Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assassin's Creed Slated for November Release

Posted by Zonk on from the watch-you-from-behind-you dept.

Gamespot reports that Ubisoft's action/stealth title Assassin's Creed now has a release window: November of this year. The game will be available on shelves for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, as well as the PC. "Set in 1191 AD at the height of the Third Crusade for the Holy Land, Assassin's Creed puts players in the silent shoes of Altair and gives them the opportunity "to shape events during this pivotal moment in history." Altair is tied to a group of ruthless assassins whose plan is to bring an end to the bitter struggle by striking out at both warring parties."

48 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing could go wrong... by Cheapy · · Score: 1

    Nothing possibly could go wrong with a game where you're a Muslim assassin killing the leaders of the Holy Crusades!

    --
    Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    1. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When we turn to 'unconventional warfare' in the face of enemy invasion, they are referred to as 'partisans,' 'patriots,' or possibly 'freedom fighters.'

      When our friends turn to 'unconventional warfare' in the face of enemy invasion, they are referred to as 'guerillas,' or 'freedom fighters.'

      When our enemies turn to 'unconventional warfare' in the face of enemy invasion, they are referred to as 'terrorists,' 'butchers,' or 'cowards.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by Broken+scope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      odd.. most intelligent people only call them those names when they make absolutely no effort to avoid friendly and civilian casualties, in fact we typically reserve coward and butcher for the ones who intentionally try to cause civilian casualties that.

      --
      You mad
    3. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by Cheapy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What does that have to do with my post?

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    4. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by SnowNinja · · Score: 1

      How it releasing a game about it different than releasing and book or documentary? This way the topic gets much more exposure, and what better way to sell copies than to pick a topic of debate? It worked for GTA.

    5. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      We (the great U.S. of A.) have made plenty of mistakes when it comes to killing civilians.

      Errr... could you please note your own use of the word mistakes. There's a key difference, don't you think, between intentionally killing civilians as your goal and not being able to avoid killing any civilians as you pursue some other goal?

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    6. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with my post?

      Well, you said:

      Nothing possibly could go wrong with a game where you're a Muslim assassin killing the leaders of the Holy Crusades!

      Implying a great deal, I thought, of sarcasm. Well, guess what. During the Crusades, Christians did, in fact, invade Moslem lands. The Moslems fought back. Why is this a problem? Maybe they even used unconventional warfare tactics, such as assassination. Why is this a problem? Why should an invaded people feel the need to constrain themselves? Well, there's all sorts of reasons why, actually, but there's nothing inherently *wrong* with defending yourselves; there are just ways to go about it that will have consequences that might outweigh their effectiveness.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    7. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Really? back in the day, the British considered the IRA to be 'terrorists,' who specifically bombed 'public places.' Yes, they gave advanced warning. Not a mitigating factor.

      They, of course, referred to themselves as the 'Irish Republican Army,' and did a fair chunk of their fundraising in the good old US of A.

      So, one man's Soldier is another man's Terrorist, and a third man's charity of choice.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by X-treme-LLama · · Score: 1

      Errr, could you please note the sentence(s) which follow stating: "So one could argue that we don't try very hard either. Not entirely true, but it could certainly be argued by people with an extremist point of view." I suppose I could/should have said 'hard enough', however the point stands.

      Also I could mention Vietnam, where in some cases killing civillians became a sport.

      You could also note the next paragraph where I state the attacks we're conducted to make the greatest psychological impact possible. And targeting civilians was a means to that end.

      I suppose actually reading the post is hoping a little much for /. ;)

      --
      My rantings, only longer and with better spelling..
    9. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Actually, what irks me the most is the overly-simplistic attitude we have towards civilians casualties at all. The idea that the US doesn't try hard enough strikes me as historically naive. That we try at all makes us practically unique in the history of armed combat.

      Furthermore: who says avoiding civilian casualties is always the morally correct course? I think Sherman made a very compelling case for the idea of "total war", a case that was then expanded upon in world war 2 with the intentional bombing of axis population centers in a concious effort to break the will of our enemies.

