The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

I'm a little disappointed. It was way too quick and didn't do anything special. It kind of felt half-assed.

soundtrack seams good but do he has the hookblade

Just saw this on Facebook. Not much was given away but it still looked beautiful; I'm seriously excited now.

I'm not sure the hookblade will be necessary in this environment/era as there seems to be fewer buildings, with a greater emphasis on exploring the vast countryside/wilderness.

Of course, there'll be some fun free-running to be done in New York and Boston that the hookblade may suit but it looks like they're focusing on Connor's tomahawk.

I also haven't seen any mention of the hookblade returning. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though.

I don't think he has the hookblade.

I think those might be ingame graphics, since it's way below Ubi's usual standards for cinematic trailers. I certainly hope so, because that would be amazing (for ingame graphics). Too much tomahawk in the trailer as well and it was just 'kill kill kill, watch fight'. I hope there will be plenty of social stealth in the game (something Brotherhood and Revelations lacked ENTIRELY).

For a really short trailer I thought it displayed the game decently enough. There's sure to be loads of extra features that weren't shown, many of which have already officially been revealed so we know they exist.

I liked Washington's little speech before seeing loads of American's getting slaughtered!

And I absolutely love the fact that Connor doesn't look exactly like Altair/Ezio/Desmond (from what we can see); he actually looks Native American (mainly the nose).

Not too sure about those being gameplay graphics though as they looked a bit too good. It would be nice if they were though!

Oh, and I have to add, that treerunning (a nice little variation of freerunning ) looks absolutely awesome.

Racist

Sorry, Joey, but it just looked cool and I'm glad to see it's not all about the Americans!

One of the most famous Native Americans was even called Hook Nose, usually known as Roman Nose.

Granted, it's a stereotype, but I'm glad Ubisoft have adhered to it.

Haha, I know. I laugh at racism.

I'm really looking about Shaun's input during the whole game. As an American, I've said some snarky, sarcastic comments to the few Brits I've met if the Revolutionary War was mentioned. It's in the past, so I think we can joke about it with each other. Not a lot of British people agree, though. They assume I'm being arrogant like most Americans are seen as.

Yeah, I've heard that this is in-game graphics, or at least the cinematic graphics. Apparantly there may be another trailer at E3.

Comparing the facial animation to the screens we've seen, that actually seems possible.

That's fantastic. Even just as cinematics that will look great but even better if it's gameplay graphics.

I hope there'll be another trailer and think there probably will be as this one doesn't show that much of what no doubt will be a massive open world and a brilliant, varied game.

Brotherhood had a couple of trailers, one being cinematic and largely unrelated to anything actually in the game (the one where Ezio attacks the Pope's carriage), with the other showing proper gameplay (the TV one set to 'Pass Out' by Tinie Tempah), so a second trailer seens likely, although I think Revelations did have just the one.

Patrick, revelations had about three or four trailers.

Also highly unrealistic these are game play graphics.

EDIT: the comments coming from YouTube, here (Patrick) Shows how controversial this game may end up being

You're racist!

Yeah, I've just realised there's a gameplay one I had forgotten about and the multiplayer one. I was only thinking of the cinematic one where Ezio gets captured. This further backs up the point that there'll probably be another ACIII one at E3 though.

I agree.

Alright. First off, to short. Why couldn't we get a reveal trailer like RE6?, It was like...3 minutes long. But no we get more CGI animated killing in the woods. I'm already tired of that tomahawk shit. I wanna see the hidden blade damnit.

I honestly wished they picked a different time-period. This one is already causing problems with the fan-base.

EVERY time period and ancestor design has caused problems. Altair got people saying "so this is 9 11 the game?". Everyone kept saying Ezio looked gay. This will be good if it's good, not based on if the internet instantly loves it when we have no info bout it.

I must admit, my heart sank when I saw it was the American Revolution but I've gone from that to waiting for the Collector's Edition to be made available for preorder in the space of two or three days.

