Christ Centered Gamer

Sstavix wrote:

selderane wrote: Tree assassinations are awesome!

Interesting! How often does the game require you to assassinate trees?

It comes up. Oaks forget their place sometimes.

selderane wrote:

Sstavix wrote:

selderane wrote: Tree assassinations are awesome!

Interesting! How often does the game require you to assassinate trees?

It comes up. Oaks forget their place sometimes.

XD

Personally, I loved the game until the end, which was just sloppy.

But contrary to other opinions in this thread, I think it's pretty awesome that this game has the guts to discuss the beginnings of America as something done by flawed men, and not the people that have placed on a pedestal of modern making.

Drewsov wrote:Personally, I loved the game until the end, which was just sloppy.

But contrary to other opinions in this thread, I think it's pretty awesome that this game has the guts to discuss the beginnings of America as something done by flawed men, and not the people that have placed on a pedestal of modern making.

When you try to hide pointing your finger at someone for wearing a red hat, make sure they're not the only one in the room with one.

I never said the founders were perfect. And the idea that they're only taught as such is as mythical as anything else.

And even with those flaws, many were indeed deserving of a place on pedestals. They stood for great things, even if in their own lives they fell short. Short of the Son of God, that's what you're going to get. I await to see your signature on a petition to tear down every national monument in the nation.

But then the game makes the laughable arguments like, for examples, the colonists should have been happy to pay higher taxes to pay for the French and Indian War, simply because they were the largest beneficiaries of it (at the same time it acknowledged Colonial blood was the most spilled during it), it crosses into absurdity. The colonists were British citizens and had the right to expect to be defended by their government.

Would you ask California for repayment were it invaded? No, that's insane. And so is this argument.

By way of a second example, the idea of original intent. Contrary to the warm-fuzzy dross regurgitated by the game, what you think the Constitution means really doesn't matter. Discerning the original intent does because it was that original understanding they got everyone to sign the thing in the first place. So, yeah, making sure you know what the signers thought they were getting into is sort of a big deal.

And if you don't like that deal, we have this thing call the Amendment Process that allows you to change all of that. That's something else written into that document the game feels you shouldn't need to understand.

I'm sorry, but we don't get the reinterpret the rules halfway through the game. And if you think we do, remind me never to play cards with you. You cheat.

My objection about the political point of view of the game isn't that it has one, it's that it posits it's more correct than the strawman it has created. People who give two whits about American are already aware of the "hard truths" it stumbles to bring to the fore. But then the game editorializes and gives us limp-wristed Desmond to mumble out weak objections.

I'm well versed on the virtues and vices of our founders and the mistakes we've made to get here. I'm happy to have that discussion in public. But AC3 doesn't want to have a discussion. It wants you to shut up and sit down while it waves its finger in your face. I'm not a fan of that.

Maybe other people on this thread are.

I was, believe it or not, attempting to avoid an argument pertaining to this game's views with someone that I don't know on these boards.

You're overreacting, saying things like, "I await your signature on a petition to tear down every national monument in the nation". What? A little heavy handed, do you think? A little presumptive of my political alignments, too, but whatever, I'm used to that here. I never saw any arguments like the ones you're saying the game made, but let's not mince words: it's a very political game. And that's okay. It's not okay to talk to me like you are, and if I have to get a mod involved, I will.

What isn't okay is that the game features lackluster, aggravating chase sequences that draw out far too long, or that the game expects you to do certain things to allow for "full synchronization" that are, quite frankly, tall orders even when the physics and collision detection engines are working at full speed, let alone when they're chugging along like they do the majority of the time you're anywhere that those engines are taxed in the least (like Boston or New York).

There's other stuff, too, but they're mostly just minor things that I noticed. Pretty much all of the things you said, beyond the political stuff, is stuff that the previous games were guilty of; did you ever climb to the very top of the highest building in AC2, synchronize and then jump to your death? It's not fun. AC3's pathfinding, then, is much better than in previous games. I was thoroughly impressed with the traversal element of the game, even if it removed rooftops almost by necessity.

When you try to hide pointing your finger at someone for wearing a red hat, make sure they're not the only one in the room with one.

I never said the founders were perfect. And the idea that they're only taught as such is as mythical as anything else.

And even with those flaws, many were indeed deserving of a place on pedestals. They stood for great things, even if in their own lives they fell short. Short of the Son of God, that's what you're going to get. I await to see your signature on a petition to tear down every national monument in the nation.

But then the game makes the laughable arguments like, for examples, the colonists should have been happy to pay higher taxes to pay for the French and Indian War, simply because they were the largest beneficiaries of it (at the same time it acknowledged Colonial blood was the most spilled during it), it crosses into absurdity. The colonists were British citizens and had the right to expect to be defended by their government.

Would you ask California for repayment were it invaded? No, that's insane. And so is this argument.

By way of a second example, the idea of original intent. Contrary to the warm-fuzzy dross regurgitated by the game, what you think the Constitution means really doesn't matter. Discerning the original intent does because it was that original understanding they got everyone to sign the thing in the first place. So, yeah, making sure you know what the signers thought they were getting into is sort of a big deal.

And if you don't like that deal, we have this thing call the Amendment Process that allows you to change all of that. That's something else written into that document the game feels you shouldn't need to understand.

I'm sorry, but we don't get the reinterpret the rules halfway through the game. And if you think we do, remind me never to play cards with you. You cheat.

