sunnuntai 4. maaliskuuta 2012

Assassin's Creed 3

Recently light was shedded on the upcoming Assassin's Creed threequel, and by light I mean a fucking lighthouse with an array of spotlights behind it.

AC3 is set to take place in colonialist America from around 1775 onwards, expected to end at around 1781 parallel to the war of independence. Our protagonist,Connor, is a native Mahican; mother is a Mahican father is American. The geography of the game is bound to take place in New York and Boston, right where AC Revelations ended. Connor is confirmed to be in cahoots with George Wahsington and Benjamin Franklin, who most likely will replace Leonardo da Vinci. The upcoming saga will continue Desmonds story but Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad and Ezio Auditore da Firenze are now as seems forgotten.

My two cents on the event are mostly negative.
Sure the premise of AC3 is cool and all, and a new protagonist is a very needed fresh wind in the ''Valley of Ezio''. But choosing frontier America over all the other historic settings, especially in the end of the 18th century, seems like a fanservice for the Americana audience. To be upmost anyone who has read history outside of the states knows that the history of America, especially at the frontier era, is very over detailed and only spans for 200 years or so. Not to mention the questionability of the motives of the leaders of this era makes this very thin ice to thread on. Also Connors ethnic and supposed moral neutrality is just plain political correctness, I gladly await how ubisoft use this in the story of AC3 and whether they actually tapped into anything worth while there.
In the end of AC revelations  it became clear that individuals with high concentration of ''first-born'' dna are in dire need. Also a female assassin, Dilara, made frequent screentime visits, most noteably in the cut-scene of the ''first armageddon'' suggesting she and her bloodline had high concentration of first born dna. Theories were made etc. but it was pretty clear the next AC game would circulate on her, the most common theory was that she was Mary Wollstonecraft at the french revolution. Going against this theorem of fans is common but in this case people where in many cases falbbergasted by the reveal of Connor.

Now all this mockery may sound harsh especially coming from an European, but mockery is not my intent. I feel like frontier America has already been done, espcially on the case of Red Dead Redemption. To me AC has always been exploring something that no games (except AC games) had before. Frontier America or dare I call it The Wild West is a cliche and I don't think it will do any favors for the AC series.

These are my two cents. Tell me yours, I'm very interested on the opinions of others on this issue.