Talk:Assassin's Creed Revelations

Does this warrant an article yet?

Doesn't this seem a litte premature? All we have is an accidental Twitter post, but not much else in the way of detail. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 11:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah might be better to wait until E3 and see what they say then Muskeato 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if this is the next game, it would probably be III, rather than named. Also, where is the source for this?

Currently, Ubisoft's Facebook released a teaser revealing an ancient castle, the hidden blade of what look's like Altaïr, and an arabic phrase saying "Altaïr, son of no one" or in other translations "Altaïr, the first assassin". There is also a bright light in the shape of Greece and an artifact known as the Phaistos Disc, which leads us to believe that the next game will take place in Ancient Greece or Crete between 2000 BC - 1000 BC.

---As well, the "son of no one" bit is his last name: Altaïr_ibn_La-Ahad#Alta.C3.AFr_Ibn-La.27Ahad

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Put in lots of little tags. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

References

As people have put a lot of info in could they also possibly link their sources? Or at least drop them here on the talk page? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, much better. The thing is though, that I know Altair's last name is Ibn al-Ahad, which of course means "Son to no one" (I know Ibn and Ahad at least, which is the same word in Hebrew. =p). We need a source for it though, I guess. However anyone who knows about him, could verify this fact. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed's (the first game's) manual states that it means "Son of None", so at least that's probably what it's supposed to mean. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that is how the communicate the idea, but like I said, ahad is one (it's the female form of one in Hebrew, and yes numbers have two gender forms). Either way though, it's his last name and so the "son of no one" should be changed back to the transliterated Arabic with the manual cited as the source. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

See now what Kiasu is doing is fine sourced work. But what the hell? I thought that Brotherhood was the last adventure of our dear Ezio (don't get me wrong, I am happy, but I could have sworn it was the last). Does the Brotherhood article reflect that now? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, well GameInformer confirmed pretty much everything, and everythign has already been well-sourced. So now we're just waiting for the details to stroll in. I'll update the Brotherhood page too.KiasuKiasiMan 16:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work everyone!

Well done, people, well done. Here is a diff showing the difference between the page yesterday and since the last edit. [1] This is now a respectable and well-sourced article. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Engine?

Any word on the game engine yet? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt we'll get any new information for the game till the next Game Informer is issued.KiasuKiasiMan 11:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

True, they probably only had one so called "leak" or "accidental posting" (not a bad marketing tactic). They won't have another as they have already made the players hungry for more (I know I am) and we're going to have to wait now for the Game Informer. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Constantinople/Istanbul

It used to read Istanbul in the article but someone changed it to Constantinople again. The city was renamed to Istanbul by the time it was conquered by the Ottomans in 1453. I don't know how it's going to be called in the game, but let's use Istanbul in this article. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.234.79 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is best to refer to the game as set in Constantinople since 1) that is how Ubisoft announced it, 2) that was the name of the city during the Ezio timeframe, and 3) that was the name of the city when it was at it's largest influence and historic significance. Of course it should be made clear that the city is currently named Istanbul. I made a small change where I referred to the game as set in the "historic city of Constantinople". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.87.12 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul was not made the official name until the time of Ataturk (as part of his wide-reaching reforms). Please see Names_of_Istanbul#Constantinople and Names_of_Istanbul#Kostantiniyye, and the reasons stated above. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mind my opinion? Saying that the game happens in Constantinople is better than saying Istanbul, for the very simple reason that it's the way it was announced by Ubisoft. Mind you, even though AC borrows heavily from history, it's still fiction. It may feature intentional inaccuracies or unintended lapses, but it's not our duty to correct them. Whatever the city was called during the timeframe of the game, we should use Constantinople as the primary name and possibly add a note in parentheses about the name being an anachronism if necessary. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No sir you may not add your opinion. (Only kidding) Even so, they probably picked that name for the reasons I stated ofc. Istanbul would be the anachronism is certain ways, mind you, but both are commonly known names for the city. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no reason not to mention Istanbul, but in my opinion, Constantinople should be the name presented, with an additional mention that it's an anachronism if it actually is. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you on that, that it should be presented as Constantinople, but with a wee note to clarify. I guess it's sort of not an anachronism, but in the context of this being from an English-speaking perspective, it is one. I've made that edit several times in fact. Though some guys keep putting it as Istanbul on occasion. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

