By Jingo! AssCreed III Trailer Takes Itself Seriously

By John Walker on July 4th, 2012 at 11:00 am.

Sorry mister, you're not old enough to watch us playing this.

Live action trailers are, by default, dumb. We all know it, they all keep making them anyway. But it’s hard to imagine a dumber one that today’s jingoistic bullshitapocalypse for Assassin’s Creed III. It seems to be trying to pitch the game as a brutal look at the oppression of a people, rather than running around inside your own DNA, jumping off trees and murdering people. But to celebrate America’s overwhelming envy for our shiny red coats, surviving Brits can look at the game itself in some GAME stores today. If there are any left.

Get ready to boo at the awful British:

All very silly when the game itself is looking so great.

So redcoats themselves can head along to London Oxford St, Bristol Cribbs Causeway, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester Trafford Centre or The Fort Glasgow to a surviving GAME shop, to, er, watch someone play it. You’ll have to be over 18 to do that, which will be interesting to see them try to police. “No, you can’t come in our shop that mostly sells Imagine Babysitter XVIII, we’re watching someone else play a game.”

__________________

« | »

, , , .

300 Comments »

  1. woodsey says:

    Why is Harrison Ford beating a child at 0:54? I mean, I’m not saying he shouldn’t be beaten for a such stupid statement, but still….

  2. Orija says:

    I wonder if they’ll depict the natives who sided with the Brits as child-devouring, kitten-slaying, puppy stomping savages too.

    I think the first game was the only one to have the protagonist be part of a morally ambiguous faction. I really don’t think the AC series has anything left that made it awesome, they dumbed down the gameplay so that even a two year old could play it and they have gone for the unquestionably virtuous protagonist too.

    • Pelarys says:

      Well it’s not like it was a very morally ambiguous conflict.

      • mouton says:

        The first AC was pretty morally ambiguous. It is a pity it had such tedious and boring gameplay.

        • Orija says:

          The gameplay was loads better than the dumbed down shit in the later games, it’s just that it was too repetitive.

          • mouton says:

            Nah, AC2 gameplay was quite solid. It certainly wasn’t a “dumbed down” version of AC1 gameplay, as AC1 was pretty bad itself.

      • YoYoTheAssyrian says:

        I know what you’re thinking, but still, that statement is soooooooooooooo fail. You should look up the revolutionary war as it happened in the south for a start. And that’s just the beginning of the ambiguity.

        • Pelarys says:

          Oh come on! It’s a conflict in the real world, of course it’s not black and wight but still it does not mean that the conflict is morally ambiguous. It’s like saying that the Napoleonic wars were ambiguous, of course the coalition had its problem but it’s still better than a superpower conquering half the world. Here the American obviously didn’t have selfless intent, in a conflict pretty much everyone is here for personal gain, it doesn’t mean however that it was morally ambiguous. Even if there were slaver on the revolutionary side it was still a pretty much a nation revolting against an oppressor, as democratic as that oppressor may be.

          • Greg Wild says:

            lols, when the coalition was made up by the Russians, Spanish, British, and Prussians, I have very little time for anyone who claims they were somehow better than the French. The Napoleonic Wars are pretty much the epitome of a morally ambiguous conflict – one which the common man came off worse no matter which flag they were butchered in the name of.

            I actually have a little more time for some of the American revolutionaries. But only a little. Most of the primary statesmen on both sides were your typical chauvinist White Male Anglo-Saxon Protestant. And then they forfeited their right to moral superiority when they went on to paint native lands with the stars and stripes after the British were forced out.

            So yeah. The whole period is pretty much one of a bunch of arrogant white statesmen trying to control as much of the world as they can. The moral ambiguity only really exists if your look in terms of national identity, because the nation states of the day were fundamentally destructive to their own people’s aspirations.

      • InternetBatman says:

        It was a very morally ambiguous conflict. For one thing, support among the colonies was about even for and against the war. About a third were for, a third supported neither side, and a third were against. Also the colonists were rebelling over taxation, but they were effectively taxed at about 1/20th the rate of people on the British Isles. These taxes were being raised because the colonies had been involved in a very expensive war with the French and Indians which among other things bled the treasury dry. And while some of the acts were unpopular, some of them will still good ideas, like the one that protected trees of a certain size. It’s also worth noting that the founders lacked the political will to end slavery, where the laws started changing against in Britain as early as 1772.

        That’s not to say the colonists weren’t right about many things, but to portray one side as all right and the other as all wrong is a grave misconception. Especially when it ended with a split country (US and Canada).

        • Pelarys says:

          What I meant with “not really ambiguous” isn’t the same as all black and white, even with what you just said, it’s a country revolting against a “foreign” power for diverse reason (not only taxation). I don’t really see how it’s so ambiguous.

          • InternetBatman says:

            It’s a smaller than majority faction splitting the country in half as part of a power play by the local elite. This was not a foreign oppressor, we were united to it by ethnic, lingual, cultural, and legal roots. It was a treasonous act. It supported slavery.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m an American and I think the American Revolution was a good thing. I think the Constitution is a great thing. However, it does us no favors to ignore the negatives and set up false conceptions of the way things were.

          • Orija says:

            The ‘foreign power’ was the one that sent them in the first place! That’s like Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong declaring themselves independent of the US after reaching the moon and carrying out a Lunar Rev… okay, this analogy is a bit loony.

          • Lowbrow says:

            You seem to think America was entirely British. Don’t forget that New Amsterdam was a conquered Dutch colony.

          • Devan says:

            @Pelarys and @InternetBatman
            You seem to be forgetting that in addition to the political motivations you’ve mentioned, the actual war was an attempt by America to annex Canada. Who’s the real oppressor there? It was certainly not “splitting the country in half” (although not all the provinces had joined Canada at that point, similar to the US).

            I’d say there’s nothing wrong with seeking independence (which can actually be done without war), but there is something wrong with trying to annex a neighbour. I don’t think the war of 1812 is morally unambiguous, but if it was I would call it unambiguously wrong.

      • Orija says:

        You haven’t forgotten about this, have you?

      • Apolloin says:

        I agree with Pelarys, it was a decidedly unambiguous conflict. It was basically bankrolled and organised by a land-owning elite who wanted to open up more land for exploitation and were blisfully unconcerned about the wars this would cause against the native settlers provided that they didn’t have to pay for the troops that would be required to fight them.

        Whilst it can be argued that this WAS a case of taxation without representation (America was represented in the cabinet, but the position was not directly democratic) actions taken by the colonists prior, during and most especially AFTER the revolution are particularly illuminating as to their true priorities.

        It’s certainly extremely disingenuous to claim it was about ‘freedom’ since the US has a very long history of sacrificing freedom (preferably other peoples, but not exclusively so) for prosperity.

    • JFS says:

      I sure hope there will be Hessians as well, and I hope they kick Altair’s (or whatever his name is now) ass. And the guys from Hanover and Brunswick. And I hope they eat kittens, too, cause they’re so BadAss ™, which seems suitable in a game about BadAsses ™.

    • beetle says:

      don’t worry there were some real monster on the American side too.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iVsdRbhnc

  3. RedFaust says:

    Can’t we take side on the oppresors, the bad guys? damn.

    • Hypernetic says:

      Yeah that would make for a great game. You lose the war and then go home and drink tea.

