Everyone On Earth Talks About AC III’s Connor

And sometimes to him, also.

I counted. The latest Assassin’s Creed III “Inside” special features seven billion different human beings. And also George Washington, who counts as one man, one myth, and one legend. It’s a fairly intimidating roster, to be sure, but the whole production is quite ably done. The topic at hand today is none other than exotically named half-Native-American main character Connor, and there’s actually some pretty good insight to be found here. Do games need development staffs large enough to eclipse the sun with a printout of their credits sequence? I’m not so sure. But I can certainly see some of the benefits.

So that’s a lot to chew on. Happily, this series continues to be shockingly good at filling in the cracks of its increasingly zanier fiction with little details. For instance, Connor’s history-book-hopping bloodline might be a bit too convenient, but I like that Ubisoft’s not half-assing his heritage. When he’s around his own people, he speaks his native tongue. That alone probably took a fair amount of time and manpower to sort out, but Ubisoft went for it anyway.

That said, I’m still wondering how they’ll handle Connor’s quest for star-spangled justice without turning him into Boringpants McSourpuss. I mean, Ezio was all over the place, but at least he had a relatable sense of humor sometimes. Connor, though, seems a lot more straightforward – almost like Altair 2.0. But even if he turns out to be a bit ho-hum, I suppose things could be worse. He could be Desmond. Really, I think that’s a good mantra to apply to life in general. Everyone could be Desmond.

At any rate, Assassin’s Creed III is PC-bound on November 23. Consoles get it sooner, but let’s be honest here: waiting might be rough, but it builds strong people. George Washington waited with his diseased, starving troops for six brutally frigid months at Valley Forge. Then he became President. What I’m saying is, buying Assassin’s Creed III on PC will probably make you President.


  1. Neurotic says:

    Presumably the other half is Irish.

    • Snidesworth says:

      I think they previously said that his father was British.

      • hypercrisis says:

        are we going to have that conversation?

        • Llewyn says:

          Go on then, I’ll kick it off:

          “British, Irish, it’s all the same anyway.”

          Of course, at the time it very much was, while at the same time being very much not, even in the way that it was.

          Think I’ve got all sides covered there!

    • TheXand says:

      Connor is a Scottish name :/

      • Zaboomafoozarg says:

        No, that would be O’Connor.

        • TheXand says:

          Nope, that one’s Irish. MacConnor is Scottish though. Connor as a first name is also Scottish. More popular in Scotland than in Ireland too. Not to mention that Kenway is pretty common surname in Scotland too. Since the game says his father was British, his father was obviously a Scot since the Irish get funny when called British.

          • Brigand says:

            Conor is originally Irish as far as I know. Connor is the scottish spelling variant though.

  2. Lightningproof says:

    Kind of hoping there’ll be a big twist whereby you find out that the Patriots are a largely Templar-backed movement.

    Probably not, though :(

    • Optimaximal says:

      I don’t know… I’ve only played AC & AC2 at the moment (Brotherhood is installed but I’ve not gotten around to it yet) but both games had their plot twists that made you question what side you were fighting for.

    • The Godzilla Hunter says:

      If the past games are anything to go by, that is EXACTLY what will happen. Like, there is almost no chance of it not happening.

    • Lightningproof says:

      I barely remember the plotlines of the other games. Was more going off the immense amount of Redcoat-murder in this video.

      So long as I get to be an equal-opportunities mass murderer, I’m good.

    • Milky1985 says:

      Its already in the lore heavily hinting that the founding fathers were templars, they used the apple to influence people (kinda the opposite of what teh assassins are trying to do).

      Although i wouldn’t be surprised if this got retconned out to avoid american outcry.

      • Urthman says:

        I loved that whole crazy conspiracy history in AC2. For me that was where the whole franchise went from dumb to delightfully looney.

        It was like a pun cascade on RPS, where the goal is not to make sense but to simply name as many historical figures as possible and how they would have been connected to the Apple.

        • jondare says:

          Is Isaac Newton too much of a low hanging fruit? sorry, sorry i’ll disapPEAR now.

    • Joshua says:

      Considering that Connor is half native american, and that the native americans do get some troubles with the USA later on, there probably will be a twist detailing exactly that.

