Assassin's Creed 3

At E3 this year Ubisoft showed a lot of AC3 gameplay, and as everyone is probably well aware it’s set during the American Revolution. There has been a lot of questions, and speculation about who the enemy would be, but as the Americans won the war, it was pretty obvious that they would likely be your allies. However when asked at E3 if the whole game was about killing the british one of the designers firmly stood his ground, stating that Conner would have targets on both sides of the war, and that the enemy is the Templar order and not the British.

However! They then proceeded to show multitudes of gameplay, with Conner doing nothing but killing the British. In recent interviews they have stated that they understand that what they said was not what they showed, and that they showed all they could. That we would have to trust them, but they understand that we are skeptical. That they don’t want to ruin a major plot twist for us. They are a canadian company. They have showed the bad side of civilizations before. Conner is Native American and British. The colonials are going to betray him. Ubisoft is going to show us just how racist America was back then. They might have something where a subset of them are Templars, and they’ll say that things like the trail of tears in the later years were the Colonial Templars trying to wipe out the rest of the Assassins.

I’m about 75% sure of this theory. It would be epic if I was right.

The alternative is them taking the "safe" route, where the paint the Americans as "I can do no wrong!" Which would make me very unhappy because that would so historically inaccurate. The colonists were sneaky, two faced miscreants. It's part of what makes that time period so interesting to me. They rebelled against the British, like a teenager rebelling against there parents. They proceeded to kick the Native Americans off of there land, and slaughter them. If they don't show this, I don't know if I can still like the game. If there aren't shades of gray all over the battlefield, with no clear right and wrong, I just don't know how well I can enjoy it. If they paint the colonist's as the good guys... You get the point.

Watch_Dogs

Watch_Dogs looks too good to be true, this seems to be common opinion around the internet. Everything from the graphics, to the nature of the gameplay. How free flowing everything seemed to be. When the main character turned the light from red to green in order to cause the accident, is that the only thing you could do at that moment? Could you have caught the guy another way? And then, an even bigger question looms overhead. Is this a next gen game?

I know Ubisoft came out and stated that it was not a next gen game, but come on. It would be a small lie to tell to cover up the "nextbox" or the PS4. I have this theory for two reasons. One: The graphics look phenomenal, and two Ubisoft has embraced the Wii U with open arms, and the Wii U is supposed to be more powerful then the 360/ps3. So why would it be on those and not on the Wii U? My theory? The Wii U, 360 and PS3 can't run it. I think Watch Dogs is a next gen game. I mean, Ubisoft pretty much stated that this game is still in early development, and if popular theory is to be believed were looking at a holiday 2013 Xbox 720. I can't imagine that Sony will be far behind with the PS4.

Enough with that though! I honestly think the game looks great. The aftermath of that game being revealed was phenomenal. Mostly positive things were said, and the E3 crowd rejoiced at something new. The premise of the game is promising, the story looks great so far, and if the gameplay is as open ended as it looks, I will be happy with it. I won't say that the game looks to be an industry changer, but it does seem to be a fresh look on a near future setting.

All in all, whenever this game releases you can bet that I will be playing it, no matter the generation of platforms it comes out on.