TheMightyEthan Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Yeah, the series isn't over, just this arc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Aren't big portions of Modern Warfare titles, and like the biggest heros, the brits? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomTervo Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 In all the Assassin's Creed games, it doesn't matter which 'side' of a historic conflict any figures are on. Assassins Versus Templars is a meta-battle, individuals are on each side, and each side isn't synonymous with historic groups. There are even Ass vs Temp rivalries within historic groups. I can't remember examples, but I'm sure that happens in Brotherhood. Â The player in 3 will probably be able to change coat whenever he likes: just like how in II onwards you could get differently coloured capes for different factions. I think the fact that they made him native american is probably significant in suggesting that he will be either side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'm sure you can fuck with guards on both sides. But to full on switch factions would be weird considering Ben Franklin and George Washington are two big allies of Connor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Aren't big portions of Modern Warfare titles, and like the biggest heros, the brits? Â That's actually a valid point. Most of the Americans I played in those games died... Â Either way, budgeting your advertisements to Americans, whether that be showing attacks on America or fighting for American Independence, America (or in the case of ME3, earth) sells, and that's sort of what I was getting at. Â Game is looking pretty great, though. Not interested in a preorder at this point, but this might be the first AC game I buy on launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'm sure you can fuck with guards on both sides. But to full on switch factions would be weird considering Ben Franklin and George Washington are two big allies of Connor Maybe Connor goes for tea with the Queen?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I know this might be a stupid question and slap me if it is, but was the queen a big thing back then? I always thought that the whole "queen is top news" thing didn't happen till recently and back then it was the king. Â Who was a dick. At least according to both my south american and north american textbooks. To be fair though. They might be biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Errrm. The reason "The queen is top news" thing only happened recently is because she only came into power (oh so handy to be on a jubilee year) 60 years ago. It was the king back then, I thought you guys knew that one? King George III. The one that pooped purple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I can't be arsed to remember who the current king in my own country is; why you'd expect anyone to remember "the one that pooped purple" is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Because in my experience it's at least one of two english monarchs Americans tend to know. Queen Elizabeth II as she's the current monarch, and King George III, the dude on the throne during the american revolutionary war. He's the last king america had. That he pooped purple is just a minor factoid on him. He was also mad in his later years too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) I knew about "Mad" King George III. I did not know he pooped purple. Â We also tend to know about King Richard the Lionheart because of Robin Hood. Â *Edit* - I can also infer the existence of King Georges I and II. Edited March 6, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 In my experience, Americans know of Queens: Helen Mirren, Cate Blanchett, Judi Dench and Freddie Mercury. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 To be fair Ubisoft does know how to run a series to the ground. I'm sure at some point AC will stagnate just like Prince of Persia did, just like Rayman did, like splinter cell, like driver, just like well every other Ubisoft game. They just do not know how to keep a series on slow burn until after it fails. Â I know revelations left a bad taste for many, so we'll see how AC3 fares wrt that. I mean remember the public wouldn't care about the setting as much and would just assume this is just another AC game. Honestly this should've been released next year but I do get why they want to release it this year in terms of story. Also I don't see the RDR connotations in the public's eye but more like call of juarez. Â Mind you, all of us here play a lot of games. We aren't the ones that are responsible for making games multimillion sellers though we are responsible for making them sell a few million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Revelations was meh, but the fact that this is developed by an entirely different studio and has been in dev since 2 finished gives me greater confidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Yeah like I said you know it and so do I. But the average gamer wouldn't and would probably not care enough until reviews hit that indicate positive. The main issue with revelations was that it was meant to be a 3DS game which they shifted over to the home consoles and the PC midway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) Oh, sorry, I read your intent backward, I thought you were saying that gamers in the know think Revelations was meh and so will be more cautious about 3, whereas the unwashed masses will probably just buy it because it's a new AC. My mistake. Edited March 6, 2012 by TheMightyEthan accidentally said the opposite of what I meant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Yeah. I guess I wasn't really clear. The sales of revelations has been quite lukewarm that they've been dropping the price fairly quickly. The interesting thing I took from the ubisoft conference was that despite low sales Rayman Origins was profitable and they believe it will continue to be so. However the funniest bit was that, and I believe it was Yves who was giving the investor report, they disliked to admit that Rayman Origins was profitable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomTervo Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Yeah. I guess I wasn't really clear. The sales of revelations has been quite lukewarm that they've been dropping the price fairly quickly. The interesting thing I took from the ubisoft conference was that despite low sales Rayman Origins was profitable and they believe it will continue to be so. However the funniest bit was that, and I believe it was Yves who was giving the investor report, they disliked to admit that Rayman Origins was profitable. Â That's great to hear. I felt really, really guilty in not buying Rayman Origins. It looks a lot more like my cup of tea, but because so many friends had BF3 and I knew I could get a lot of playtime out of it, I went for BF3 over RO. Felt so guilty. If it's still profitable, though, happy days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) I'll spoiler this just in case people want to go in blind. It's concerning rumours about character connections. Â Â Just thought I'd add that I spotted someone suggest that Charles 'His role is a mystery' Lee could be Connor's father. Whether this is true or not depends on where Connor actually fits into the story. Â Since the game is supposed to cover 1753-1783, I'm not sure when Connor 'shows up'. In the trailer, where he is fighting during the Revolutionary War (1775 onwards, of course), he does look young (the clue: no beard). Whether he has a longer arc like Ezio or a short involvement like Altair, remains to be seen. Around 1754-55 is when Lee actually married the daughter of a Mohawk Indian Chief, who gave birth to twins. If Connor were his son, that could fit with the timeline the trailer suggests. Â You get a bit more background on Charles Lee from Wikipedia. Some interesting titbits, like the fact that he sided with the colonists and expected to lead the Continental Army...until some guy called George Washington showed up. Â Edited March 6, 2012 by Hot Heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Ubisoft could blow my mind [and penis] if they do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 Â Some of the in-store promotional material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomTervo Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 Very promotional. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 Please tell me that's in-store promotional material for US stores, and EU ones. Otherwise that's completely retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 It's for Gamestops, which as far as I'm aware after leaving Ireland earlier this year, and until their takeover of GAME later this year, are pretty much US-based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheFlyingGerbil Posted March 11, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Â Â Now it makes sense that you kill both sides. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.