Its not that the War of Independence is a touchy subject, its that the british are kind of sick of history being bastardized. Couple that with the abundant patriotic garbage, that we are also sick of, and the appeal level drops sharply.
Assassin's creed was great, but like heroes(the series) because they did too many games and brotherhood and stuff like that it's just getting too much too long and too uninteresting to the point where I don't care anymore or feel curious about the end. I remember seeing that Adam& Eve scene and wanting more but after those other BS games they released I don't don't care anymore thus the reason I stopped buying their games.
Dont you guys remember the disclaimer during start up - the game is made by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs!
It's developed by Canadians and published by the French, in the game you kill both british and european soldiers, the main enemy is always the templars, and there is even a DLC where George Washington succumbs to power and declares himself King. This is not going to be a "yank-fest".
Also, this is where Desmonds story arc ends for good - so if like me you were a wee bit peed off with Revelations lacking revelations, this will be the one with all the answers.
The thing I'm most concerned about is the setting. I loved exploring the cities of the previous installments and the vistas and opportunities this afforded. The early news seems to suggest that a noticable proportion of the contant involves running through forests, which I fear will get old pretty quickly.
Like a previous commentator stated, I would have liked to have seen the end of Desmonds story (although who knows, maybe this is included?), however not sure how they would manage a modern day setting (oooh, you have a hidden blade, I have nice shiny Templar assult rifle, I win).
The other oddity of course is that the disaster foretold in the previous games is supposed to happen in 2012. Not much time left to wrap this story up then!
I'm still concerned with all the anti-European BS that's apparent in all the trailers. As any real student of history knows, the revolution's causes were a bit more complex and a bit less noble than 'freedom from tyranny'. For example, freedom to keep slaves was a big part of it - see Somersett's Case. I just hope the developers go a bit deeper than the usual superficial treatment that this subject often gets.
Aren't we getting a little bit too worked up about the history element with this game?
Let's not forget, it's a game about a magic machine which allows people to view the memories of their ancestors. I'd like to give people a little more credit than to worry about them thinking the game and it's content are an accurate depiction of events.
Personally, I'd prefer the game to be based in a more realistic historical setting, as the previous games were. A big part of the attraction of the Assassin's Creed series is the accuracy of its history. Assassin's Creed takes history more seriously than most games, books, movies etc.
As for the idea that it's wrong to get 'worked up' about historical accuracy in a mere game, I think that when I spend hours in a game world, it's a breath of fresh air to have it be somewhat educational as well as merely entertaining. I realize that concept may be ludicrously old-fashioned for many of the Michael Bay fans who are perfectly satisfied with the superficial aspects of media, but a big part of why I play this game is that it feels so realistic in terms of geography and history. When a game or a book or a movie gets scientific, technical, geographic or historical details wrong, the fact that I know they got it wrong makes the experience that much less rewarding.
You may be fine with half-baked historical accuracy in an Assassin's Creed game, but I'm not, and I think many of us feel the same way.
"A big part of the attraction of the Assassin's Creed series is the accuracy of its history."
Trouble with that is, apart from the towns, the texts about the places / building and names of people around in that era, much of the content is historically nonsense. Even the disclaimer before you play notes 'this is a work of ficton'.
Unless of course Pope Alexander VI really did call himself 'The Profit' and obtain a mystical staff and orb and wanted to take the Templars (who were disbanded 200 odd years before he was alive) to a magical vault??
N.B. No need for the 'Michael Bay' dig old chap. Just merely pointing out that worring about a particular historical inaccuracies of a game which is a completely made up and fanciful seems a rather pointless affair.
Good thing it's very accurate have you seen the detail gone into the frontier and cities it's crazy. My friend recorded a video of all the cool little features. You can read posters on walls with real slogans and directions to meet up with rebels or redcoats if you're smart enough to figure out the puzzle. Connor is naive in his support for the colonial traitors. I suspect this game is going to leave us emotionally drained and rather upset. At 40 hours i'm going to be either mad with glee or mad with rage. The whole "Amurika f yeah!" thing is just for yank money. We kill "patriots" as much as redcoats.
If they show the human side to both they they will have achieved a masterpiece. Unfortunately i doubt that will be the case most gamers today are sufferers of ADHD and as you put it Michael Bay so they only like explosions rather than a deep emotional story with enough creative freedom to be plausible that hooks you from the get go.
AC to me is that series real world conspiracies blended into real world events. Brilliance.
Haps, I think you're being a bit too restrictive in your view of what makes a game historical. It seems that for you, a game must be entirely backed up by historical research in order to be historically plausible. Of course Pope Alexander didn't call himself 'The Profit'. No one expects that kind of historical accuracy, but at least AC2 gets the Italian states right and doesn't have people calling themselves 'Italians'. One thing that struck me as being particularly anachronistic in the AC3 trailers is when the Colonists call the Regulars 'British'. That distinction could not have been made back then - everyone involved was 'British'. I suspect that the Boston Massacre is going to have a decidedly pro-mob/anti-soldier bias too, when the fact is, we know that the mob was out for Redcoat blood that day. Also, it would be nice if the American Revolution was not populated by Americans who are all high-minded patriots and Britons who are all moustache-twirling villains. These are important details that have nothing to do with the fictional element, so it would be nice if they got them right instead of catering to a stupidly modern jingoistic US myth about the Revolution - that it was all about a tyrannical British Empire which was attempting to subjugate innocent and freedom-loving American 'patriots' ('patriots' who were fighting against their own country - how on Earth that is logical escapes me).
Personally, I've found the games so basically daft and completely bonkers (but extremely enjoyable) I simply can't get concerned by historical inaccuracies. I will have to retract my earlier sentance though where I gave people the benefit of the doubt, just stumbled across this comment on another gaming website;
"I am really looking forward to learning about the Revolution. Brit here so it is a topic ignored during History classes."
Well I can reassure anyone whose played it [ Most of you by now surely? ] that it isnt american propoganda, why? well because as anyone knows history will know the whole american war of independance was basically a brit on brit war...hence the many brit characters on differing sides in the game. Basically brit colonials who didnt want to pay taxes to king George back in England. Then there were the redcoats on ol Georges payroll. And love or loathe the french the fact remains that they supported the colonials by arming them and also supporting them hence the eventual victory which finally resulted in the USA.