      Also, with the devs making comments that he kills without hesitation and has a clear sense of right and wrong, he apperas to be very suspect to manipulation.

  3. Uglycat says:

    My fear is that this is going to turn into an ‘America Yay! Britain Boo!’ sort of game.

    • Kaje says:

      It already has. You only kill the British, you work for the Americans and George Washington is your main contact.


      I won’t be buying it or playing it, which is a shame as I love the series – but sick of the American’s anti-British media bias. Hell, we’re always the bad guys.

      • Nihilexistentialist says:

        Surely you can’t be serious. The developers have stated it won’t be like this multiple times and have pointed out that the Templars transcend country. It’s not even being made by an American studio. On top of that there’s footage of Connor killing Americans.

      • Dolphan says:

        Rubbish – link to kotaku.com

        “Rest assured, that both patriots and loyalists will feel the steely edge of your blade”

        The devs are Canadians, and the last time they set a game in a major conflict (AC1) they did a very good job of ‘decent and evil types on both sides’. One piece of American-oriented marketing (that Independence Day trailer) hardly proves the game’ll be one-sided propaganda.

      • Snidesworth says:

        I think that’s the impression they want to give people, at least initially. That video alone presents the main character as a very direct, idealistic individual, or rather that’s what he starts as. He’s jumping onto the side of the revolutionaries because they’re fighting for freedom against what’s perceived as an oppressive tyranny. My guess is that the waters will be muddied as the game goes on, the Assassins and Templars become a bigger part of the story and Connor realises that it’s not as simple as Blue is Good and Reds are Bad.

      • The Godzilla Hunter says:

        American’s anti-British media bias

        Erm, outside of the Revolutionary War, sorry, the War for Independence-er sorry, the War of Those Bloody Colonials Throwing a Hissy Fit (is that the correct term in Britain?), the British are usually portrayed as good guys in American media.

        • Jamesworkshop says:

          Fuuny how few people that do the team america jokes about infinity wards call of duty games notice is how they are basically British special forces love letters.
          Look how poorly Sergeant Derek “Frost” Westbrook is characterised compared to John Price or Soap MacTavish.

          Anyone would think that ian fleming books derived james bond movies which couldn’t be more patriotic about britain if they tried, were universally panned in america, it’s not the british film industry keeping them going it’s hollywood.

          the british badguy accent is what creates the idea but really is only done because the accent is foreign but provides no trouble for american to understand, rarely is british orgin expressed in those instances.

      • BatmanBaggins says:

        “American’s anti-British media bias”

        What in the flying fuck are you talking about?

      • Supahewok says:

        Er, what? I’m am American, and this is the first game in a long time where I can remember it’s Bris vs. Americans. (Civ doesn’t count, it’s not real history) Nor am I aware of a larger media bias against the British. I’m pretty sure Brit and European media in general have a FAR greater bias against Americans than the other way around.

      • disperse says:

        You blew up Alderaan. You monsters.

      • phylum sinter says:

        Alright then, have fun missing out on one fun game for such an awesome, presumptuous reason.

        I hope you enjoy your paranoid righteous indigination.

    • 1Life0Continues says:

      To be fair, it’s probably because the setting is (I believe) the independence war, so it’s probably a natural progression. Although I suppose they could (and should) make the Assassin’s a neutral faction, and kill on both sides of the fence, but in terms of the setting, I think it’s probably justified.

      That being said, if they plan on doing AC3 like they did AC2, there will be expandalone sequels in which Connor kills American colonials with the help of other native American’s he trains to be Asssassin’s because he heard some Italian dude did it back in the day and it sounded like a good idea.

      • Uglycat says:

        Historically there’s plenty of room to have him fight both sides and that would have made a much more interesting story :|

    • Gap Gen says:

      You only kill British people ironically. Connor is kind of an antihero, seeking to establish corporate hegemony for the United States over the entire world.

    • Soon says:

      But aren’t they both British?

    • Urthman says:

      Does that actually bother you Britons? I’d have thought that would make it more fun. I’d much rather play a foreigner killing my own countrymen than the other way around.

    • phylum sinter says:

      Why would that happen? It’s being made by Canadians, with additional work by studios in Singapore (multiplayer) and Singapore (Naval sequences).

