AC III: The Continuing Tyranny Of King Washington

By Nathan Grayson on March 20th, 2013 at 5:00 pm.

NO MORE GAMES, WASHINGTON. CONNOR SMASH.

George Washington? More like Jerk Washingtonsofbutts. I’m sorry. I haven’t slept much lately, and any time that’s the case, my ability to cleverly insult implausibly mad re-envisionings of cherished historical figures is always the first thing to go. But I’m pressing on regardless, just like our tree-toothed, grumpyfaced bizarro pal Georgie Scourgie in Assassin’s Creed III: The Tyranny Of King Washington Episode II: Betrayal (And Counting!). So then, what nefarious deeds is he up to this time? Rescuing kittens from exceedingly high buildings for the sole purpose of frightening them back up again? Chopping down every cherry tree in the nation and lying about it just because he can? Nope. But he is making Benjamin Franklin all kinds of sad, which is just the most heartbreaking thing ever. See for yourself after the break.

So yes, this time you’re headed to Boston to rescue ol’ Ben and get him in your corner, but he’s trapped under King Washington’s apple-flavored anti-president power. Sounds like checkmate, huh? The day is saved, however, when you gain the power to transform into a ghost eagle. Or an eagle ghost. Gheagle? Eaghost? I’m not really sure how it works anymore, because Assassin’s Creed stopped making sense when the one guy got into the animal machine thing and became his ancestors. When was that? Oh, right: the start. But honestly, when a series can wind right past its “end” and into ghost eagle assassin territory, it can’t possibly be all bad, right?

Betrayal’s available for download now. Word on the street is that the first Tyranny of King Washington episode was decent-ish, and this one keeps the crazy train moving along uncharacteristically methodical tracks. Episode three, it seems, will bring the “love ‘em or hate ‘em” revelations Assassin’s Creed is famous/infamous for, but until then, prepare yourself for hot eagle-on-Washington action. Which is somehow the most/least patriotic idea ever suggested. Regardless, EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGLE.

I’m going to go take a nap now.

, , .

77 Comments »

  1. barnthebear says:

    Am I the only one who finds this alternate history King Washington thing slightly offensive? Not that I don’t think it should exist at all, but I do think it’s a little provocative of Ubisoft to do this. Admittedly, I haven’t played the original AC3, so I can’t say I know how they portrayed Washington originally.

    No offense to anyone who enjoys this. Just not my cup of tea, I guess. Again, I’m not really, truly offended nor do I think it’s something to raise a huge fuss about, but reading about The Tyranny of King Washington DLC leaves me feeling just a little bit sour.

    EDIT: Considering, this DLC isn’t really all that offensive… I wasn’t all that upset in the first place, but okay, I get it, it’s for shits and giggles. Of course it is. It’s an Assassin’s Creed DLC.

    George Washington does not need to be revered in every single depiction of him. I wasn’t even making that claim originally; I just didn’t find this DLC particularly tasteful. But it really isn’t that big of a deal. I was just trying to make discussion, not piss anyone off.

    … then again, this is the internet. Everything anybody says is going to piss somebody off. *shrug*

    LAST EDIT, I SWEAR: So, thanks to a few commenters, I now understand what Ubisoft is trying to do with this DLC. Thanks, everyone.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      As someone who enjoys Blackadder… No, I like slightly offensive alt-history.

      • barnthebear says:

        Well, I greatly enjoy Blackadder. I don’t mind people poking fun, at all, but this doesn’t seem like poking fun. And, again, it’s not as if I’m so greatly offended that I’m going to boycott Ubisoft or even write them an angry e-mail. I wouldn’t call myself angry — just not really entertained or amused by the idea.

        I don’t even strongly revere George Washington, but, y’know, it’d be akin to Assassin’s Creed having a DLC where you have to overthrow the tyrant-dictator Gandhi.

        • barnthebear says:

          … actually, when I put it that way, that does sound slightly entertaining. Never mind my complaining about this DLC then. Carry on.

        • fauxC says:

          There’s already a game where you have to overthrow the tyrant-dictator Gandhi – it’s called Civ, and if you fail, he nukes you.

          • barnthebear says:

            And that’s why I always make sure to crush India first in Civ.

        • sjebran3 says:

          Sophia. if you, thought Clarence`s article is shocking… last wednesday I got themselves a Alfa Romeo from earning $5697 this last 5 weeks and-also, 10 grand last-month. this is certainly my favourite-job I’ve ever had. I started this 8-months ago and pretty much straight away began to earn at least $69, per-hour. I follow this website,,,,, http://www.Fly38.COm/

    • Ansob says:

      How on Earth is it provocative?

