Assassin’s Creed: Unity gameplay trailer
posted on 07.14.14 at 12:11 PM EDT by (@salromano)
Latest look at French Revolution-set Assassin's Creed.

Assassin's Creed: Unity

Ubisoft has released a new gameplay trailer for Assassin’s Creed: Unity.

The game is due out on October 28 for PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC.

Watch the video below. View two new screenshots at the gallery.

Save $3 with the coupon code "GEMATSU"
  • Coloso90909
    • KOKAYI5

      In my early days of college, a teacher told me the “let them eat cake” line was made up to rally the people further against the corrupt nobles. I’m not saying the nobles didn’t ignore the people, but I hope they touch on that in the game. That some one was spreading falsehoods to spur the revolution into a frenzy.

      • Zackasaur

        If your teacher told you that as a matter of fact, then your teacher lied to you. lol

        The line was real, but “cake” has been argued as a bad English translation for what was in fact a fancy bread… But, it has been argued that “cake” is the closest English equivalent.

        The line is real, though, and the point is consistent: Parts of the aristocracy were so distanced from the masses that they could not even conceive of what their lives were like… Sort of like most of the upper class in the US today. :P

        • KOKAYI5

          I agree that the nobles abandoned the hurting poor and dying in the street. But I don’t understand how they could not notice their suffering. Sure some must’ve been so selfish they didn’t care and focused on enjoying their life. But I hope there were at least a few nobles who weren’t so heartless that they could ignore fellow human suffering. Maybe they’ll be a point in the game where you’ll choose if a noble family deserves to die because they were part of the problem but didn’t believe in it, only went along with it out of fear of the other nobles.

          I guess my teacher got some bad intell on that. I really do remember her saying that she didn’t say it at all. But maybe what she said was “those weren’t really her choice of words” or something.

        • DrForbidden

          KOKAYI5 is not wrong, and neither are you. Both Wikipedia and Straightdope have articles on ‘Let them eat cake’. While the line itself may have been used by a noble at some point or the other in European history, it almost certainly was not said by Marie Antoinette prior to the French Revolution. The fact that it was attributed to her bears out KOKAYI5’s point that it was used as propaganda to rouse the masses circa 1788. The origins of the line, however, probably go back much earlier, and has been largely lost to time. It was probably said by some rich, entitled prick at some point, but nobody today knows exactly who.

          • KOKAYI5

            So thats it. Ok now I wanna know how she felt about the people. Wonder if she cared at all. She might be innocent of the line but not of ignoring the plight of the have-nots.

            • DrForbidden

              I doubt she cared that much about the people, but then this was standard for most of the nobles of the time. She had just been unfairly scapegoated for all the problems in France leading up to the revolution. Antoinette was one woman, while there were scores of wealthy nobles in court. Despite being the queen, she didn’t have that much influence and power due to her having been born Austrian. She was accused of virtually everything from adultery to extravagance (which was partially true at the beginning of her reign but not so much towards the second half) to being traitorous (Austria and France’s enmity resurfaced years after she was married into France). She was also the victim of an identity thief who defrauded the crown jewellers of the cost of a very expensive diamond necklace, but her opponents in the public blamed the queen despite the fact she was innocent. The revolution needed a scapegoat for all the ills their country suffered from, someone to show off to the public, and Antoinette was convenient.

              • KOKAYI5

                I don’t get that. If so many nobles were all abusing the people, why pick her if she was innocent in some areas. Why not expose what she was doing and then focus on the ones who were also doing wrong? If lots of nobles are being abusive with their power you have plenty of ammo to fuel the revolution. There’s no need for lies or half-truths. Stuff like that, once brought to light, would ruin the unity of the people they were trying to rally.

                • DrForbidden

                  Well, the way I see it is: the masses need a scapegoat to hate and to drive them to action. It had to be someone. Turns out it was Antoinette. It’s the same thing happening today in most societies. The masses, generally speaking, are poorly educated and not smart thinkers, and this becomes even more apparent when they let mob mentality take over. They need a simple target: good vs evil, that sort of stuff. If they actually sat themselves down and thought things through, the rage driving the revolution may well fizzle out. It’s like how Saddam Hussein became the figurehead of all that was wrong with pre-invasion Iraq. Don’t get me wrong: the world is better off with him dead. However, by scapegoating him, everybody just ignores all the other complex sociopolitical problems that collude to make Iraqi society what it was. So, yes, the Americans killed Saddam. Is Iraq a beacon of peace and prosperity now, more than a decade later? The same thing happened in Syria with Gaddafi, and in Egypt with Morsi. While these men were undoubtedly scum, they were only part of the problem which has deeper roots than that.

                  How would one go about getting the masses, many of whom have never read a book in their lives, to think critically on the problems affecting their society? A revolution needed numbers. After the battles had been won, it was the educated leaders at the top who drafted the new constitution, new laws, set up new governments, etc. In that sense, the majority of the revolutionary masses were merely foot soldiers, privates to the generals on top. For effectiveness, it is usually best to give the privates a clear cause they can rally behind, regardless of whether it is genuine or just fluff, because bogging them down with critical analyses of the real, difficult problems in the background would just grind everything to a halt.

