It's hard ver americans to understand that if this happened using today's language the they would have been called terrorists. The action was also pushed by a few of the elites that wanted more power, it wasn't really to aid jo average. And finally there would have been far more native Americans left and slavery would have finished much earlier if the British were not kicked out.
Assassin’s Creed 3 cheats us with latest trailers
With a little over three weeks until the release of Assassin’s Creed III the game is still causing a few issues for those fans of the franchise living in the UK, because it seems that they are getting more of the story when it comes to the US. The reason we say this is because the latest North American Assassin’s Creed 3 trailers cheats them from some of the historical facts yet again.
We already knew that this has been going on throughout the marketing campaign for the game, but shocked that Ubisoft still continues to gloss over some of the facts. A couple of days ago there were two new AC3 trailers, one was for the US market and the other for UK, with the latter being 18 seconds longer because it showed more realism in terms of the historical facts.
As with some of the previous trailers Ubisoft seemed to miss out Connor killing Americans, unlike the UK version. Also in the US trailer it seems to show that the battle was just between America and the British Empire, but the UK version shows more of what actually went on, which also included the British’s Native American allies, European allies and Canadian allies, along with American’s Native American allies. However, the one key missing fact in terms of the game that shows a more disturbing light for the UK version over the US trailer is that there are many colonials fighting against American’s.
It’s sad to think that Ubisoft seems to be worried about showing American’s more content of the game because they fear that it could put them off. We just have an issue when they state that Assassin’s Creed 3 is historical accurate, but are still reluctant to show the darker sides of that particular conflict ahead of its release.
What confuses us the most hear is that both sets of trailers are available on YouTube, so why bother showing two different versions in the first place? From what we have seem so far Ubisoft has made the game one-sided (well the trailers at least), we should all be under no illusion that our protagonist would take sides because he’s an Assassin, in many cases a cold-hearted killer who will not fight for any particular cause but his own.
Okay, we know this is a deep question, but do you feel that developers and publishers should grow a pair and should not be afraid to show the truth when it comes to any sort of games. We know the British were brutal back in the day, and in some cases still are now, but if you look at past and current actions of America, they’re not so innocent either?
- Fallout 4 sham, no release date anytime soon
- Anticipating Game of Thrones gameplay, platform support
- Late Halo 5 Xbox One release blame realized
- The Sing-Off 2013 vs. The Voice
- Best TVs for gaming in 2013 nailed
- Best gaming laptop under $1000 in 2013 comparison
- The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug review prediction
Did you see the outburst from the U.S. when the completely non-canon DLC was announced? We have proven to Ubisoft that we can't take certain things.
The "certain things" we couldn't take such as L.A. Noire being sexist and Tomb Raider's supposed "rape" controversy. Uproars spawned from those two elements were started by ultra sensitive American game journalists, not mainstream journalists. So, yeah. If our geek journalists are already oversensitive, think of what the mainstream will do to smear Ubisoft's name. ....Actually, bad publicity in the lamestream will probably do wonders.