      • barnthebear says:

        I dunno. The more I consider it, the less it bothers me. I guess I just thought it was provocative because it felt pointless to turn one of America’s most beloved historical figures into a monster, but you could argue all alternate history is pointless then. As long as it’s fun… that’s all that matters, I suppose.

        EDIT: Considering, actually, the point of alternate history is to see how things might be different if the events of history occurred differently… In this case, King Washington = eagle ghost assassins running amok.

        • Twitchity says:

          Scholarship on Washington is considerably more balanced these days, though — see, for example, Ferling’s adversarial but extensively-documented The Ascent of George Washington for a good, general discussion of Washington’s political maneuverings (for a completely hostile, totally one-sided, partially fictionalized and wholly entertaining account of the times, try Rosenfeld’s American Aurora).

          America’s Founding Fathers were a quarrelsome, spiteful, brilliant, unprincipled, idealistic lot — they contained multitudes, and we shouldn’t treat them as demigods attached to some marble pedestal. This DLC may be a ridiculous, funhouse mirror version of history (by even the AC series’ somewhat loose standards), but simply positing a tyrannical Washington isn’t beyond the pale. In fact, were you a Pennsylvania farmer in 1791, you might well argue that Washington was a tyrant!

          I do feel they missed a great opportunity in not making Benedict Arnold an ally, however. Perhaps the writers felt that a sympathetic portrait of America’s most famous traitor would be a bridge too far, but Arnold was a fascinating figure in his own right, and he would more likely be a counter-revolutionary hero rather than goatee-Washington’s right-hand man.

          • FalseMyrmidon says:

            Washington is revered because he had the opportunity to become a tyrant like in this DLC but didn’t and willingly relinquished power. The DLC really isn’t THAT far fetched as something that could have happened.

    • Premium User Badge

      Gap Gen says:

      To be fair there was a lot of British-style griping on here about the ACIII, so I guess as long as they annoy everyone? Or, well, both sets of anglophones. Unless they’re going to make a game about stabbing Lafayette too.

    • Entitled says:

      I’m not even beginning to grasp he idea of what could be possibly “offensive” about this at all.

      It’s an alternate history plot. It takes place in a world where George Wasington is evil. That’s it.

      Is this about how Washington should be treated more “respectfully”, for being a founding father, or something? Or you have a problem with historical characters having alternate life paths at all?

      • barnthebear says:

        Yes, I understand that now, as I indicated in my other replies. It’s for shits and giggles, and that’s fine. I got a little offended, then realized it was foolish to be offended by an alternate history. Admittedly, it’s still not my cup of tea, but I’m not angry about it. Wasn’t even that upset about it in the first place.

    • FriendlyNeighbourhoodMurderer says:

      History as a whole is slightly offensive. And if you believe history is always portrayed accurately and doesn’t make someone out to be bad/good, then my good sir, I have this bridge over here, only slightly used, but a thoroughly sound investment.

    • vatara says:

      I think you may be confusing stupid with offensive.

      • Grape says:

        Perhaps next time you’ll want to take a step back and think before you start writing something, barnthebear.

        Might save you from writing self-obliteratingly stupid shit like that in the future.

        • barnthebear says:

          … well, that escalated quickly. Having a bad day?

          I don’t believe I was being stupid. I was stating an opinion in hopes of starting a discussion, not some sort of comment war. In fact, it didn’t turn into one — you’re just really upset over an opinion I expressed. You don’t have to insult me if you disagree with me; you can state why you don’t agree with what I said, or you can just not say anything at all.

          Though I suppose it might be easier for you to insult someone from behind your monitor rather than actually have a discussion.

    • geldonyetich says:

      Honestly, I do think it’s a bit offensive to take the founding father of a country that was originally founded to try to get away from imperialist tyranny and turn him into an imperialist tyrant, and I suspect Ubisoft will get a bit of negative publicity over deciding to run with this idea.

      • Grape says:

        Honestly, I do think it’s a bit offensive to take the founding father of a country that was originally founded to try to get away from imperialist tyranny and turn him into an imperialist tyrant, and I suspect Ubisoft will get a bit of negative publicity over deciding to run with this idea.

        Gods; people like you fucking frustrate me.

        • geldonyetich says:

          People with contrary opinions fucking frustrate you, you say? Well, how sad for you.

