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

I have no problem with it. The British were in the wrong at that time, not quite on the same level as the Nazis in WWII but we were still in the wrong, and if we're portrayed as the enemy then that's completely understandable.

I did have a problem with one of the trailers though, glorifying America and violence against the British. Lots of American flags waving followed by a two minute montage of British soldiers have their throats cut is crossing the line in my opinion.

EDIT: Wait, this game is made by the French? This game is a vile piece of shit! I'm not buying it!

Also, anybody who took that video seriously needs to learn more about the British. Firstly, we don't speak like that, and secondly, we have a tendency to be very sarcastic.



Around the Network

Why people on here actually think that we Brits actually care is really beyond me. No one cares, get over it. The video is tongue and cheek jokes. People going into the history books about what Brits/Americans/French done etc is quite scary to think that because of one video, it must mean everyone in the UK is going to boycott this game or something.

P.S. We dont care!



Player1x3 said:
If English are offended by this, how are Russians, Arabs, Vietnamese and Serbians supposed to feel?


We're not, thats how.



homer said:
Quit hating. We Americans saved the world not once, not twice, but three times in the last 100 years. We deserve our fun and isn't the dev for AC 3 European?



3 times?



Also, since the game hasn't come out yet, no one here except a game journalist who was sent an early copy can say with any definity that ACIII is or isn't anti-British.



 

Around the Network
RedInker said:
homer said:
Quit hating. We Americans saved the world not once, not twice, but three times in the last 100 years. We deserve our fun and isn't the dev for AC 3 European?



3 times?

He's likely referring to either the Korean Conflict or the Gulf War



 

JazzyJeez said:
Adinnieken said:
To put the British of the period into perspective. During the War of 1812, the British won every major decisive battle except one and that didn't wasn't won until after the treaty was signed. They routed the US Government, ransacked and burned the capital, and still ended up capitulating and lost the war.

Heck, the whole reason why Patton wanted to get to Berlin before the British was so that Montgomery wouldn't surrender to the Germans.

Note: I know the difference between the 1770's and the 1810's, but it was still King George. Up until the American Revolutionaries, no military power great or small had ever defeated the British on it's own territory, which technically the American colonies were.

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.

It's always good to read a persons opinion especially when the majority of historians have a different one.

Of course your completely correct about the reason why Patton wanted to capture Berlin before Montgomery when the evidence is that Patton actually agreed with Churchill that Montgomery should attempt the capture of Berlin, but don't let historical facts get in the way of your tripe.

Actually that was a complete joke.  Your failure to grasp that is sad.  I hope you're not British, because y'all are supposed to be known for your skill with dry sarcastic humor. 

Patton did want to capture Berlin first, by any means necessary because he felt the Russian's were going to be a greater threat in the long-term.  History proved him correct.  Patton wanted to be the one who entered Berlin, but at the time his forces were meeting resistance.  Montgomery's were not, therefore they could have advanced quicker.  

Regardless, both Patton and by extension Churchill were out voted.  It was Eisenhower, who Patton accused of being too political, that made the ultimate decision to allow the Russians to capture and hold eastern Germany and Berlin.  Rather than look at the bigger picture and potentially extend the conflict, Eisenhower chose to abide by the concessions made in the Yalta Conference and allow the Russians the opportunity to capture and hold Berlin as well as eastern Germany.   

Next time you try to school someone, try to actually have some understanding of what actually happened at that moment in time, rather than copying and pasting a sentence word-for-word from Wikipedia and calling what someone else writes "tripe".   Reading Wiki for an answer is awesome, but you really should rely on sources that can offer you a much better perspective on complex individuals such as Patton.   I don't know...like his biography.  Being able to read something online and understanding the purpose or meaning behind it are two different things.

And try to use proper grammar while you're at it.  It's "you're" not "your".  I can be "completely correct", ergo "you're", but I can't possess it, ergo "your."



JazzyJeez said:
Adinnieken said:
To put the British of the period into perspective. During the War of 1812, the British won every major decisive battle except one and that didn't wasn't won until after the treaty was signed. They routed the US Government, ransacked and burned the capital, and still ended up capitulating and lost the war.

Heck, the whole reason why Patton wanted to get to Berlin before the British was so that Montgomery wouldn't surrender to the Germans.

Note: I know the difference between the 1770's and the 1810's, but it was still King George. Up until the American Revolutionaries, no military power great or small had ever defeated the British on it's own territory, which technically the American colonies were.

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.

It's always good to read a persons opinion especially when the majority of historians have a different one.

Of course your completely correct about the reason why Patton wanted to capture Berlin before Montgomery when the evidence is that Patton actually agreed with Churchill that Montgomery should attempt the capture of Berlin, but don't let historical facts get in the way of your tripe.

Actually that was a complete joke.  Your failure to grasp that is sad.  I hope you're not British, because y'all are supposed to be known for your skill with dry sarcastic humor. 

Patton did want to capture Berlin first, by any means necessary because he felt the Russian's were going to be a greater threat in the long-term.  History proved him correct.  Patton wanted to be the one who entered Berlin, but at the time his forces were meeting resistance.  Montgomery's were not, therefore they could have advanced quicker.  

Regardless, both Patton and by extension Churchill were out voted.  It was Eisenhower, who Patton accused of being too political, that made the ultimate decision.  Rather than look at the bigger picture and potentially extend the conflict, Eisenhower chose to abide by the concessions made in the Yalta Conference and allow the Russians the opportunity to capture and hold Berlin as well as eastern Germany.   

Next time you try to school someone, try to actually have some understanding of what actually happened at that moment in time, rather than copying and pasting a sentence word-for-word from Wikipedia and calling what someone else writes "tripe".   Reading Wiki for an answer is awesome, but you really should rely on sources that can offer you a much better perspective on complex individuals such as Patton.   I don't know...like his biography.  Being able to read something online and understanding the purpose or meaning behind it are two different things.

And try to use proper grammar while you're at it.  It's "you're" not "your".  I can be "completely correct", ergo "you're", but I can't possess it, ergo "your."



I really hate how race's/countries get angry at video games/tv shows/movies. It's all fictional and for entertainment, it just goes to show that their all cry babies!



           

I'm pretty sure the games aren't 100% historically accurate, given that part of it takes place in the present with a bloke plugged into a machine to extract memories of his assassin ancestors, and that's not even the craziest part of the games.



VGChartz