Assassin's Creed III Is Not A History Book

Understanding the history of one’s culture is an important part of any education, but some have suggested that video games like Assassin’s Creed III should be revised to include a more accurate portrayal of history. Can you separate fact from fiction?

[admiralvic]

People like attention to detail... nothing more.

[knowyourstuff]

Yeah, there are tons of books written about the past that turned out to be not true due to later discoveries, while other things like videogames have an even larger tendency to play with reality to ensure the game is fun, and the story is entertaining. Why? Because it's entertainment.
If you want the real truth, what are you playing a game for? lol Yeah guess what, in World War 2 every other war, there was no one man army going around slaughtering thousands of soldiers with no problem, so most FPS games aren't historically accurate. And there wasn't a secret society of Assassin's and Templars, so Ass Creed is out too. But who cares? Videogames are more entertaining than TV, so we can forgive the fiction.

[Canary]

Er, both the assassins and templars did exist. It's a matter of historical fact.

And it's downright pathetic that someone felt a need to write an article spelling out, with far more difficulty than ought be necessary, the difference between historical fiction and nonfiction.

I mean, look how few words I can use to do the same thing: "AC3 isn't nonfiction; it is historical fiction."

Or if I'm feelin' really snazzy: "AC3 is historical fiction."

Both of which should be followed with the requisite, "and if you didn't know that already, you are too stupid to live," qualification.

[Blastoise]

One of the worst thing's about Assassins creed is how it breaks the immersion and goes back to modern times. Why do that when the historic settings are so unique?

[Silly Mammo]

I agree! I spend as little time being Desmond as possible.

[iamnsuperman]

They have to. It is so the over arching story can be done well. Other wise the over arching story is generally forgotten if you spend to long in the past. Which will be bad for its ending when the true ending to these games are not in the past but in the present day. Essential there are two stories going on at once. With the present day being the most important to the series continuing in a logical fashion.

[Silly Mammo]

I understand why they do it, but I groan whenever the game switches to modern times. To me, Assassin's Creed games are about immersing yourself in a historical time period. The modern segments are so vanilla. Again just my opinion.

[Temporary]

Games can be both informative and fun. I guess it wouldnt hurt to have a historically accurate game that can also gain mass appeal so it can double as a history lesson.

Missed opportunity with AC3 but it doesnt make it a bad game by any means.

[360ICE]

The part about the first civ seems legit.

[iamnsuperman]

True but this one is the most historically inaccurate of the lot. One thing I did like about the AC series is the had a interesting history then wound a wonderful story to connect it all together. I thing AC3 didn't achieve this

[Silly Mammo]

You mean a half-breed assassin didn't have a hand in every event that shaped the fledgling nation?!?

I think the point is to introduce some of these historical characters and maybe spark some interest(research) in folks that might not even know they existed. Doesn't the game also give players the ability to look at specific characters' bios?

[Fateful_Knight]

I think the switch to modern times with Desmond every so often is great. It breaks up the visual pace, and give you an alternate storyline to follow for a little bit. The fact that it's designed almost like a mystery is compelling and make me want to explore. It's like a meal, where you have the main entree, then off to the side is something different and delicious. It works.