          Listen, this is obviously Ubisoft being deliberately provocative. If you can’t deal with someone saying, hey, I think Ubisoft is going to provoke people by being provocative, maybe you need to climb down from your ivory tower and realize you’re not being a high-concept artist, you’re just being a loony.

          • Grape says:

            People with contrary opinions fucking frustrate you, you say? Well, how sad for you.

            No, only people with overwhelmingly stupid opinions.

            Listen, this is obviously Ubisoft being deliberately provocative. If you can’t deal with someone saying, hey, I think Ubisoft is going to provoke people by being provocative, maybe you need to climb down from your ivory tower and realize you’re not being a high-concept artist, you’re just being a loony.

            Sure, I get that they may be deliberately provocative. What just grinds me is the fact itself that there actually are people out there who genuinely and completely without a hint of irony get provoked by the fact that someone DARE portray Washington as not nice. You people deserve all the offense you can get.

            It just saddens me.

          • geldonyetich says:

            “Hey Billy, how’s it going today?”
            “Terrible! That big bully Tommy pushed me into the mud!”
            “Really? That saddens me.”
            “I know! Tommy is being so needlessly provocative!”
            “No, it saddens me that you can, genuinely and completely without a hint of irony, be provoked by provocative behavior. FOR SHAME Billy. It wouldn’t bother me to get pushed in the mud, and it shouldn’t bother you, either.”
            “Oh, gosh, I’m sorry that I’m not bothered by only forward-thinking things like you are, definer of all forward-thinking things to be bothered about.”
            “You should be! Oh God, you make me so sad, Billy. I HATE YOU, BILLY, this is the reason why we can’t have nice things in gaming.”

      • barnthebear says:

        Yeah, that’s what kind of bothered me. You have somebody who fought tyranny, risked his life in doing so, and then refused to be king, and… a couple hundred of years pass, and nobody really seems to care. (Unless you can neck-stab an evil, alternate history version of him)

        So maybe it’s not so much offensive as it is surprising. Again, I never found myself fuming over it, but just kind of cocking my head to the side and raising an eyebrow at it.

        • Schwerpunkt says:

          “So maybe it’s not so much offensive as it is surprising.”

          I’d actually say that the reality of “Washington Doesn’t Become a Tyrant” is actually a lot more surprising than the alternate Ubisoft history of “Evil King George.” I mean, look at almost every other violent revolution that has ever occurred. How often did the military leader just happily step down after serving his term as president, and indeed establish “stepping down after 2 terms” as a general policy? There is almost no reasons we couldn’t have become Revolutionary France, and Washington being a modern Cincinattus (note how far back you have to go for that example of “powerful military leader peacefully relinquishing power”) is a huge part of that. This is the absolute best type of alternate history: the one that seems far more likely than the reality.

          • Brun says:

            This. As others have said, just ask the French, or hell, ALL OF EUROPE about a little (see what I did there?) guy named Napoleon.

            I understand why France’s case doesn’t resonate at all with the US – most people here couldn’t tell you what the Napoleonic Wars were even about. But it was a monumental event in European history and it shaped the politics of that region for nearly a century afterward.

          • Premium User Badge

            Gap Gen says:

            It helped that the American Revolution didn’t so much erase the political system as remove the upper level of management. France’s problem was that when they revolted against the King, they created a power vacuum into which tyrants could step.

            This isn’t to denegrate Washington’s wisdom in refusing to become King, but just to point out that there are more reasons France descended into tyrrany and the US did not than Washington’s decision.

        • x1501 says:

          You’re not getting the joke.

      • Schwerpunkt says:

        If you think it’s offensive because it’s disrespectful to Washington, you’re reading it incorrectly. The entire premise: “Evil Washington” is so interesting (and indeed very respectful towards the actual figure) because it is A) at odds with his real actions and B) so incredibly plausible that a revolutionary leader would seize power and become a tyrant — as the French discovered a few years later, and nearly every other revolutionary did in the next 240 years. There were, in fact, American revolutionaries who DID want Washington to be George The First in an elective monarchy — including Hamilton.

        If an artist or game designers says “gee, we’re going to make this crazy wacko alternate history where person X is actually evil!” what you are saying is that person X is actually a really nice guy, who, when confronted with the temptation of power that most of us (and almost all leaders) would seize and abuse, actually turned away from it — and that’s why it actually is wacko alternate history that he didn’t. Because the scenario Evil Tyrant George is actually so believable (in the general sense – replace George with Stalin, Robespierre, Castro, the list is endless) is what makes this so interesting. This is a long form, more-stabbing version of what Frodo imagines when the power of the Ring seizes him – and like that scene – is part of the author’s attempt to highlight the nobility of the character because he turns away from power.