      I'm sorry if you're not the typical "Oh noes!!11 we killz de babiez!!" type. I'm just frustrated at the overall simplistic judgmentalism and double-standard I see applied to US foreign policy. Of course America has made some extremely bad policy decisions, but not every bad outcome is the result of bad decision making, and in a historical context I think America continues to set a high standard. It needs to be improved, I'm just suck of what I see as blind anti-Americanism.

      Apologies if that shoe doesn't fit you.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    10. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by X-treme-LLama · · Score: 1

      I agree we try hard, hell we've spent millions and millions of dollars on tech for just that purpose. So yes blind anti-americanism is total horseshit. However informed anti-americanism does have many compelling cases.

      Frankly I think we could generate a lot of good will, stabilize (nearly) an entire continent, and save boat loads of cash in the long run if we stopped burning money in Iraq and on defense (i.e. writing blank checks to Haliburton) and invested not only our money but our time working towards a poverty and disease free Africa.

      The middle east has waaaaaaaaay to many problems to fix, and unlike most Africans, they don't *want* us to fix them. I'm pretty sure if we started sending money and medication to Africa we wouldn't make that many enemies. But I bet we would make a lot of friends. In the middle east we should encourage Democracy when and where it happens, and help to stabilize the region how ever we can, but war (or occupation now) really isn't the answer.

      Hell send the USACoE over to build some infrastructure (plumbing, power, telephones and maybe even internet) haliburton could even have the contracts. At least we'd be over-paying to do some good. We don't have to blindly throw money at it, that probably will just breed corruption, but if we help elevate EVERY country in Africa in to the 20th (yes I said 20th) century the world would be a much better place.

      --
      My rantings, only longer and with better spelling..
    11. Re:Nothing could go wrong... by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      and invested not only our money but our time working towards a poverty and disease free Africa.

      I suggest you take a look at "White Man's Burden" by William Eastery, and possibly "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto, and most certainly this interview of a Kenyan economist by der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,363663,00.html

      Here's the intro to the interview:

      SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

      Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

      I'm pretty sure if we started sending money and medication to Africa we wouldn't make that many enemies.

      Sadly this is not true. Take a look at Somalia. And why is this the case? Because to a great extent American aid (and Western aid in general) bolsters autocratic regimes either directly or indirectly.

      The basic premise of Easterly's book is summed up on wikipedia:

      In 2006, former World Bank economist William Easterly published The White Man's Burden, an analysis of "why the West's efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good". In this book he questioned the 'utopian social engineering' that the development community brings to local communities and plays the idea of the White Man's Burden through current benign intentions (Bill Gates, Bono, Sachs, etc.) ultimately derived from a long history of meddling in others' affairs - that usually goes wrong.

      In it Easterly directly links the War in Iraq with African aid as two parallels facets of Western arrogance. We think we can impose political order on Iraq through military power, and we think we can impose economic and social order in Africa through gobs of money. Both cases are complete disasters. The arrogance of the right is met only with the arrogance of the left. Both seek good goals - freedom and stability - but both are doomed not only to failure, but to exacerbate tensions.

      Hell send the USACoE over to build some infrastructure (plumbing, power, telephones and maybe even internet) haliburton could even have the contracts. At least we'd be over-paying to do some good. We don't have to blindly throw money at it, that probably will just breed corruption, but if we help elevate EVERY country in Africa in to the 20th (yes I said 20th) century the world would be a much better place.

      This is exactly the type of nation-building utopianism that Shikwati claims is ruining his country (Kenya) and ultimately the entire continent. Yeah - send over Haliburton to build up the infrastucture. This is essentially the game plan of western aid for the last 40 years. A "big push" that would in one fell swoop elevate Africa beyond the quagmire of poverty and on the path to economic development. It doesn't work.

      If you want to do something that does work, we need to reform Western aid agencies so that they are accountable to the people they are intended to serve (Africans) and not to well-intentioned but clueless Westerners (like Bono). As de Soto argues the poor of the world already have something like 9 trillion in assets that - given legal infrastucture - they could leverage as capital to lift themselves out of poverty. Another good idea is micro-lending. It's also important to keep Milton Friedman's theories in mind: political freedom is inextricably linked to economic freedom which is in turn inextricably linked to prosperity.