I've been constantly seeing people on the wiki, youtube comments, and forums mentioning that this isn't the full trailer. so, guess we'll be waiting till E3 to know the truth of that.

Wouldn't surprise me if Ubi puts more money into these trailers than previously, they do seem to be wanting to agressively push this title.

EDIT: after doing some digging, I've found that it's in-engine, though that doesn't mean it's not pre-rendered.

This has never been done before for an AC trailer. Honestly, this engine looks about inbetween the AC1 and AC2 CG, which is waaaay better than I was expecting.

So, we can confirm that the game will be really pretty.

There's not that much Info because it is just the Announcment Trailer.. just wait for the Official Trailer, and we'll see the grat stuff.

In my dark, cynical eyes, this is nothing more than a tiny teaser from Ubisoft. Bear in mind that Ubisoft is powerful force in the gaming industry with many subsidization and studios working and collaborating with them. At this point, there only putting out a tiny drop of ACIII into a river of rumors and circulation. All video-game companies do this in order to hype their product. A wise decision from Ubisoft, considering the last 2 atrocious abominations.

As for the trailer itself...

I like the new title slide at the 1st 7 seconds. It seems that every new AC game has a new theme at the slide (except ACII and ACB). In ACI, it had very glitchy stereo effects and DNA strands all over the place. In ACII - ACB, it was the standard Ubisoft title slide. In ACR, it had the same gltichy stereo effect, minus the DNA. In ACIII, it possesses a crisp, ice theme with a sense of shaky camera and dots connected by lines. An allusion to the Animus 3.0 memory corridors?

PROS:
- beautiful bald eagle in the opening scene - an illusion to Lineage
- brutal animations, especially when he stabs the soldier's head in the bayonet, and then fires a round towards his pierced head
- flashy parkour moves
- WOLVES!
- George Washington being depicted in a video-game
- the lettering are slightly shaking in front of the screen. Nice touch

CONS:
- not enough emphasis on movement/parkour
- Washington is giving a speech while his men are getting shot at. So anticlimatic
- not long enough

Not ENOUGH movement? That tree segment was probably the most extensive parkour sequence in any AC trailer yet.

And washington's speech happened just before his men charged. I don't see the anticlimax.

Well... can't deny with Calvar on this two aspects...

Parkour segments were the most extensive in any AC trailer?

What about ACI, where you LITERALLY see Altair run for his life. You see him running through crowds of people, scale buildings, jump gaps, and even land on a Crusader! THAT'S true parkour! In ACII, you see Ezio take MASSIVE leaps off of ledges and from gondolas and water poles. Hell, you even see him take a 3 story (?) dive with no visible damage on him whatsoever!

Perhaps parkour could work in trees, but they have to be set up in such a way that traversing through forests would be both fun and feels natural at the same time.

As for G.W. speech, his speech did stop around the same time that his soldiers started charging...towards bullets.

Now you can make the argument that this displays a sense of realism of firearm combat back in late 1700's in America, and you would be right. Warfare was...not up to our standards at the time. People just stood in rows and shot whatever was in front of them. But back then, the Brit soldiers were very bad at aiming. Colonists (at the time) were much superior marksman. Wouldn't it be better for them to utilize guerrilla tactics and use trees for covers instead of charging forward (and getting shot) all for the sake of drama?

About your last thing: Point blank, THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED HISTORICALLY.

Don't mean to be a dick, but it's not for the sake of drama. That is literally what they did during big battles, which you seem to know, so I'm wondering why you're confused about it.

Ezio and Altair's parkor sequences showed them doing a few quick moves, and then jumping off things. Jumping off a roof is not a parkour move. Jumping off a roof and landing on a guy is not a parkour move. The camera followed Connor for an extensive period of time, showcasing far more agility and swiftness than any of the previous cinematic free-running trailers did. And the actual amount of time that he was shown performing free-running was much more than previous trailers.

