The Assassins have been saying that since 1. You might as well argue that AC1 was Pro-American if you are gonna play that card :p
Originally Posted by Fanbuoy
Well, that is becuase Connor originally joined the side of the Americans for reasons and it would be pretty awkward to have him being a turncoat non-stop. And if someone has been wronged by Americans, I doubt they would get along with a bunch of anti-British folk.
Connor's inconsistent attitude towards the rebellion was a bit weird, though. He's equal parts "I don't care about this shit" and "Freedom for everyone, y'all!". But as I said, the game doesn't illustrate America as the holy land, but shows both positive and negative sides. Take the slave situation for example. However, more often than not, when someone has been wronged, the British are the guilty party. Just look at Connor's little retinue: "The British took my home", "The British took our crops", "The British tax too harshly", "I 'ate ze British, hein!", etc.
That is because you never really work with the British. It isn't that the British are a "faceless enemy of freedom". They are just a faceless enemy period. Again, how are we supposed to get the British perspective? Is Connor supposed to join up with them halfway through?
Most importantly though, while the Americans are generally portrayed as fallible men fighting for a good cause, the British are just negatively portrayed. There's very little information on the British perspective. The British are just a faceless enemy of freedom.
The AC games have mostly been good about playing up the "Giant war between two small groups". The papacy weren't evil in AC2, it was the Templars and the Borgias (Templars). The random footsoldier didn't give a rat's ass, he just knew that Ezio was a mass murderer. Same here
Actually, there was a pretty good conversation about the start of the war and how the British were (probably) right for wanting some money and the Americans basically said "Piss off you limey bastards".
Also ugh, I can't say I'm very fond of Shaun's input. It may be the Swedish translation (which is a nice touch), but all his "comedic" remarks just fall flat IMO. And they're often so overly partial that they're more of an annoyance than a counterweight. There is certainly (seemingly) objective information, though, such as the discussions about loyalists and patriots among the American population. However, his pro-British viewpoint is more often of the "We should have won because... Because!" type than providing justification for the British actions and motivations. Of course, that didn't stop me from devouring every piece of information I came across, but it did reduce my enjoyment of it.
I think there were a few awkward points on both sides, but overall it maintained a largely neutral stance. The AC games aren't history textbooks. They handle war and the like in the context of "There was a war, it was a smokescreen for the battles between the Templars and the Assassins. The Assassins were on side X, the templar were on Side Y". Although, in this case, both were on side X which was pretty interesting.
I believe that the developers tried to be objective, but ultimately didn't quite succeed.