Before it was revealed that Assassin’s Creed 3 would be set in a colonial America, there was a lot of speculation about where Desmond’s virtual DNA adventures would take place. The most popular theories and requests pegged the game to take place in World War 2, Egypt or feudal Japan.
Ubisoft’s Alex Hutchinson, creative director of Assassin’s Creed 3, says those are all terrible locations for Assassin’s Creed, and would be boring.
"People on the internet suggest the most boring settings," Hutchinson said to OXM. "The three most wanted are WWII, feudal Japan and Egypt. They’re kind of the three worst settings for an AC game."
I actually mostly agree with him. all of those are stereotypical settings we’ve seen in countless games before. World War 2 is terribly overused – though it was used quite nicely in Sandboxy action game the Saboteur. The war was terribly expansive – it was a World War after all, so I’m sure there’s a setting that could be used to make a successful Assassin’s Creed. the problem with Egypt – though it would likely be beautiful – is that most of Egypt’s landmarks are quite from from one another – and a free-running Assassin would probably be quite bored in the expanses of the desert. I do, however, think feudal Japan could be an excellent setting – but only if the right research was done. I don;t think anybody wants to see Assassin’s Creed devolve in to a generic ninja game.
Hutchinson’s pretty keen on visiting India. "Cory May (Assassin’s Creed 3’s writer) really wants to do India, " he said. "I would too. I’d really love to do the Raj."
Given the choice, where would you set Assassin’s Creed?
I'm old, grumpy and more than just a little cynical. One day, I found myself in possession of a NES, and a copy of Super Mario Bros 3. It was that game that made me realise that games were more than just toys to idly while away time - they were capable of being masterpieces. I'm here now, looking for more of those masterpieces. I am also the emperor of the backend