EDIT: that speech that washington gave was in reality given during august. This is just a trailer though, I bet they'll stick to the official times for stuff like that. but just so you know, he didn't actually ever make big speeches DURING battles. In some ways, I can see what you mean, that's just for the effect. But the method of warfare we see them employing is not.

I do KNOW that wars around 1770's were conducted like that: just charging forward and shooting the closest enemy. Guns were good for several shots, and they take too ling to reload. That's when swordplay comes in.

My MAIN argument is shouldn't G.W.'s army hide behind trees, and employ cover and hit-and-run tactics? Because that would seem to be a smarter move than charging forward towards.

Now I KNOW that some battles were conducted similarly like the former, and some by the latter. However, I wanted the latter to be featured in the trailer (covering behind trees, using sneak attacks; ect). Just my personal preference.

Parkour: moving from point A to point B the fastest and most effective way possible.

Jumping from a rooftop is considered parkour because most people wouldn't have the testicular fortitude to jump from that height. Most people would take a ladder and climb slowly, or slowly drop down by grasping the ledge every few drops. However, with experience and a condition mind+body, one can conserve time and energy by merely jumping down and rolling rather than slowly climbing down. Altair jumped down onto a guard because there was a chance that he could've attacked while Altair was rolling. So he kills 2 birds with one stone: jumping on him prevents him from attacking AND it cushions his fall.

When you play an AC game, don't you jump use parkour to get to the next mission? Ever jumped from a building just to get down, instead of slowly climbing the ledges down?

Jumping off of something is a very basic parkour maneuver performed by basically every action hero in anything. I guess what I was trying to say is that the kind of dexterity and strength it takes to move through the trees like that is a more impressive example of parkour than what we've seen in AC trailers before. Generally we see a few seconds of Altair or Ezio climbing a wall or hopping on a few things in a row, but this... this is very fluid and acrobatic, lasts for a long time (with only one jump-cut, I think) and gives a better impression of "this guy can MOVE" than anything in previous trailers.

Washington initially preferred direct engagement but after a couple of disastrous pitched battles he was convinced to adopt a Fabian strategy. He actually referred to it as a "War of Posts". The idea was to secure a temporary defensive position (i.e. a "post"), engage the enemy when they try to advance, retreat before being overwhelmed/surrounded, and set up the next post. Because it's easier to defend than attack, one can eventually win a war through attrition.

Hmm. I hope Ubisoft takes the tactics being used at X time into account for their battle scenes.

True - during the trailer, Connor does exhibit amazing parkour skill and acrobatics. His movements are placed in much more emphasis with the rotating camera.

I can't believe that I'm saying this, but I'm really exited for the war scenes. Just jumping in groups of 1000s and hacking anything that moves...is something that has to be seen to believe.

I'm excited about the "killwithout losing your momentum" feature. carving through a battlefield to get to a target sounds fantastic.

I had almost forgotten this. I couldn't agree more!

"Killing without losing momentum."

Does that mean the combat will be somewhat more smoother?

Yes, I think the idea is that there'll be a seamless transition between running/freerunning and combat with Connor able to kill as he traverses the landscape with no awkward or staggered pauses between animations.

Guys, calm down. I've researched the formations of battle back then after one day in a high school history class, my teacher took us all to the gym and we followed the procedures of both British and American armies. We followed the basic line up, position, first row get down and back row stay straight, aim, and fire sequence of the British. When doing the Colonial American formations, the teacher just said "Scatter", so we did.

The point made was that we weren't trained for it, so we didn't have a dedicated style of fighting. We were rebels not only in the fact that we were trying to break off from the British empire, but we also didn't play by the rules of warfare back then. Hell, for a long time, we didn't even have uniforms. We were farmers and regular citizens battling the strongest force on the planet. We were an infant nation with no experience other than making our surroundings livable.

LOL - It's not quite that simple either. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone here. The Colonial strategy evolved from pitched battles (i.e. British style) to more hit and run ambushes.

