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

This game is going to feature DLC that has one of our most beloved founders and known to be one of the most humble men ever (George Washington) as an evil king...

"Historically inaccurate?" Well, it's a video game!

Get over it, people. There is much else that goes on in video games that people could be legitimately offended over, and this, isn't one of those cases.



Around the Network
Adinnieken said:
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 don't know you, I don't know your sense of humour, and there was literally no indication in any of your prior posts that this was a sarcastic post, so your schoolyard dig asking that I better not be British for realising this is pathetic.

As for looking at wiki, I can assure you I didn't, not that it matters because all you did was expand on what I wrote.

Ps. Thanks for the grammar lesson, I'll try to pay even less attention next time.



sperrico87 said:
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


I was thinking cold war maybe




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

platformmaster918 said:
sperrico87 said:
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


I was thinking cold war maybe



I will say yes to the cold war. So they have only saved the world once. WW1, WW2 America was part of an allied force. So its 1 save and 2 asists.



RedInker said:
platformmaster918 said:
sperrico87 said:
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


I was thinking cold war maybe



I will say yes to the cold war. So they have only saved the world once. WW1, WW2 America was part of an allied force. So its 1 save and 2 asists.

I would still call 1 a save.  Paris was ready to fall with Russia out of it and we swooped in at the last second.  Sure it was only at the very end but without us Germany still wins.  2 may be a different matter.  Russia was doing well even before we seriously fought the Germans, but there's no telling what the Japs would've done if we hadn't taken their focus away.  Maybe they would've come up behind Russia...and FUCKED THEM IN THEIR ASSES!




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

Around the Network
KungKras said:

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.

Well, the German tanks were designed to fight other tanks, not to mention the Germans were radio equipped allowing them to coordinate battles more easily.  The main battle tank at the outset of the war for Germany was the Panzer III which utilized a 50MM compared to a 47MM of the French Char B1 or the 37MM gun of the R35.  French tanks were largely defensive weapons, or technically outdated.  

I don't understand how on one hand you say they're prepared, when everything they prepared for was to fight WWI.  Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but the fact remains that German aspirations, just like those of Japanese were pretty evident.  It's one thing to say the British should have known, they aren't land locked to Germany, but the French were right there.   They witnessed Germany's capability with the Spanish Civil War, yet the weapons they developed to fight "the next war" were only incremental to what was available in WWI.

I agree that tactically, the Germans were light years ahead of anyone else.  They listened to experts in the US and Britain about the importance of air power, were as neither the US nor Great Britain heeded that same advice.  Not to mention they saw before any other European power did of the time, the importance of the tank in battle rather than simply in a support role.

As for the Maginot Line, there's nothing like building a wall with a way to walk around it.  It took the Germans 6 weeks to overrun France.  Militarily the French were ineffective.  The French haven't had a capable general since Napoleon.  Why France was even restored to a nation state after WWII is beyond me.  At least the British fought in WWII, not to mention WWI.  The French idea of fighting is "Oh look, a bullet, let me stop it with my body!"  There isn't a military technical innovation that the French have been able to do anything with decisively since the trébuchet.  

Sorry, I don't think highly of the French militarily.  Yes, the US would not exist if it were not for the French, but it's important to note that was all before the Napoleon era and largely due to our tactic of fighting during the American Revolutionary War.  I think the 100 Years War, then the French Revolution, and finally Napoleonic Wars just took the fight out of the French.  They're great for fighting weaker powers, but put a gun into one man's hands and he could conquer France, in my opinion.



ITT: America, fuck yeah.

Also. To the French. Agincourt.



                            

I didn't feel bad at all when I had to whack virtual Italian-American mobsters in Mafia II.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

platformmaster918 said:
sperrico87 said:
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


I was thinking cold war maybe

Which ironically was direct result of the heavy casualties the USSR suffered in both world wars.



Adinnieken said:

Well, the German tanks were designed to fight other tanks, not to mention the Germans were radio equipped allowing them to coordinate battles more easily.  The main battle tank at the outset of the war for Germany was the Panzer III which utilized a 50MM compared to a 47MM of the French Char B1 or the 37MM gun of the R35.  French tanks were largely defensive weapons, or technically outdated.  

I don't understand how on one hand you say they're prepared, when everything they prepared for was to fight WWI.  Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but the fact remains that German aspirations, just like those of Japanese were pretty evident.  It's one thing to say the British should have known, they aren't land locked to Germany, but the French were right there.   They witnessed Germany's capability with the Spanish Civil War, yet the weapons they developed to fight "the next war" were only incremental to what was available in WWI.

I agree that tactically, the Germans were light years ahead of anyone else.  They listened to experts in the US and Britain about the importance of air power, were as neither the US nor Great Britain heeded that same advice.  Not to mention they saw before any other European power did of the time, the importance of the tank in battle rather than simply in a support role.


Actually, most of German PzIII tanks in that period where armed with 37mm gun - there is common misconception that superiority of German tanks won Battle of France, when it was their superior tactics, leaderships and communications, and proper use of air superiority. For more info http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aNKw3dbwoM