Marx, Darwin, And Queen Vic Walk Into A Video Game…

Question: what do you imagine Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Florence Nightingale, Charles Dickens, and Queen Victoria herself would do in the kooky Dan Brown historyfucking world of Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate [official site]? I ask because I laughed when I saw they’re all your pals in the next AssCreed, but I can now leak a few details about their roles. Four words: Charles Darwin’s spider mutagen.

Watch this daft new trailer closely and I’m sure you’ll figure out a few more secrets:

Right, here’s what my source Ian Video Games told me. Bell is obviously your gadget guy. Though his invention of the telephone was sparked by his interest in speech and sound, he also invented the grappling hook gun and electrobombs. When he joins you in combat, expect lots of awful deathpuns like “Looks like you’ve been CUT OFF!”

Charles Darwin’s your other science bod. While Bell upgrades your tech, Darwin upgrades your body. His mutagens will splice Evie and Jacob with powerful abilities from animals such as spiders (+10% climbing speed), jellied eels (+10% dodge chance), and Cockney sparrows (a handsome beak letting you chirp to summon swarms of birds and regain health by pecking up seeds).

Karl Marx is the focus of a key quest line. Templar agents have swiped his original manuscript of Das Kapital, which – oh no! – contains hidden messages from the aliens. Does AssCreed still do aliens? Point is: across a dozen quests you will retrieve the manuscript and cipher and unlock powerful proletariat abilities – if you have the coin. At the quest’s end, Marx quips “Last words are for fools who haven’t said enough” before popping an electrobullet through the face of a Templar spy – his own wife.

Amazingly, Florence Nightingale is written by someone whose research into her took the form of a YouTube search which ended at that sweary Big Train sketch. Her appearances are all too brief, and she’s gone after you win her lamp (+10 night vision) beating her in a race across the rooftops of Lambeth Walk. “Jerrybag,” she spits.

“I’d be happy if you could stab Charles Dickens in the neck,” Pip told me. She will be happy. He is a Templar spy, but you’ll be right narked after you kill him and lose the powerful abilities he gave you. These include Let’s Twist Again (an AoE melee attack) and David Copperfield (disappear in a puff of smoke and walk through a wall).

As for Queen Victoria, well, I shan’t spoil it for you, but here’s a hint for how to earn Syndicate’s most difficult secret achievement: what will make her amused?

Please do share any details you’ve spotted in the trailer, chums. Or wait until it comes out on October 23rd November 19th [thanks Ubi!] and see how real all these real facts are, I guess.

86 Comments

  1. Firkragg says:

    Best. Alt-text. EVAR!

  2. gunny1993 says:

    God I hope Darwin has a sidequest where you have to try to kill Alfred Russell Wallace, with lots of puns like “You walked too close to the line Wallace”

  3. Prolar Bear says:

    These are real facts. I want to believe.

  4. Jediben says:

    “Oppression has to end”? YOU’RE FRIENDS WITH QUEEN FUCKING VICTORIA. If she isn’t the oppressor, who the hell is?

    • KreissV says:

      “Oppression has to end! Oppr- Please pull your trousers below your ankles Assassin, gosh you are unseemly.And you! Where is your corset!”

  5. mashkeyboardgetusername says:

    I love how silly this all is, it’s like the ridiculous historical cameos in Dr Who (e.g. last episode having a quip about Beethoven enjoying an armwrestle). For me Assassin’s Creed games haven’t been SERIOUS BUSINESS for a while so this doesn’t bother me. It’s all good fun.

  6. MattMk1 says:

    Huh. Intellectually, I suppose I know that you can’t blame a guy for the utter horror that his theories came to inspire, or (if you want to be generous) were twisted into.

    But despite that, I really don’t think I’m going to be able to tolerate Karl Marx as a sympathetic NPC, much less running around doing missions for him “for the workers!”

    • Captain Joyless says:

      “Huh. Intellectually, I suppose I know that you can’t blame a guy for the utter horror that his theories came to inspire, or (if you want to be generous) were twisted into.”

      Yeah, like graduated income taxes and free education for children!

      • MattMk1 says:

        Well, where I grew up, it was murder, robbery, oppression, crushing poverty, graduated income taxes and free school for children. So really, pretty much the same thing except for minor details.

