Assassin’s Creed 3 Pro-American Controversy: Ubisoft Marketing A Storm in a Boston Tea-Cup?


"The following is a debate between two hard-nosed Assassin’s Creed fans and students of history: Canadian-born Australian OXCGN Editor In Chief David Hilton takes on proud American OXCGN 2IC Nicholas Laborde.

The topic?

The ever controversial lack of ‘Americans’ getting killed by new assassin Connor in all the Assassin’s Creed 3 trailers and footage shown by Ubisoft.

As both participants are engaging in a debate, they may be exaggerating their true opinions.

We will be dealing with contentious historical perspectives, so if you are easily offended by this sort of debate, better turn away now. Offence is not intended."

The story is too old to be commented.
gaminoz2338d ago

It is odd they keep saying you kill targets on both sides and then they only show ONE side getting assassinated.

WeskerChildReborned2338d ago

Ahaha yea i saw that on Ubisoft conference at E3. I don't see really what the big deal is though cause it's just a game and their trying to be accurate despite that history didn't have assassins and templars fighting each other.

user54670072338d ago

But at the end of the day they are still BS fans, developers that lie is never a good thing despite how good a game looks. They come off as cowards, like they are afraid it will hurt sales in American and it wasn't just the 4th for July trailer...this has been happening since AC3 was announced.

They keep coming out with all these claims that Connor is netural and you will kill Americans, like you'll do missions for both sides yet they havent even shown one mission for the redcoats. How can you not back up your claims with evidence, isn't that the most logical thing to do if your telling the truth.

Even the E3 trailer was done in a pro American way that they made it look like Connor was leading the retreating Americans to victory. I know we know he was going after his target but the way he inspired the Americans to carry on and actually came from their can you not see where they are going with this. Why couldn't they done it so Connor comes in through the middle of the battlefield and kills both sides generals.

I mean the guy in the article defending them dosen't seem to get it I mean...

"Now, let’s look at this in perspective: A game about the AMERICAN REVOLUTION gets a trailer ON THE COUNTRY’S INDEPENDENCE DAY, also known as THE RESULT OF ITS REVOLUTION. "

Has he seen the UK AC3 trailer, RISE. It was still pro American, an advert for the country were soldiers from one side of the war came from is made to look like the bad guys in their own country....come on

The only reason people are defending them is because Americans see it as a good thing because they arn't the ones being made to look bad...this favors there side. If it was the other way round there would be a sh*t storm in bound.

kneon2338d ago

They should have set the game in the war of 1812, it is the 200th anniversary after all. Then it would have been considered anti-American since America started the war, and ultimately lost. But we know that will never happen because they have to make sure it sells in the US.

Them_Bones2338d ago (Edited 2338d ago )

Ubisoft just decided to bullshit us.
It's pretty obvious Conner is on the side of the Americans, although there are probably a few missions in the game where you might kill an American or two and Ubisoft just exaggerated it.
I don't really care though I will love killing all those redcoats, every year they march through my street (I'm Irish) like a bunch of lifeless tards, and they also killed a sh*tload of us 100 years ago.
Did I offend anyone? tough!

mynameisEvil2338d ago

I find it stupid that so many British people are getting offended over it. Let's face it, British people at that time were, for the lack of a better word, bullies. They had power and they abused it. They were not fantastic people who would do no wrong, they were people who were trying to dominate other people.

Why Brits today are throwing a fit about the fact that their ancestors were pricks is beyond me. It's not like this impacts their lives. Besides, I thought British people for the longest time just brushed all of these insults and such off? When did they (and the whole world, for that matter) become so sensitive?

Though, Ubisoft should also actually state that ACIII isn't really neutral or, if it is, show more missions that back that claim up.

BadCircuit2338d ago


If you read the article you will have seen that many of the colonist heroes were also 'pricks'.

You can't generalise about a whole people, British or otherwise.

PockyKing2338d ago

Do you want them to spoil the whole god damn game before they even release it? Tired of people complaining about this. I want to be surprised when I see Connor take down a blue coat, I don't want to know whose the enemy or see how colonials react to him killing them until the game comes out.

Shadowstar2338d ago

"British people at that time were, for the lack of a better word, bullies. They had power and they abused it."

Kind of like America's military has been for the second half of last century, and still is now? Where are all the games about killing Americans in Vietnam?