    • Gap Gen says:

      I think there are some Vietnam games out there.

      • Pelarys says:

        This.

      • mouton says:

        Hey, Vietnam wasn’t technically lost, they just decided why bother ;)

        • Defiant Badger says:

          Could have fooled me.

          • mouton says:

            Well, the US was not defeated militarily. They simply decided the costs were too high. They lost in general, but not because NVA crushed them or anything.

          • Apolloin says:

            If by ‘costs’ you mean costs in lives, money and prestige. If by ‘didn’t lose’ you mean that General Vo Nguyen Giap never actually flew the Vietnamese flag from the roof of the White House.

            If by ‘not defeated militarily’ you don’t mean that they completely failed to secure their strategic goals.

        • Araxiel says:

          Hitler never lost the war. He was just like “meh, why bother”

      • Hypernetic says:

        None of them are good though.

        • Stellar Duck says:

          I don’t know. I enjoyed Vietcong a lot. Always messed up the coordinates and called in the arty strike on my own position.

          • maninahat says:

            Vietcong is one of my favourite games: one of the best military FPSs in terms of atmosphere and setting, it was long, had tons of guns, and I liked the characters. I’ll still admit it had some horrible levels though (those fucking tunnels), and the graphics these days look like total shit.

  4. Firkragg says:

    So some Brits did survive that awful conflict? Learning about history is fun!

  5. RedFaust says:

    Game will be censored in the UK . Period.

    • Hypernetic says:

      Are American Revolution movies censored in the UK? I don’t live there so I don’t know, but it would seem kind of dumb if they were.

    • woodsey says:

      Are you a Brit saying that or are you an American saying that? (Or, y’know, from one of those strange other places?) Because no, it won’t.

    • deejayem says:

      Don’t worry, we Brits have a long, proud history of self-loathing. This game will fit right in.

      • Temple says:

        Which is what makes us better than everybody else.
        It is very confusing sometimes.

        • Zephro says:

          Just drink some tea and don’t think about it too hard. That’s our way!

        • InternetBatman says:

          Well, that and Doctor Who.

        • noodlecake says:

          That is so true! The number of arguments I’ve had with Americans where I’ve noticed an inability to self criticize or put themselves down in any way and seen it as something that makes me (as an English person) a better human being is astounding. Maybe I should think on that.

          • Jhoosier says:

            Yeah, but that’s what happens when you’re seen as the top of the world. I’m sure the British had the same problem back when they had any relevance in the world…

          • Zephro says:

            It probably isn’t quite the same but a significant amount of inter war and late victorian literature and political discussion is riddled with doubt and angst about Britain ruling the world.

            Probably doesn’t represent popular opinion as we know how jingoistic they got on the eve of the First World War.

      • byteCrunch says:

        But we are very protective of our self-loathing.

      • DiamondDog says:

        Just wait. It won’t be long before China makes the US it’s bitch. Yeah, and then the Americans will descend into the bitter, cynical, self-loathing that comes from being an ex-superpower. Grumbling to yourself about how we used to do this and we used to do that. No more can-do attitude, just cold resentment.

        I say embrace it. It’s fun! Ask the French. They’re almost as good at it as the British.

        • enobayram says:

          Aren’t Americans self-loathing yet? God… They are dumb…

        • Stellar Duck says:

          Here in Denmark we really could do with some self loathing. We seem to think we’re great. We really are not.

        • InternetBatman says:

          I think the US will stay a relevant power for far longer, just because it’s physically huge and has a ton of people.

          Also, the leverage China has on the US is vastly overstated. All the debt owed by our government is owed in dollars. The government can print money than put huge tariffs on foreign transactions. No one wants to do this because of the effect on the housing/international markets, but the debt really only has as much value as we give it.

          And as for a large-scale military conflict (shame on you if you’re suggesting it should happen), it’s telling that the Chinese spend a greater portion of their GDP on secret police than on the army.

          • DiamondDog says:

            Of course I wasn’t suggesting a conflict, I said nothing of the sort.

            I’m only mostly kidding. The US will be the best forever and ever.

          • Hypernetic says:

            Will the Brits and French land on the beaches of New Jersey and repel the Chinese invaders? Afterwards Barack Obama can take all of the credit during a speech in Washington.

        • Apolloin says:

          I tend to think that the Americans lack the introspection needed to become a faded superpower, if anything I see them going the same way as the Spartans, propped up by whichever nouveaux power takes their place and encouraged to become a rather sad themepark version of their previously vital self.

    • syndrome says:

      No need for censorship when the mistake is already part of the history. It was dumb to found America in the first place — and the greed striked back.

    • Apolloin says:

      No, it won’t be censored. It will, however, cause raised eyebrows and eye rolling.

  6. Hypernetic says:

    We could have had red coats if we wanted to!

  7. Iskariot says:

    It is not that bad a trailer, albeit a bit vague.
    I do not understand the investment in life action.
    Personally I think life action in a game trailer is always misplaced and inappropriate, because it does not show you the game as you will actually perceive it.
    Trailers like this always feel to me like they have little to nothing to do with the game. They could have shown me a Donal Duck cartoon in the same setting and I would have felt the same detachment.

    • laijka says:

      I’d rather see that Donald Duck cartoon mentioned.

      And I’m getting less interested in this game the more I see. If I wanted to play a ” ‘merica, fuck yeah!” game I’d play CoD.

      • Iskariot says:

        I don’t like nationalism/patriotism at all. I consider it the source of great evil. So I hope the go easy on that nonsense. We will see. But I do enjoy AC games in general and only excessive DRM will prevent me from buying this.

  8. knofc says:

    If that still at the beginning of the article is anything to go by, it’s my reconning that the Americans only won thier indedpendace via the use of gigantic smoke turkeys.

  9. Gap Gen says:

    Yeah! Fuck those evil anglophones, controlling the world’s oceans and forcing the world to adopt their economic model for their own commercial gain, manipulating the balance of world power to their advantage.

    (I realise this is getting old now, but eh).

    • Hypernetic says:

      It’s ok we are friends now.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Sure, you can come over and borrow our sitcom concepts any time.

    • Ultra Superior says:

      It’s amazing that “imported democracy” thrives only countries that used to be governed by British empire and it fails everywhere else.

      To enjoy democracy, you first need a basis of solid institutions left there for you by the red coats. Well done you British devils!

      • Surlywombat says:

        Yeah! Like Iraq!

        • Ultra Superior says:

          Yeah I know…. Unfortunately you need the colonial redcoats to enfor… to help the institutions…. er… plant roots. ^_^

      • ChargerCarl says:

        heres why this is true:

        Britain’s most successful colonies (North America, Australia, Hong Kong) all lacked a substantial native population to exploit. So in order to make their colonies profitable they had to get actual British people to move there, and in order to achieve that they had to establish British institutions and rule of law.

        In places with a large population to exploit they established extractive institutions. After the colonizers pulled out the population would fight to control these institutions which only benefited those at the top.

  10. lorddon says:

    I blame the French, the Canadians, and the French-Canadians.

  11. Marijn says:

    It’s a bit puzzling that otherwise intelligent British men can get so riled up when the American revolution is depicted as a fight for independence from an imperialistic oppressor. Newsflash: it’s not just Americans who see it that way, it’s the rest of the world too. So either American propaganda has left only the British mind uncorrupted, or you guys are just being chauvinists.