        • Captain Joyless says:

          Same for my grandparents. See my response below.

          • Captain Joyless says:

            In short, I’m pretty sure there was murder, robbery, oppression, and crushing poverty there before there was communism. As it turns out, communism doesn’t fix those things.

        • DanExile says:

          And where did you grow up, social-darwinist, Laissez-faire silverspoon-fed spawn? Workers’ masochism and self-hate which are so popular in the land of “free” & “brave” braindead zombies do seem mentally contagious in your case. Keep on fighting for corporatocracy & feel the Call of Duty to lie in the grave for beloved brands, slave :P

          • MattMk1 says:

            I grew up in Communist/Socialist Poland, dipshit.

          • DanExile says:

            A, yes. Land of pious Reaganites trying to forever combine their Prophet Milton Friedman with Jesus. Greed & Cross for all. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

          • shde2e says:

            I can’t tell if this guy is being serious, or if he’s trying to make a joke. If so, I dont get it.

          • DanExile says:

            Well, ofcourse you don’t get it, you are lumpenproletariat, either criminal or too much into fellating corporate phalluses that you see nothing apart from the beloved Boss. I expected more from the Brits, but Americanization is eating away at your minds just as Kardashian/McDonalds/Monsanto food you devour all to readily.

          • TheAngriestHobo says:

            Um, wow. Can we ban please ban this dude? He’s clearly being a massive dick and an ignorant bigot.

          • elderman says:

            A troll. Ignoring is best. If you really can’t resist engaging, for goodness sake stay civil.

          • DanExile says:

            No, there is no trolling, corporate jizz-licker. Or, if you are from Eastern Europe, mind the leash while you lick Western feces and pray to St. Reagan.

        • AyeBraine says:

          Haha, you’re writing that you’re from Socialist Poland like it’s some kind of a heroic deed, and you have to be treated for PTSD for it. Fervently black-painting the past is so cute in former soc republics. (I’m not saying Balts, Czechs and Poles didn’t miss on much nicer things by staying in the Bloc, but if you were not born around 1922, to say “murder & robbery” with a straght face? Come on. We loved going on holidays in your republics!)

    • TheAngriestHobo says:

      I can’t be the only one who thought you were talking about Darwin after that first paragraph.

      But, yeah, as someone whose family was thoroughly fucked by communism, I hear you.

      • Emeraude says:

        I was more thinking it was about Queen Victoria myself…

        • Gap Gen says:

          Zing.

          But yeah, it’s a testament to the power of the victors writing the history books that people can look at Victorian Britain and go “oh yeah, we built railways in India, we were the good guys” rather than “sorry about the man-made famines in India that killed tens of millions of people”.

      • Captain Joyless says:

        Look, my grandparents were run out of Cuba for the same reason. But the line from 1840s Marx to 1950s Cuba is not a very straight one, and there are a lot branches that benefited a lot of people along the way. (Like the aforementioned idea for graduated income taxes, the abolition of child labor, and government-sponsored education for children.)

        That doesn’t mean that Stalinism wasn’t terrible. But as it turns out western countries did a lot of great things with Marxist critiques of capital. A lot of badly run societies (oh, like, Tsarist Russia and pre-revolution Cuba) weren’t in a good place in the first place, and a lot of people weren’t happy to begin with (probably including the descendants of slaves my greatgrandparents owned in Cuba, which didn’t abolish slavery until 1887). The transition to modernity was bound to be a lot of worse for those countries, and I don’t think you can realistically chalk it up to Marxism any more than you can blame the world’s current on problems on “religion.” (Which is to say, to an extent, you can, but only insofar as it’s a way for uneducated, poor, oppressed people to deal with the fact that they are uneducated, poor, oppressed people.)

        • TheAngriestHobo says:

          This is absolutely true, and I don’t deny that left-wing politics have done a lot of good for the world (or, as you say, at least those parts of it that were fortunate enough to be able to implement them without being taken advantage of). And, as the OP mentioned, there is a clear distinction between Marxism and Communism, or, at the worst, extreme, Stalinism.

          Nevertheless, when you spend your childhood hearing stories about how your grandparents, people you grew up with and love, were mercilessly hunted across half a continent because of ideology and greed, it leaves an impression which no academic argument can deflate.