If we're only killing Americans in AC3, it's a business decision, I think. I do hope that it's not so one-sided like that though. I hope that it's the First Nations people who are the "good" guys.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2338d ago
ChipChipperson2338d ago (Edited 2338d ago )

You ever consider it a part of the story plot and they don't want it spoiled before the game's release? Altair killed English and French people in AC1, but no one complained about it. How about we have a future AC title where you play as an Englishman assassinating IRA targets and supporters. The Irish would be in an uproar about it while the English would just tell them, "Get over it, it's just a game." Americans have been the opposition in the recent Spec Ops game, Modern Warfare 2's American General was a bad guy,Army of Two had American villains, Syndicate has an American based corporation as the bad guy, Red Dead Revolver/Redemption have you killing Americans, Native Americans, and Mexicans, MGS has you kill Solidus an American and was President under the name George Sears, GTA has you committing crimes in American or American influenced cities.
The game is set in 1775 guys, not 2012. The US and the UK aren't at war anymore and ALL of us should stop letting extreme patriotism and pride stop us from enjoying a VIDEO GAME. You're not killing your fellow countrymen, you're killing data in a computer.

fucadastates2338d ago

@ chipchipperson.
You're not killing your fellow countrymen, you're killing data in a computer.

jep, but americans had a big fuss about taliban in a videogame (medal of honor).

ChipChipperson2338d ago (Edited 2338d ago )

@fucadastates I do remember that, BUT don't forget that the UK,Canada, and the Danish made a fuss about it too. It wasn't the fact of Americans being killed, it was the fact of playing as the Taliban that was controversial during Medal of Honor's release. That is where the USA,UK,Canada, and the Danish put in the thing of that's where our troops are deployed, it's sickening that the game allows players to recreate the killing of American/British troops,the war is not a joke and this was said by the UK Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, taken off BBC News, "It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product." The game had NO British troops or any of the US's allies in it.

I own the game, and changing the name didn't do anything even though they were renamed OpFor. This was done for the multiplayer only though. Single player still refers to them as Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Chechens. I didn't agree with the controversy though, because again, it was a game. I didn't feel like a terrorist killing Americans or any of our allied countries and I certainly didn't feel like a special forces operator killing any insurgents. It was the typical BS that games get, just like how AC3 is getting.

Psycho_PS3Truthh2338d ago

People getting so upset about this killing british thing is hilarious, when we havee been killing human beings from all kinds of race in the gaming society for years.

Nintendo gamers been killing animals too from donkey kong, to mario jumping on turtles heads violently in society. they should just realize its a game that will be on the PS3 and enjoy it.

BadCircuit2338d ago

I don't think it's the killing that's the problem but the pro-American bias.

Connor hasn't been shown to kill any colonists

Proeliator2338d ago

The article tackles this... it's implied, and many are shown blown up. They're dying, people are just making things up to provide a basis for this petty argument :P

Psycho_PS3Truthh2338d ago

From what I see from youtube, many of the earthlings from england are complaining that they dont want to kill there own kind.

Yet they play other games that allow the killing of many other people upon the earth.

BadCircuit2338d ago

@ Proeliator

they may be dying but not by the hand of the assassin...

Pintheshadows2338d ago

Don't judge anything based on the comments section of Youtube.

To be honest it will just be a be a bunch of British stereotypes i'm killing so I don't mind. It's not like i'm actually going back in time and murderising my ancestors for real. That would be counter productive. And time consuming as i've heard time travel technology is quite complex.

And i'm pretty sure whatever race you're killing in a FICTIONAL game will have a minority that complains.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2338d ago
Xof2338d ago

From a gameplay and narrative standpoint, it makes a lot more sense for Connor to be killing off the British (instead of the revolutionaries). Why? Because the revolutionaries are, well, revolutionaries. Lore-wise, they represent the inconoclastic underdog fighting against a vast, vaguely fascist organization that doesn't really care for the notion of personal liberty. Sound familiar? The same description that applies to the British Empire also applies to the Templar.

And then there's the gameplay justification. The colonies are BRITISH colonies. They're under British rule. So, obviously, redcoats will be more common. Who knows, maybe if we get to play past the revolution we'll see American troops take replace the British ones as the Brits lose territory. But for the most part, it makes sense.

I mean, how would it have looked in Assassin's Creed if you spent all of your time fighting French troops in Italy? Or if in Brotherhood, you make it to Rome, you fight your way into the Vatican, but instead of fighting Papal Soldiers or whatnot, you fight random street bandits instead?

It wouldn't make any ****ing sense.

This controversy is completely manufactured. AC3 may or may not have a pro-American bias. We don't know that yet. But complaining about this makes just about as much sense as complaining about that one Resident Evil game for featuring an overwhelming number of black zombie enemies... despite being set in Africa.

Proeliator2338d ago (Edited 2338d ago )

Thank you for completely summarizing this "controversy". If only I could give you more agrees and bubbles...

gaminoz2338d ago

It does make sense from a narrative point of view, only they keep saying that Connor is not on any side.

The trailers and footage imply otherwise.

BlaqMagiq242338d ago

Thank you for that. If only more people here on N4G made as much sense as you.

Infernostew2338d ago

Medal of Honor Rising Sun was released in Japan. A game closer to our current time period than this where Japanese gamers played as American soldiers killing their ancestors. If that wasn't a big deal, then this is nothing.

SeanScythe2338d ago

What's the problem this was what attracted me to the game.

Show all comments (34)
The story is too old to be commented.