Talk:Assassin's Creed III

PC release date confirmation
PC release date is October 30 on the amazon preorder site. (Arabian411269 (talk) 22:42, August 2, 2012 (UTC))


 * Ubisoft releasing the PC version a day earlier than the consoles? What universe does this amazon exist? -- 03:17, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. Totally get your point (though it pains me) (Arabian411269 (talk) 13:50, August 3, 2012 (UTC))


 * isnt the US release the 30th? amazon has probably just got that date as tentative and it would change if they get more info. 05:30, August 3, 2012


 * I doubt they'll just change it. Any change in delivery dates is a breach of contract unless they have a disclaimer or something. (Arabian411269 (talk) 13:50, August 3, 2012 (UTC))


 * any date(or other info for that mater) that they have for preorders/unreleased product is subject to change, if ubi pushes back the release date this change will reflect on the amazon page, they will garantee the price you pay wont go up on your preorder tho. 14:51, August 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * bad news: http://www.examiner.com/article/assassin-s-creed-3-gets-delayed-for-pc-until-november-as-expected
 * ACsenior (talk) 08:32, August 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, shit. (Arabian411269 (talk) 01:39, August 12, 2012 (UTC))

New Screenshots
I found these new screenshots on kotaku. (Arabian411269 (talk) 12:16, August 15, 2012 (UTC))



{C {C}{C Should we put them In AC 3 page, and have you sourced them?? 12:27, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

They're good quality images so I don't see why not. Source them and you're good to go. 13:14, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

none of these three are sourced, do they really add anything to the article? should also be asked before adding them. 13:15, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of digging and sourced the images. Thanks for noting they were from kotaku, made the whole thing a lot easier. We can go ahead and use them for the articles now, seeing as they are of good quality and could be useful for certain sections. 13:47, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help. (Arabian411269 (talk) 14:16, August 15, 2012 (UTC))

Criticisms
So I was looking through the Criticisms section and I noticed there's only room for one image there (otherwise it looks bad). Now I'm wondering, which image would be better suited for the section? We could go with Connor assassinating a Continental (pictured on the section above) to show the outcome, or we could go with him killing Redcoats (currently used, pictured on the right), showing the cause. What does everyone else think? 08:11, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I hope you guys don't mind I changed this part to a vote of sorts. 14:03, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

Continental

 * 1) I say put the one where he kills a Continental soldier. The Redcoat picture reinforces the rumor and misrepresents the game since almost EVER other picture on the wikia shows him killing Redcoats. Plus it looks better, just sayin. (Arabian411269 (talk) 13:30, August 17, 2012 (UTC)).
 * 2) Agree we shuld take the one where he kills a continental solider.--ACsenior (talk) 13:43, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm voting here because most other images show Redcoat killing, and it would show the change brought about by the criticism. 14:03, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I say continental cause if we make it seem that the rumors are true then less people will want to play, and if its decided to not put the picture on that specific section lets put an assinated continental pic somewhere on the page. (Mullac09) 5:00, August 17, 2012
 * 5) We aren't advertising the game. The Crimson Eagle (talk) 14:58, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Made a mistake sorry its (Mullac09) 5:05 August 17, 2012

Loyalist

 * 1) I would go the other way and say leave the redcoats, simply because it does display the subject of criticism. couldnt they both be displayed if the existing image and the new one were displayed smaller? 13:47, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah. It doesn't fit the "Criticisms" topic unless you show one exclusively with Red-coat killing.
 * 3) Keep the Loyalist pic, but add some text saying that they did show some Americans being killed, finally. Why so serious? (talk) 14:58, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Is the criticism section even needed anymore? I mean, we've seen him kill plenty of colonists now. It's outdated. 71.65.74.137 21:52, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) How about both, but in a slideshow. --ACsenior (talk) 13:56, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Putting both would of course be better. Just reword the paragraphs to get it to look right. (Arabian411269 (talk) 14:00, August 17, 2012 (UTC))
 * 3) Correct me if I am wrong but I thought votes had to be cleared with admins first and then allowing them to oversee and apply changes when the vote is over. Also, I thought all votes were to be kept to the forums area for ACIII discussion rather than the article's talk section. -- ► Kaloneous ◄♣HelpDesk♣ 14:16, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Hmm... I didn't know that. It started as a discussion but when I saw people had varying opinions and input, I thought a vote of sorts would be a good idea. Also, this seemed quite minor to warrant a separate forum page. 14:20, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Well it's here now, I'm just worried it will turn into another argument like we have witness numerous times about this subjects hence an admin to adjudicate would be a good idea in my opinion. -- ► Kaloneous ◄♣HelpDesk♣ 14:26, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) And I don't really see why the area cannot have two pics in the first all..put the new pic in the right hand side of the last paragraph Connor_Killing_Continental_Soldier.jpg ..also change the other pic to 200px..-- Odranoelluta Talk ✲ http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel-cinematic-universe/images/1/18/Sig.png 15:11, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

What about Connor killing a Continental with a British musket wielder? I knoww it would probably be like the Ottomans and the Byzantines, but still. Ezio Auditore 1459 (talk) 00:48, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Developer Diary
Shouldn't the developer diary be posted in the video section?24.189.110.253 21:52, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and sign your posts. Slate Vesper (talk) 23:19, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Why U.S.A.?
I want to know why Ubisoft MONTREAL (Which is in Canada) is making a video game about the American Reveloutionary war? Why not the war of 1812 when -where canada is now- burns down the White house and kicks US ass? SLyfoX999 (talk) 22:50, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Because Canada is not a real country. And because Grand Temple is in the New York state, not in Canada. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie  23:08, September 14, 2012 (UTC)