Rumor: Assassin's Creed 3 Takes Place In 18th Century America

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]

every dang game is taking place in america. do something different ubisoft.

XVision84

This is completely different though, that's modern america, this is 18th century america. There's a big difference in, well, everything. USA wasn't a country until 1776 and the revolution ended in the year 1800.

every dang game is taking place in america. do something different ubisoft.

Mordred19

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]

every dang game is taking place in america. do something different ubisoft.

TheEroica

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

Ah now I remember you. You hate AC:B even though it's arguably the best game in the series. Storyline isn't crap. You have to realize you're in the minority in thinking that AC:B is a bad game and I think you do. You just want to put your different opinion out there so others will challenge it. In other words, you're trolling.

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

Maybe:

• Rome during the time of Jesus's birth
• India
• Babylon
• Constantinople 1453

The Roman Republic before Christ would be a great setting as well... Could make it out tha Ceaser was killed by a Assassin in the garb of the senate for that incident.

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

Ah now I remember you. You hate AC:B even though it's arguably the best game in the series. Storyline isn't crap. You have to realize you're in the minority in thinking that AC:B is a bad game and I think you do. You just want to put your different opinion out there so others will challenge it. In other words, you're trolling.

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

Ah now I remember you. You hate AC:B even though it's arguably the best game in the series. Storyline isn't crap. You have to realize you're in the minority in thinking that AC:B is a bad game and I think you do. You just want to put your different opinion out there so others will challenge it. In other words, you're trolling.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"] This sort of true. :P Crysis 2, LA Noire, Infamous 2, Batman AC...etc..Nintendo_Ownes7

This is completely different though, that's modern america, this is 18th century america. There's a big difference in, well, everything. USA wasn't a country until 1776 and the revolution ended in the year 1800.

I honestly think the Nepoleanic War within France would be a far more interesting and approriate setting for Assassin's Creed.. If you look at the past games each and every one had a antogonist that was clear in takin over everything it seemed.. The only one I would want to see.. Would be In the Caribbean.. Between the multiple powers fighting within that region.. Afterall it could be huge focal point, seeing as the caribbean and South America were key for places like Spain for the gold and sugar provided..

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]

every dang game is taking place in america. do something different ubisoft.

TheEroica

blockbuster games in general I mean.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"] This sort of true. :P Crysis 2, LA Noire, Infamous 2, Batman AC...etc..Nintendo_Ownes7

This is completely different though, that's modern america, this is 18th century america. There's a big difference in, well, everything. USA wasn't a country until 1776 and the revolution ended in the year 1800.

That information was incorrect, I made a mistake so I edited it out. I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the Declaration of Independance in 1776.

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]

Ah now I remember you. You hate AC:B even though it's arguably the best game in the series. Storyline isn't crap. You have to realize you're in the minority in thinking that AC:B is a bad game and I think you do. You just want to put your different opinion out there so others will challenge it. In other words, you're trolling.

TheEroica

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

charlesdarwin55

Ah now I remember you. You hate AC:B even though it's arguably the best game in the series. Storyline isn't crap. You have to realize you're in the minority in thinking that AC:B is a bad game and I think you do. You just want to put your different opinion out there so others will challenge it. In other words, you're trolling.

I can see while some people didn't enjoy ACII, I can't for the life of me see how anyone could love ACI and think ACII was bad. ACI did have an interesting premise, however the game play was seriously flawed on so many levels. AC2 did a good job of taking the great idea of ACI and getting rid of the biggest game play issues.

- Don't ride your hose at a normal speed, that's a major felony around the 14th hundred. They will kill you on sight.

- After you did the first assassination you'd tried most of what the game had to offer. after that it just recycled just about everything.

- Just how many times did the game make you bloody ride back to that bloody mountain fortress.

- Altair was a far less interesting character, arrogant, and he showed fairly little character development through the game compared to Ezio.

- While I agree that the combat in ACII and AC:B is too easy, that was also true in ACI. Block and counter attack to insta-kill any opponent.

- No real meta game like AC2 and AC:B. AC1 had no side missions or goals beyond finding the 100 flags. AC2 and AC:B offers far more stuff to do and far more reasons to explore the game world.

- The same 4-5 mini-games repeated over and over in order to unlock the assassinations. AC2's mission structure offers far more diversity more complex storytelling, more interesting characters, more character development and more player choices on how to enjoy the game world.

that would be cool, they better use a new engine thoughKevinButlerVP

[QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"] yeah that's me! But no It definitely isn't. Yes it is. & yes Im obviously in minority if the game got 91 on metacritic and I say it deserves 65. Ehm no I don't want people to challenge it, I want people to agree with me so it gets lower reviews & Ubisoft realize they can't continue with crap story, characters, gameplay & framerate.charlesdarwin55

.