M'kay, but I guess we have a consensus (per WP:RS and this discussion) that the name preferred by reliable sources should be used. Clarifying that it's called Istanbul in the modern world may quite well be helpful, but it should not be used as the primary name. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that is the case as well as no policy-based argument (the best argument in most cases ofc) has been presented that says otherwise. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we say "modern-day Istanbul" or something simple like "now Istanbul"? It would be nice to settle this. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Modern-day Istanbul" is correct in spirit but actually grammatically incorrect when you look at it. "Modern-day" is synonymous with "modern", and so the words "Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul)" grammatically imply that Constantinople is modern Istanbul, which is reversed. In other words, "modern-day" is being used incorrectly here. (This is too bad because I do agree it does flow better.) Consider other uses of "modern-day", such as "modern-day medicine" or "modern-day Turkey"- these indicate "medicine in current times" and "Turkey in current times". Please look it up in the dictionary if you are unsure of this. So for alternate text, how about "...Constantinople (a historic name for Istanbul)..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.71.10 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that "modern-day Istanbul" flows better and the users will know which is which (as most don't use proper grammar anyway), even though, yes, you cannot use the inflection that would make it definitely apply "modern-day" to Istanbul here. If you say a historic name for Istanbul, the majority of the readers might feel like they are being treated like idiots given that most already know that anyway (also idk, the name bit sounds a bit, well odd). If you say "now Istanbul" at the very least, they will just take note if they're some of the few that didn't know it, and it accomplishes the same goal as putting modern-day. Oy, I know the meaning. =p I live in the same city as you half the time, so I'd think I have a good grasp of my native tongue (not offended, it's a light jab and bit of ribbing, just in case you think I'm getting into heavy stuff). =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

How about "... Constantinople (historic Istanbul) ..."? It flows just as well (to me at least), is concise, and correct. By the way- wasn't Constantinople once named Byzantium? =p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.71.10 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit better. Among many others. I don't think there is any other city that has been given so many actual renames (as opposed to nicknames ofc) throughout history. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposing mentioning Istanbul, but if we have trouble fitting it in the article, do we need to? I'm fairly sure that most mentions of Constantinople here in Wikipedia don't have the "by the way it's Istanbul now" clarification. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Something short that doesn't interrupt the flow is appropriate. If you put down just Constantinople then someone down the line will change it to Istanbul and we'll go through this all over again, forcing the rest of us to have that song stuck in our head again.