    • Dunderbar says:

      Karl Marx is as responsible for the tragedies of 20th century socialism as Charles Darwin is for the eugenics programmes of the Nazis.

      Have you actually ever read any of Karl Marx’s writing?

      • DanExile says:

        Are you actually a worker? Are you going to get up tomorrow to play the role of a sycophantic toady for you beloved boss? Or you have other MileyCyrus-like “identities”, like being a gay/hipster/American/Etc. Pardon my French, but you are brain-dead lumpenproletariat.

        • MattMk1 says:

          If this is a parody, bravo.

          If not… do the members of your commune know you’re misusing The People’s Computer to read consumerist trash like RPS?

          • DanExile says:

            Well, British loo-cleaner, ask your voluntary slave-driver to do overtime conquest of feces for free…increased “productivity” and “value added” for all :D Still, you owe me one for this:
            A, yes. Land of pious Reaganites trying to forever combine their Prophet Milton Friedman with Jesus. Greed & Cross for all. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
            And, no, there’s no “people’s computer”, but ask you slave-driver about who owns your sorry Polish ass now…or pray to Jesus & pass the Reagan memorabilia in your celebration of “freedom to be exploited” and not be aware of it. Ah, Poles, you never learn.

        • shde2e says:

          The jury is still out on the parody thing. I hope for the best and fear for the worst, whatever that is.

          • DanExile says:

            There is no parody and the failure to recognize its non-existence would be disheartening if it were not for the decades of corporatist social-darwinist propaganda, spread among market slaves who swallow it all too readily, like eager cheap whores.

          • MattMk1 says:

            I’m not 100% sure myself. Ever see one of those websites that can automatically generate a Postmodern essay on any subject? I’m thinking it might be a twist on that idea.

          • DanExile says:

            As everything is rather “automatic” in your relationship with your dog-owner & reality, your see “automation” everywhere. No, only blindness is automatic, remember it tomorrow at 8.am when you dream of the loo which “automatically” cleans itself.

          • Ostymandias says:

            i speak pomo and can say with a certain accuracy that this is parotrollic

          • DanExile says:

            Another corporate slave lulled into oblivion by Coca-Cola & Kardashians…or simply an adolescent pimp on his slave-owner’s rectum. There is no civility until you wake up to your sorry & failed lives under your free market cult.

      • Ostymandias says:

        i have, it’s all genocidal madness like this:

        “That portion of the working day which merely produces an equivalent for the value paid by the capitalist for his labour-power, has, up to this point, been treated by us as a constant magnitude, and such in fact it is, under given conditions of production and at a given stage in the economic development of society. Beyond this, his necessary labour-time, the labourer, we saw, could continue to work for 2, 3, 4, 6, &c., hours. The rate of surplus-value and the length of the working day depended on the magnitude of this prolongation. Though the necessary labour-time was constant, we saw, on the other hand, that the total working day was variable. Now suppose we have a working day whose length, and whose apportionment between necessary labour and surplus-labour, are given. Let the whole line a c, a—b—c represent, for example, a working day of 12 hours; the portion of a b 10 hours of necessary labour, and the portion b c 2 hours of surplus-labour. How now can the production of surplus-value be increased, i.e., how can the surplus-labour be prolonged, without, or independently of, any prolongation of a c?

        Although the length of a c is given, b c appears to be capable of prolongation, if not by extension beyond its end c, which is also the end of the working day a c, yet, at all events, by pushing back its starting-point b in the direction of a. Assume that b’—b in the line ab’bc is equal to half of b c

        a——b’—b—c

        or to one hour’s labour-time. If now, in a c, the working day of 12 hours, we move the point b to b’, b c becomes b’ c; the surplus-labour increases by one half, from 2 hours to 3 hours, although the working day remains as before at 12 hours. This extension of the surplus labour-time from b c to b’ c, from 2 hours to 3 hours, is, however, evidently impossible, without a simultaneous contraction of the necessary labour-time from a b into a b’, from 10 hours to 9 hours. The prolongation of the surplus-labour would correspond to a shortening of the necessary labour; or a portion of the labour-time previously consumed, in reality, for the labourer’s own benefit, would be converted into labour-time for the benefit of the capitalist. There would be an alteration, not in the length of the working day, but in its division into necessary labour-time and surplus labour-time.”