      Fearing for this is analogous to looking at AC1 and thinking it will must be cheering the Hashashin exclusively.

  4. PedroBraz says:

    Why is this series still called “Assasins” Creed? Mass murderers Creed would be more fitting considering the amount of blood needed to be spilled in these titles. Or perhaps TimeSoldierAndOcasionalQuestToAssasinateSomeones Creed.

    • Optimaximal says:

      You don’t actually *need* to kill anyone but your targets in any Assassin’s Creed game.

      • Guiscard says:

        Shame that in AC2 trilogy the targets often consisted of half the city watch.

    • Shooop says:

      I’m glad I’m not the only one who notices this.

  5. Llewyn says:

    Worse, everyone could be Shaun.

  6. Ian says:

    I didn’t like the first game much (or more I got bored of it quickly) so I’m hoping they haven’t altaired the formula of the ‘2’ games too much.

    (I think that worked.)

  7. Guiscard says:

    Sons of the American Revolution and a retired US Navy SEAL officer as historical advisors. It strikes me that any chance of cutting away the wanton mythology of the War of Independence just evaporated.

    • Optimaximal says:

      Surely they’re on board as historical & combat consultants respectively.

      • Uglycat says:

        Well, the wiki page says that they describe its purpose as “maintaining and extending the institutions of American freedom, an appreciation for true patriotism, a respect for our national symbols, the value of American citizenship, and the unifying force of e pluribus unum that has created, from the people of many nations, one nation and one people.”

        • Guiscard says:

          Exactly. It’s like using Shakespeare as your consultant on a work on Richard III. These are the sort of people who promulgate the apocryphal or otherwise entirely fictional stories in the mythology that surrounds the Founding Fathers and the revolution. Anything that doesn’t make them look like the shining good guys with God on their divinely inspired side is liable to be dismissed, regardless of authenticity; its not in their interests to do otherwise.

    • Baresark says:

      Wanton mythology of the war of Independence…?

      You do realize that history is an illusion, right? It’s the false concept of having feeling that people have perfect knowledge of the past that leads to the even more false concept that any reasonable or useful degree of foresight is possible.

      In other words, all sides are part of their own “wanton mythology of the the War of Independence”. To further my example, the American Civil War. We are taught that it’s the Civil War, but other historians call it the War for Southern Independence. Historians the world over say it was fought for the freedom for slaves, when that reality is, that didn’t even register at the time. So, further proof that what people think they know about the past/history of anything is mere illusion. Historians compile information then give the false impression they know the whole story. That is what they don’t teach you in school, that no one can have perfect or complete knowledge of the past. I assume this is either because they don’t want people to walk away with the impression they don’t know something (and by extension their schooling is useless) or because most educators the world over are not smart enough to realize that it is human hubris (read: not just American hubris) that leads to this false/wrong/incorrect/incorrigibly stupid concept of perfect knowledge of history.

      • Twitchity says:

        So, history is bunk, eh? I guess that explains the new Texas history text, where George Washington and Jesus defeated King George Muhammad III while riding velociraptors.

        Historians the world over say [the Civil War] was fought for the freedom for slaves, when that reality is, that didn’t even register at the time.

        It’s true that Lincoln didn’t go into the war to free slaves, but it’s ridiculous to say that slavery wasn’t at the heart of the issue; the South saw secession as a way to ensure the survival of slavery, while Northern abolitionists were working hard, particularly at the grassroots and state levels, to shut down federal and inter-state support structures for slavery.

        The state declarations of secession, and the debates surrounding them, show this clearly:

        Georgia: Begins complaining on *sentence two* that the “non-slave-holding” states “persistently refus[e] to comply with their … obligations to us in reference to that property [i.e., slaves],” and then goes on to decry “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it [slavery] everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its [slavery’s] favor….”

        Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

        South Carolina: “[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.”

        Texas: Complains that “non-slave-holding States” have “an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

        How about Confederate GEN Henry Benning? Invited to speak at Virginia’s Secession Convention, he thundered that abolition would mean “black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. … Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand that? … [W]ar will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth, and it is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back. They will then call upon the authorities at Washington, to aid them in putting down servile insurrection, and they will send a standing army down upon us, and the volunteers and Wide-Awakes will come in thousands, and we will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which Abolition will bring upon the white race.”