Let's force through a consensus that it happens in Poland. Reliable sources are a secondary issue! </joke> Zakhalesh (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone wrote a song about that? O_O So it's not been changed in the last few days, I assume the issue has been laid to rest until closer to the release date (usually about two days or three before my b-day, as with the last two). It'll definitely come back to haunt us then. For now though, the focus can be on gathering info and doing whatever is needed to up the article's class. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone ,i have just changed the city name to its original and official(istanbul). you see istanbul is a very old city its has more than 7000 years of history .it was a city much before eastern roman empire or any other civilization is founded . istanbul has so many name . we cannot just choose a name just becuase we want to . if everyone wants to put a name for istanbul ,it will end up with 20 different names. so please dont change it. oh by the way, when ottomans conquered the city it became istanbul so the main character is actualy traveling to istanbul, ottoman empire not eastern roman empire.i hope this will help people about the time line. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.216.25 (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The name today, and the official name since 1923, does not matter, that was all a courtesy discussion really. We call it what the sources call it, and they are calling it Constantinople, which is the name everyone called it at the time in the West, and as you can see was used for official purposes in the Empire as Kostantiniyye up until late in the Empire. Istanbul was only made the official name in 1923 and became common in the West soon after as a result of the Great Turk's efforts (Atatürk wants something done, it gets done). It was also not a city proper until Byzas founded it (in the mid 600s BC), so though it has some settlement activity 9.000 years ago, it's the time from Byzantion and after that really counts where we had many established civilisations. The three best known names are Constantinople, Istanbul, and ocasionally Byzantium, so if we had to actually choose, we would run with either. In this time period though, the city is known to all, except the Turkish people themselves, as Constantinople, so we'd go with the common name of the time (We would do the same for Iran as Persia, which had a similar name issue). Again, this is all irrelevant though as we're just using what the sources call it. So it stays Constantinople, one way or the other. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 13:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. To further stress this out - the game is fiction. While it does share a name and likeness with the historical city, when it's about this game, Constantinople is still a fictional city only related to the original like Liberty City is related to New York (although a bit more faithful to the original). If you don't understand my point here, well, WP:RS should be enough in any case. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Petrie, you have some good points here but please dont forget that istanbuls name was changed much before than 1923 ,it was changed after the conquest in 1453.Ataturk made it official for some western countries to use the name which was already being used by ottomans for half thousand years. when romans took over the city ,they changed the name ,it became a roman city, costantinople.when ottomans conquerred the city,it became istanbul.ottomans called it istanbul, istanbulli . but it became a capital of the ottoman empire and everyone who is in(eastern europe,midlle east,africa,asia) ottoman empire called the city istanbul. name was changed.just like romans did and nothing is wrong with it. and for your information ,before the romans there were many different tribes came to istanbul.and if we are talking about history here you should consider everyone not just people you want to see or you want to consider.this means we should also consider people who came to istanbul 9-7 thousand years ago. we cannot just set a date and decide the date for the city .we need to look at the all facts.so your "first settlementin the mid 600s BC" theories is not supportive anymore because people were living in istanbul much before than that date.and again,the name of the city is changed so many times but the main chracter in the game is traveling to istanbul(to protect the future ottoman emperor). it is taking place after the city was taken by ottoman empire .so the game is taking place in ottoman times istanbul not in eastern roman times constantinopol. i am not trying to be a bad person who is againts your arguments here.i think you have very good points but it needs more research . i am just trying to point out the time line in the game.time line shows it all. thanks for reading my long comment. take care .kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.216.25 (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if the game is blatantly wrong, it's the name used by the sources that should be used. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Though the game isn't incorrect for the audience, yes, I think we can agree on that bit about the sources. @76: "It was also not a city proper until Byzas founded it (in the mid 600s BC), so though it has some settlement activity 9.000 years ago, it's the time from Byzantion and after that really counts where we had many established civilisations." In archaeology we have some very set ideas for what counts as an actual city. We don't call any old settlement a city mind you. When I said city proper, I mean as an actual city, not a trading post or something else. Remember as well, the reason your people called it Istanbul and variations at different times was because of the collquial name of the city as just "The City", which has been a common way to refer to it since the time of Constantine. One thing you must also remember is that the lion's share of the readers here are from the English-speaking world and many of them will have a set idea that at that time the city was called Constantinople as they have all heard that name in the historical context. When editing, we need to remember that we are not writing the article for ourselves, we are writing for everyone who speaks that wiki's language. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

byzas was city proper ! ? not at all when it was byzantium it was a small area which was considered as a village not a real city. 5 years ago your people did not even know if there was a settlement activity before 600 bc.your people just cannot take it that some other people founded the city much before than byzas, with the new archological findings whole world will know the real old history of the istanbul. and for the record, english speaking world does call the city istanbul . and who ever calls it what this game is taking place in the ottoman era istanbul not in eastern roman times or in a city 7000 years ago but its is taking place in ottoman empire istanbul. now if the game was taking place in eastern roman empire times then we could say that it is taking place in eastern roman empire constantiple but it is not. so please dont change the name . it is like saying "he is going to new amsterdam (modern day new york)". new amsterdam is gone it is new york .. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.216.25 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You would be surprised what can be termed a city by archaeological definitions. Err... my people? O_O If you are implying I am Greek (which it sounds like, from the "your people" thing), I'm afraid I do not have that honour, and even if I were, it would be irrelevant to this conversation (as well, you are not supposed to comment on the editor, only what they are saying, unless something they have said about themselves might get in the way of maintaining NPOV). Please re-read what I said. The world does call the modern city Istanbul as we all know, however for this time-period, the city is Constantinople to everyone in Europe, and almost everyone knows the city of this time period as Constantinople rather than Istabul. As we have stated though, this is all irrelevant as the sources about the game call the city Constantinople. So we go by what the RSs cited say, not something else based on that we don't like. Does anyone mind if I put a little warning on the notice in edit that further changes to Istanbul without consensus will result in a warning? The notice is quite straight-forward that the person should come here rather than changing it, but sometimes you have to be a bit more harsh. What do other editors think? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you aware that you are threatening people just becuase they are speaking the truth. so you basicly going to force people to call istanbul costantinople even the timeline is different,and if somebody else is objecting this (costantipole)idea you will send a warning . please be logical. i am not trying be a bad person or crazy troll here . and i am also sorry that it came out wrong(your people) . i did not mean as a put down i was refering as a group of people who does not accept istanbul as a name and even today they dont call istanbul. in this article, my general point is when city was taken by ottomans it turned to a ottman city and the name of the city became istanbul. before it was constantinople.romans took the city and changed the name to constantinople.this is totaly normal and before constantinople it was byzantium . this is also totaly normal and i dont have anythng againts old city names.i have nothing againts greeks romans,ortodox, or anybody . all i am saying is this game is not taking place in eastern roman empire and also its not taking place in byzantium but its taking place after than these empires gone,it is happining in the ottoman period , in a different time period. if you dont like the see only one name then lets find a solution and use two names at the same time which can help both parties. please lets work on this to find a solution. kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.216.25 (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

