Assasin's Creed III? Just shut up and take my money! :D

Posts : 148 Join date : 2011-07-21 Location : Chicago

I am a big AC fan, so naturally I would be happy about another. But this.....this......XD all i have to say is HOOOLY SHITT...... bounce

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_III

Assasin's Creed III? Just shut up and take my money! :D 260px-10

Posts : 148 Join date : 2011-07-21 Location : Chicago

Ahhh here we go, even better Very Happy

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/721351/assassins-creed-3-details-leak-gameplay-characters-settings-weapons-and-more-revealed/

I dunno, the whole thing seemed to be jammed in from the last game. Without spoilers it seemed like we'd see desmond 90% of the time at least, not this fifth grade U.S. history gone wrong segment. i'll still probably buy it but now they're messing with fans. I bet the brittish are pissed now.

also when did everything get RE related. We had some pole up and the top two were Mass Effect and Final Fantasy.

Posts : 148 Join date : 2011-07-21 Location : Chicago

Lol ok.....first off, we still may see Desmond a good portion of the game. A prophecy of the end of the world was mentioned in every other AC game. If you read the wiki carefully it says that the game will also focus on the present time (using Desmond I'd assume) and the basis that the world may end in 2012. They said that the game has to come out before December 2012 for that main reason. I like the way AC follows real life situations and history, I think it's cool. With the exception of MGS I haven't seen many games do that. Plus I don't see how anyone can see this time period as a bad idea. We had Altiar in the holy lands and then Ezio in the 1400's in Rome. AC's story touches down all throughout the timeline, but Desmond aside, we've always seen the same two time periods, the same two areas, the same two assassins. I think the 1700's is a good place to fill in the story gaps between Ezio and Desmond. And I like the whole American Indian feel to the game, I'm a fan of that idea. Killing someone with a tomahawk and bow and arrow while hiding up in trees, hell yeah I dig it Very Happy

This game seems very refreshing to the series. And it's not rushed or "jammed in". It' something they said they've been working on for 3 years and it got leaked so they decided to just go with it. AC2 was the best I thought and then Brotherhood came out and was still cool but 2 was better. And the Revelations came out and that was also good but.....not as good as Brotherhood. It seemed like as time went on Ubisoft got lazier and the games had less and less substance. The stories are all one big continuation of the last and they haven't failed us there.....The games are all good but they've been feeling a little too recycled for far too long, and THAT'S what really brings the fans down. I think AC3 is definitely a step in the right direction.

If i recall, the only one with any remote historical influence in an MGS games was 3, and even then it took it to an extreme; the other's are just given a year and an entire land of fiction when nothing corresponds with the world around them. The whole battle for the colonies isn't inherently a bad time period, however they're a global company and having their lead assassin lineage slaughtering the brittish with no trouble might have some influence in people (slightly fresher than say 1400's renaissance italy) and that the entirety of AC relies on building climbing and large crowds about the city; Colonial USA happens to have few people, squat buildings and tons of woods. I'm not saying they need to stay exactly the same, but this breaks away from their system completely, a new game in it's own right. The game series does need to end at least with this one. Overall it really feels too drawn out, not everyone can keep up to a series this long for money and entertainment.

The series likes to try a MW standpoint and pull a shitton of games in a short time, it's not been a year since AC:R multiplayer seems useless when the next one comes out, DLC and all!

also, the wiki has no bearing in the game speculation, they're easily changed and altered by any anon around. If i have to go scrounge around the wiki, it's not something the average person will do, and it shouldn't be expected by others or by ubisoft itself

ACIII ahwww..man Already!?, I haven't even played ACR yet Razz

Can someone lend me some $MoneyTree$ seeds PLZ!
It looks really good (b'-')b 2 Thumbs Up!

Posts : 148 Join date : 2011-07-21 Location : Chicago

Tenrowsei wrote:: If i recall, the only one with any remote historical influence in an MGS games was 3, and even then it took it to an extreme; the other's are just given a year and an entire land of fiction when nothing corresponds with the world around them. The whole battle for the colonies isn't inherently a bad time period, however they're a global company and having their lead assassin lineage slaughtering the brittish with no trouble might have some influence in people (slightly fresher than say 1400's renaissance italy) and that the entirety of AC relies on building climbing and large crowds about the city; Colonial USA happens to have few people, squat buildings and tons of woods. I'm not saying they need to stay exactly the same, but this breaks away from their system completely, a new game in it's own right. The game series does need to end at least with this one. Overall it really feels too drawn out, not everyone can keep up to a series this long for money and entertainment.

The series likes to try a MW standpoint and pull a shitton of games in a short time, it's not been a year since AC:R multiplayer seems useless when the next one comes out, DLC and all!

also, the wiki has no bearing in the game speculation, they're easily changed and altered by any anon around. If i have to go scrounge around the wiki, it's not something the average person will do, and it shouldn't be expected by others or by ubisoft itself

Well, the wiki page is not always accurate. But that's not even important cause I was referring to something that was on there but other sources as well. It was a quote coming from the creative director of AC saying....."In Assassin's Creed we set up a timeline with this whole end of the world plot in December 2012... That's fast approaching, and the story we have to tell, we obviously need to do it before we arrive at that point. It would be stupid of us to be centering a game on a semi-reality and then have that conclusion happen after that date in real life.".......and that's what I was referring to. As for MGS....I know that....that's what I meant.....stop being....so.....TECHNICAL!! Razz

Lol XD But seriously, I do see your point about the climbing tall buildings and all that. I was thinking about that myself, although I don't really see it as changing their system completely. That time period did have some tall buildings and large crowds of people....especially up north in the new england area, and from what I hear that's where this takes place, in New York so they could make it work. Regardless......if I never have to climb up a 10 mile high building again it wont ruin my day. There will be mountains and trees to make up for it anyways XD

haha, i play assassin's creed for building climbing and i play skyrim for mountains and forests.

also the placement for newyork sounds alright if it's in 1777 as the trailer claims xD it also matches the war scene we saw, though it may also be in Philadelphia where washington and howe fought

Posts : 148 Join date : 2011-07-21 Location : Chicago

I wouldn't know that part....I slept through history class Big Grin

hahahahaha

Oh, and *sends $MoneyTree$ seeds to Panda* ^_^ Lol

» Ezio from Assassin's Creed to be in new Soul Caliber V!