        • Zephro says:

          This made me laugh, also cry a little inside from having attempted to read Das Kapital. The memory haunts me.

      • Laurentius says:

        Well, have you ? I did and Karl Marx is clearly in favor of revolution and really bloody one, like for real and it is all in text. You can’t say that Lenin’s bolshevik’s reolution wasn’t inspired by Marx’s ideas. Sure, Lenin then run with the idea that terror doesn’t hjave to stop because it is actually very good method of runing governence, consolidating power and keeping masses helpless.

        • Muzman says:

          Much of which you can trace back to the French revolution anyway.

          There’s arguments that Marx’s concept of revolution isn’t necessarily of the bloody uprising sort, even though it involves that initially, and is a bit more philosophical and abstract since at the very least that doesn’t really square with the sort of society he purports to desire. But it is a problem that he’s not terribly clear about this and this notion of ‘revolutionary society’ and the general pattern of uprisings in general left a lot of room for the convenient unpleasentness that Lenin and Stalin found in there.
          In general you could say that ideology of any sort is something we should treat with suspicion.

          • Laurentius says:

            Thing is that this argument was first that I heard about Marx’s ideas, that link to Lenin’s revolution can not be traced etc. And then I read Merx’s works ( not all of them ) and was suprised how actually it is not all elusive or philosophical. It’s pretty straight forward call for revolution and rather struck me as pretty good description of what marxist revolutionary movements actually did.

          • Muzman says:

            Well it’s sort of both, is what I’m saying. I think such an argument about Lenin is technically correct when you look at the details of the Russian situation, the Menshevik split, the eventual seizing of power etc etc. There’s nothing specifically in Marx that told him to do these things in the way that he did.
            But from a broader perspective it’s a bit disingenuous. There’s little doubt that much of what Lenin and co were trying to do is laid out in the Communist Manifesto and it was part of their popular support.

          • Tom89 says:

            RPS has got to be the only PC gaming website that could spawn this kind of civil discussion. Bravo to all involved!

            Anyway- anyone, left or right, who argues that Marx’s ideas have no connection to those of Lenin and, later, Stalin probably isn’t that familiar with any of them. That said, the road to damnation is often paved with good intentions. I think it’s all too easy to look back with the benefit of hindsight and declare that particular grisly outcomes were obvious- you have to remember the context of their time. Marxism came about at the height of the European imperialist age, when states had few qualms about crushing any unrest with the maximum amount of force. Violent resistance in the context of a free society is not the same as it is in a deeply oppressive one.

            Plus, even when you concede that line from Marx to the Gulag, you still have to reconcile that with things like proletarian internationalism becoming socialism in one country- i.e. that any idea can get turned into its literal opposite and still be classified under the same umbrella ideology. Point being- interpretation counts for a lot, and the interpreter needs to bear the bulk of the responsibility if they go off and do something abominable.

            I’ve read quite a few of Marx’s works and Lenin’s to boot- out of interest what books have you read? As above, I find that what you take from them is highly dependent on what you’re looking for (and it doesn’t help that communist literature is not only international and steeped in wonky transaltions, but was for 70years or so dominated by the propagandist interpretations of ruthless totalitarian dictatorships)…

      • MattMk1 says:

        Somehow missed that this was directed at me, this really is the worst comment system of the modern internet.

        Have I read Marx? Yes, though not extensively. I’ve also read some Lenin. Enough to make me wonder why people would even try to argue there is no meaningful connection there.

    • Consumatopia says:

      It could be that Americans (or in this case Canadians?) are more tolerant of Ironic Communism. I’ll be honest, my first instinct was to think that getting quests from Karl Marx sounds hilarious. That’s probably insensitive of me, but I wouldn’t want to swing in the other direction where works like “Tropico”, “Papers, Please”, or “Red Son” were considered offensive.

      • Captain Joyless says:

        Tropico IS offensive. But because it’s set on a charming tropical island nobody, it’s “funny” to have a “Book BBQ” or “Ban (faction)” or “outlaw contraception.”

        I haven’t played the Democracy series in a long time, but you can assassinate/jail political rivals on a whim, or use prisons as political reeducation facilities?

        Try setting those game mechanics in a mid-century continental European setting.

