you know what ruined this game?, it is set on US historical setting aka boring

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Assassin's Creed III
  3. you know what ruined this game?, it is set on US historical setting aka boring

User Info: RoxasANobody

4 years ago#31
Madigari posted...
true_gamer80 posted...
ukloukloiy posted...
People just dont respect history

tc is a common troll from the main ps3 board, all he does is try to rile ppl up for high post counts...anyone tht seen him post before knows this

I can't believe it got to this post count without anyone pointing that fact out.

Fortunately, the majority of the people here are more composed and mature than those on the PS3 board. It feels like a massive brain drain when I lurk around there.
"I've got so much love to give."
Currently playing: Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, NFS: The Run, and Assassin's Creed III

User Info: najzere

4 years ago#32
He may troll elsewhere, but this particular topic doesn't seem to be a troll. Either that or it was a pretty big dud. -_-

General boards like PS3 are always terrible since you have such a high probability of people who couldn't care less about your interests.

User Info: Madigari

4 years ago#33
RoxasANobody posted...
Fortunately, the majority of the people here are more composed and mature than those on the PS3 board. It feels like a massive brain drain when I lurk around there.

He's been making posts like this since before AC3 even came out on these boards.

Now, as for this topic being a flop, his usually are. In terms of trolls, you generally just kind of shake your head with this guy and move on. This one actually seemed to draw more people in than his usual repertoire, though.
Gamertag is Madigari, for both Xbox 360 and PSN.
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my originality the most.

User Info: Chilly82

4 years ago#34
Caniplaynow posted...
Slavery was ok at the time because of that mindset:
1.Its stated in the Bible (many colonists were religious and though it was a holy observance in some aspects)
2.The southern colonies econonmy depended on the laborforce (so true the Civil War brought the South to economic ruins and literal ruins)
3. Those African people were seen as inferior and slavery used as punishment for the mindset bearing force.

LOL no. You know little of the history of slavery. It was seen as an economic necessity by a small elite class. Ever since the start of slavery there has been anti-slavery movements. Its morality has always been contested.

Second of all, you seem to imply that Africans were enslaved because they were initially seen as inferior. This is completely untrue. It is widely accepted that racism is largely a product of the nineteenth century. Slavery came first, and then racism grew later as a way to justify it.

User Info: advancewaraddict

4 years ago#35
I didn't have a problem with the setting at all. The real fault is in the story and pacing.

The sequences felt like flipping through a US history textbook, with months and years worth of timeskips in between just so you get to the next chapter.

It's not that US history is boring, but the way it was presented made this feel like one of those edutainment games.

Any other setting would have been just as stale if they handled the story like AC3's

User Info: YamiRandom

4 years ago#36
_niteowl_ posted...
I disagree somewhat. The problem is more that with the Ezio games, the plot felt more cohesive. Each mission and sequence led directly to the next.

With ACIII, it just felt like a series of loosely connected events. One mission you're with Samuel Adams, the next Paul Revere, then Washington, then Lafayette. They just tried to fit in too much.

I think a compelling game COULD have been made in this setting. This just wasn't it.

This is pretty spot on. I love the history of the revolution but the way it was presented in the game was lame. Much of the historical figures felt barely involved just there to tell Connor what to do. And there's a lot of interesting characters and great drama that could have been made and it wasn't a matter of doing too much, it just none of it made a lasting impact, just go from one historical figure to the next without getting to know them of giving them a chance to make an impression. I think the developers just wanted to tone down the "America, **** Yeah!" but they went too far. There's a reason Americans today look up to Washington, Adams, Franklin, etc. But the developers refused to show why. Don't get me wrong I think it's important to show their flaws, but you also gotta show their strengths.

And I get not making it all pro America but come on everyone of Connor's mission and role supported the colonists. And I can't even remember why he sides with them. You have to make a compelling reason for him to side with the colonists for anything to matter. The game started off so great, but the more we got into the revolution the less stuff mattered.

Also I want to point out the purpose of the revolution wasn't because America didn't want to pay taxes, it was that most of the taxes and acts were way too far and the colonists had no say in their taxes. The whole point was no taxation with representation, which is illegal to do under the British constitution. King George didn't raise taxes in england not because he felt the colony should pay for the 7 year war, but parliament wouldn't let him raise it in England. All the colonists wanted was a seat in parliament in order to be able vote have a say in their taxes. The King refuse because he wanted to be able to basically do whatever he wanted concerning colonial laws. Yet I do not recall any of that being mentioned in the game.