    • lorddon says:

      Anger about the revolution is so 200 years ago.

    • Gap Gen says:

      History is written by the winners, and all that.

      (I mean, sure, we’re being bitter, but it’s not like American history has been a whole pile of liberty and apple pie from that point. Geopolitics is nasty shit, and you cannot refine it.)

      • Marijn says:

        True. Still, everything that happened after doesn’t really diminish the ideals of the revolution itself.

      • Gap Gen says:

        Sure, the enlightenment ideals of the US founding fathers are pretty neat.

      • Ultra Superior says:

        US constitution is the best piece of writing mankind has ever produced. It’s the best set of political rules devised.

        Too bad its nothing but a relic now, being shat upon by warmongering republimocrats for decades.

        • Zephro says:

          Really? The best ever?

          Cos yknow Jeeves and Wooster is pretty damn good.

        • woodsey says:

          I see your constitution, and I raise you Christoper Nolan’s The Dark Knight. Because Batman. And Christopher Nolan.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            Challenge accepted. Since we’re talking drama:

            Breaking Bad

            There you go, nothing can beat it. BTW 15th they both premiere. What a day!

          • Chris D says:

            Ok, I just did a little research and the Andorran constitution is better.

            http://www.andorramania.com/constit_gb.htm

            Admittedly I only looked at this and Afghanistan but this is definitely better. (Prohibits death penalty, no right to bear arms, probably other stuff)

            Edit: Ok, not actually where I was aiming to put this reply but probably close enough.

        • beekay says:

          The American Constitution doesn’t mean anything. It’s a set of guidelines, nothing more specific than that. That’s why there’s an industry built around interpreting it, and that’s why it’s survived so long.

          It’s no more amazing than if I were to write “death is bad.”

          • Ultra Superior says:

            You’re so wrong. You don’t even know how much.

          • beekay says:

            Is that so.

            8th Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

            That sentence means nothing in particular unless you take it upon yourself to define what, exactly, is meant by “excessive” fines and bail, or what precisely constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment. It’s nothing more than a guideline.

          • Zephro says:

            Yeah an obviously those words only actually make sense within the context of British common law traditions in the first place. Not that I’m saying it was plagiarism or anything.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            “It’s nothing more than a guideline.”

            Nothing more, exactly. Separation of power, individual rights, so obsolete. Who needs that now, when governments are generally friendly, well meaning and well educated bright men and women with our best interests at hearts.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @beekay – Congratulations! You’ve got your head around the process our brains need to go through to read! Well done.

            What was amazing, by the way is not only what was written but how and why it was written.

          • beekay says:

            “You say you don’t think the Constitution is a divinely-inspired document? You FILTHY MURDEROUS FASCIST. Why don’t you go steal a puppy from a starving orphan, you MONSTER.”

            @ Sheng-ji: are you going to tell me it was written for freedom? Because that might be broadly correct, but I don’t consider that amazing. I like freedom. Most people do. Writing a document which says freedom is a good thing is not in any way exceptional in a modern context.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            Beekay, maybe you’ll change your perspective some day. Unfortunately you’re dead wrong now.

          • beekay says:

            Feel free to explain how, but since the sum total of your contribution has been “gosh isn’t this thing GREAT, yeah I know it totally is right guys,” I’m not expecting much.

            The key point is that I’m only going to change my mind if someone gives me a half-decent reason to.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @beekay – It wasn’t written in a modern context was it? It was written in a time when a lot of people, rich and powerful people believed that they were entitled to own a person.

          • beekay says:

            @Sheng-ji: well I’m not going to deny that it was an unusually libertarian document in an age which was still dominated by state controls, so if that’s all you want to say about it, go ahead. I only object to the characterisation of the Constitution as either “best piece of writing mankind has ever produced” or “the best set of political rules devised.” Because neither of those are True Facts.

            (Although it is a bit curious that you allude to some sort of anti-slavery character in the Constitution, considering how long it took for the Americans to ban it as refs Britain and so on).

          • Ultra Superior says:

            @beekay Omg, man, use google. I really don’t want to explain the importance of constitution on RPS.

            To put it simply: you need constitution to protect individuals from their own government.
            Weak constitution = too much government. Too much government = bad for individuals.
            Why?
            Because: taxes on everything, wars you don’t want, devaluing of your currency, bail outs for the bad guys instead of useful stuff, redundant bureaucracy limiting every aspect of your life. Now if you don’t agree, please don’t discuss it here.

            “Because neither of those are True Facts.” well, could you please point me to a better constitution than the US ? Because there isn’t, thank you.

          • beekay says:

            I’m well aware of what a constitution is, thanks. If that’s what you think the hold-up was, you probably haven’t got much to teach me.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            That is “all” I want to say about it and honestly I believe that is quite special. Clearly you don’t, so I guess theres nothing more to say.

            I certainly agree with you that it is neither the best piece of writing ever nor the best political system ever devised.

            And while I know there is nothing explicitly written about slavery in the document, the fact is that the political system in America was created for all men, a step up from the previous attempts in other countries which created favourable conditions for some men based on class.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            Why the fear of dealing in absolutes?

            It’s the constitution that inspired all other constitutions, granted individuals the freedom to pursue happiness and made #1 superpower in the world. If that doesn’t make it the best political guidelines ever devised then you’re not honest with yourself.

          • Unaco says:

            @Ultra Superior…

            You mean the Magna Carta, right… the Constitution that inspired all others. That created a foundation of the freedom of the individual against arbitrary authority. The one that the settlers of New England were quite fond of and that directly inspired the US Constitution.

            Also, written about 600 years before the US one.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            EDIT: Ninja’d by Unaco

          • Zephro says:

            Yeah the Magna Carter and the other 800 years odd of British common law that inspired it. There wasn’t much new in it at all except that it’s a written constitution. Which of course if of historical interest itself, but best ever? pfffft.

            Which despite contrary belief in this thread isn’t the only way to protect people from arbitrary rule. Britain still doesn’t have a written constitution and we get along fine with our freedom and liberty cheers.

          • Chris D says:

            @Unaco, Sheng-Ji, Zephro

            Hey! Stop oppressing him by making him learn the history of a country he’ll never see!

          • Ultra Superior says:

            Magna Carta is not a constitution. It’s a great and important set of rules, just like ten commandments – but it’s not a document setting boundaries for any particular government and overriding government’s decisions.

            And yes, US const. is inspired by Magna Carta. That’s why it’s the best constitution ever devised.

            @Zephro I’m not from UK but I believe you’re constitutional monarchy, which means there is some supreme law limiting Her Majesty power….

          • Unaco says:

            In other words… an ‘Uncodified Constitution’ (or part thereof).

          • noodlecake says:

            So the constitution prevents “too much government”? That would be terrible wouldn’t it? Taxing people who can afford to be taxed to put services in place to protect weaker, more vulnerable people? What a terrible thing the state is.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Actually noodlecake, it’s more to stop governments taxing people who can’t afford it, imprisoning or killing people who threaten their power base, changing the rules arbitrarily to suit themselves, not giving aid to the vulnerable in society… You know, those things that unconstitutional governments tend to do.

          • noodlecake says:

            And also 6 of the 10 commandments are common sense and followed by people of non-Judeo-Christian religions and the first 4 are only important if you’re a superstitious dick.

          • Zephro says:

            *facepalm*

            Did you get the whole part where Britain has never had a single written constitution but gets on fine with its freedoms and liberties?

            Taking what you already essentially have as part of an unwritten constitution and writing it down isn’t that great. French Revolutionary constitutions are far more interesting if not successful.

            EDIT: The system of laws regarding the Queen. She can’t raise taxes without the assent of Parliament, has been true since 1660. Hasn’t been allowed to raise armies etc. Suspend laws like Habeus Corups which was established in the Magna Carta.

            But no there’s no universal constitutional law that defines what she can and can’t do. We mostly make do with the fact that the last king to over reach got his head chopped off, so they do what they’re told. But it’s not written down and has worked stably for quite a long time.

            Far more stable than the French and German written constitutions of the 19th-20th century.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @Zephro – Yes, that’s why I used the phase “tend to” – Britain is something of an outlier data point, if you took the list of countries without a written and enforced constitution and the list of dictatorships who have committed crimes against humanity, there would be a marked similarity.

            @noodlecake – Aren’t there well over 100 commandments anyway and most of them are completely ridiculous.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            @Unaco

            – we could stray off to many inspirational philosophical works etc. The difference with US constitution is that it was put above the governmental authority – the rule of law, not a king or queen… and it defines the best political system ever: separation of power, checks and balances.

            If it was truly heeded, US would be much better off (undeclared wars, debts that can’t be paid)

            @ noodlecake Constitution protects minorities. Like your right to due process when someone accuses you of being a criminal. Ten Commandments is old testament. Of course you can enjoy common sense religion-free but in Moses times, your common sense wasn’t apparently that common.

          • Zephro says:

            Not really as there are more states with a written formalised constitution which have abused their citizens or been unstable than those that haven’t.

            Nazi Germany was built on the written constitution of Weimar Germany for heaven’s sake.

            The thing that has made Britain and the US so stable and generally respectful isn’t the written form of their constitution it’s the almost 1000 year tradition of respecting every man’s common rights. It’s a social thing that everyone is brought up to understand that.

            You can’t just impose a constitution on a society without those values. The US already had those values as they were basically British.

            Note: There’s lots of good stuff in the US constitution but I already have most of those rights in Britain and some of those rights I don’t even think I should have. ie the right to bear arms.

          • Schaap says:

            It might have been “the best” at the time of creation, but it is far from the best now. You should just see it as a product of it’s time: a 220 year old text made by Bourgeoisie usurping power from the other players (church and aristocracy) who then made their values the new ruling ones. They didn’t care about poor people or slaves, they cared about power, religious liberty and wealth., just like in other revolutions of the time.

            There are many constitutions at the moment that are better than the american one. A list would be impossible to make, but how about we start at all the constitutions that guarantee no discrimination because of sexual discrimination? Or even the one of the french revolution, that at least made people de jure equal.

            Then, your last point, America is not the biggest superpower ever and it didn’t need a good constitution to become big. The British Empire, abbasid caliphate, mongol empire, russian empire, french and spanish empire all have been a lot more powerful than the US and a lot less constitutional. :)

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @Zephro – Hence why I also used the phase “and enforced” Of course it is useless to write a list of aspirations and not bother to make sure your governments actually follow them! But those countries who do tend not to have so many secret mass graves or political prisoners.

            I’m not saying that a constitution guarantees human rights, nor am I saying that a lack of one means the opposite, I’m just saying that it helps, and quite a lot. I refuse to accept that governments who follow a written constitution have on average worse human rights record than governments who do not follow one.

          • Chris D says:

            Actually you could make a pretty good case that the book of Deuteronomy is a written constitution, agree with it or not. While there are certainly parts you will disagree with you might be surprised by how much there is that you do. They’re not big on freedom of religion, or gay rights but there is a lot about social justice that holds up pretty well today, unless you’re an American Bible-believing evangelical ironically enough. (That’s not a dig at Americans by the way, it’s just that the word evangelicalism has different conotations on both sides of the atlantic.)

          • Ultra Superior says:

            @Zephro UK is unique. As I had written in other post above, “imported democracy” worked almost exclusively in late British colonies that had the institutional and legislative foundations laid out by the British.

            Maybe if you had written down “British way of doing politics and maintaining world spanning prosperous empire” into a constitution I would argue that yours is the best ever written :D

            But then you’d had to politely get rid of the Queen, because chopping heads off when monarchs overreach is messy.

            EDIT: Thank you for your last post. I couldn’t agree more. Majority of political wrongdoings come from not obeying the constitution. Which is why I think that dismissing the constitution as a piece of obsolete guidelines is wrong, because to maintain your freedoms, you need to actually realize that you have them and see when your goverment overreaches its constitutional boundaries.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            I think, Deuteronomy literally translated from Hebrew into “Second Law” or somesuch, I would say that it was origionally intended as a constitution is bang on the money before it was selected as a book of the bible. Hell, if Christians were to get together now to write a manual for how Christians should behave, they would probably select the American Constitution as a book to show how governments should be set up!

          • Zephro says:

            I just had beefs with “best” or “guarantees” or other absolute language. This is probably quite an English view from Locke or Hobbes, but I think most of this stems from social custom rather than the written document. Hence I’d lump most commonwealth countries, the US and Britain all together as following one set of social customs.

            I’d never say it was better than the French way of doing things though as it’s just rude and open to interpretation.

            Also from a purely practical point of view I think the US constitution has issues nowadays. As it’s socially ingrained it’s never subject to change, where as British rights have evolved with time. So the laws and rights tend to reflect what society wishes rather than societies wishes being shaped by the constitution.

            i.e. we’re happy with having no right to bear arms. But maybe if someone had written down that we did have the right we’d get shirty about having it removed, even if we mostly didn’t own arms. Or the document would change our perspective to consider it more socially acceptable than we see it. I’m not sure I’ve phrased that clearly.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            @ Shaap there were bigger empires you mean. But there wasn’t US to compete with them. Don’t mean to offend the Great Brits around here, but US skyrocketed during its short history, whilst British Empire nicely and tidily stepped back.

            Just to be clear I think US is now on the path to hell thanks to last dozens of years of unconstitutional wars and unconstitutional debts.

          • nil says:

            I’d say the self-perpetuating social construct that’s buried itself deep enough in the identities of its carriers to give rise to such blind, unreasoning defensive reactions is probably more so. Truly a meme for the ages.

            This is strictly orthogonal to whether it’s a good thing for contemporary governance – a point on which reasonable men can differ.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            Ad Deuteronomy – you couldn’t separate religion and law at that time. You can’t separate it in Saudi Arabia nowadays either.

            Which means US constitution is… yup, still the best. ;-)

          • Schaap says:

            Ultra, you’re just wrong man. Obviously power is relative, one country now with nukes and guns could easily take on any empire from our history, but compared to the rest of the world, the US is not the most powerful empire in the history of the world. It’s just not true.
            The US skyrocketed because the great powers of the time just completely destroyed eachother and themselves between 1800 and 1945 creating room for the US to swoop in. This is not some manifest destiny of the US, it’s just history as always. When the top dogs fall, there’s always someone ready to become the new alpha.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            @ Shaap…… I never said none of that. I said that US has become #1 superpower. Which it undeniably did: for many years it was(and still barely is) #1 in Military and Economy, with majority of world’s wealth stored in US currency. Soviet Union crumbled and EU is a trainwreck. China is huge but so is the misery of many of its citizens.

