‘Assassin’s Creed 3′ Writer Denies British Hate

Published 2 years ago by

Assassin's Creed 3 British Bias

During the start-up process of every Assassin’s Creed, a disclaimer of sorts appears on the screen for the game’s audience to take note of: “This work of fiction was designed, developed, and produced by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs.”

Whether necessary or not, it’s certainly apropos. After all, the series’ two former protagonists – Altaïr ibn La’Ahad and Ezio Auditore – have both amassed untold body counts of members of the Christian Knights Templar, all in the name of their Assassin Order and its doctrine of beliefs. If anyone was offended by the use of religion, Ubisoft was clear to express that this was a bipartisan work of art. A game, not an agenda.

They might be expanding that disclaimer for the beginning of Assassin’s Creed III.

Not only does the Templar/Assassin dynamic come into play with the next highly anticipated installment of the series; with the game entertaining major markets in both North America and the United Kingdom, so to, it seems in some cases, does the old nationality angst of the American Revolution.

Lead Assassin’s Creed III writer Matt Turner spoke back in May about the American Revolution simply playing an intersection to Connor’s real fight against the Templars; it wasn’t just an American “ra ra” story. Yet going back to Assassin’s Creed III’s reveal back in March, every trailer, screenshot and sneak preview of the game has been decidedly one-sided. Redcoats have been hacked to pieces by Connor’s tomahawk, strung up on trees at the end of his rope dart; British officers have been dehorsed in brutal assassinations, while American officers gallantly lead the charge of battle. Even the latest AC III cinematic trailer from E3 depicts Connor firmly in General Washington’s camp.

Assassin's Creed 3 Anti British Bias

And so, scriptwriter Corey May was forced to reiterate in a recent interview with CVG: Union Jack or Betsy Ross, it matters little for Connor and his thirst for Templar blood.

“[The AC III story is] not meant to be loyalists versus patriots; it’s assassins versus Templars. There’s a revolution going on and Connor will experience all facets of it. It’s not as simple as Templars backing the crown and assassins backing the patriots, it’s really two factions at war against the backdrop of another war. I have nothing against the Brits.”

In fact, May doesn’t even see the war itself as an America-vs.-Britain conflict. He simply breaks it down as a war amongst the British – those loyal to the Crown and King George III, and those seeking independence from what they saw as his tyrannical rule:

“[AC III] occurs against the backdrop of the Revolutionary war. And to be even more evasive, everyone back then was a Brit, this was not Americans against British – this was a British civil war.

Marketing historically rooted games internationally is always dicey. (In Germany, for example, games like Call of Duty are forced to remove swastikas and other Nazi-related symbolism from their subject material.) It would have difficult for the writers of Assassin’s Creed III – with their direct use of real-life characters, events, and locales from the American Revolution – to craft a genuine and grounded narrative without polarizing one side or the other. No doubt, though, the staff Ubisoft are well-prepared to field questions on the anti-British bias issue, and even if that means making note of it at the beginning of their game, we hope it doesn’t interfere with their vision for the Assassin’s Creed franchise. (We’re still a long way off from Assassin’s Creed 10, after all).

Ranters, were do you stand on the violence against the British in Assassin’s Creed III? Is the Ubisoft simply trying to convey its Templar stroyline within a complex event? Are they blindly pandering to American nationalism? Or is their partial mix of both?

Assassin’s Creed III releases on October 30, 2012 for the Xbox 360, PS3, and PC. A Wii U release has not been confirmed.

-

Follow me on Twitter @Brian_Sipple.

Source: CVG

TAGS: Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed 3, PC, PS3, Ubisoft, Wii U, Xbox 360

56 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. To be honest I think the game is going to be awesome and people are just looking for a way to make a company get bad press just for the sake of it. People have to fred around these topics like walking on glass nowadays because everyone takes offence to bloody EVERYTHING!