i am changing the name Istanbul/Constantinople ,this is showing the both city names at the same time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.216.25 (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand. If people go against consensus with full knowledge, then it is considered bad faith. In this case, you would have they already obvious message saying do not do it and then tack on the advisory about getting a warning (which any user can give when someone is doing something in bad faith). It is reasonable to warn someone that if they go against the consensus achieved and the message that is right in front of them, they should receive a warning. It is not threatening them, it's a warning, just like the warning on a machine with moving parts. Though maybe the second time they do it? That's usual practice.

Well, I am not Greek or orthodox, I'm a Jew of mostly Austrian descent, so I have no dog in that fight and like Istanbul as it is (though there needs to be more places you can get beef Adana kebap). =p

I am not someone who denies the name Istanbul, lol, now it seems you are misrepresenting what I said completely, as I call the modern city Istanbul all the time (especially when I was actually in Istanbul, great city). I am saying that in THIS time period, the city is, to Europeans, still Constantinople. That is why the developers call it that in all the sources (which is why we call it that here).

You are apparently not actually reading what it says in the actual article I'm afraid, it says Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), so both names are given already with the clarification that the city of Constantinople is the modern city of Istanbul.

It also appears you are ignoring the point that is based on policy, which has been mentioned many many times. The reliable sources cited in this article are calling it Constantinople, so we call it that. If they called it Byzantium, we would call it that. If they called it Byzas, we would call it that. Of course we would give the modern name as well, like we are doing now.

I reverted that edit as it broke the link and looks awful to the reader (always important to consider). It also is not how the sources call it.

Please consider all this before changing it again. If these edits (by others in general) keeps up, we might have to bring in arbitration (if it becomes extreme). Thanks Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I fully support Flinders Petrie's view on this. Reliable sources are the key here, and as I've said before, the game is still fiction and thus discussion about the historical names of the city is pointless. We use the name the sources use. There is no reason to do this otherwise. Tendentiously changing the city's name to Istanbul may result in preventative measures. Zakhalesh (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Petrie ,thanks for paying attention to this issue. i wanted to share some points why Istanbul as a name should be used instead of calling it Constantinople.i wanted to discuss some points before i change the name again. lets look at what is writen on the article page shall we. on the article page it says : Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) now this is totaly wrong .we cannot call modern day istanbul because the city was called istanbul at the ottoman time period .istanbul is both modern and older(ottoman period) name for the city . so it is like saying new amsterdam(modern-day newyork).this would be very irrelevant.we need to look at the people, state(or civilization),and historical events taking place to understand what is going on in that time.