  8. Knight117 says:

    I’m really looking forward to this, and I’m British. Y’know, I kinda get off on us being the bad guys now that I’ve thought about it. Don’t get me wrong, the American War of Independence was very ambiguous and it sounds like they won’t include BRITISH badasses like John Graves Simcoe, but we’re the British. Being ornery cusses was kind of our hat for about four hundred years.

    Even if they do go the two-sided route, I can still look forward to future games in the era, hopefully. Napoleonic Wars, anyone?

    • Jamesworkshop says:

      I wish people didn’t talk about this element of the game, in a manner that to me could only be done by someone that thinks being british is to be some kind of oppressed minority, why’s everyone being so self-pitying about all of this.

      I like this because it might show the America/Britain are the great and little satan believers that really until the post WW2 period, Britain and America had very strong disagreements about how the world should be arranged, our shared history is a conflicted one rather than an anglophile love fest.

      The conflict isn’t even a particularly moral one, America wanting to rule itself while Britains only real stake is that America is considered too strategic as to allow it independence, it’s effectively a war between business partners.

    • Gap Gen says:

      The war did create the liberal American state as a side-effect, which I’d argue had a generally positive impact on the world (I’m pretty glad fascism or Stalinism didn’t win the 20th Century), so from that point of view it had a moral outcome. But then again, it wasn’t fought to promote liberalism in the first place, just as WWII wasn’t fought to stop the Final Solution, even though that was an outcome. So sure, wars tend to be fought to advance the interests of a given group of people (after all, the USA has done some nasty shit to expand its sphere of influence over the Americas since independence, including genocide and overthrowing democracies), but that’s not to say that there can’t be moral outcomes to it.

      But sure, anyone who believes that one side in the conflict was unambiguously good and one bad is an asshat nationalist, but then there are a lot of those about these days on both sides of the Atlantic, so I guess it sells to bash your historical enemies. Balanced depictions of geopolitics don’t tend to sell quite so well, by comparison.

      • Jamesworkshop says:

        Yeah I was only really talking about the creation of the conflict i.e why the fight started, American desire for independace would have been unopposed if the possition it occupied wasn’t important to british interests.

        The point I was making ultimately was that the war wasn’t based off a hatred of either side, the goal of indepedance was exactly that, it wasn’t the destruction of the British state and empire, merely the seperation from it, with the conflict over very little enmity remained.

        it didn’t turn into “the shores of tripoli” like it could have done.

      • Bhazor says:

        There were no good guys. Both were basically dicks.

  9. NathanH says:

    Connor is such a chav name. It unavoidably makes me think of soccer players and failed GCSEs.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      I don’t know. Makes me think of Highlander. Yeah, I liked Highlander a lot about one-and-a-half decade ago. I suppose I still do.

  10. Reapy says:

    I think in terms of the story, what I’m most concerned about, is the ‘SHOCKING’ revolution we’ll have how, HOLY SHIT THERE IS A FUCKING APPLE OF EDEN BEHIND EVERYTHING!!!! WHO WOULD HAVE FUCKING THOUGHT THAT!!!!!!! ONEONE

  11. StoneMason says:

    I’m almost looking forward to it being a Patriot-centric story, I’ll have to break out the stealth and non-lethal in the British assassinations, something I felt no need for in ACII (my Ezio was a murderous, foppish bastard)

    All the rest of the time I’ll be working to depopulate the Americas of traitors to the King. Bayonet.. the whole.. world

  12. Baresark says:

    Between the setting and all this tired childish bickering that occurs on any site that is not a solely American media site (if such a place even really exists), I’m already bored of this game.

    Here is a news flash: last time I checked, a setting that Americans have learned about from third grade on, is not exciting to see in a game. At least not for Americans. It’s hard for us to be all “america, fuck yeah” about something we learned more about than other history.

  13. thetatertot says:

    I could have sworn that Connor was left-handed, judging from the way he handled his bow. And then they suddenly claim he’s ambidextrous.
    It would be nice to see a true lefty character for once…

  14. maninahat says:

    “…Connor moves very accurate.”

    [Conner magically shifts sideways in mid-air, whilst leaping forward.]