!!!!
And in exchange for Joseph's sacrifice we both teamed up and decided to make him miserable for fifty years until he collapsed

No but he did participate and demonstrate exemplary service in the Napoleonic wars.


During the Third Coalition war (Which was one of the Napoleonic wars) a combined Spanish and French fleet of 30+ ships of the Line encountered a slightly smaller British fleet of 25 or so Ships of the line. British ships were better, so the Spanish and French fleets numerical superiority wasn't as powerful as you might think. But after losing twenty-some ships, Nelson didn't allow them to sink any of his.

He beat the shit out of them, basically.


Also I didn't mean that Nelson beat Napoleon, just that we have iconic figures in other places. It's just that none of them were in the scrap we had with a few rebellious colonials who had a fetish for dumping tea.

Ubisoft is clearly the practical joker of the video gaming market.

Clearly Speroni is racist against...the Apes from Planet of the Apes, who sell beer that is their piss, from what I can tell is going on here? (I've only read the first ten pages of The Dreadful so far)

Anyway, why do you guys think this will be the final game? Just because it has a 3 in the title? There will probably be like, 4 more of these with subtitles instead of numbers. I can't see them not having one set in modern day. When the "trilogy" is already at 5 games I'd say we have quite a bit more to look forward to.

I can explain everything about the whole British hating thing.

Ubisoft is FRENCH ya know?

So it's like when Creative Assembly made the AI never use naval invasions or navies effectively in general, which made England invincible and France hilariously easy to conquer?

That is fair play, we know by now Ubisoft does not believe in such things.

That is a good point. France bankrolled the colonies essentially to create an additional front against Britain. Ubisoft just hasn't forgotten their roots.

Yeah, fuck Dr. Zaius!

You should read more than the first 10 pages! There are over 100 more and it gets sooooo much better as it goes. :D (at least I think it does, and if I'm wrong there is a thread for people to tell me why)


I think the final game will have Desmond as the main character. So...I don't think AC3 is the final. I'm thinking they'll get to AC4 and that'll be it. It will be strange having it set in present day, considering modern-tech would make it hard for assassins to do what assassins did in the past, but I'm sure they'll contrive something so the gameplay will work.

This is not the final Assassin's Creed game, but it is the last part of this overarching story I guess is what they're going for?

I hope not, I want to be Desmond's Great Grandfather as I stab Hitler during WWII.

You can always petition Ubisoft.

I wouldn't be surprised if it went AC3 (2012), AC3 direct sequel (akin to Brotherhood / Revelations) with Connor in the French Revolution (2013 -- last PS3 / X360 title), and then we jumped straight to the PS4 / X720 era with a title starring Desmond.

So I do anticipate that Connor is most likely the last of ancestors we'll be playing in Desmond's arc. Then I think the AC creators, upon tying things up with Desmond in his own game(s), would just have a new lead character with new ancestors and a completely different storyline, if they wanted to continue things post-Desmond.

/theory

Man, not only this is not the last Assassin's creed game, it's not even the third one that is canon. C'mon... "number after title" means little if nothing at all in gaming nowadays. It's not a trilogy, AC2 alone is a trilogy!

Personally, i'm not sure how this one will play out. I enjoyed Broterhood a bit more than i did revelations... and to be honest, i expected Ubisoft to ramp up the game story instead of dragging it out like this...

My bet is that Desmond is going to interact with Connor in a "Altair/Ezio" style which will then branch out into the "future AC game" everybody is waiting.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5...n-s-creed-iii/

They considered having a female lead in Assassin's Creed 3 but decided it wouldn't be believable.

They can't let go of that facial hair. You gotta have the facial hair (also Assassins need testosterone to resist the Pieces of Eden, trufax).

i always get "Jedi Feelings" when i hear about that

"Sure there are female jedis... they are out there... somewhere..... doing.. important jedi stuff"

We saw plenty of female Jedi in revenge of the sith.
It just so happened they were all getting shot by clones at the time, but still!

Aren't there statues of a few female assassins in that little... secret underground room in Assassin's Creed 2?

Also isn't Lucy an assassin?

So how is it "Unbelievable" when they've established that it has actually happened?

As it always is with series like these, it's rare (and hardly well when done) when they change a male protagonist and bring a female one down center stage. When they address issues like these it's always something "to the side" like "Oh yeah, that one character is also that..." or "Oh sure,there were lots of these... back when." and stuff like that.

As for "unbelievable" in the context of changing a Desmond descendant into a female, i really see no problem. Hell... most of the Women in AC2 had more balls than almost every male in the game... the could easily write in a believable character.

My guess is that they think the fans wouldn't accept that a male character could have a direct female descendant down the genetic line...

but then again Desmond's dad said he didn't have the right genes to use The Apple in Revelations.

also Yeah Fuck you Nolan North. You're a great voice actor and all putting great personality to a lot of good characters... but GOD DAMN IT WE DON'T NEED FIFTY OF YOU EVERY GAME.

From the few short lines of that interview male over female pretty much makes sense. A female assassin would be neat, but the fact that they're putting serious thought into it means I wouldn't count the notion out. I'm not caught up on the series but there were female assassins in Brotherhood, no?