        • Consumatopia says:

          Sadly, I haven’t gotten around to playing Democracy 3, but is this what you’re looking for? link to positech.co.uk

          I can see how the tone of Tropico is offensive, but the mechanics? I would very much like to see more games simulating authoritarian regimes, including their more brutal tactics. Maybe if there were more such games, Americans would have a better understanding of why such regimes are so persistent.

          FWIW, I would totally play a game where you ruled Arztotzka from Papers, Please with Tropico-like mechanics.

    • Chaoslord AJ says:

      As people said he can’t actually be made responsible for the people who twisted his ideas like say Jesus or Nietzsche.
      Atrocities of the 20th century were carried out by “communist” party dictatorships which is rather different to what Marx taught -basically progression to anarchism of responsible people.
      Most communist parties today (in democratic countries) still teach strong state – law and order – wellfare which essentially mirrors right-aligned populist parties and would lead to dictatorships would they be empowered.

      • MattMk1 says:

        ..why do people feel the need to tell me this? Did you actually read the first sentence of my post?

        I’m talking about emotional responses, so whatever you think you know about Marxist theory vs. Marxist reality, it doesn’t change the fact that some of my earliest childhood memories were of tanks and men with AK-47s in the street, because a government claiming to follow Marxist ideology declared martial law was busily crushing the Solidarity movement.

        As for Marx being no more responsible than Jesus for what people do with his message – I’m not sure that’s really the best analogy to make your point. I’m pretty sure TONS of people would shit themselves sideways if someone made a non-ironic AAA game that had a side-quest in which the main character gets his marching orders from Jesus… Actually, I’m not sure which side of the spectrum that would piss off more.

        Hmm. I suppose I should take comfort in knowing that somewhere, Marxists are frothing at the mouth that Ubisoft is taking their god’s name in vain and using his likeness in their orgy of capitalistic greed.

        • Consumatopia says:

          “I’m pretty sure TONS of people would shit themselves sideways if someone made a non-ironic AAA game that had a side-quest in which the main character gets his marching orders from Jesus”

          Ha ha, yes, I also want to play this hypothetical game.

    • Premium User Badge

      basilisk says:

      Considering that the overarching plot of the series is about a (extremely simplified and therefore very silly) centuries long battle between freedom and control, and that this game takes place in the exact period when Marx was living in London and writing the most important stuff he would ever write, it was impossible for him not to be there and not to be rather heavily involved.

      Bumping into famous people is a huge part of the series. I mean, Ezio was chums with Machiavelli, which could theoretically be even worse depending on how you see puzzling old Niccolo. Not including Marx would have been far more bizarre than including him. He’s pretty much at the top of the list of all possible candidates.

      (And there’s even a built-in escape hatch in the series lore; I wouldn’t be surprised if the AC version of history was that Lenin = Marx + Apple of Eden. Again, very very silly, but pretty handy for these cases.)

      • MattMk1 says:

        And I would argue that as the historical period gets closer to the present, their approach to using “real” historical figures becomes increasingly problematic.

        IMO as you get closer to the present and the amount of (somewhat) reliable historical records increases, AC’s mangling of history becomes harder to reconcile, and I think it’s going to be highly problematic for them to continue to use major political figures if they bring the game into the 20th century.

        At some point, they’re going to have to stop… don’t they? Or are we going to get AC games some years from now in which you try to stop Trotsky from getting the ice-pick, or synchronizing a viewpoint perched on top of the Texas School Book Depository?

        • Premium User Badge

          basilisk says:

          As far as I recall, the present-day bits in AC4 ruled out anything from roughly the Great War onwards. They wrapped it in some Animus mumbo-jumbo about vehicles desyncing memories or somesuch, which they could of course easily retcon if they wanted to, but I do think they actually meant it.

          But yes, it was already plain in Unity that it’s getting harder and harder to do this. AC is written in the margins of history proper, and the closer you get to present day, the narrower the margins become. One of the many reasons why I thought Victorian London was not the wisest choice, given the state of the series.

          Because frankly, the way Unity handled the French Revolution was a mess. Not that I expected anything else, considering how incredibly complicated the revolution was, but they could have at least failed gracefully, which they didn’t.