      I applaud your ideals, but you need to examine the Wests dismal history of failure before you call for more of the same. Billions of dollars in forein aid have not managed to stamp out malaria in 4 decades (DDT would have done the trick if the West hadn't penalized developing nations from using it, but that's another story). In one day we can get Harry Potter book 7 into the hands of every kid in the west who wants one. In 3 or 4

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
  2. War was beginning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Set in 1191 AD

    Pfft... AD 2101, on the other hand... That's a year that I would be interested in as a setting for a game.
    1. Re:War was beginning... by Manatra · · Score: 1

      Considering some of the information leaks, I wouldn't be surprised if it is set in 2101.

  3. OS? by icegreentea · · Score: 1

    great news. does any one know what OS ubisoft plans to release it on? most importantly, will it be a vista-exclusive? cause they would totally kill it for me. anyone knows ubisofts previous actions on OSs?

    1. Re:OS? by SnowNinja · · Score: 1

      Looks right now like it's Xbox 360 and PS3. As far as I can tell there are no plans for a PC version.

    2. Re:OS? by deftcoder · · Score: 1

      Have you been living under a rock? It was announced that it would be for PC since E3 last year...

      He wants to know WHICH versions of Windows are supported, e.g. does it use DirectX 10 only? (forcing it to run on Vista only)

      --
      Peace sells, but who's buying?
    3. Re:OS? by Rallion · · Score: 1

      So, 'as far as you can tell' doesn't even include reading the summary?

      Anyway, they said it would be coming out for PC about 10 months ago.

    4. Re:OS? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Plans are to release on the "System Software" OS and particular stripped versions of "Windows 2000". Unfortunately, the game imposes some strict hardware requirements so don't hold your breath thinking that you'll be able to play it on your current system.

      (In other words, this isn't planned as a PC game, it's PS3 and XBox 360)

  4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, probably better to just stick to counterstrike.

  5. Re:Hmm by grub · · Score: 1


    It's just a game. You'd be more comfortable killing people in games you have no emotional ties to?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  6. Re:Hmm by swimin · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points.

  7. Re:Hmm by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

    Your not just killing Christians.

    --
    You mad
  8. Re:Hmm by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

    Actually do you have clue about the group that altair is part of at all?

    --
    You mad
  9. Re:Hmm by toddhunter · · Score: 1

    I understand. When I went to Egypt I visited the war memorials at El Alamein. Later on I was playing call of duty 2 when I got to the missions held in that part of the world. Suddenly it just wasn't fun any more.

  10. Re:Hmm by Cowardly+Anonymity · · Score: 1

    I'd rather not take a good looking game (albeit with a theme that seems rather pertinent to our times) and extrapolate that to Christian vs. Muslim or US vs. Iraq. Playing an assassin is a relatively popular concept among gamers, and this is only a translation in time...forwards or backwards remains to be seen.

    And before we assume, let's research the Encyclopedia of Nearly Everything. Wikipedia says about the Hashshashin, the group that Altair in the game is affiliated with: "The Hashshashin (also Hashishin, Hashashiyyin or Assassins) was a religious sect of Ismaili Muslims from the Nizari sub-sect. They had a militant basis which was employed in various political or religious purposes. They were thought to be active from 1090 to 1272. This mystic secret society was known to specialize in terrorising the crusaders with fearlessly executed, politically motivated assassinations. Bernard Lewis however states that unlike the popular belief, their efforts were not primarily directed at crusades but against Muslim rulers whom they saw as impious usurpers."

    Plus, I believe I read somewhere that Ubisoft is taking great pains not to make this a religiously explosive or controversial. Now, if your choice is to avoid playing the game due to discomfort of the setting, that is perfectly fine (if you happen to not like being a Muslim killing Crusade leaders - which is only one part of the game that we know about...there may be more). But it's not alright to jump to the "Hashshashin in the 1191 equals Al Quaeda or Shiite" train of thought. Just like it's not alright to think "Crusaders in 1191 equals Southern Baptist or Methodist."