1- this game is taking place in ottoman empire 2- this empire s capital is istanbul 3-istanbul was taken by ottomans in 1453 city becomes istanbul 4- events in the game is happenning after 1453 ottoman empire 5-since the city has so many names(about 20 and i t will be even more with new findings which goes back to 8000yearsago) we will look at the time period what citys name was at that time. as a result, saying cosntantinople (modern day istanbul) is no different than saying lygos(modern day istanbul) or byzantuim(modern day istanbul) or neo roma, new rome(modern day istanbul) if the events in the game was taking place in the times of eastern roman empire,then we could say costantinople(modern day istanbul) but the events in the game is taking place after the collapse of eastern roman empire.eastern romam empire ends in 1453

are the things more clear now or do you want me to put a different writing for the city? ex: Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) thanks Petrie and everyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.216.25 (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I know what you are trying to do here (to make sure it is accurate from the Turkish perspective, which is noble and makes sense usually, just not here), but that whole thing is basically an academic argument that I could not help but to get involved in as I love them. =p I was looking at it from the historiographic perspective (study of way of thinking at the time) of EUROPEANS (as I have said about two or three times, and I mean those outside of the OE, ofc) at that time (remember that Ezio is an Italian in-game and so he would think of it as Constantinople, especially given the fact that the city was only conquered fifty years prior to the game's story), as I have said. These are probably some of the reasons why the game developers chose that name. Earlier I said it is like how people called Iran Persia for a very long time, even though they preferred Iran. The names Europeans used were not always the same as what the places actually wanted to be called.

And as we have also said, this is all 100% irrelevant to the actual article as policy dictates we use what it says in the reliable sources. I don't mean to sound rude or uncivil, but I am not sure how many times that must be repeated. The article's sources are calling it Constantinople, the modern-day thing was just a courteosy to people who might not know it, and it gets the idea home that the city being called Constantinople is the same as the city called Istanbul (in case they did not know it). Again though, it must say Constantinople first and foremost (with or without Istanbul) as the setting, as that is what the sources say. We follow what the sources say as that is policy. We stick to policy in helping us build the article. We do not choose a different name from what the sources say just because we like it better, when that name is pretty much clear to everyone (everyone knows the city's names of Constantinople and Istanbul (which, for the record I kind of like, because it's the idea that it's so splendid, that it's not something you can truly name, it's just "The City") and so we don't need to actually really worry about changing it to make it clearer). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read this entire 'debate' and would like to point out that the developers have, according to reliable sources, reffered to the city specifically as Constantinople. This has been done in order to keep Assassins Creeds historic feel intact, as well as being the name most probably given to it by the characters in the story based on thier time and place. Instead of using the current name Istanbul, they have chosen Constantinople to feel historic. Reliable sources take precedence over historic accuracy, especially when referring to a work of fiction. XD P.S. '...Constantinople(Istanbul)...' might look good?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.124.2.226 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you know I hadn't thought of just putting Istanbul in parenthesis (even though it's now incredibly obvious, lol). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a video game, not history, so all references should match the original author, Ubisoft, even if they call Istanbul a New York rather than Constantinople. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.39.171 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh, no copyright tag on the GameInformer image

So I just noticed that apparently there is a "no copyright tag" tag on the Game Informer image. Err... anyone know what to do on that? It's a nice/rather badass image and I'd hate to see it deleted. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The image is cool, but I don't think it meets fair use criteria. Looking at their terms of use, they don't use Wikipedia-compatible licencing. If we want to keep that image, our best bet would be to ask Gameinformer, I suppose. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've slapped a FUR, an information template, and a license on it, reduced the image size, and tagged the large version for revdel. The image barely meets NFCC#8, but should be fine until screeshots come out. Maybe. I suppose if someone objects it'll get discussed at FfD. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it meets NFCC#8, at least for now, since it shows how Ezio has aged since the last game, which cannot be described adequately by text. If a screenshot is released that serves the same purpose, we should delete this image of course. Regards SoWhy 18:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, well just barely is good enough for now, and as you said, you can't tell how much Ezio has aged (honed to the perfect killing machine with an even more badass 'stache and beard) without having a visual representation, of which this is the only one currently available. So, like you guys said, we keep it 'till more screenies come. Great work you guys. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ezio's age

Ezio was born in 1459 (it's when his DNA strand starts), but is the game taking place in 1511? We don't know his actual birthday after all, so where did the age and apparent year come from? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ezio was born on June 24^th, 1459. The first game he's in tells us that. Check out his article on the Assassin's Creed Wiki for all the sources you need. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, strange, I would have thought I'd remember that detail from ACII. Very good then. Oh my, that is a nicely sourced article they have. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Any word on the special editions?