My objection about the political point of view of the game isn't that it has one, it's that it posits it's more correct than the strawman it has created. People who give two whits about American are already aware of the "hard truths" it stumbles to bring to the fore. But then the game editorializes and gives us limp-wristed Desmond to mumble out weak objections.

I'm well versed on the virtues and vices of our founders and the mistakes we've made to get here. I'm happy to have that discussion in public. But AC3 doesn't want to have a discussion. It wants you to shut up and sit down while it waves its finger in your face. I'm not a fan of that.

Maybe other people on this thread are.

Wow that was unexpected. It's just a game guys (one which I have not played) and last time I checked people are entitled to their own opinions around here. Let's keep this civil and avoid the accusations and name calling.

selderane wrote:

Drewsov wrote:Personally, I loved the game until the end, which was just sloppy.

But contrary to other opinions in this thread, I think it's pretty awesome that this game has the guts to discuss the beginnings of America as something done by flawed men, and not the people that have placed on a pedestal of modern making.

When you try to hide pointing your finger at someone for wearing a red hat, make sure they're not the only one in the room with one.

I never said the founders were perfect. And the idea that they're only taught as such is as mythical as anything else.

And even with those flaws, many were indeed deserving of a place on pedestals. They stood for great things, even if in their own lives they fell short. Short of the Son of God, that's what you're going to get. I await to see your signature on a petition to tear down every national monument in the nation.

But then the game makes the laughable arguments like, for examples, the colonists should have been happy to pay higher taxes to pay for the French and Indian War, simply because they were the largest beneficiaries of it (at the same time it acknowledged Colonial blood was the most spilled during it), it crosses into absurdity. The colonists were British citizens and had the right to expect to be defended by their government.

Would you ask California for repayment were it invaded? No, that's insane. And so is this argument.

By way of a second example, the idea of original intent. Contrary to the warm-fuzzy dross regurgitated by the game, what you think the Constitution means really doesn't matter. Discerning the original intent does because it was that original understanding they got everyone to sign the thing in the first place. So, yeah, making sure you know what the signers thought they were getting into is sort of a big deal.

And if you don't like that deal, we have this thing call the Amendment Process that allows you to change all of that. That's something else written into that document the game feels you shouldn't need to understand.

I'm sorry, but we don't get the reinterpret the rules halfway through the game. And if you think we do, remind me never to play cards with you. You cheat.

My objection about the political point of view of the game isn't that it has one, it's that it posits it's more correct than the strawman it has created. People who give two whits about American are already aware of the "hard truths" it stumbles to bring to the fore. But then the game editorializes and gives us limp-wristed Desmond to mumble out weak objections.

I'm well versed on the virtues and vices of our founders and the mistakes we've made to get here. I'm happy to have that discussion in public. But AC3 doesn't want to have a discussion. It wants you to shut up and sit down while it waves its finger in your face. I'm not a fan of that.

Maybe other people on this thread are.

BTW, the storyline and interpretation is fiction. It's... a video game.

selderane wrote: When you try to hide pointing your finger at someone for wearing a red hat, make sure they're not the only one in the room with one.

I never said the founders were perfect. And the idea that they're only taught as such is as mythical as anything else.

And even with those flaws, many were indeed deserving of a place on pedestals. They stood for great things, even if in their own lives they fell short. Short of the Son of God, that's what you're going to get. I await to see your signature on a petition to tear down every national monument in the nation.

But then the game makes the laughable arguments like, for examples, the colonists should have been happy to pay higher taxes to pay for the French and Indian War, simply because they were the largest beneficiaries of it (at the same time it acknowledged Colonial blood was the most spilled during it), it crosses into absurdity. The colonists were British citizens and had the right to expect to be defended by their government.

Would you ask California for repayment were it invaded? No, that's insane. And so is this argument.

By way of a second example, the idea of original intent. Contrary to the warm-fuzzy dross regurgitated by the game, what you think the Constitution means really doesn't matter. Discerning the original intent does because it was that original understanding they got everyone to sign the thing in the first place. So, yeah, making sure you know what the signers thought they were getting into is sort of a big deal.

And if you don't like that deal, we have this thing call the Amendment Process that allows you to change all of that. That's something else written into that document the game feels you shouldn't need to understand.

I'm sorry, but we don't get the reinterpret the rules halfway through the game. And if you think we do, remind me never to play cards with you. You cheat.

My objection about the political point of view of the game isn't that it has one, it's that it posits it's more correct than the strawman it has created. People who give two whits about American are already aware of the "hard truths" it stumbles to bring to the fore. But then the game editorializes and gives us limp-wristed Desmond to mumble out weak objections.

I'm well versed on the virtues and vices of our founders and the mistakes we've made to get here. I'm happy to have that discussion in public. But AC3 doesn't want to have a discussion. It wants you to shut up and sit down while it waves its finger in your face. I'm not a fan of that.

Maybe other people on this thread are.

Eh, if the politics bother me with a game, I just ignore them. I like AC3 a lot, and Assassin's Creed period. I like the Hunting aspect in the game. It reminds me of when I was a kid and my mamaw taught me to make bows and arrows :3 also I have Native American in me, so I like having just a visual depiction of what it might have possibly been like. And jumping from buildings to knife people, and choking them to death with ropedarts adds some fun to the game for me as well lol

Just a friendly reminder: If the thread is over 6 months old, please don't post in it.

This has been your friendly neighborhood admin.