By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - British people are offended by Assassins Creed 3

 

Do you think that Assassins Creed 3 is anti-British or historically inacurate?

Yes 179 38.83%
 
No 100 21.69%
 
I haven't played it yet.. 79 17.14%
 
See results 101 21.91%
 
Total:459
the_dengle on 28 October 2012

Brits aren't offended by AC3 because of its portrayal of the British. They simply don't like it because it's made by the French.

:P



Around the Network
crissindahouse on 28 October 2012
riderz13371 said:
RolStoppable said:
riderz13371 said:
RolStoppable said:
I find that hard to believe, because we had so many World War II games and I've never heard any complaints from Germans or Austrians about them having to slaughter their virtual ancestors in a video game in order to beat the game.

There have been games that have been banned in Germany due to Nazi references. 

Youth protection has been of high concern in Germany because of everything that happened during the World War II era, namely the intense propaganda and Hitler youth. The country certainly has been overcompensating, but the enforcements have become laxer over time. In the '80s a game like River Raid was banned, from today's perspective it's an absolutely harmless game. But back then the theme of war alone was troublesome.

The games you are refering to were banned due to Nazi symbols, not because they were about killing Germans. Or they were banned due to overly gruesome executions (for video game standards at the time) of virtual people regardless of their nationality, but never because the game was about killing Germans.

 

I'm pretty sure you killed Nazis in Wolfenstein 3D but I may be wrong. Can't really remember. But in Germany after 10 years that a game has been banned the ban is revoked.

yes and it got banned exactly for what rol already said, for the usage of "symbols of unconstitutional organisation" because it's simply not allowed in germany to use these symbols, if in a game or in reality^^

not because you killed germans, german nazis or whatever.

so the situation is a whole different story



weaveworld on 28 October 2012

Nice review there.

If only all games would be historically correct...



Soleron on 28 October 2012

When I lived in America, people would ask me why I didn't celebrate the Fourth of July...



Slimebeast on 28 October 2012
KylieDog said:

As to this topic, typical french devs.

Care to elaborate?



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 28 October 2012
RolStoppable said:
I find that hard to believe, because we had so many World War II games and I've never heard any complaints from Germans or Austrians about them having to slaughter their virtual ancestors in a video game in order to beat the game.


I don't think i ever had to kill an Austrian in a WW2 game. I think you meant WW1 game lol



Player1x3 on 28 October 2012

If English are offended by this, how are Russians, Arabs, Vietnamese and Serbians supposed to feel?



Adinnieken on 28 October 2012
KylieDog said:
Adinnieken said:
The only other people were to deal the British any significant blows were the two other superpowers of the time, the French and Spanish, and then the Germans in WWII at Dunkirk. The odd thing is the British consider Dunkirk a highlight of WWII. Nothing more uplifting than retreating with 50,000 soldiers either captured or killed.

Dunkirk was an allied battle and the intent to evacuate allied forces, most of which they did.  It it seen as positive because it was a success against numbers twice the size and a lot of civivlian ships were used to help the evacuation, 'Dunkirk spirit' is the positive phrase used, it was seen as British people all pulling together for success.  Nearly all of the captured were French since they were the ones holding the front lines.

It isn't realy seen as a highlight aside from the spirit thing.  A lot of supplies were left behind, though mosty sabotaged so not to aid the Germans it took the British a long time to replace them.


As to this topic, typical french devs.

Dunkirk was a necessity due to poor military planning.  Plain and simple.

The failure in this early stage of WWII was thinking the French knew how to fight a war.  I mean France's plan for stopping an invasion of their homeland by tanks was to run barbed wire.  How a nation can sit between Spain and Germany in the 1930's and not have a better preparation for war is beyond me.  I agree that Dunkirk was actually a success.  Getting 330,000 soldiers evacuated at such a minimal loss was a success, but getting yourself backed into a corner after having your defenses over run was a failure.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek to be sure.  Hyper-critical, but tongue-in-cheek.   



amp316 on 28 October 2012

It's true. Americans don't drink tea with their pinkies up.



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger

KungKras on 28 October 2012
Adinnieken said:
KylieDog said:
Adinnieken said:
The only other people were to deal the British any significant blows were the two other superpowers of the time, the French and Spanish, and then the Germans in WWII at Dunkirk. The odd thing is the British consider Dunkirk a highlight of WWII. Nothing more uplifting than retreating with 50,000 soldiers either captured or killed.

Dunkirk was an allied battle and the intent to evacuate allied forces, most of which they did.  It it seen as positive because it was a success against numbers twice the size and a lot of civivlian ships were used to help the evacuation, 'Dunkirk spirit' is the positive phrase used, it was seen as British people all pulling together for success.  Nearly all of the captured were French since they were the ones holding the front lines.

It isn't realy seen as a highlight aside from the spirit thing.  A lot of supplies were left behind, though mosty sabotaged so not to aid the Germans it took the British a long time to replace them.


As to this topic, typical french devs.

Dunkirk was a necessity due to poor military planning.  Plain and simple.

The failure in this early stage of WWII was thinking the French knew how to fight a war.  I mean France's plan for stopping an invasion of their homeland by tanks was to run barbed wire.  How a nation can sit between Spain and Germany in the 1930's and not have a better preparation for war is beyond me.  I agree that Dunkirk was actually a success.  Getting 330,000 soldiers evacuated at such a minimal loss was a success, but getting yourself backed into a corner after having your defenses over run was a failure.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek to be sure.  Hyper-critical, but tongue-in-cheek.   

France were pretty well-prepared. They had more and better tanks than the germans, and they had their impenetrable maginot line of bunkers and fortresses. So they did have some strengths. However, they still suffered from manpower loss from WWI and why they didn't count on Hitler attacking through belgium is beyond me.

Also, the germans were really, REALLY far ahead in terms of military tactics. The french spread out their tanks evenly across the front line while the germans massed them in thousands and rushed one spot. And they used combined arms really efficiently dur to their blitzkrieg doctrine. Also, marching through the ardrennes was totally clever, and really caught the allies off guard.

I don't believe the french thought barbed wire would stop tanks. I mean, the main role of tanks in WWI was to run over barbed wire.



I LOVE ICELAND!