What?
I mean the idea that offends me about it is, like, couldn't a woman in that era like cut her hair short, drop her voice a few octaves, and pull a Mulan if she had to?
And if the entire idea is that she's supposed to be unseen and all stealthy, then why does gender matter anyway? She'll dress as a man or a woman to disguise herself according to the situation. And if she needs to kill a guy she can totally wing it as a prostitute / maid / nun / merchant / pose as a wife / pose as a daughter / etc. It's only a real problem when she's on a battlefield, and then she wears a uniform and pulls a Mulan.

It's not remotely impossible to write a woman as an assassin in that era if you dress her right, write her well and put a moment's worth of thought into it.
I will say this isn't overt sexism as much as it just laziness and a poor justification to stick with a male role because "most gamers are men" and some shit. It's still sexist in practice, but in a more institutional, patriarchal, subconscious the system is rigged sort of sense.

And there wouldn't be nearly as much controversy if they were just like "Yeah, we thought about writing a woman assassin and we knew we could do it well, but we ultimately decided to go in a different direction with Connor." There's no need to add the sexist "hurr durr writing a woman would be IMPOSSIBLE because womenz weren't strong then" bullshittery.

It's not even historically accurate! Some women were doing kickass stuff back then.
Like her.
Or her.
Or her.
Some of these women were like real life Assassins.
Here's your real life Revolutionary War Mulan.
Even Native American women!

God damn these women are awesome and it took me all of TWO SECONDS to look them up.

Maybe it's just because they already had the script written out and all the founding fathers were supposed to be absolutely friendly and supporting to the main character when somebody busts in and shouts "Wait! Because of a dissonance of moral values most founding fathers probably wouldn't have even taken a woman seriously as a combatant and it would probably piss our American audience off to have their folk hero founders berate and demean them!
ALSO BEN FRANKLIN WAS KIND OF A WOMANIZER SO WE'D NEED HIM TO HIT ON HER WHICH IS AWKWARD."

I mean I'd be all for it to be honest. Ever since I played Mass Effect I've tended to pick female characters anyway. But if your story involves interacting with the Founding Fathers you're in for trouble because they just had no idea about what equality and freedom actually meant.

Oh, shit. You know what would be interesting? If you played from the perspective of two characters, the assassin one female, with a partner or brother who was the "public" face of their team. You'd play missions to interact with the contacts and shit as him, and then he'd hand off all the information to his partner/sister who is actually the better assassin and fighter.

it would be a great setup for all sorts of shit where the a guard suspects you but then is smacked over the head by another guard who loudly proclaims the assassin they're looking for is a dude and they let you on your way.

...So it's somehow more believable that the Founding Fathers treat a Native American man with respect and hang out with him?
You know, those Native American guys who the Founding Fathers were totally like "Yeah they're not quite human we can totally take their land because they don't own none and lesser rules of civility apply to them or some shit."

You see, if the series is basically bending the rules of the era already by, you know, having Native Americans treated with that degree of respect, and having Assassins and Templars fight each other for world dominance, and having random artifacts bestow great power upon famous people, and having some no-name Italian single-handedly change the course of history, and having all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories be accurate, and having the world end in 2012, I don't think it's a huge stretch to say they can also write women in a slightly more progressive light than the period in question may have warranted.

I mean c'mon, do you think Ezio Auditore's Firenze sequences were actually authentic depictions of what life was like in that era? It's already utterly romanticized. Why accept some forms of romanticism and not others? Because some forms of escapist romanticism of past eras are "accepted" and others aren't?

Yeah this would be awesome.

Fuck wait I guess if they were brother and sister Desmond would only have one of their memories unless somewhere else down the line the family merges.
Or... you know, they really love each other.
I don't think America is ready for that though.



Whatever the case may be then you and your partner are wandering around the city having a day off, not even doing assassin shit and the guards show up and arrest him for being the Assassin and suddenly you realize that whats saved your life is about to doom him because no matter how the character pleads and tells them that she is the assassin and not him they just don't fucking buy it. So they kill him and let her go scott free ready to spend the latter half of the game enacting burning fucking revenge on all of them.

Which sets up a scene immediately afterward where she interacts with one of the founding fathers, who thinks that his friend and one of the best assassins he knows is dead and lashes out at the character for trying to be in a place she shouldn't and you'd get one of those quicktime prompts to slug him.

I would like to see a female Assassin, but she always uses a Bale Batman voice to help disguise her sex in public.

See the thing is after the first time they upped security so the guy who busted in to tell them why their story was dumb before didn't get the chance to do it again.

Not only that but imagine the stress and tension you can create by playing the guy in dangerous situations.

While his sister(acutally lets make that Wife so it works without the squik inducing thoughts) would be like Freerunning and fighting he would actually have to figure out ways around guards/templars other then being a monkey and staby staby time. Like manipulating the crowd, using gadgets and stuff, to get to contacts ETC.

You could generate alot of fear in those times where you're powerless and offer a nice way to both keep tension up and change up gameplay.

Fucking exactly what I was thinking.
This shit just writes itself.

Not only that but you can also cause more difficulty as the two are shoved into areas of the other's expertise! The husband is caught up in a big brawl (boston tea party? )and he is just trying to get out. while the wife has to move a crowd away from a explosive assassination before it goes bad.

My god it would be awesome!