    • bolshevik says:

      utter teror ? like what abolishment of class divide ending of racism greed sexism and homophobia

  7. Pink Gregory says:

    This is going to sound odd, but all of their VAs were deeply underwhelming.

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      I can’t help but feel that old “Alec” is voiced by someone who vaguely knows how to do an English accent and has been asked to “Scottish it up a bit.” Dickens sounds alright though… Main character sounds like Spike from Buffy :/

      • JamesTheNumberless says:

        It’s in the way he very deliberately pronounces every syllable of the word “sod”. His first line in the game will undoubtedly be something about Manchester United.

        • Sian says:

          Um… “Sod” consists of exactly one syllable.

          • JamesTheNumberless says:

            Yes that was a bit of an editing disaster of a comment… It’s the way every letter of “sod it”, particularly the emphasis on the ‘t’ just doesn’t quite sit right. This is nitpicking though, Bell’s is the only accent that really bothers me.

      • ParaHS says:

        I’d say the accent was fine, perfectly Scottish-sounding.

  8. zgtc says:

    I’ll be honest, I’m more than a bit delighted that they have a notable Victorian-era historian and author narrating this video.

    I’m torn between thinking she signed on unknowingly thinking this might be historically accurate and hoping she’s just delighting in a National History style “fuck this history nonsense, let’s just have some goddamn fun” chance to get away from reason and logic.

  9. JamesTheNumberless says:

    “jellied eels (+10% dodge chance)”

    I don’t know about that, some of the ones you get in Clapham are well dodge, at least 50%.

  10. Muzman says:

    “unlock powerful proletariat abilities”

    Yes! At last a skill tree with ‘bad back’, ‘alcoholism’, ‘illiteracy’ and ‘the stirring singalong’ in it. It’s all a bit snakes and ladders.

  11. Turkey says:

    Why would someone named Pip hate Charles Dickens?

  12. hotmaildidntwork says:

    Bitterness at having to go through life named pip?

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      Being forced to actually read his overrated pulp-serial rubbish in depth in order to write a paper at school or university, usually does it for most people.

  13. Palimpsest says:

    I think it’s actually out on November 19 on PC

  14. Laurentius says:

    Well I can say I don’t like Britain (maybe even hate) and I blame Britain and its politcs for most ills and wars that plagued Europe since 18th century till finally importance of Britain diminished. So I should feel pretty good to see Britain’s history and culture butchered in that way but I am also historian so I don’t. This is so colossaly stupid even for AC.

    • Myrdinn says:

      But isn’t that guy from Top Gear also British? Shouldn’t he be in this?! What about Shakespeare or King Arthur? They’re missing out on some really important historical figures in this AC, i am disappoint.

    • Premium User Badge

      Harlander says:

      I’m pretty sure some of them were Belgium’s fault.

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      Really, you blame Britain for Napoleon? Pretty sure that most of the wars in Europe between 1700 and the present are either France’s fault or Austria’s fault (or a combination of theirs and others).

      • JamesTheNumberless says:

        Actually war participation in Europe 1700-2015 is more or less a 4-way tie between France, Austria, Russia and the Ottomans. Britain and Germany may have been responsible for some particularly nasty ones but far from the majority… Unless you’re suggesting Britain somehow started them all? Now that’s a history book I’d love to read.

      • Laurentius says:

        But maybe it all started with Seven Years’ War and switched alliances ? Anyway I certainly don’t keep France, Russia, Austria or Prussia/Germany blameless.

        • elderman says:

          Blame? This is seriously off-topic, but by my lights that’s a fallacy right there. Blame is something that accrues to individuals, or perhaps small groups of people who act together. Countries don’t have a moral capacity, so can’t be blamed. Blaming a whole country extends the domestic analogy beyond what it can sustain.

          • Josh W says:

            I think blaming countries is pretty useful, so long as you continue to transfer that blame in little slices to those people who had influence on it being that way.

            It’s like a dog who bites people; it’s the dogs fault, but the person who owns it probably should have trained them better.

            Ok, it’s not quite the same, as dogs are rarely created from aggregates of other human beings, but imagine that they are and it should transfer fine.