    I don’t care if they show a side too the British or the Americans! It’s just a bloody game, people read way too much into things like this. Especially as the whole of the games have been about Assassin’s and Templars why would they suddenly go all patriotic American when it is a French/Canadian company…

    After clarifying a million times that it is just a coincidence that they show more american sided trailers but Templars are actually on both sides of the civil war why do people still think that they are being racist or something? It must be pissing them off to no end…

    • Its not being racist since the British and the american are the the race, but it does come over in the trailers as anti british, am not sure that Ill be buying the game.

      • sorry i was meaning to say the same race

  2. Agree with history student completely. And if the ads werent so one sided which i think most of this pc crap would go away. The marketing team have cleary screwed this up.
    I still think that ubisoft who want to make 10 games (most with sub games) have jump to far in time to this time period. Going back just wouldnt seem right as we have progress throught he majority of the assasins guild. They should of done the 100 years war, scottish wars of independence (bias as i’m a scot), the jacker the ripper idea was awesome. after the american civil the next would be napleonic and after that its getting closer to modern time and i for one dont want to be fighting machine guns with a little knife.

    • Anyway game should be pretty awesome and its made by french and candians who arent to found of either brit or amercian

      • The French and English have a long history of rivalry – they’ve never underestimated each other, and both have a mutual respect of their entwined history.

        Canada is not anti-American or Anti-British, infact Canada has recently renamed it’s armed forces to match the traditional British name plus it shares Britian’s queen.

    • Tudor England would also have been an interesting time to look at, we already know that Mary I was a Templar. Anne Boleyn was a manipulative bitch… and Henry VIII Francis of France and Charles V Holy Roman Emperor made and broke alliances so regularly that Templar/Assassins could slot in brilliantly.

    • I wouldn’t be surprised if they jump to another group of assassins in the present day and their family line back. That way you can have feudal Japan and the like, which the current character can’t really link to.

  3. As a proud Brit I would feel pretty uncomfortable playing a game in which I had to kill my own countrymen, everything I’ve seen about this game has suggested its anti-british no matter what the Developers say.

  4. He is killing a redcoat on the front cover for christ sake!!!!

  5. correct me if im wrong but didnt the american flag have the union jack in the left hand corner in 1775.

  6. I know the obvious fact that it is only a game, and i’d just like to say i really like the look of this game. But, i have become frequently more and more annoyed at the AC3 trailers. Redcoat after redcoat being slayed in open battle and close quarters, Red coats dying in close quarters i understand, as this is where an assassin excells, but on open battlefields? Take the official E3 trailer with the assassination of the British templar, one man rides alone through a devastating combined volley of numerous troops, losing only the horse. Connor manages to survive the second volley and ‘jumps’ into the redcoats easily. Cuts them all up and he’s done, avoiding single musket fire, combined volleys that would have happened if Connor was only enegaging one man.He would have died!Mickey take. The naval combat trailer, one ship against the most ruthless and effiecient navy of its time being blasted aside.

    -A rather peed off Brit ;)

  7. I find the whole ‘Merica Oorah vibe that’s being perpetuated really irritating. I don’t have a problem with him killing Brits at all, it just appears that this is all he seems to ever be doing, at least in the media we’ve been presented with thus far. I have not seen him killing a single colonial anywhere, and he’s clearly got a strong relationship with Washington. The British are blatantly being presented as the ‘bad guys’,(check out this video http://au.ign.com/videos/2012/09/13/inside-assassins-creed-iii-episode-3 ) which when you’re claiming to create a historically inspired game is just anathema.This straight up clean image of the founding fathers they’re giving worries me due to the fact that most soldiers and officers back then were awful racists, womanizers, and alcoholics. Washington was more of a politician and less of a soldier than history lets on. George Washington is reported to have illegally accumulate more than 20,000 acres of land originally set aside for his enlisted men by 1773. That’s not heroic, it’s stealing from his men.

    John Hancock is reported to have been the biggest smuggler in Boston and would have been a big opponent of import taxes. That’s not selfless, that’s self-serving.

    Henry Laurens was the biggest slave trader in Charleston, and Ben Franklin did his best to continue the land grabs and oppose the British proclamation that Native Indian property west of the Appalachians was off-limits to colonials. That’s not moral, that’s immoral.