            Ok?

            Now US constitution helped them reach that. The technological advancement of 20th century happened mostly in the US.

          • Zephro says:

            There’s also size and neighbours. The US was free to expand west (though that was terribly naughty) and the Canadians and Mexicans weren’t really going to stop them.

            The various other world powers that have existed have had all sorts of limitations imposed upon them by geography. Also it has such a large internal market that the US economy is less dependant upon outside trade, you can chart that during the 19th century. British power was always reliant upon a minority exporting goods from the UK to it’s various markets around the world, it suffered when global trade decreased etc. Whereas the US could rely on a strong internal market even during global depressions.

            I don’t think it’s down to the constitution that the US succeeded, but i also made it clear I consider it part of the Anglo tradition anyway.

            also this deserves a snort of derision:
            “Now US constitution helped them reach that. The technological advancement of 20th century happened mostly in the US.”

            Maybe the late 20th century.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            @Zephro Why the derision ?

            Ford? NASA? Manhattan project? Lasers and automatic washing machines? That’s nothing to sneer upon.

            Big domestic market, largest middle class with substantial purchasing power : Yeah, again that all leads back to the US constitution, small government and free trade.

            (US govt. got big and seriously indebted mostly in 21th century when it strayed the most from the principles of constitution during the Bush jr. and Obama administrations.)

          • Zephro says:

            Derision at the word mostly.

            Computers, splitting of the atom, television, cars (german invention), jet engines, lots of the aeronautics research, discovery of DNA, lots of pharmaceuticals like penicillin, vast swathes of the chemical industries.

            All happened in Europe. The late 20th century from the 60s forward the US has been more dominant but early 20th century was far from a dominant position.

            “Big domestic market, largest middle class with substantial purchasing power : Yeah, again that all leads back to the US constitution, small government and free trade.”

            No it doesn’t. Especially as the US in the 19th century was highly protectionist and not at all free trade which has sod all to do with the constitution. 100 years with peaceful borders and vast amounts of space to support a middle class are more of a factor than a document. Europe during the same period had less space and far more people and more spending went on the military rather than low taxes because of the hostile borders.

            Hypothetically if the US had divided into several or even 2 hostile states competing over their borders it would have ended up much like Europe.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            @Zephro Well… that seems like pointless and moot pissing contest between EU and US. I could say that the people, the individual brains behind what you listed came from Europe, but ended up in US where they had the freedom and the industry to successfully finish and realize their discoveries… I don’t have the sufficient data, but in my view, US contribution to nowadays comfort of living by far outnumbers any other, especially given the very short timeframe for all that advancement to happen.

            But i don’t accept the “size” argument and the state of danger. US was in Korea and Vietnam wars… the cold war…. There’s lot of space in Spain, no big military threats either and it’s not a booming economy.

            The strong middle class (now in steep decline) was the result of constitutional system, property rights, free trade etc.

          • Zephro says:

            It’s not a moot pissing contest as German, British and French industry were more distinguished in the early 20th century. As for growth we’re talking about the 19th Century for US growth, way before Vietnam, Korea or the establishment of the military industrial complex.

            The whole stance is fundamentally flawed factually.

            Britain also had a large (probably larger at the time) middle class compared to the US during it’s big growth periods and was genuinely a free trade country, however the US clearly out paced it due to size, resources and population.

            Also with Spain, there are no useful resources in spain so industry never stood a change. Germany was a massive industrial power, relative to her size probably more so than the US. Bugger all middle classes there but oddly lots of iron and coal.

            Also the middle class in the US are not a result of the constitution. They existed before the constitution and it was they who wrote the damn thing to protect their own particular interests.

        • InternetBatman says:

          Well, except for the three-fifths compromise.

        • Ultra Superior says:

          //

        • Vinraith says:

          This deification of the constitution by some of my fellow countrymen is starting to get very uncomfortable. The preamble is a lovely piece of writing, sure, but most of the document is dry, straightforward procedural stuff. That’s to say nothing of that little “3/5ths” clause, or anything similar. There’s a reason it’s been amended so many times, despite the difficulty of that procedure.

          Honestly, if you must deify something, the Bill of Rights would be a better choice. As revolutionary documents go, it had the market cornered at the time.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            You chauvinistic Mormon hating pig! Anyone can deify anything, it’s called the freedom of religion and it’s granted to you in the constitution!

            Erm. It would suffice if govt. obeyed it.

      • Shooop says:

        No one here has ever suggested that.

    • Zephro says:

      Because even American historians don’t think that’s what happened?

      Popular myth != history.

      • Marijn says:

        Maybe some proof please. What American historians?

        • lorddon says:

          Quit acting like a knob and making the rest of us look bad.

        • Zephro says:

          All of them? You’re not a historian if you write one sided propaganda…

        • DAdvocate says:

          Might I suggest “Lies my teacher told me” by J Loewen. It goes a little overboard with some of the alternative theories but the overall point is sound.

          • Marijn says:

            Will look that up, thanks.

          • InternetBatman says:

            Also there’s a great book called Changes in the Land by William Cronen (I think that’s his name), that examines the economic and ecological nature of colonization in a fairly even-handed way. I think he’s one of the ones who mentions the split public opinion and low effective tax rates of the colonies.

            Lord knows old Howard Zinn probably has something to say about it too.

    • woodsey says:

      The issue is less killing Brits and more the pandering to Americans. The way the developers tell it, the marketing department won’t let them show any Americans being killed.

    • ThTa says:

      I’m Dutch, and not really. No conflict is that black and white. Going about and portraying the British as evil opressors when they were generally unaware how unhappy the colonists were and only saw them evading taxes, breaking rules, refusing to pay their dues for dragging Great Britain into the French and Indian War and generally smuggling just about everything (forcing GB to come up with the Tea Act of 1773) seems a bit unfair, no?
      I’m not saying the colonists didn’t do the right thing by seperating themselves from the empire, but claiming they were the purely righteous side of the conflict is simply intellectually dishonest.

      • TNG says:

        Hi there, I’m also a citizen of the Monarchic Comunist Republic of the Rest of the World and since we are all taught the same things and speak the same language (restoftheworldulu – think japanese meets spanish with a russian accent), I can safely speak for everyone else when I say that that is not how we see the American Revolution (an oversimplified “fight for independence from an imperialistic oppressor” I mean). It would be a shame if that is how it is taught in the USA or if even an hint of this hilarious trailer is what you can find in school books or anywhere outside your local friendly extreme-right party headquarters. The same way that I sincerely hope that no one in GB is being offended by this… I mean this is the good stuff; not even Mel Gibson could have concocted such an over the top nationalist propaganda for entertainment purposes.

        • Marijn says:

          Fair enough. I went a bit overboard with the rhetorics, sorry. More nuanced: the trailer is terribly jingoistic, just not more so than all the British apologists that I’m reading comments of here, on Vg247 and on Eurogamer.

          • Zephro says:

            I didn’t really spot apologists here. Just people upset that they’re making it black and white rather than shades of grey.

            But not looked at the other forums so their may be British people being asshats there.

            EDIT:
            upset isn’t the right word. The general trend looks like groaning, amused, eye rolling rather than actually being that bothered.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            It’s funny – I’m British, though not English and we didn’t actually get taught anything about the American independence in primary or secondary education. We got taught mostly Roman era and dark age/medieval politics in primary and 1st and 2nd world war in secondary. I know we have had far more wars than could possibly be taught about but we certainly are not taught a whole lot about the various wars of independence that have been waged against us – unless of course we gave them a good kicking (Zulu’s for example). I think it’s a travesty that our school children don’t learn about how we exploited India and how they won their independence, even more than the American war, there are lessons to be learned there!

            But then Spanish children never get taught about the Armada and English children get taught that we smashed them with a tiny navy. The truth is that the invasion was so close to succeeding that we were saved by an unusual wind which stopped the Armada invading the Isle of Wight. Historians mostly agree that if they had landed, the mainland would have been conquered in a year.

            Funny really, just how manipulated we are and how ingrained nationalistic propaganda is.

        • InternetBatman says:

          Of course some people teach it with such jingoism. Look at almost any British film or TV program about World War II, and it won’t be any better. It’s just part of nationalism. Eventually when you start tracking down your sources and reading real history you hear the rational adults talking.

      • Marijn says:

        Ah, a countryman! Just to be clear: I didn’t mean to say that Americans were the “purely righteous side” of the conflict, but come on, “we didn’t know the colonists were unhappy” really doesn’t sound like a convincing argument. The simple fact remains that the colonists were fighting for their independence, which they had a moral right to. It’s not like many Dutchmen will still argue that our own tyranny in Indonesia was “not that bad”, right?

        • Zephro says:

          You are aware that the US home rule movement actually had a lot of support in the British Parliament and was only narrowly defeated by the Lords. In yknow democratic(ish) votes. Hardly a tyranny.

          But yeah the British were very aware the colonists were unhappy. We were also aware that slaves were unhappy. The poor in towns were unhappy. Women were unhappy etc.

          • ThTa says:

            Perhaps “unhappy” was too soft a word, moreso, they were unaware that people were just about to bloody riot because the colonial legislature (including the likes of Ben Franklin) didn’t bother to tell them, actually suggesting the crown take more control.

          • Marijn says:

            Are you really going to tell me that the British waged war on the colonists because they were trying to free the slaves and improve the lives of poor people and women? That’s amazing. As to your first point, a narrowly upheld tyranny is still a tyranny.

          • Zephro says:

            My point was more that we were aware of slaves being unhappy and didn’t do anything about it until the 1790s. Or women until fucking ages later.

            Though of course slaves on the British Isles were free from 1720/1730.

          • Marijn says:

            Ah, sorry, I completely missed the point.

          • syndrome says:

            I think the unhappiness is a constant, actually, and there is only demagogy. Someone felt it was time to take over the power, because that kind of power is nice. We all know who that someone was.

            My understanding is that GB was used as an excuse for this emotion of unhappiness, GB was something people should get rid off in order “to be more happy”. It’s really an effect of academical and political rhetorics in a world where people can’t educate themselves, thus true information is inaccessible and censored.

            Isn’t that really a beautiful recipe for any revolution / (civil) war? There is always a bad guy on the other side of the crosshair — ON BOTH SIDES. Only the results are clues to what really happened, but you must ignore the sentiments, ideologies, and parts written by victors, because people do fight for these things, but that’s not why they’re really fighting.

            Why can’t everyone understand demagogy and its true power? There is no freedom, and unless someone somewhere is dying for you, you are already someone’s (emotional) slave.

      • Shooop says:

        Become a history teacher please. I mean that. We need more of this even-handed view.

    • John Walker says:

      Oh my goodness, I was joking! It’s definitely jingoistic bullshit, but I really am not taking any offence!

      • lorddon says:

        Cry at what you’ve started, John Walker.

      • Marijn says:

        I know John. It’s not so much aimed at you as at all the commenters on here, VG247 and Eurogamer who somehow take offense when they have to kill Redcoats, and not when they have to kill Italians, Turks and many other nationalities in the other AC games.

        • TheWhippetLord says:

          I think a lot of tongues are firmly in cheek here. It is National Wind Up A Yank Day after all. :P
          *duck*

          • Gap Gen says:

            I think the Yanks are winning this round by releasing these AC3 videos.

        • Zephro says:

          Not to speak for John but I don’t believe that is the issue. I’m happy to shoot or stab Brits in games.

          I’m not terribly happy when games come with a whole load of jingoistic or patriotic baggage in the killing of whatever group. So I’m not happy shooting people from the Middle East in many modern shooters if the whole thing feels like propaganda. I’m sure I’ve seen a similar vein in the reviews on RPS.

          Conversely if a game represented Americans as stupid patriotic morons and I had to be an Arab freedom fighter fighting the oppressor in a black and white way. Wouldn’t be happy about that either.

          EDIT: Shooting Nazis is almost always fine though. Even with distinctions between the Heer and the SS.

          • JFS says:

            I have heard that World War 2 movies and games usually don’t come with any propaganda, so I totally have to agree with you.

          • identiti_crisis says:

            I would agree that my discomfort here is the blatant abuse of nationalistic tendencies to drum up popularity for a computer game. Plus the whole distortion / partial truths thing. EDIT: although, if it is meant to be ironic, it is somewhat delicious; but now despicable in a different way.

            Anyway, about the Nazis, I actually hope you’re joking. Saying that everyone in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi is a bit like saying everyone in the UK’s Armed Forces is a Conservative, at least as long as “Conservative” is a well-known prejudicial insult, exclusively. That’s because “Nazi” always was intended as an insult only, being adapted from an existing term being used in Germany long before the NSDAP got into power, and who only briefly tried to reappropriate the term. (It’s use in English was only introduced by German exiles.)

            So the question is, how do you spot an actual Nazi in a game, and, more importantly, how do you spot a Conservative? :P
            Even then, murder is murder, but of course I don’t equate clicking on pixels in a game to murder, in that I separate the underlying mechanic from the superficial act. Which actually sounds worse…

          • Zephro says:

            Yeah it was a joke.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            “If a game represented Americans as stupid patriotic morons and I had to be an Arab freedom fighter fighting the oppressor in a black and white way…”

            I would love to play that game (except for that black and white part). Have you seen the movie Beast ? It’s about group of Afghan mujahedeens vs Soviet tank and its insane commander.

            You’d employ stealth, hit n run tactics, snipe, use explosives…. and your adversary would be unstoppable military machine that would terminate you the moment you’d reveal yourself.

            Sounds like a great game. Too bad the wars are not over so we could videogamize them properly.

    • mouton says:

      Myself, I mainly dislike that it is called “Revolution”. Revolution would be if Americans overthrew the British government in Britain itself. This was rebellion.

  12. dE says:

    I don’t know, it was funny in a pretty unintended way.

    When I refuse to learn the history of a country I’ll never see!
    That does explain an awful lot, doesn’t it?

    • Okami says:

      They did a pretty good job of this, didn’t they?

      • dE says:

        Yes, in fact I think they did. I’ve rewatched it – and the second time around, there’s such a subtle layer of irony to be seen. There’s the young soldier giving up his youth in Irak, defending what’s theirs (Oil). There’s the republican trying to “starve the beast”, who’d want to feed an empire after all? There’s the libertarian who wouldn’t want to surrender his mind but happily gives his body to obamacare. There’s even a nod to the extremist factions of the bible belt in there. Look the other way, just some violence against gay people here, as indicated by the phallic shapes in that picture, last but not least the rifles thrusted forwards! And there’s the boy that refuses to learn history, which is a pretty firm statement for a jersey shore season renewal.

        That couldn’t be coincidence no? This trailer is actual genius, social commentary disguised as standard patriotic America fuck yeah fare.

        Sorry, cynical day today.

    • brooklyn67 says:

      So, he’d rather learn the history of a country that doesn’t exist yet? This seems lazy. Thanks goodness it worked. We unlearned our way to independence and we will unlearn our way forward!
      (Considering I just heard around 78% of recent college grads can’t tell you who our opponent was during the Cold War, I’d say we are doing well.)

  13. Simon Hawthorne says:

    That was the least ‘live’ live action trailer I’ve ever seen.

  14. Daniel Klein says:

    Wait. Are you saying the British *aren’t* awful?

  15. Zephro says:

    Do you think it will include a whole sub plot where the French guarantee victory in the war? Yknow, the French, the cheese eating surrender monkeys…

  16. Hulk Handsome says:

    And to this day, Americans refuse to learn about any country other than their own.

    Damn it, someone beat me to it.

  17. jroger says:

    Not being either British or American, I actually think the trailer was pretty well made. I really like the stylistic device of “live-action paintings” used here very well. That said I wonder what that trailer has to do with AC III, except for the time period. I really hope the protagonist will fight all sides, as I’d expect the global conspiracy to be playing both sides again.

  18. MistyMike says:

    This trailer has nothing to do with the game, but it actually doesn’t show any evil Brits, only seriously looking Americans/colonists.

    One of the worst transgression of this sort I remember is the movie Patriot starring Mel Gibson, in which the English general Cornwalis is shown as a monster who murders civilianson a regular basis, which includes burning them in barns . Which has ZERO historical basis.

  19. Jamesworkshop says:

    I’m not so sure Americans didn’t like the British empire considering they were perfectly happy to buy it at quite a reasonable price after WW2, they sought independence from it but didn’t exactly seek to dismantle it entirely.

    I’d define it as a war between business partners and thus between people that might have need of the other in the future.

    I actually find the idea quite gripping as it reflects a time unlike today where America and Britain still had major disagreements about how the world should be arranged, the post war era’s have been a lot more chummy.

  20. Binho says:

    Haha, it doesn’t quite work, but someone had to do it :P

    http://tubedubber.com/#Boy11rMf50Q:IhnUgAaea4M:0:100:0:0:1

    F*** YEAH!

    EDIT:

    Or this! This works better :) Freedom isn’t free!!

    http://tubedubber.com/#Boy11rMf50Q:wVY7qDjrPZk:0:100:7:0:1

  21. Mad Hamish says:

    Everyone’s talking about Britain and America. You play a Native. Why isn’t this about slaughtering the white man? Fuck these greedy nations. They claimed your homes and called it their property and murdered millions of your kin. Does the game have anything to say about the original inhabitants of this country the white man is fighting a war over? I’d consider playing this just to go around hacking up every slimey pale skin on each level.

    • mouton says:

      Sssh, black and white stories can only have two sides.

    • McCool says:

      Hey! There is nothing racist, or just plain crushingly, unbelievably offensive as telling the story in terms of the natives and the colonists teaming up to fight off their evil imperialist oppressors, is there? After all, the pooling of the interests of the native Americans and the European colonists was pretty much the defining feature of the next 100 years, right? Manifest what?

    • MichaelPalin says:

      Considering that the PSVita version features a black woman, I assume the end of the war will make everybody BFF (except for the evil British).

    • JFS says:

      Maybe they’ll even have Nazi zombies sooner or later, because everyone knows those Native Americans had some nasty voodoo cooking to overthrow all those imperialists that threatened their white brothers.

    • Cinnamon says:

      The expansion pack is about a black slave fighting to protect the interests of the American colonists from the evil British Crown.

  22. MadTinkerer says:

    Dear England,

    I’d just like to point out something. All the “controversy” aside (I certainly wasn’t annoyed at John’s comments, and he’s right that the trailer is fairly jingoistic), something in the trailer jumped out at me: the line about

    “When I refuse to learn the history of a country I’ll never see.”

    I was in British High School from 1993-1996 and I didn’t learn any British history. I learned plenty about the Russian Communist Revolution, the Chinese Communist Revolution and United States during the Great Depression. This was standard National Curriculum stuff.

    I hope in the intervening years you folks have changed things up a bit, because frankly the entire National Curriculum was a bit naff. No really: I sincerely hope things are better now and if they’re not, that they improve soon.

    I’m just saying.

    Sincerely,
    The Mad Tinkerer

    • Milky1985 says:

      Dear Whoever

      What is this high school you speak of, we don’t have high schools, the idea isn’t present in this country.

      Also in secondary school (which is i think your high school? or is your high school our college) we learn about the Tudors and the Stuarts, and the world wars, and the civil wars and i believe the independence of America as well so it does cover some of our history. I learnt this in the 90′s so i have no idea what syllabus you were studying cause it wasn’t a sanctioned UK one if you didn’t cover at leas some of these topics.

      Good day

      • Jigowatt says:

        Actually Milky, many secondary schools in the UK are called high schools. I think it depends on the area/borough, but I know of quite a few ‘high schools’ in London alone.

        As for the national curriculum, from what I remember (in both primary and secondary school), history lessons were predominantly UK-centric.

    • deejayem says:

      It’s ok, we’ve got Michael Gove in charge now, who is going to make sure all pupils rote-learn the date of the Battle of Hastings, and read the Bible sponsored by Tesco.

    • Zephro says:

      Dear Mad Tinkerer,
      The national curriculum gave YOUR history teacher lots of leeway to pick which topics to cover while at secondary school.

      For instance during my history GCSE/A-level I learnt about the slave trade, british political reforms from 1790-1832 which was mostly the chartists, The corn laws and catholic emancipation under Peel, The Civil War and the Stuart restoration and the Troubles in Ireland which were still unresolved.

      Anyway that’s ignoring all the other bits of history we did. But we just happened to have a good history teacher who picked what he wanted.

      Cheerio,
      Zephro

      EDIT: This was 95-2002. But there were no significant changes to the way it was organised during that time.

    • DiamondDog says:

      I have to say through all my time in school, including A-level history, I learnt not a single thing about American history. Romans, Ireland, Italian facism, the Russian Revolution, the Reconquista. Obviously the various political back-stories for the countries involved in the two world wars.

      Bit odd when I think about it. Very Eurocentric. Also not a single word about India or Australia.

      Plenty of time spent on those bloody Tudors though, oh yes. Can never have enough terms spent talking about Henry VII.

  23. jealouspirate says:

    As a Canadian it seems like staying loyal to the British was a pretty nice way to go. They gave us our independence anyway, so why all the nasty war stuff? And we still have all these nice connections to the UK.

    The only downside is that every so often our government spends millions of taxpayer dollars to give the royals a fancy tour of the country.