.

.

.

.MASSIVE SPOILERS Only look if you've completed all three games and/or dont care about the story (shame on you) :) >>> Desmond (adam) is supposed to find his eve and make a child thus releasing the power of the apple or whatver (havent worked that part out yet) but basically the act of desmond murdering Lucy is due to two reasons, one being that Lucy is in fact a templar agent which was made reference to in a line about her and "the cross" and it would explain her absence from time to time in the hideout. The alien being made desmond do it because not only was she not who SHE said she was but also because she ISNT eve and desmond IS attracted to her romantically. The "alien" in the temple was basically setting things on a course that needed to happen for desmond to fulfill his destiny... find eve.

oops, forget about what I said about everyone wearing black clothing. That'll benefit the game taking place in the 18th century since that wasn't yet the time when everyone wore fancy clothing, so it would be easier to blend in. I can easily imagine an America like this, I know Sherlock Holmes takes place a century later but for those of you who saw the movie (with Robert Downey Junior) and the scenery with the ships, it could be something of that sort.

Like that, now imagine one of those guys in the group of soldiers in the back being part an assassin. The white robes could be white and red allowing them to blend in with soldiers. Also as you can see they use swords and horses, so the formula wouldn't really have to change. This could transition into modern day Desmond being an assassin.

XVision84

Not to mention that Ben Franklin Is a PERFECT stand in for DaVinci and TADAAAA frankin is a freemason... hmmmm.....

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]

Ah now I remember you. You hate AC:B even though it's arguably the best game in the series. Storyline isn't crap. You have to realize you're in the minority in thinking that AC:B is a bad game and I think you do. You just want to put your different opinion out there so others will challenge it. In other words, you're trolling.

Mazoch

I can see while some people didn't enjoy ACII, I can't for the life of me see how anyone could love ACI and think ACII was bad. ACI did have an interesting premise, however the game play was seriously flawed on so many levels. AC2 did a good job of taking the great idea of ACI and getting rid of the biggest game play issues.

- Don't ride your hose at a normal speed, that's a major felony around the 14th hundred. They will kill you on sight.

That was annoying I agree.

- After you did the first assassination you'd tried most of what the game had to offer. after that it just recycled just about everything.

I dissagree, well maybe a little but I liked what the game offered I didn't mind it, but anyway it was a great start for the series if they'd continued with this maybe the third AC would have been more assassiny where you hade to prepare & be stealthy but unlike ACI the preparations would've actually meant something.

- Just how many times did the game make you bloody ride back to that bloody mountain fortress.

- Altair was a far less interesting character, arrogant, and he showed fairly little character development through the game compared to Ezio.

Altair was the weakest character in ACI while Ezio was the best in ACII & AC:B, but he was much more intersting he develops alot from being arrogant->returning to his master with respect->questioning all his master, his believes etc. On the other hand Ezio goes from young naivesterotypic italian wannabe badasstoold naivesterotypic italian wannabe badass & he is very boring, just being naive all the time walks around as if he owned the place & he likes girls. that's it no depth whatsoever.

- While I agree that the combat in ACII and AC:B is too easy, that was also true in ACI. Block and counter attack to insta-kill any opponent.

Agree but it was harder at least. I say they shouold just rip off the Demon's Souls combat system & 5 guards vs you=DEAD. So you have to use stealth.

- No real meta game like AC2 and AC:B. AC1 had no side missions or goals beyond finding the 100 flags. AC2 and AC:B offers far more stuff to do and far more reasons to explore the game world.

Agree with this but the sidemissions are so boring in the later games. It'sstuff like run faster than some guy or go punch a guy. Boring...

- The same 4-5 mini-games repeated over and over in order to unlock the assassinations. AC2's mission structure offers far more diversity more complex storytelling, more interesting characters, more character development and more player choices on how to enjoy the game world.

You had to prepare like a real assassin, it didn't help you but it was something they should've developed in the later games. Yes more diversity but it doesn't matter when it is crap anyway like in ACB when you have to kill 5 guards withouth them noticing you but if one sees you 1 sec before he dies=DESYNCRONIZED but it's ok to leave a trail of corpses... & all the tail mission are so boring and annoying, I liked much more eaves dropping and you learnt where are your target what kinda defence he has etc. Story is maybe complex but incredibly shallow, and the same with the character, the worst set of characters I've ever seen in any game, incredibly shallow characters.