Another huge problem I saw was Charles Lee, he started off as a great villain for Connor but continually they just made him less important. I hated how they made Washington responsible for connor village burning for two reasons. One he had never done anything like that in real life. Two, more importantly for the game, it took away the reason Connor was obsessed with Lee. Sure it's implied that Lee manipulated Washington both times but that wasn't shown enough to matter. Also why didn't Connor stab him in the face at independence hall when Washington was named commander? Scenes like that just felt so out of place.

Also I hated Ben Franklin's voice actor and his role in the game. Such a fun character in history tossed aside.

So basically the revolution isn't what mad the game boring the way game tells it is boring.

User Info: blackthunder329

4 years ago#37
Chilly82 posted...
blackthunder329 posted...
agrissa posted...
I'm not American and I found it boring. The American Revolution boils down to: Colonists don't want to pay taxes, so they revolt against the King. They fight in the name of freedom and liberty, and yet the leaders own slaves...

This is inaccurate. The Colonists didn't like being taxed without regulation and representation. Almost everything was taxed (even if grown at the colony by seed from previous crops/ harvested in the wild). The tax rates were always fluctuating with whatever the king had decided.

The Revolution was also about freedom from oppression.

Slavery dates back much farther than just the Colonists. Columbus had stated that the Indians he encountered would make fine slaves. But I'll leave that subject matter be.

LOL did you just say slavery was ok because "everyone else was doing it"?

No, actually, you just did. My point was on the fact that it dates back thousands of years and was in the mindset of certain people that it was ok. Not all of the founding colonists owned slaves. In the early part of the colonies, it was viewed as a common occurrance to have slaves or indentured servants (which is basically a paid slave).

I knew I'd have to explain my wording by phrasing it the way I did. That is why I said I'd leave the subject on slavery be. It is a very touchy subject. The thing is, there are still countries that have slaves.
PSN Name Black-Thunder3
There are cheats for pc games??- cheatermaster

User Info: lucky864

4 years ago#38
I think the US setting is to add another dimension to the game. There are some questionable things that transpired that doesnt fully add up and I think the game tried to showcase the blurred line between good and bad using a situation that itself is blurred.

The US didnt win the war on military prowess or strength they won by financial success. Then catapulted itself to a economic powerhouse. When money is involved its hard to really tell who's righteous and who isnt. Just like as the story progresses its harder to tell who's the bad guys. If your the hero long enough you become the villan and in a lot of ways I think that fits.

User Info: jt4703

4 years ago#39
assassin349 posted...
Not really, it's still a very exciting time, I think it's only interesting to Americans really since its our history, I can see how anyone else could find it boring

I think it's more boring to Americans. The other games were set in exotic locales. This game is set in our own backyards. We see the same architecture, flora, and fauna that are showcased in this game practically every day.
PSN: vertX29

User Info: Hagiel

4 years ago#40
YamiRandom posted...
I hated how they made Washington responsible for connor village burning for two reasons. One he had never done anything like that in real life.

But as far as I know he did. After the Braddock expedition he really was tasked with stopping the native americans so he led a rather brutal campaign against the mohawk. And I loved the fact that Ubisoft merciless showed that Washington was NOT the perfect, wise and great leader all the time like americans tend to portray him. He too was only human and had his flaws.

I have two major problems with this setting: One is the boring architecture which is not Ubisofts fault but Boston and New York were very young cities so there could not be any interesting buildings. But none the less I didn't enjoy walking around Boston it is so boring no comparision to Venice.

Secondly I always had problems fealing sorry for the colonists. While I understand their argument "no taxation without representation" I always felt they weren't any better then the British because they stole the land from the native americans. They were such an ungrateful bunch of a****** they would never have lived through the first years of colonisation without the help of the friendly native americans. I don't want to help those people!

So I never cared what happened and it doesn't interest me because it's so frustrating that the british and the patriots didn't exterminate each other so that the native americans could take back what was rightfully theirs.

So yeah, personally for me there weren't many setting that would have bored me more or that I would find less interesting
It's so much easier to see the world in black and white. Gray? I don't know what to do with gray.
Garrus Vakarian
  1. Boards
  2. Assassin's Creed III
  3. you know what ruined this game?, it is set on US historical setting aka boring

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived