Talk:Assassin's Creed III/Archive 1

The M rating
"Assassin's Creed III has received an M rating for Blood, Violence, Sexual Themes, and Language. The rating is accurate, but the description deceptive. The gore and language is often disabled by the player, and the sexual themes are merely a love story and not inappropriate sexuality. This rating is warranted if played with no setting adjustments, but for the common player, after disabling the gore and language the rating is too harsh."

The part in bold is purely subjective and doesn't belong in the article. "often disabled by the player" and "for the common player", yeah that's gonna need some citation. Unless there's been some big issue about the M rating in the media where they've also done a study on how many players turn gore and offensive language off. 84.215.28.235 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)(nilspils)

Playstation 3 Exclusive Content
Does anyone know what these 4 exclusive missions are? Are they included in the Join or Die or Freedom edition for the PS3 as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.207.218.67 (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bennedict Arnold is a exclusive DLC for PS3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.86.163 (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

FRONT COVER IMAGE
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150594293533068&set=a.10150594293448068.391304.6119163067&type=3&theater

Someone please add this image. I don't know how to upload images. If I did I would add it myself. Thanks. Cross Pollination (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OFFICAL WEBSITE
http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/ac/en-GB/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yyyonii (talk • contribs) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

CONNOR'S WIKI
It would be great if the main protagonist of the assassin creed games had there own wiki page but all of the minor and important characters all use the same page but this but to the point add this link to Connor's name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Assassin's_Creed_characters#Connor.

No link on templers or assassins
Assassins is common knowledge but the templers may need elaboration. Knight of christ and so forth so I think that needs a link 144.132.0.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC).

New protagonist
It seems the last two main protagonists get mentioned in every single Assassin's Creed page.

...will feature a new protagonist who calls himself Connor, but his birth name is Ratohnhaké:ton (pronounced Ra-doon-ha-gay-doo).

Sounds much more suited and professional. 92.7.88.107 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The pronunciation guide is very informal and would be better if it were in IPA or even not present at all. Does anyone know Mohawk phonology? Kawdek (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple of possibilities for IPA representations of the pronunciation: [radonhaˈɡeːdũ] or [radũhaˈɡeːdũ]. I don't know much about the language at all, but I looked at the Mohawk language page, the Omniglot page, and the Language Geek page, and this seems good. I can't tell if the "ohn" part is supposed to be [on] or [ũ] though, but Kotaku contacted Ubisoft and they gave , suggesting the correct pronunciation may be [radũhaˈɡeːdũ]. Wonderroast (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * IIRC, Mohawk doesn't allow more than two-consonant clusters, but that can be easily obscured by the orthography. I would guess (and this is just a guess) that Ratonhnhaké:ton is syllabified like Ra-tonh-nha-ké:-ton and is thus /radũhn̥age:dũ/. I know a guy who knows Mohawk linguistics, I might ask him. But... do we know for sure that it's spelled correctly on this page? Do we even know that it's Mohawk, and not another Iroquoian language?67.158.4.158 (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal Proceedings
Should there be note about the lawsuit being brought against AC3 and Ubisoft? In the legal document is specifically states that he (John L. Beiswenger) wanted development on AC3 to be stopped immediately so I would think that this would be pertinent to this page. Yea? Nay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.229.136.225 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrections from Ubisoft
Hi, I'm Gabe and I work at Ubisoft as a Community Developer.

Our marketing team has asked that we edit a few things on the Wikipedia entry for AC3, but (because we respect the internal rules of the Wikipedia community) I wanted to post here first in order to ask permission to alter the following information: LISTED - Matt Turner, Lead Writer ; CORRECT TO - Matt Turner, Writer LISTED - Alex Hutchison ; CORRECT TO - Alex Hutchinson

Thanks! UbiGabe (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Gabe
 * First off UbiGabe well done on knowing how stuff works here and on taking this to talk. Normally we would want references, but, we have none for now, so it strikes me that it could be changed.  I await other opinions.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh hai. So I don't work for Ubisoft but I just uploaded a video interview with Corey May where he specifically clarifies that he (and not Matt Turner) is the lead writer for AC3. So I took the liberty of updating the wiki page to reflect that and cited the interview as a reference. Between that and Gabe's post here I think that should be sufficient. I also noticed that someone else already made the changes to Alex's name (which was clearly just a typo). Loomer979 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! UbiGabe (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

American marketing?
Just stumbled onto a couple of articles that point out certain aspects of the game's marketing, particuarlly skewing the potential narrative and gameplay featured. http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/05/08/assassins-creed-3-not-about-america-ra-ra-wont-shy-away-from-slavery-says-writer/ http://kotaku.com/5918810/can-americans-not-handle-the-sight-of-their-ancestors-being-killed-in-assassins-creed http://www.inentertainment.co.uk/20120617/biased-assassins-creed-3-marketing-campaign/ Now before you brush it off (seems to always be the case with this sort of thing) I just want to highlight them in the event the point is raised/resolved post-launch, potentially being something of small note or not. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Special Edition Figurines
The figurines for two different special editions are listed as a 24cm version and a 9.44 inch version, but these heights are exactly the same. Is it not likely that the figurine is exactly the same in both Special Editions and need not be specified as different versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kboyun (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for recognising this, it had not occurred to me before, the sizes will be made the same, though in promotion the sizes are given in different units.--Djonathan 16 (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

POV Article - Wikipedia is not a game magazine!
>>>In addition to the historical period, the game will also feature the "present day" setting, where series' protagonist Desmond Miles must endeavour to prevent the 2012 apocalypse, as his story will develop and then reach a conclusion. Players will also experience more Desmond than in any previous titles.<<< Do I need to say more? Except that this is found everywhere and there is waaay to much information. We all know that marketing guys use Wikipedia as zero-cost advertisment. We know, that Ubisoft tries to bribe game magazines (Computer Bild Spiele did not get a pre-release of Assassin's Creed 2, because they refused to guarantee a very good rating upfront). But Wikipedia should be neutral, despite of the marketing guys. Some options: 1) shorten and edit this article 2) warn the reader that this is not neutral 3) Make Ubisoft pay Wikimedia for ads 4) Add even more marketing lingo to this. How about "Super best grafics EVAR! And fun fun fun! Go buy it, go buy it, this is bester than sliced bread!!! Don't forget to buy other Ubisoft games." What the hell? Now even other companies try to market on the same page... Just read this image-description: "The promotional image of the game, which was sent to Kotaku by a Best Buy employee." Clean this mess! --134.93.79.26 (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC) p.s.: And whoever says "Hurr durr, this is important information. Cause it informs about the very important leakage.", here read this: Marketing Buzz or google all the sorts of "Marketing Gags" --134.93.79.26 (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How is the quote above non neutral? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TBH I do sometimes get the impression that this article is being developed by Ubisoft's marketing department SPAs.. but it's just a feeling. Anyone have anything to confess?  Я ehevkor ✉  17:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You should lay your suspicions to rest. The extract mentioned above was edited by me, and by no means am I a member of the Ubisoft marketing department. Also why do you feel that paragraph is non neutral? It's fully referenced, and the events mentioned will occur in the game. Nothing wrong with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djonathan 16 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to a specific paragraph, just a general impression.  Я ehevkor ✉  23:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Djonathan 16: It is not neutral language. It is marketing lingo. Your paragraph uses buzz words and its intention is to create questions/suspense (i.e. "what is the 2012 appocalypse"). So either you are just lying or a fan, who read/watched too many trailers/ads and thinks, that this is a neutral tone.

If we allow those "referenced and neutral"-articles, we will end up with articles like "IKEA is a trusted manufacturer of comfortable and elegant, but affordable things" (I bet it takes 10 seconds to ref every adjective with some news-article, but it is NOT neutral tone) --134.93.79.26 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're actually accusing me of lying. I'm nothing more than a student and a fan. How is "2012 apocalypse" a 'buzz term'? Everyone knows what an apocalypse is. It's an event which HAS been mentioned throughout all the games, and will definitely be brought up in AC3. In addition, in another paragraph, "the ones who came before" and "the apple of Eden" are mentioned - how are these not 'buzz terms' or "intending to create suspense"? All of these are simply details in the game. You're just overlooking into it.
 * Indeed, -134.93.79.26 please read WP:AGF. Accusing people of a conflict of interest is a serious charge that one does not make without evidence.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I admit that I used a harsh tone and a overhasty accusation. Please accept my sincere apology. I get easily upset, if I sense marketing manipulation of social media (Wikipedia is often used as a propaganda/marketing platform until articles are blocked. 9gag is flooded with marketing pictures (which are upvoted by bots). Digg, Reddit, ...). Nevertheless: I find this article oftentimes overstuffed. Whats up with a sentences like this: "Over the course of the game, Kenway will encounter historical figures including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Charles Lee, Israel Putnam, Paul Revere, General Lafayette, John Pitcairn, William Prescott, King George III, Samuel Adams and Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben." --134.93.79.26 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point out how you would fix that sentence? It looks fine to me.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it I'd take out 9 of the twelve people mentioned. Is there really a need to mention Charles Lee? Israel Putnam? William Prescott? I may not be a very good historian but I have no idea who those people are and would venture to guess that they really don't rank with George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. Padillah (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Loyalist portrayal controversies
No mention of the controversy surrounding the decidedly negative portrayal of the Loyalists (i.e. the Redcoats) in the games marketing materials, I see. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Has this received any mention in reliable sources? BTW, Redcoats were soldiers, Loyalists were people who moved to Canada and opposed the rebellion, at least that is what I learned in school.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, far from it, a large percentage (as many as 45% as the start of the war however many were threatened and bullied while many others later believed the 'boston massacre' black propaganda) were loyalist and 25% remained in the 13 colonies fighting for their freedom. Most black people were freed by the British and given work, all those unable to flee (after the war) to Canada were re-enslaved, many tortured and even blinded. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/19/libertys-exiles-maya-jasanoff-review http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo12986170.html Twobells (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that is not what our United Empire Loyalist article says, but that is neither here nor there. Good work finding the cites though for this article.  Dbrodbeck (talk)
 * "United Empire Loyalist" is an honourific, not an allegiance. Te term Loyalist refers to any British colonists who remained loyal (hence the name) to the British Crown. Whilst the Redcoats typically came from Britain and were transported to the Colonies during the course of the war, a significant portion of the Loyalist military presence was made up of Redcoats who had settled in the soon-to-be United States. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Perceived Anti-British Marketing & Content
I've had the time (finally) to collate some of the negative 'anti-British' press content and lay it out in a small paragraph under marketing. I will update the subsection further once the game has been released and the players and media comment (or not) on the issue. Twobells (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this in an earlier comment on this page so glad to see any form of acknowledgement. I would however mention differences between trailers such as one that in the US version cuts out a scene where Patriots are being clearly killed by the protagonist, links below -
 * http://www.gamezone.com/products/assassin-s-creed-iii/news/ubisoft-censors-american-deaths-in-latest-assassin-s-creed-3-trailer
 * http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/10/05/how-the-uk-trailer-for-assassins-creed-iii-tops-the-us-version/ Stabby Joe (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition, it looks good. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those 'patriots' who are being attacked by Connor are actually Loyalist militia, not patriots. None of the game's missions require Connor to kill patriots.Ianbrettcooper (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reviews that mention the previous marketing of the game since a number have now pointed out that the game isn't one sided as the previews? Stabby Joe (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where people are getting the information that the game isn't biased. I've played the game all the way through and there is a lot of anti-British bias in the game. As far as I can see, almost all of the pre-release fears are accurate reflections of the game. The British are overwhelmingly portrayed as evil, while colonists are portrayed as repressed innocents - this is very clear in the game. As usual though, there's someone here who is deleting any additions that mention this and any note of bias is held to a higher standard than usual.Ianbrettcooper (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a credible and reliable source that does believe bias post-release, do show it. No one will or should remove edits based on their personal views so don't worry. However don't add a comment without a source otherwise it would be original research that would fall outside of Wiki standards. What stands at the moment is based on what critics and journalists say. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On a subject like this, you will only ever be able to reference reviews, which are ultimately one person's personal opinion. That said, despite my agreeing with you on the matter (i.e. the game is biased), the vast majority of "credible" reviews have chosen to state otherwise. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Shader model under system requirements
In Graphics hardware: "512 MB DirectX 9.0c-compliant with Shader Model 4.0 or higher" DirectX 9.0c supports up to Shader Model 3.0. Please verify this. Also, according to the List of games with DirectX 11 support, Assassin's Creed III only supports DirectX 10 and 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jale Swiftpaw (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2012
In the Plot Summary section the character is listed as "Hathway Kenway." His name is actually Haytham Kenway

66.0.231.66 (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ...the game itself? Connor's father is named Haytham Kenway, it's in the game, shouldn't you just be able to cite that? Leonnatus (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I've never played it. I've reactivated the edit request. If an autoconfirmed editor in good standing agrees with this request feel free to make the change; I won't object. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually this appears to be Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done. If anything has been missed please reactivate the edit request. Sorry for all the confusion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I edited it when I saw the mistake and reworded some of what's been written. I'd write more to the summary but I've only played up until the Haytham missions, haha. Bobfordsgun (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Bennedict Arnold DLC
PS3 version has Bennedict Arnold exclusive DLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.93.172 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception section links
Some of the links in the Reception section are not formatted properly. Can someone please remedy them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggypowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice grammar there
"It is be open for the player to take part in hunting activities" Should be fixed. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it, thanks. Padillah (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No need for name-dropping.
In the interests of BRD, I brought this here. The "Setting" sub-section mentions a dozen names of historical people that you meet in the game. This is a bit much. It feels a lot like advertising to me. None of the other games in this franchise have a comprehensive list of historical figures, why does this one? There is no need for this list, especially since the game is not trying to be historically accurate. We need to present a smattering of people and let the game do the "teaching". Padillah (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012
I've played AC3 up to the battle of Bunker Hill so I have more information that can be added to the summary. Before Achilles allows Connor to become his apprentice, Connor has to wait several days and gets attacked by men looking for Achilles. After this battle, Achilles tells Connor to come in and he then says that he will train him. After being trained by Achilles, he heads into Boston with Achilles to meet John Adams. At this point there are crowds rioting at the soldiers and Haytham appears and tells a man to climb on the roof and fire a shot to begin what is known as the Boston Massacre. After this series of events which ends in Connor being accused of starting the Massacre, he finds John Adams who tells him how to reduce his notoriety and goes to a printer to have him stop printing wanted posters of Connor. After Connor gets back to Achilles, he is told that experience is better than training. Achilles then leads him to the man who helps Connor captain the Aquila and gets him to fix the ship in exchange for the materials. After repairing the ship, Connor takes the ship to recruit men to man the cannons and then goes back to homestead. He then is sought by his friend from the indian village who tells him that there are men trying to take away the village. Connor goes into Boston and meets John Adams and is told that if they get rid of the tea that they get rid of the funding for the expansion. Connor blows up the tea and helps toss the tea overboard in the Boston Tea Party. Six months later, the head of the group comes back and starts trying to take the land again but Connor goes to assassinate him. When he kills the leader, he finds a note on him saying that the British plan to take the weapons of the colonists and he goes to John Adams with news of it and he is sent with Paul Revere to ready the militia. Once they meet in Lexington, they split up and Connor sees the British push the militia back from their places so he goes to warn Concord. He then leads the militia to stop the British and after he succeeds, he is told to meet someone who is to lead troops at Bunker Hill.

Mask500300 (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Subject to consensus and the core content policies, you should be able to make this edit yourself. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Gameplay section
Can someone who help me with the gameplay section? It has very much new to the series that has not been in AC I, II, Brotherhood and Revelations. So can somebody who has the game or know something about the gameplay, help me?

Critical reception
The words used in the 'critical reception' section is inconsistent with other games. For example, the game Dishonored is at 91, 89, and 88 on Metacritic for PC, PS3, and Xbox 360, respectively. It is described as having received positive reviews. AC3 is at 86 and 85, and yet this article states that it received "critical acclaim". That is a much stronger term than "positive reviews", so why is it used on a game that has been less warmly received? It makes no sense. All I want is a little consistency.
 * I changed it to "generally favorable reviews" since that is actually supported by the source cited (Metacritic) --129.178.88.84 (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

System Requirements
The system requirements on the page says that AC3 can be run on Windows XP. Please confirm again whether it is true. 5/11/12 22:25 +8GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.194.35 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)