Gamestop and Amazon.com are already selling the regular versions for pre-order. Any word on the fancy special editions like they had for Brotherhood? I don't see anything on Google yet, though I did find those trailers. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's called the animus edition, I remember seeing an article about it in kotaku.com148.243.185.200 (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also that Gamestop one advertised at the end of the E3 trailer. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Off the website there at three additions at least: a signature edition, a "Best Buy" addition, and an Unishop edition... it would be great if someone better at this than me started making a section on the various editions. Απόλλων 19:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Απόλλων (talk • contribs)

here http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-8705-Assassin-s-Creed--Revelations--Many-Special-Editions-Detailed-in-Full.html .--Lbrun12415 02:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That current setup we have under Retail editions ain't gonna fly. We should have it set up like in the Brotherhood article. It's more organised and better on the eyes. I don't know how to make one on wiki though. No one wants to read a wall o' text for such things Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Desmond in a coma

I just finished playing the da Vinci Disappearance DLC fr Brotherhood. Desmond goes into a coma afterward. Should that be mentioned as that is the last set of missions technically speaking? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

score! Found an RS talking all about it. The scriptwriter tells all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reveal on June 6th according to trailer

So this trailer here [2] says there's going to be something revealed on June 6th. Should info about it be added in? It is a YouTube video, so a bit iffy on it, but it is a real trailer. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman and Byzantine guards

Apparently there is some business about "Byzantine guards" (not sure where they are coming from or how to explain them) allied with the Templars. There's also going to be a good deal of gameplay taking place outside of Constantinople relating to the Assassin's Dens and new ranking systems (though these are already covered to a small extent, they could use expansion. It's all here in this GameInformer article [3]. (They sure do get a lot of info from Ubisoft) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

E3 Trailer out

So here is the E3 trailer [4], it's pretty badass and appears to take place at Maysaf (from the look of it, but that is purely speculation on my part). What information can be put in from it though other than the info about the collector's set from GameStop at the end? Want to avoid OR after all. Another thing is that that did not look like Ezio or any member of his line - there was no scar on the right side of his lips. Keep an eye out for info on that if it's notable at all and an RS writes about it, 'cause it's, again, OR on my part. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mac OS X

I have wal mart having a pc/mac preorder [5] also have sources saying Mac OS X being a platform and some saying it won't be. So, I have no clue which is true or not.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

According to various reports, Assassin's Creed: Lost Legacy for the 3DS has been cancelled, but concepts from said game will be added to Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Erick (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

If it's been cancelled I'd say just do it - there's not really enough information in the Assassin's Creed: Lost Legacy article for anyone to miss. Rehevkor ✉ 11:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This states that a 3DS version is still happening, however the source on the article is in a different language but doesn't seem to mention 3DS.--sss333 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the article for Assassin's Creed: Lost Legacy and it mine as well be merged here as it has little to no information in the first place. It would be a good section here to note that they are merging the ideas in that game into Revelations. --Mordecairule 13:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecairule (talk • contribs)

The standard for cancelled games in a series is to merge them into the series article - in this case Assassin's Creed (series). --Teancum (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Teancum here. If concepts are included in Revelations, we can address that when talking about those concepts but the general info about the game should go into the main series article. Regards SoWhy 17:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer?

The Escapist states that Hans Zimmer is one of the composers of the game, I have my doubts there, but it does seem to be a reliable source. One thing is that they do cite a source of a Eurogamer article, which does not claim Zimmer is a composer, but doesn't say he's not. Any Thoughts? Яehevkor ✉ 22:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, just one, though I'm not the most qualified person to say so, if the source material makes no mention of him and that infomation can't be found elsewhere I say remove it. You note that the source material doesn't say he is involved but also doesn't say he isn't involved but that seems a silly idea. They aren't going to say "the following composers are not working on Assassin's Creed: Revelations..." are they? --Lyco499 (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Conformed Cast"

Should we change the subject "Conformed Cast" to "Conformed Voice Cast" or something to that degree considering only their voices are being used in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddunlea21 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I know their likenesses are being used as well, but is there anything like that sort of tech where people act out movements? I don't remember if they do that for AC or that is only in movies. Anyone know? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Video game articles focus on the characters and not the actors, I've changed it appropriately. --Teancum (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ddunlea21 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Carryover from ACB?