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

[QUOTE="TheEroica"] We meet again over this topic ;) how are ya brother.TheEroica

.

.

.

.

.MASSIVE SPOILERS Only look if you've completed all three games and/or dont care about the story (shame on you) :) >>> Desmond (adam) is supposed to find his eve and make a child thus releasing the power of the apple or whatver (havent worked that part out yet) but basically the act of desmond murdering Lucy is due to two reasons, one being that Lucy is in fact a templar agent which was made reference to in a line about her and "the cross" and it would explain her absence from time to time in the hideout. The alien being made desmond do it because not only was she not who SHE said she was but also because she ISNT eve and desmond IS attracted to her romantically. The "alien" in the temple was basically setting things on a course that needed to happen for desmond to fulfill his destiny... find eve.

every dang game is taking place in america. do something different ubisoft.

Mordred19

[QUOTE="TheEroica"]

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"] Lol of course I always have an oppinion when it comes to assassins creed ;) im fine thank you & you my friend? I know you asked me what I thought of the ending and if I had any theories but frankly I couldn't answer that at all. I wasn't really intersted, it was just too much crazy sci fi for me & it was really confusing, could be anything. But maybe you have? ;)

charlesdarwin55

.

.

.

.

.MASSIVE SPOILERS Only look if you've completed all three games and/or dont care about the story (shame on you) :) >>> Desmond (adam) is supposed to find his eve and make a child thus releasing the power of the apple or whatver (havent worked that part out yet) but basically the act of desmond murdering Lucy is due to two reasons, one being that Lucy is in fact a templar agent which was made reference to in a line about her and "the cross" and it would explain her absence from time to time in the hideout. The alien being made desmond do it because not only was she not who SHE said she was but also because she ISNT eve and desmond IS attracted to her romantically. The "alien" in the temple was basically setting things on a course that needed to happen for desmond to fulfill his destiny... find eve.

I'd be really excited if it were 18th century America. I love the American Revolution period. Civil War era as well.

I still think it's in French Revolution, the British guy practically gave it away at the end. Besides, 18th century America has less political drama and big cities compared to Revolutionary France, let alone Renaissance Italy. If it actually takes place in America, I don't think I will like the idea much.funsohng

I've said French Revolution for the last game, and I'd be thrilled to see it in the third. It really is an interesting time to explore.

The American Revolution seems really interesting from a story standpoint, but think, America's a forest during that time. What happens to the huge cities and viewpoints? AC had a large portion that was less verticle, and I thought those places were uninteresting. France first, then America. Then I say we skip the present and jump staight to the future.

Are they going to improve the series at all? Or just more of the same?

Are they going to improve the series at all? Or just more of the same?

kozzy1234

While the next game will probably take place in France,don't think for a momentthey'll be ending the series after AC3. I feel it's pretty likely they'll take the series to the US in the future. As the franchise evolves it will probably move away from the "running on rooftops" focus. While climbing, running and hiding are key parts to any AC game no one should rule out the US as a setting just because the cities were not huge during the revolution. As Brotherhood showed with its missions in the Antico district and areas outside Rome, Ubi has plenty of mechanics other than roof running that can make for good assassin missions.

[QUOTE="Sig12047"]

Big cities in early America were really far apart and, depending on when it is set, the game will lack any famous architecture. Yeah, the buildings will be small but I don't know how the gameplay is going to hold up in more modern times. I can't see charging at somebody while they shoot you --- the hidden blade will be pretty useless unless they lean on stealth far more than before.

If it was set in America, you know you'd be working for the Free Masons. Or they'd be the Templars, one or the other.

Nintendo_Ownes7

That is why when they were fighting in battles they had many standing right next to each other for a greater chance of actually hitting there target.

The guns weren't made accurate until mid-late 19th Century.

That's actually not true. Rifling was used, usually in long, hunting rifles. There were actually sharpshooter/sniper regiments in the colonial militia, and even back during the french & indian war.

The problem was that these weapons were very expensive, required involved cleaning and took a long time to load. So you coulnd't outfit an army with them.

In the context of the types of combat we would see in a game like this, they would be pretty much one shot weapons. Fairly accurate though.

I'm picturing skirmishes and battles like you would see in the Last of the Mohicans movie.

Lord, my heart skipped a beat when I saw the thread title. :P

So great to see the game is getting closer. Rumors are the 1st indication.

[QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"]that would be cool, they better use a new engine thoughmrmusicman247

Bruh the engine needs changing. Like nau. -_-

Brotherhood is a bad framerate fest. Constant pop in. And enemies glitching up and down when they die. I've put hundred of hours into the single player. So much that I've actually beaten your "record" on some Virtual Training challenges. Step your game up :P

Not to mention gameplay needs a new fresh of air and it feels glitchy at times plus it still doesn't acurately respond to your actions in the heat of the moment.

OS3 version is the worse but with exclussive content. Fair deal I suppose.

But Brotherhood, strictly speaking....felt like an unfinished game.

And god! Don't make me even menion the Multiplayer.

*smh*

Ughh..America? 18th century america is pretty damn boring compared to Europe of this period. But I guess they need to appeal to audience.

It'll be awesome if it is. I loved both titles, and I hope they keep improving on the series. I'm thinking about buying Brotherhood, not sure if I should.

[QUOTE="funsohng"]I still think it's in French Revolution, the British guy practically gave it away at the end. Besides, 18th century America has less political drama and big cities compared to Revolutionary France, let alone Renaissance Italy. If it actually takes place in America, I don't think I will like the idea much.Pray_to_me

You just gonna hate cuz it's n America? The games have been set in Europe long enough this will be a nice change.

Actually the first one was in the middle east which is not a part of europe :) its actually more seen as part of the Asian continent.

i rd rather have it in feudal japan

[QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"]that would be cool, they better use a new engine thoughcharlesdarwin55

So this rumour came about just from those co-ordinates and the George Washington thing? Fair enough to be honest, but remember all the rumours that came up from the bleeding effect bit at the end of AC1 with all the drawings and whatnot on the wall in Desmond's room. That section brought up a number of different places didn't it, IIRC Japan was a big one people were talking about a lot.

I still don't know about the having it that late in history unless they increase the level of stealth a lot (to the point that it is more like Splinter Cell of old). Even if rifling wasn't that common during the American Revolution (not too sure, I'm not a big gun guy), there would still be a lot of guards/police with guns, correct? Even if they weren't accurate, that still seems a bit much for one hidden blade wielding assassin, even if he can take on a whole group of personal guards like in previous ACs.
Like the freemason guy said, there would be great opportunities for the story (ie Freemasons, political troubles) but I think the gameplay would suffer.

And to people saying they want to go back before the Crusades of AC1, I really don't think they are going to go back in time. Even though there only been 2 (or 3) main games to establish a "going forward in history" trend, I think it is what they would stick with.

And to darwin guy (hope I remembered that right), I think you are too stuck on the idea of hating the AC games. You seem to be rather conflicted over whether you like them or not, but I'm at a loss as to why you are hating so much on AC2. But...meh...to each their own.

I'm going to have to echo a few others in this thread: if they're setting it in the 18th Century, surely the French Revolution would be a much more interesting setting.

It'd feature one of the most famous cities in the world, heaps of crowds, iconic monuments like the Bastille to climb, a ton of interesting characters to encounter (and murder, since many of the famous figures died during the revolution), and could explain Napoleon's eventual involvement in all of this.

I can't really see an American Revolution game working anywhere near as well, tbh.

Donno if I'd buy it. I can't see myself helping the americans over the Brits.

Maybe:

• Rome during the time of Jesus's birth
• India
• Babylon
• Constantinople 1453

charlesdarwin55

We beter not play as George Washington, he sucked at war. :P One of my friends was betting that the next Assassin was going to be Zorro but I have my money on the French Revolution as well.

That would be a massive disappointment IMO.

I would much rather play in the former rumoured Egyptian setting.

[QUOTE="TheAcountantMan"][QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

Maybe:

• Rome during the time of Jesus's birth
• India
• Babylon
• Constantinople 1453

sts106mat

Constantinople would work.

The Byzantine Empire was the hearth of Christianity for a long time. Babylon don't have any connections to that as far I know but at the same time it would be really interesting to maybe have an origin story of the Apple of Eden.

yes an origin story would be ok, but they need to finish up the current story, which means that whichever time period desmond visits next, will have to have taken place after the ezio in rome, (brotherhood).

sts106mat

French Revolution would probably be better, but I have ALWAYS wanted a game to take place during the American revolution. Combine that with my love of AC, and you got yourself a day 1 buy, before everything else. One thing that seems to contradict it though is, I don't think that America had ANY big buildings at the time, and the French Revolution seems like it would be better suited for AC. Maybe the franchise is going for a change?

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="TheEroica"] I actually argue that at times it looks better than Uncharted, especially given its attention to scale and open worldness. Elann2008

Google Images tells me these are late 18th century buildings in Boston. You can't tell me this doesn't look AC worthy.