    • Cinnamon says:

      In the UK we still have to pay for the those presidential visits when the guy ruins our lawns with his fleet of military helicopters.

      I imagine that you are not French Canadian though. The only other people who I’ve heard as much hate towards the anglo-saxons from are the Welsh.

    • Gap Gen says:

      To determine what part of Canada you’re in, just walk into a bar and shout “Lord Durham!” and see what happens.

    • Koozer says:

      Don’t worry, we hate having to pay for royal visits too.

  24. MichaelPalin says:

    Heh!, how ironic is history sometimes, hey?

  25. pigsdofly says:

    I think people are taking this marketing campaign a little too seriously. The developers themselves have said that the game takes place from before the war to about 10 years after, so I’m sure that there are going to be plenty of other nationalities to stab.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      Well, you may be saying that, but it sure would be nice if we would be shown actual proof of said undiscriminatory stabbity stab. Otherwise people are going to assume the gameplay will be heavily pro-US.

  26. misterT0AST says:

    This live action trailer does LOOK gorgeous though doesn’t it?

  27. Milky1985 says:

    Why would you refuse to learn the history of a country you would never see? There are some countries that don’t exist any more so you would refuse to learn that history? That bit of rising up doesn’t make sense.

    Another trailer safely showing the grey area that is meant to be in place here, doesn’t seem to be in place at all :P

    They do know that in the lore they established the founding fathers are Templar’s right? As in the bad guys they have been fighting for yonks!

    Anyway only a few months till we can murder our countrymen in various fashions , oh and bears as well.

  28. BryanTrysers says:

    For some reason it reminded me of those awful Daily Express adverts.

  29. MattK says:

    I just hope that they include all the fact’s about George Washington. For as we all know, he had a wig for his wig, and a brain for his heart.

    The present beware. The future beware. He’s coming. He’s coming. He’s coming.

  30. Bluerps says:

    I’ve watched it without sound, and I can only say that the soldier is incredibly creepy. Some of the other staring people too.

  31. A-Scale says:

    U mad Brits?

  32. Billzor says:

    “It seems to be trying to pitch the game as a brutal look at the oppression of a people, rather than running around inside your own DNA, jumping off trees and murdering people.”

    Funny that this DNA jumping has so far not involved any women assassins within your bloodline.

    Wait, that’s not funny. That’s just silly and wrong.

    • paddymaxson says:

      Somebody didn’t play Brotherhood then…that had a number of female assassins, and one who was a sibling to the main character….female assassin in your bloodline, just not the main character.

    • Jamesworkshop says:

      Since the gap between Altair and Desmond is about 1000 years we’ve missed quite a few decendants Unless Altair, Ezio and Connor had very long lives

  33. Shooop says:

    In after passive-aggressive posts about history revisionism.

    “All very silly when the game itself is looking so great.”

    …Are we thinking of the same game John? Or is this such dry sarcasm a round of applause would cause a fire? It’s just the previous 6 games in a different setting and featuring a guy with an axe instead of a retractable dagger.

  34. SmittyBit says:

    PLEASE! somebody feed the TROLLS!! Feed them the Americans!! Haha yeah, dirty dumb sheeple haha!
    Wait no, feed them.. the FRENCH!!! No wait, backs taste bad, and that’s all you’ll ever see of the french, they suck for sure.
    FEED THEM THE BRITISH! FEED THEM BRITISH! Their teeth are all soft and rotted, so no indigestion!! HAHAHA thats IT!

    Nothing quite so depressing at 1111 in the morning, as internigotry.

  35. Jerre138 says:

    Why do I feel an overwhelming urge to install Empire: TW again? Not to play the Road to Independence, rather to rewrite history as it should have been…

  36. Juiceman says:

    I couldn’t disagree more that all live action trailers are, “by default, dumb”. The live action trailer for Metro: Last Light was excellent. It got me just as pumped for its release than any game play footage I’ve seen.

  37. RakeShark says:

    I suppose that’s why we Texans learn Texas History and not American History. I don’t wanna learn about some country I’ll never see!

  38. paddymaxson says:

    “When I refuse to learn the history of a country I will never see”

    Yup! That’s the American spirit alright, refusal to learn.

  39. deathchuckles says:

    I, for one, hate the British for taxing our coats and for misrepresenting our tea in the Boston Parliament. Damn you, King George! You guys had such Magnificent Cartas, we just wanted some Cartas too.

  40. Anabasis says:

    As you can see, we Americans have a long history of refusing to learn things about other people and places.

    Edit: scooped so hard my grandpa will feel it.

  41. Aardvarkk says:

    I live in the United States and this trailer makes me want to run as far away from this game as possible..

    I thought Homefront flag waving was bad.

  42. Jengaman says:

    I live in the united states and this makes me giggle!
    HE HE HE HE
    I’ve the story to these games are so great all the time from my consoler freinds. But wtf is this, its shameful misrepresentation of how the revolutionists felt. But i guess the stupid little kid would say something stupid as fuck.

    And the mom acting like she was fighting for her life….i don’t get it. It should of just been the brits talking about this guy like he was Mel Gibson in The Patriot.

    i mean: USA! USA! USA! USA!, Go To Hell you Limey Bastards!!!

  43. WrongThinker says:

    I generally don’t take anything that happened more than 100 years ago personally. Brits shouldn’t be mad at modern day Americans for “rebelling” and Yanks shouldn’t be mad at modern day Brits for “oppressing”. We’re talking about something our parents’ parents’ parents’ parents’ weren’t alive for, so to pretend this trailer is “jingoistic bullshitapocalypse” just because it’s telling the story from one side of the war is infantile trolling.

    I’d play a game that told it from the Yank’s perspective just like I’d play one from Britain’s perspective, so long as the game was good. I’ve been a die hard RPS reader for years now (and plan to continue to be one), but RPS is better than flame bait like this.

    • sophof says:

      So you would be totally fine with a game that depicted slavers as the good guys and slaves as dimwitted criminals? I mean, hey, it is totally wrong, but it has been a long time!

      • WrongThinker says:

        Now you’re just being silly. Sure the colonists were taxed and suffered some other problems, but they weren’t slaves. There’s a difference between colonists being exploited and generational servitude.

  44. SCdF says:

    For some reason that trailer reminded me of the movie The Fall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtQBQrFyjl4

    Just me? Hmmm. Anyway, it’s an awesome movie, you (yes, specifically you) should see it.

  45. RoAE says:

    This trailer just pisses me off, I’m an American and I know that there were several British who opposed how the Crown treated the colonies, including several Commanders. Most Americans didn’t even consider separation from Great Britain until the occupation of Boston and Bunker Hill. The War was fought first and foremost about the representation of people in government. 0:51 further angers me because it adds to the stereo type of Americans being unwilling to learn or educate themselves. sigh >_<

  46. Marijn says:

    Too bad nobody’s going to read this anymore, but for added irony, over here in Belgium there’s now a version of this trailer that’s DUBBED IN FRENCH: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd5vCB9ZLZI&feature=relmfu

  47. Adam Smith says:

    I read it! And watched it – then shared it.

    Brilliant.

  48. pcgamerpro says:

    Assassins Creed 3 Boston Gameplay Walkthrough is out check it out guys
    http://pcgamerpro.com/gameplay-2/assassins-creed-3-boston-gameplay-walkthrough/

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>