Does anyone know if you get bonuses for porting a high elvel MP profile from Brotherhood? I got a lot of rewards out of the gate, but I can't tell if those are from the signature edition or from having a level 50 MP char on the last game. Not worth a section, but would be worth a sentence.Brinlong (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

will there be a new facebook game for the new ac game

i was just wondering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.17.245 (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Are citation needed tags necessary for the plot? Are citations necessary?

I think not, however, another user thinks so and rather than follow WP:BRD (s)he has reverted my revert. I would prefer others weigh in than get into an edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A good source might be to cite a quote from the game from that particular plot moment. That's my 2 cents anyways. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 23:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For quotes yeah that makes sense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia plot can be considered sourced directly to the game itself, citations are not a requirement. Per convention. Look at some featured articles, such as Myst III: Exile#Plot and Myst IV: Revelation. The mass adding of cn tags seems disruptive and pointy to me. Яehevkor ✉ 00:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The plot tag, saying it was too long, has been removed, and more cn tags, and cites have been added, It does sam pointy to me, but I am at a loss as to what point is being made. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that the plot section is not too long. The general rule of thumb for plot length is 700 words or less, which I believe was taken from the WP:FILM project (it's in their guidelines) and applied to VG articles. In this article, the plot length is over 1000 words. In a comparable article, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, the plot length is about 750 words, a more manageable length. The plot section does not need to account for many minor events in the game. It's supposed to be a general overview of the plot for an audience that has no interest in playing the game, but simply wants a recap of the game's events, essentially. And regarding plot citations; indeed, they are not generally necessary. They are usually reserved for more controversial statements, such as saying a character is dead when it isn't explicitly mentioned in the game, etc. And I don't know why the "Plot" section was renamed to "Synopsis" when it's also inside a "Synopsis" section. That kind of stuff belongs in the Inception article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on, other than that this user has been doing the same thing here and at Call of Duty MW3, against consensus. Indeed, it was also done for the original AC game, in fact the edit summary 'making a point' was used. Again, still not clear what the hell the point is.... Oh and yes, the plot is too damned long and the tag belongs.Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, there's such a thing as "proof"—things that prove that what's in the articles hasn't been fabricated, even if we "know" it's not. Still, I prefer there to be citations—it serves as evidence that the article "speaks the truth". I mean, would you like it of someone stole your research and called it theirs? ...That's my point: "Proof or Bust." -017Bluefield (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

read above for an explanation, and nobody is stealing anything. You also should not edit to make a WP:POINT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Aren't there copyright guidelines? (And yes, I read your point. I did not use parody; I discussed it to you directly.) If you don't think proof is necessary, check this article, then. -017Bluefield (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think those cites are needed either actually (after an admittedly cursory look). If you want to impose this style on the encyclopedia perhaps you should take it to the video games wikiproject talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you really want to continue this discussion on citing plot sections, then do it here: Wikipedia_talk:VG#Citations_for_plots.. Members of the WikiProject are discussing this very article, specifically. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

GAN nomination

Just noting that there is a dated tag at The first one they announced i Character Pack" and was released in December 2011. AIRcorn (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003185652/http://uplay.ubi.com:80/passport/ to http://uplay.ubi.com/passport/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328195350/http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6265707/assassins-creed-driver-splinter-cell-re-imagined-for-3ds to http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6265707/assassins-creed-driver-splinter-cell-re-imagined-for-3ds

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Worth noting

I don't see it anywhere in the article. It is worth noting that Revelations is the first game in the series that features two composers. Lorne Balfe composed the main theme, cutscenes and multiplayer while Jesper Kyd did the ambient and combat music. - Debeet (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425121508/http://m.ign.com/articles/1167021 to http://m.ign.com/articles/1167021

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117013817/http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/assassin%E2%80%99s-creed-revelations/ to http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/assassin%E2%80%99s-creed-revelations

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)