        • barnthebear says:

          And this is why I love RPS commenters (for the most part). They help me understand things I didn’t understand before.

        • crinkles esq. says:

          No, it’s insulting because Washington was the only American president who ever gave up power instead of hoarding it. He became president because the country expected it of him and the people he respected begged him to. He wasn’t without his faults, and certainly had an ego, but to suggest that he could ever be some crazy tyrant is offensive to the man he was and completely implausible. And that implausibility makes the premise uninteresting. If they had chosen Alexander Hamilton, sure that would make sense. That guy loved the British royals. But Washington? Good day, sir! I said, good day!

          If a U.S. developer had made this, they might be given some latitude, but I’ll be damned if some French-Canadian developers insult a man of such high standards!

          P.S. — The book “Plain, Honest Men” is a well-researched and even-handed portrayal of the American founders.

          • Arreh says:

            It seems odd to me that we are required to pay complete respect to past historical figures when are not even slightly trying to portray them accurately. I’m assuming you’re American – now, I’m British, and if someone were to make a documentary claiming that Nelson, for example, was a cowardly sniveler then I may well get slightly offended, unless they had compelling evidence.

            However, if someone wants to make a game or write a piece of fiction in which Nelson is some cowardly excuse for a man then I certainly won’t stand in their way – it sounds like an interesting take on past events. This is simply what alternative history is.

            Similarly with Gandhi, if we made him a genocidal maniac – you know what? That’s interesting. Mother Teresa as a silent killer? That’s interesting. Washington as a tyrant? That’s interesting. I think your cultural bias is causing you to leap to the defence of a portrayal of man given demigod status in America (and I would argue that Americans worship their forefathers and founding fathers to an almost unique extent) when no such defence is necessary. Nobody disagrees that he was a great man (though certainly not perfect). We’re just saying that it would be interesting if he wasn’t.

      • Ansob says:

        By that same measure, today’s USA are deeply offensive to George Washington (in addition to being deeply offensive to the rest of the world).

        • barnthebear says:

          Completely agree. For example, he completely opposed US involvement in foreign wars, and…well… :\

        • Premium User Badge

          Gap Gen says:

          Bear in mind that the Founding Fathers deliberately designed a constitution that blocked anyone from dominating domestic policy, in order to limit tyranny. So the current deadlock in Congress is exactly how they designed it.

          As for foreign policy, well a) it was going to happen regardless of what they wanted, and b) American imperialism is fairly enlightened, as far as historic empires go. The US doesn’t massacre cities to maintain control of territory, for example. Out of all the empires that could have inherited the world from the British in the 20th century, I’m fairly glad it was the US.

          • Lanfranc says:

            “So the current deadlock in Congress is exactly how they designed it.”

            Not entirely, because they didn’t count on the formation of two strong, directly opposed parties – or rather, they hoped it wouldn’t happen, even though of course it immediately did.

            So yes, they designed a more detached Senate to be a balance to the directly-elected House, and both to be a balance to the executive, but they still expected the system to fundamentally work, such as being able to agree on a budget.

          • Premium User Badge

            Gap Gen says:

            Right, as you say, their flaw was assuming that parties wouldn’t form, when obviously they would.

      • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

        “Honestly, I do think it’s a bit offensive to take the founding father of a country that was originally founded to try to get away from imperialist tyranny and turn him into an imperialist tyrant,”

        Honestly, since that country founded to get away from imperialist tyranny is now in the process of setting up a tyrannical empire, it seems delightfully appropriate.

        • geldonyetich says:

          What’s so appropriate about taking the original ideals that we’re accused of not adhering to, and then suggesting those ideals never existed to begin with?

          It makes for a good lewd joke, but it’s not exactly brilliant satire when you look at it up close.

        • Grape Flavor says:

          @GunnerMcCaffrey
          Interesting. Please do elaborate on your theory before the jackboooted American thugs kick down your door and drag you away, I’d hate to miss it.

      • Premium User Badge

        cpt_freakout says:

        Yeah, because this is serious history being made here. Come on, it’s just a fantasy. Both at its best and worst, the controversy is pointless – no one will ever think of Washington as a tyrant after playing this, and people who don’t care about history won’t even notice the alt-history scenario, for them it’s just another final boss.