    History is not as exciting if you don’t Hollywood it up a bit. Also no whites would trust a native american enough to let him live long enough to speak let alone let him be that close to high ranking generals and vice versa. Many of the colonists, wanting to grab more land and opportunity, didn’t give a fig about the native population who they didn’t think owned the land properly anyway because they tended to be nomadic, not agricultural and therefore settled.

    Part of their desire to ‘shed the shackles’ was in fact motivated by a good old land grab at the expense of the aboriginal peoples.

    We all know the long-term results of the colonists winning against the British: the virtual destruction of a people and way of life as settlers took their ‘Manifest Destiny’ to grab whatever land they could out West.

    In short: I’m sure there were many Patriots (Americans) who were only about their own self-interest and not about some lofty notion of freedom.

    Avarice, self-interest at others’ expense, and other usual human qualities would have been at work, even if history has been re-written to make everyone look heroic. Plenty of scope for Templars at work there, among the colonists, for Connor to assassinate.

    Yet the safe option is to follow films and portray the British, with some small exceptions, as bad guys, because they were mighty, had cool uniforms, had a King, and dared to tax colonists as subjects of the crown.

    This is not about political correctness, because I really don’t give a damn about how many redcoats I get to stab in the face. It’s about how they’re glorifying the other side. I hoping my fears are misguided and Ubisoft’s marketing team have just decided to play the patriotism card. I’ll be getting the game anyway because it will be awesome fun, I’m just hoping I won’t be rolling my eyes at its historical sentiments. /end rant on importance of history ( I study history at university so this kind of stuff is important I feel).

    • @Galladrim

      Wow man, I agree. I hate how these guys are glorified and given this heroic face and then it’s spoon fed to kids in school. Funny how we’re “brainwashed” as children, start early and the possibilities are endless.

    • Couldn’t agree with you more. One of the reasons AC3 was one of the worst in the series (perhaps THE worst) is that it took an incredibly simplistic view of a complex subject. The cut-scene writer tried to insert some complexity, but the gameplay is all “Yay America, and the British are EVIL!”

  8. Seen enough (or not enough) to know I’m gonna give this a miss, we are a small amount of the gaming market for ubisoft so they dont have that much to lose by alienating us, if Revelations wasnt so crap i’d be slightly bothered! I’ll wait for the british made GTA5 where we can go around killing yanks just for lols.

  9. Who cares its a game its hardly as offencive as cod or homefront your nt cryn wen your shotn russins or chinese get a grip hypocrites

  10. Well, even if it does put the brits in bad light… they kinda did treat the natives like absolute human garbage when they got to north america, there were plenty of native v british massacres in history, why should the game be one big warm fuzzy lie?

    • If anything, the British treated the American Indians with a lot more even-handedness than people in the US did after the revolution. After all, part of the reason for the Revolutionary War was the fact that the British wouldn’t allow colonial expansion into territories that the British recognized as belonging to the Indian nations (Google “Royal Proclamation of 1763″). Also, when the genocide was occurring in the 1800s, many American Indian tribes sought (and received) refuge in Canada.

      So the idea that the British treated Indians especially poorly is ludicrous, considering that Indians were far better-off under British rule than under American rule. Now I’m not saying the British treated American Indians wonderfully – far from it, but for an American to criticize the British for poor treatment of native Americans is the height of hypocrisy.

  11. It’s not the scripted cut-scenes that show anti-British sentiment, so the scriptwriter probably is not biased, but whoever wrote the game missions surely is. While the cut-scenes show a definite even-handedness, the gameplay itself does not – I’d say 75% of the missions show some anti-British sentiment. It’s one of the reasons AC3 is such a weak game – far too simplistic.

  12. I’m English also known as a Brit. I love Assassins Creed 3 as well as Assassins Creed 4 and you kill British in both them games. In fact I want the British in the next one to because in them time the British Empire was the most powerful in the world and was everywhere so I would expect to be killing them wouldn’t you?

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.