  11. Re:Hmm by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

    Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin I'm not a school currently so i don't have access to any other articles worth noting, the wiki article pulls from 2 of the ones I would link otherwise.

    --
    You mad
  12. Educate Thyself by aldheorte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Christians were not the target of the actual group historically referenced, and the game materials talk of targeting both sides:
    Hashshashin Aside from that, this is one of the most bizarre commentaries I have ever seen. How does the logic even connect? Would you be comfortable if the game featured a Christian sect running around assassinating Muslims during the Crusades? How about if you could play both sides? Would you play it then?

    1. Re:Educate Thyself by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      If you don't understand, it's kind of like a Japanese person playing Medal of Honor: Rising Sun. Or any of the various games which end with the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan.

    2. Re:Educate Thyself by Salamande · · Score: 1

      The 1942 series, based on the Battle of Midway with the player trying to destroy the Japanese fleet, was made by a Japanese company, and was extremely popular in its native land. Go figure.

  13. Re:Hmm by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

    But if you kill all the Christians, there won't be an America to invade Iraq in the future. You'd be saving lives!

  14. Positive View of Islam? by Zaphenath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First off, I will say I am excited about this game, and have been since I first heard about it.

    I am hoping that this game will help some Westerners have a more positive view of Islam. Now, it is it somewhat funny to be saying that, since the protagonist is not only Islamic, but also an assassin. Not something you want to associate with any major religion.

    I just hope this game can, in some way, show people that all world religions are not as monolithic as they are often portrayed. Not every Muslim is a terrorist. Plain and simple. Just like not every Christian bombs abortion clinics. MOST Muslims are sane, rational people. Just like Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists. SOME are frickin' nuts. It just so happens that the "frickin' nuts" ones get more airtime. Maybe with this game people can start to sympathize with Muslims, and perhaps see both sides of the story.

    It just makes me sad that so many people have this twisted view of Islam, since the only representatives of the religion on TV are eccentric or terrorists.

    And before anyone starts quoting the Koran with crazy violent and questionable texts, just remember that ALL the religions are a little nuts, and that most major religious texts (including the Bible) has some pretty scary stuff in it. (Think Old Testament, cutting off of hands, stoning women, beating children, having bears eat some kids who were harassing you, etcetera.)

    Oh, and I think everyone is very probably looking to deep into this game, and if anything it makes a great backdrop for a potentially amazing and fun game.

    1. Re:Positive View of Islam? by LKM · · Score: 1

      I am hoping that this game will help some Westerners have a more positive view of Islam.

      And I think this is a much-needed thing. I live in Europe, and many of my friends are muslims, so I usually don't experience too much anti-muslim behaviour, or anti-muslim opinions. But whenever there's something on Slashdot that even remotely touches on the topic, I read dozens and dozens of misinformed, hate-filled anti-muslim posts. It's sad how much hatred some people seem to have against Islam - something they obviuosly have no clue about, other than "these are the guys who kill us on TV!"

      (I'm an atheist, by the way)

    2. Re:Positive View of Islam? by fudspong · · Score: 1

      There is no god, whether islam, christian or other. There is amongst religeous groups no respect for others of alternative beliefs, and for a very good reason - they rely on the subscription model to maintain their existence, and as the capitalist model shows us, they are not tolerant to competition within the market. That's all it is, a market. A cattle market. There's no souls to be won or lost, no point to be made, and only market share to be gained. Did you think your preachers/imams did it for fun?

    3. Re:Positive View of Islam? by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      I think most moderate people realize that the majority of Muslims are decent people. Having said that, I think the big problem that the Muslim community faces is perception. If a large portion of the community spoke out against the violence that we see on a daily basis, people would be far more accepting. Could it be that silence is seen as the community condoning violence?

