Ubisoft’s Alternate History DLC is a Bad Idea

GI writes: “The Tyranny of Washington,” for those who have not already heard, is a DLC package that will be available for Assassin’s Creed III. It will present an alternate ending to the game where our beloved first president will instead become our first King and a hated tyrant. Taking a brief look at the character of Washington and the historical facts will show why this is a really bad idea.

[UNCyrus]

'GI" stand for Game Informer, not Gaming Illustrated. Until you have over 8 million subscriptions, then I don't think it's fair for you to call yourselves that.

[Arcee]

I agree. Calling the site GI there in the description makes it seem like you are purposely trying to deceive people into thinking they will be reading an article on Game Informer instead of the much smaller site Gaming Illustrated.

[csreynolds]

As much as I agree with this, it is possible that their abbreviation is innocent...

[Pozzle]

Yeah, tbh I abbreviate the name of most sites when I submit articles so it doesn't take up too much space in the description. I wasn't even thinking of Game Informer when I wrote it. :O

[csreynolds]

I buy that Pozzle. It's easy enough to do.

[Arcee]

Pozzle, I will concede that it was an honest mistake and not something meant to deceive anyone. I see how easy it can be to do so. So I apologize for my over-reactive statement.

[Blues Cowboy]

Personally I think it's a great idea. All of the Assassin's Creed games have messed with history, and this could allow Ubisoft to trot out some incredibly creative ideas.

[Hufandpuf]

"If Ubisoft really wanted to explore this idea of an American king as a way to “better understand a time period,” they should have chosen a more plausible character."

The author wants a more Tyrannt capable character than George Washington that showed no signs of becoming a king or in favor of a monarchical rule.

The thing is though, that George Washing is more recognizable and would be much more interesting than intriguing than a lesser known name like Benedict Arnold.

[sorceror171]

Of course, if they're picking George Washington based on name recognition... then that means they are <i>not</i> doing it "as a way to better understand a time period" as they claim. The author's point is that, given their claimed purpose, someone like Benedict Arnold actually <i>would</i> help with 'understanding the time period'.

So either Ubisoft is lying about their motivations, or they are pursuing their goals badly.

[iceman06]

OR...maybe Ubisoft understands that humans are indeed just that, human. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is as much of an interesting concept as the alternate idea of what if Jesus decided to to come down from the cross. Sure, it's unlikely "knowing" the character. But, it would be a hell of an interesting ride taking a look at possibilities of what would have happened.

[sorceror171]

@iceman06 - The point here is that Washington *could* have chosen 'absolute power'. The option was made available to him... and he explicitly and forcefully turned it down. He wasn't a saint by any means, but he wasn't tempted by that particular path.

Given that other, far more plausible options are available... there's no reason to pick him, and plenty not to.

[BrizzyE]

It's not a bad idea. It's allowing players to view another side of what COULD have happened to America. If people are offended by it then they don't have to play it, simple as that.