      • nzmccorm says:

        Well, y’know, America is an imperialist and fairly tyrannical state and basically has been since forever soooooo
        *bow tie spins in time with his beanie*
        *goes AWOOGA AWOOGA*

    • DarkeSword says:

      I get what you’re saying man, but honestly, it really isn’t what you think. The thing that some people don’t realize (because they haven’t played it) is that Tyranny is actually a canonical continuation of the ACIII storyline. Connor is actually fully aware of the fact that history has been changed somehow and that Washington is acting very much out of character, and it’s heavily implied that the whole thing is due to some Apple of Eden shenanigans.

      In the original ACIII, Washington has a very even portrayal: he isn’t demonized, but he isn’t sanctified either. In Tyranny, however, he’s full-tilt comic book villain evil, which is why Connor is so bewildered. The tone that Ubisoft is conveying here in this campaign is not so much “haha what if George Washington was EVIL!?” and more of “George Washington is EVIL?! okay something is seriously effed up.” It doesn’t make any sense for him to be so maniacal, and the game acknowledges this, which actually weirdly demonstrates a respect for Washington as a character/historical figure. :)

      • barnthebear says:

        Having not played it, I didn’t understand the DLC, but that makes complete sense. :) Thank you.

        • Grape says:

          “No, it saddens me that you can, genuinely and completely without a hint of irony, be provoked by provocative behavior. FOR SHAME Billy.”

          What saddens me is that said provocative behaviour so clearly WORKS.

          That there are people who, in 2013, actually care about this. It’s that whole loathsome quasi-nationalistic crap that just gets to me.

          It just makes me shake my head.

      • LennyLeonardo says:

        Is it a continuation of AC3′s story? I don’t think so:

        SPOLERZNOW Connor wakes from a dream (the dream being the events of AC3) to find his mum’s still alive, and he keeps saying “ooh, why’s everything all different?”, etc… I mean, it could be something that Desmond experienced as kind of a glitch or summat, but it’s definitely not canon. Right? NOMORESPOILERS

        EDIT: Oh, wait, I read your post below and now I see what you mean – Connor is still canon, but the story kind of isn’t. It’s like one of those episodes of Star Trek where everything’s wonky, but only one of the characters knows it.

    • solymer89 says:

      I was of the mindset that this was in poor taste but context says otherwise. Back to my asiago bagel

    • ShEsHy says:

      Why even make it?
      I’d understand if this was a DLC for Saints Row, but AC? From what I hear about the franchise (I ain’t even smelling this piece of console port) it doesn’t exactly fall in the comedy genre, so doing something like this just seems stupid. And not the funny kind of stupid, but the copyright troll kind of stupid.

    • TheMerricat says:

      You’ll hate this video then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA

  2. Hoaxfish says:

    Knight to king’s face, Checkmate!

  3. Skabooga says:

    I don’t know much about Assassin’s Creed, but I do know that the header is my favorite image of the day.


    EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGLE

    For some reason, this reminds me of another game, but I can’t remember which one.

  4. Brun says:

    He’ll save children, but not the British children…

  5. Vinraith says:

    It’s a little sad that people seem to have forgotten the grain of historical truth in all this. I don’t know whether it’s done well here, of course, but the notion of Washington having become a tyrant is neither “mad” nor “implausible.” The most remarkable thing the man ever did for this country is step down at the end of his two terms, there was no one that could have forced him to.

    • Schwerpunkt says:

      Completely agree.

    • Ansob says:

      How un-American. Off to the secret foreign CIA prison-camp with you, Vinraith!

      • geldonyetich says:

        Oh pshaw, here in the Globalized Empire of America are quite happy to talk down whatever president we like, including the current one, thank you very much.

        This AC3 DLC still strikes some of us as a little bit overly revisionist, though. Washington was a fellow who signed a constitution that included freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. So lets have him become a tyrant that executes dissenters… wat?

        History will vindicate if this was a good move for Ubisoft.

        • Premium User Badge

          Gap Gen says:

          Bear in mind that the US is strongly in favour of freedom and democracy, and yet has overthrown democratic governments and worked with tyrants in the name of its foreign policy interests. Power is power, no matter what words people use. After all, like people have said, Stalin took part in a revolution that promoted power to the people, and ended up murdering 10 million of them himself.

          • geldonyetich says:

            All true, but off-target. The issue here isn’t any of that. The issue is very specifically historical re-imagining of George Washington during the American Revolution.