    4. Re:Positive View of Islam? by furball · · Score: 1

      There is no god, whether islam, christian or other


      The logician Godel has a proof that there is a god.
  15. Please elaborate by LKM · · Score: 1

    All sides in the Crusades were brutal. I hope they don't take the politically correct move by depicting the Europeans as the sole aggressors.

    Please elaborate. I don't remember ever hearing that Saladin came to Europe and killed the Christians there.

    1. Re:Please elaborate by LeninZhiv · · Score: 1

      Saladin, no. But the Umayyads sure did, up until Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi anyway.

    2. Re:Please elaborate by LKM · · Score: 1

      Umayyad conquest of Hispania: 711-718
      First Crusade: 1096-1099

      How is that connected to the Crusades?

    3. Re:Please elaborate by LeninZhiv · · Score: 1

      I was talking about an "instance of Muslims invading Europe and killing Christians" (although I would argue that religion had a lot less to do with either war than most people assume), and not the Crusades specifically, which were obviously the other way round.

      The Turkish conquest of southeast Europe (itself made possible in large part by the Crusaders' sacking of Byzantium) could've served as another example of the Europeans not being the aggressors.

    4. Re:Please elaborate by LKM · · Score: 1

      Ah, okay. I did not mean to imply that Muslims never attacked Europe. The original point was that the Europeans were not the sole aggressors in the Crusades. Anonymous Coward wrote: "All sides in the Crusades were brutal. I hope they don't take the politically correct move by depicting the Europeans as the sole aggressors."

      I was disputing that a game like this should show the Muslims as aggressors in the context of the Crusades; not that the muslims never attacked Europe.

  16. Re:Hmm by penp · · Score: 1

    Never mind the fact that the Crusades are one of the bloodiest time periods in history, a time when Christians slaughtered countless people (trying to convert muslims) in the name of their Lord and Savior.

  17. Re:Hmm by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    Did I say killing Muslims was good? However, I am Christian, and so rewriting history to kill Christians in order to be more politically correct doesn't sit well with me. If I was a Muslim, I'd probably be uncomfortable with the game, too.

  18. Re:Hmm by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    Same goes for Muslim, but yet you focused on the word American. Interesting.. I wonder what nationality you could possibly be..

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  19. Re:Hmm by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    In order to be more politically correct? What on Earth are you talking about? Anyways, muslims during the crusades killed a hell of a lot of christians, I don't see what we're rewriting there.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  20. Every comment thread off-topic? by Kelbear · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of talk about whether or not it's ok to kill christians/muslims?

    This ISN'T a game about killing christians OR killing muslims.

    This is a game about being a badass assassin who climbs walls and wtfpwnz guys that never see it coming. Then flips out and kills all the guards with slick swordplay. The context is interchangable and unimportant, and hints have already been leaked that the context is exactly that. The game is rumored to be set in the future and this is all just VR training, with sequels set in other locales. The game is about being a "ninja" but in the middle-east(and not japanese:P).

    I don't think anybody wants to play this for any other reason? I have yet to see a response to a preview of this game along the lines of, "Awesome! I've been looking for a game where I can kill christian/muslims for awhile now! Sweet!"

    This all might be more relevant if you were walking up to your targets with bombvests, but that's not the case here. Assasination isn't even a new type of game.

  21. Re:Historical accuracy. by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    I hope they don't take the politically correct move by depicting the Europeans as the sole aggressors. I'd like to see some historical accuracy.


    This is the Crusades we are talking about, right? Europeans organized and carried them out.

    The only historical quibble I might have is if they depict non-Christians as the sole victims. Generally the Crusading armies had no compunction about attacking their co-religionists on the way there, and at least one of the Crusades never accomplished anything more than gutting the Byzantine Empire (Greek Orthodox Christian) to pay off the bankers.

    I can't get at the link, but they could be quite historically accurate if they stick to a specific crusade, and perhaps depict the player as a member of the Iranian (not Arab) tribe of Assassins of Almut. However, they were the original fundamentalist muslim terrorists, so I can see where a lot of gamers (myself included) might be a bit uncomfortable playing from their viewpoint.
  22. bah by spikeb · · Score: 1

    it's also coming to the DS you asshats