George Washington and other officers had been trained by the British military. Washington was born in Virginia (his great-grandfather John Washington immigrated from England in 1657). However, all residents of the American Colonies were British subjects by definition. Washington's military career began in 1753 when he was appointed a major in the provincial militia. He represented the British in the French and Indian War (a.k.a. the Seven Years' War). It was during this time that he learned the strengths and weaknesses of British military tactics and also learned a few tricks from the Indians such as when he found himself outflanked in a forest battle.

Exactly! The American regiments did train, drill and follow tactics but it's still amazing that they were able to defeat the most powerful army and navy in the world, all without having a navy of their own. One historian put it this way: It's easy to look back on it now and think it was America's destiny to win that war. At the time, their chances were closer to 1 in 10,000. They were like a pick-up basketball team challenging the NBA champions.

I know Washington and other officers had been trained like you said, stab (probably not as experienced as the British officers in comparison, but yeah). I was talking about the common American soldier back then. They weren't really trained like armies today were. Before that, we never had a valid excuse to form a defensive coalition for the nation, so not much preparation was present at the beginning for us. Later on, we became more sophisticated and able to fight more effectively and getting uniforms.

I was just pointing out to Vesferatu and Calvar's discussion that the trailer might show how it was. We weren't perfect (and still aren't). We basically did what was necessary, not what was custom.

Also, remember that the Americans were fighting on their home turf. The British had a thousands-mile-long supply line to a foreign land.

For the British to "win" the war, they had to win it. For the Americans to "win" the war, what they had to do was not lose it. That was a much more feasible proposition from the outset.

Lisa, you should be a teacher. I love the way you describe and explain things.

Britain:
- worlds most powerful navy+army
- experienced, trained soldiers

America:
- will power to protect one's home/freedom
- better shooters
- know terrain
- accustom to different climate
- French/Spanish allies
- sheer luck

And dont forget George's ties to the Assassins.

Awwww.... thanks, DAZ.

Vesferatu, nice summation!

George Washington could have used a bazooka for all I cared. (okay, just kidding) I know the games are supposed to be historically accurate, but only to a point. I'm a little more excited for how the game goes. So we can argue about this like we did for Revelations, but when we play the actual game none of the arguments will matter anymore. We'll just be focused on how good the game is and how much we like it. Ubi just had to release the game info most of a year before it comes out.

Britain also had the resources to hire foreign mercenaries. After crossing the Delaware, the Continental Army defeated not British but German Hessian soldiers who were garrisoned in Trenton, New Jersey.

Will cannons be a gameplay element? I enjoyed shooting Borgia towers and cannons.

Opinion incoming:

I really don't mind if this is the only non-ingame trailer. Honestly, they all get shown so much that I get sick of them anyways. This one left more of an impact on me because I could pick out ore new gameplay features it was introducing clearer than any other AC game's trailer. Like, the idea of dual wielding and taking on enemies fluidly, to the idea of using more weapons than just the hidden blade for a high profile assassination, the return of horses, freerunning on stuff like trees, exploring a vast wilderness, as well as massive battles that Connor will infiltrate. It was mostly stuff I already knew from the leak, but it was exciting to see a rendering of what it would look like, in the game's actual engine, no less.

In the end, good gameplay is always more impressive than a good pre-rendered trailer. So I'm waitin'.

Excellent thought, Calvar. Hopefully Ubisoft will make the wise decision to make horses GALLOP in BOTH the wilderness and in cities. And as for high profile assassinations, I was comfortable sticking a dagger or sword in the back when they're not aware that I'm behind them. Somethimes I like to use my fists to incapitate them.

But before, you could never to an Air to sword-assassinate, or dagger assassinate. (except with certain multiplayer characters) Looks like that's changing.

The only reason horses couldn't gallop was because the game couldn't render Rome fast enough to keep up with the speed the horse was moving. Since this is a new engine, I expect that to be taken care of.

Lego version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjWBf9Jo7t4&feature=g-vrec&context=G24643...

Weird. I heard that in PC games, the gallop feature was present even in Rome.