When I heard that Assassin’s Creed III would be set during the American Revolution, I was both excited and concerned. I looked forward to finally exploring one of my favorite time periods, but previous entries in the series made me worried that the game would not do justice to the era. Having played the game twice now, I can say that, when it comes to history, Assassin's Creed III is a mixed bag.
On the positive side, the game does a great job of capturing the feel of the time period. The grime, political tension, and cultural diversity of colonial America are depicted better here than in most movies. There are some minor inaccuracies with fashion and architecture, but these are forgivable, since they help make characters and buildings more distinguishable from one another.
Unfortunately, when the game gets into the real meat of history, it becomes problematic. The game’s depiction of certain events, especially the Boston Tea Party, is so far off that it distorts the meaning of these events. One could argue that the Templars changed the history books, but these divergences aren’t always noted. Sophisticated players will probably take these depictions with a grain of salt, but younger players might be less than critical.
Another problem I have with the game’s treatment of history is with Shaun’s modern day lectures on the subject. I understand the need to puncture the hagiographic approach to the Revolution that some modern politicians take, but Shaun is often too negative. He overemphasizes the negative traits of the American leaders while often totally dismissing their genuinely positive achievements. George Washington in particular gets short shrift. What’s worse is that Shaun’s interpretation is generally held up by the game; though Desmond argues with him, he is never really more than a straw man to be torn down.
I think Assassin’s Creed is a series with great potential. Unlike film or literature, which are limited to depictions of events, a video game can give us a serious idea of the social reality of a historical period; with the Animus framing device, it can give a sense of the larger historical context. If Assassin’s Creed III were a bit more rigorous and, perhaps, a bit less judgmental, it could have lived up to that potential. As it is, though, it still gives me high hopes for future entries in the series.
History in Assassin’s Creed III
When I heard that Assassin’s Creed III would be set during the American Revolution, I was both excited and concerned. I looked forward to finally exploring one of my favorite time periods, but previous entries in the series made me worried that the game would not do justice to the era. Having played the game twice now, I can say that, when it comes to history, Assassin's Creed III is a mixed bag.
On the positive side, the game does a great job of capturing the feel of the time period. The grime, political tension, and cultural diversity of colonial America are depicted better here than in most movies. There are some minor inaccuracies with fashion and architecture, but these are forgivable, since they help make characters and buildings more distinguishable from one another.
Unfortunately, when the game gets into the real meat of history, it becomes problematic. The game’s depiction of certain events, especially the Boston Tea Party, is so far off that it distorts the meaning of these events. One could argue that the Templars changed the history books, but these divergences aren’t always noted. Sophisticated players will probably take these depictions with a grain of salt, but younger players might be less than critical.
Another problem I have with the game’s treatment of history is with Shaun’s modern day lectures on the subject. I understand the need to puncture the hagiographic approach to the Revolution that some modern politicians take, but Shaun is often too negative. He overemphasizes the negative traits of the American leaders while often totally dismissing their genuinely positive achievements. George Washington in particular gets short shrift. What’s worse is that Shaun’s interpretation is generally held up by the game; though Desmond argues with him, he is never really more than a straw man to be torn down.
I think Assassin’s Creed is a series with great potential. Unlike film or literature, which are limited to depictions of events, a video game can give us a serious idea of the social reality of a historical period; with the Animus framing device, it can give a sense of the larger historical context. If Assassin’s Creed III were a bit more rigorous and, perhaps, a bit less judgmental, it could have lived up to that potential. As it is, though, it still gives me high hopes for future entries in the series.