            I’m not saying George Washington was a saint. I doubt any man who lead a war can do so without a capacity for psychopathy. But a good deal of what this DLC seems to be pushing is a polar opposite of what his actions in history would seem to reflect.

            That’s not going to wash well with some people. But, again, history will decide whether or not Ubisoft will get away with it or if we’ll regard it, as we do many things of significance, with utter apathy.

          • Muzman says:

            There’s a touch of the Cromwellian about the guy’s rise to power and his views, looked at in a certain light. I have wondered if with a couple of subtle tweaks things couldn’t have gone quite differently. (I remember someone telling me all about I think it was Adams who was a total prick. Can’t remember exactly. One of the early guys. I’m not well versed. Made it sound like they could have tipped over into the full Napoleon)
            King seems a bit of a stretch though, for exactly those reasons, but I do have to remind myself the AC is really cheesy business for kids and not Bioshock.

          • Premium User Badge

            Gap Gen says:

            My point was mainly that your post suggests that someone who signs up to certain values on paper would then be unlikely to go back on that later. I just wanted to provide a counterexample.

          • Lanfranc says:

            Muzman: Adams had some rather unpopular ideas about how “majestic” the office of president should be, but my primary candidate for a would-be Napoleon among the Founders would be Alexander Hamilton.

          • Muzman says:

            Interesting, cheers.
            I wonder if anyone’s written any alt-history where he ended up in charge somehow.

          • Premium User Badge

            Gap Gen says:

            I suppose Washington is chosen here as he had command over an army (as did Napoleon, Cromwell, Caesar, etc). Then again, Robespierre largely used the mob to bully his opponents, so I guess it’s possible for a civilian leader to do the same thing.

        • DarkeSword says:

          If you ever play the DLC, you’ll see that there is actually a reason for Washington to be acting this way. I don’t know if you saw my previous comment where I explained this, but Tyranny is not actually an plain old alternate history campaign; it’s an in-continuity sequel to the main ACIII storyline, where Connor is fully aware that history has somehow gotten all screwed up. Through him, the game recognizes and is aware of the fact that it’s utterly insane for Washington to be acting the way he is; something Very Bad has happened and the Father of Our Country has turned into a lunatic, and Connor has to figure out how to fix it and save him.

          • geldonyetich says:

            That makes sense, but how is that isn’t even possible? Isn’t this supposed to be some sort of genetic memory thing, in which case the messed up George Washington only exists in the memories of this guy, or did they throw that out at the end of AC2?

          • DarkeSword says:

            No sir, they didn’t throw it out. Obviously all the questions have not been answered yet, as Tyranny is a 3-part story, but judging by small, mysterious flashbacks interspersed throughout the first episode, it’s implied that the Apple of Eden is somehow responsible for changing history. There are glimpses of a scene where Connor is seemingly trying to convince Washington to give him the Apple back; it’s possible that the Apple reacts to Washington’s dark desires or some other such science-fiction-fantasy-wankery, but this is pure speculation on my part. I still need to play Part II.

            Incidentally, perhaps I’m in the minority, but I did enjoy Part I quite a bit. I love alternate history stories, especially when the POV character is aware of all the divergences. The wolf powers are quite fun as well.

  6. Citrus says:

    AC3, especially after AC2 (and expansions), was a disappointment. The protagonist is terrible. Voice acting and plot is terrible. Characters and setting is uninteresting (and doesn’t make sense at all).

    The worst part is the music. So terrible. I listen to Jesper Kyd’s soundtracks for Blood Money and previous AC games almost every week. AC3 soundtrack, it was just forgetful.

  7. kikito says:

    I was kind of expecting the assassin flying around with a kite and firing an electrical gun; both provided by “Benjamin Franklin, the wonderful scientist”.

  8. yuri999 says:

    Right click to Rage-quit…. the DLC should be played to experience this lovely moment.

  9. Ruffian says:

    Ah, RPS. Please never stop being RPS. : )
    The first two sentences of this piece are a perfect example of just one of the many reasons you’ll always be my preferred site for PC gaming news. Great stuff, as always.

  10. SuicideKing says:

    Assassin’s Creed III: The Tyranny Of King Washington Episode II: The Conquerors Expansion

  11. Personoic says:

    This trailer isn’t offensive. It’s silly. You must use the POWER OF THE EAGLE with the help of RELUCTANT BENJAMIN FRANKLIN to defeat EVIL GEORGE WASHINGTON.