          • JamesTheNumberless says:

            Fair point. My argument is really that since Britain wasn’t even involved in the majority of European wars in the last 300 years, it can’t really take the blame for the majority of them. Of course it’s totally reasonable to claim Britain’s foreign policy, trade monopolies and even the industrial revolution contributed to situations that led to wars between other European powers. While you can’t blame Britain very easily for Austria’s imperialism in the Balkans you can certainly point a finger at Britain and Prussia/Germany’s post Napoleonic arms race as probably being worse for European stability. The irony being that in wars almost everybody believes what they’re doing is in the best interests of long-term stability. Just look at the differences between Russia and the US right now in the middle east :)

          • elderman says:

            Oh wow, I didn’t expect anyone to actually respond to a comment posted at the very end of a comment section’s useful life. Quickly, since I should get writing this morning:

            Pointing the finger at a country does a bunch of things that aren’t useful. It distracts from the personal responsibility that decision makers should bear. The idea of blame discourages nuance.

            It does this by inappropriately assigning collective responsibility. Just pursuing the logic of blame a step or two shows how absurd it is. You assign blame retrospectively, of course, as you’ve all done here, to a country that still exists. But how are 21st century French people responsible for decisions taken two hundred years ago? They can’t be. However, people talk blame to justify their modern prejudices, or worse, actions.

            Assigning collective blame doesn’t work for other reasons, too. It includes people who can’t be held responsible, like children. Geographically: we shouldn’t exterminate a nation for the attrocities directed by its leaders… I wont go through them all.

            Finger-pointing has the added problem of going in just one direction. The historical blame game becomes a way of asserting moral authority. The subject of course is war; leaders assert moral authority in relation to war to justify new aggressions. We shouldn’t be actively helping leaders justify more war. QED (or it would be if I took more time over it) blaming is a poor attitude to take toward history.

            Heck, I find it’s not terribly useful when I’m arguing with my partner, either, and it doesn’t become a better idea by generalising it.

            So: dogs and England. The dog analogy is a great one because it’s so totally inappropriate and self-contradicting. Since the dog, unlike a human being, doesn’t have moral responsibility, a wise observer won’t blame the dog, but will instead look at the situation and the people responsible for the dog. Why do you look to blame someone for an aggressive dog? In order to punish them and extract compensation. At the international level, it’s a bad idea to collectively punish or fine a nation after a war: see Treaty of Versailles, The. You don’t treat nations like dogs.

            On to England. Our starting point is the specious claim that Britain is responsible for “most ills and wars” between 17-something and 19-something. Great Britain was one of the world’s great military powers during this period, involved in plenty of wars and other violent actions, in Europe and elsewhere. Surely, if blame is a good way of talking about what a country does in the world, Britain will take on more than its share. This is brings us back to the purpose of assigning blame, because you have to want to do it. Blaming isn’t a practical or moral imperative. Why blame England. Laurentius would have to answer that himself, but without his input, we’ll just have to speculate privately.

            I same some of my bullets for writing someone will actually read.

  15. Zephro says:

    God that looks painful. I don’t think it’d clicked that the Assassin’s Creed series had really stooped to that level of fucking idiocy.

    Terrible “funny” accents, check. Probable mangling of history, in that way that betrays the spirit of people not the facts which are less interesting. Why on earth would an east end gangster be hanging out with Karl Marx and the Queen?

    Also just the thought of seeing my home city represented as a hilarious cockney load of bollocks is depressing.

    I think I’m going to need to go play Victoria 2.

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      Wait until the next one, set just before WW1 in Vienna where you foil a plot by Hitler to deliver a really tasteless painting of his mother to Sigmund Freud, then go for coffee with Trotsky and Stalin. Günther Burstyn provides you with his prototype tank which you use to foil the assassination attempt on Franz Ferdinand.

    • KreissV says:

      You wot mate, everyone in ENNNNNGGGLAND speaks like this! Jolly good show my good man, let us head down to the pub and be English and the like.

      • JamesTheNumberless says:

        Quite right, afterall there is only one British accent isn’t there? In therefore should include all of the Britishisms, all of the time. As they say in North America. “Y’all, like totally, get us, eh?”

  16. Press X to Gary Busey says:

    I hope they use Marx as an in-game microtransaction instigator.

  17. mattevansc3 says:

    Well in a semi-ironic twist, two of those characters helping you in the crusade against oppressive capitalism are pre-order DLC.