                  • KOKAYI5

                    So you’re saying since the poor were kept uneducated they wouldn’t understand that precise law making and reformation needed to happen after the fall of the corrupt nobles, so they just gave them step 1. “Kill the evil queen”. And from that they’d move on to the future steps that would fix up the nation. But the more educated would handle that, not the common poor revolutionary.

                    I understand, but it seems like just using people. I hope that no one didn’t use the revolutionary to to maneuver their way into power (which sometimes happens).

                    • DrForbidden

                      Well, it’s just my interpretation. And as for the people being used, I think that, to some extent, they certainly were.

                      The French Revolution of 1789 didn’t just end happily for the masses after the monarchy was overthrown. There followed the civil war and Reign of Terror as opposing political factions, the Jacobins and the Girondins, fought for control of France. Robespierre himself came close to being a tyrant before he was executed. When the dust settled over 20 thousand people had been executed without trial by the various factions for being ‘enemies of the revolution’ (translation: they disagreed with the leaders and/or the way things were being done during the revolution). The French people also had to put up with other bullshit such as the adoption of the revolutionary calendar and measurement systems that changed everything from the number of days in the months to units of weight measurement, which brought functional society to a halt in some cases as things became confusing as hell. Despite over throwing the monarchy, things did not improve for the French masses for many years after.

  • BizarreJelly

    Looks nice, I have a soft spot for AssCreed, always found them enjoyable. Also – found this little tweet funny, wonder if they’ll eventually give in an add female assassins.

    • MrKappa

      Poor Ubisoft getting blasted by everyone for this.

      • KingNigma

        What’d they think was going to happen after having such a crappy attitude about it?

      • KOKAYI5

        No one’s gonna believe pro-developers can’t make a female lead without doubling their work load. If there are female characters at all in the game that’s already proof that making a female lead isn’t a big deal. She’s be like any AC lead, just with breasts and more curved figure. How would that make their work harder.

        All in all, as long as the game is fun and deep I’m in. But I understand why people are mad. At least there’s one female AC lead so far. But there should be more.

        • Hidayat246

          In ubisoft perspective Female MC is not enough to selling the game alone

          • KOKAYI5

            Then I guess the one time they did it was to test the waters and since it didn’t do as well as they wanted they dropped the idea of doing it again.

            • Hidayat246

              Ubisoft never drop that idea
              They move that idea to multiplayer mode

              AC:LIberation is failure because ubi never enough to publish that game

              • KOKAYI5

                Well it was a fun game and i liked the lead.

          • DrForbidden

            And that’s what is wrong with the whole picture. Still, I don’t fault them for that line of thought when it is evident that a sizable percentage of male players still display misogynistic streaks and refuse to play as females in games.

            The issue here, I think, isn’t that the MC is male, but that the 3 other supporting assassins are male as well. They could have had one or 2 females for them. Even games like Borderlands and Evolve recognise the need for some variety in their character design.

            • Hidayat246

              Even in AC:Brotherhood you can make your brotherhood consist from men-woman

              if you wear hood and make camera system only shoot from behind for most time
              you’ll never care wherever that girl or men
              IMO that ubisoft thinking when make AC:Unity

      • greenreaper

        It’s ridiculous how there are people out there trying to make it an issue. It really isn’t. It’s a developer choice and for legitimate reasons, nothing more than that.

        There are already a handful of “female only cast” games out there and I don’t see anyone saying jack about that. hmmmmm.

        • DrForbidden

          It’s not about whether or not there are ‘female only cast’ games out there. The problem wouldn’t be a problem if Ubisoft just said that it was a developer or creative choice, or that it was vital to the story somehow. The problem comes when they try to justify it with bullshit like how it is too much work to make female characters, especially when they’ve done exactly that in previous installments of their franchise.

    • Dick Mountainjoy

      People know you can’t actually make characters in Unity right?

    • Hidayat246

      Say halo to Aveline – AC : Liberation

      • DrForbidden

        Which just proves that it’s not impossible, just that they couldn’t be bothered to.

  • EX+

    Some may be happy to hear that Ubisoft is aiming for 1080p 60fps for this. I’m sure they’ll hit it.

  • King of Nowhere

    Can’t wait to play it! The way the assassin moves toward the city looks really amazing and I love the French Revolution. When I get my PS4 (just waiting for FFXV to get a release date, maybe I’ll forever but anyway) this title will be in my library.

  • Zackasaur

    I am so in love with the French Revolution.

    Can’t wait to smash some ruling class bastards.

  • KainArkanos

    It kinda seems like they’ve given up on good voice casting at this point, which I really enjoyed that they were willing to put in the effort to make the characters at least sound italian for the Assassin’s Creed 2 series.


    I like what I’m seeing. Game reserved for PS4. This and Dragon Age “3” will be my third and fourth games on the system. I’m hoping it’s as fun as the Ezio games.

  • Crossbones (Prodigy-X)

    The main character sounds boring and rumor has it that in the modern day you’re still the damn protagonist but in third person. Why can’t we get another descendant like Desmond. Way to go Ubisoft for ruining the modern day again. May not even buy this.

    • Zackasaur

      You’d be missing out, big time.

      • Crossbones (Prodigy-X)

        I’ll wait for a price cut but my point is we are still left with questions. Why was Shaun and Rebecca working undercover in AC IV collecting Intel for what? How is Juno going to take over a body? Why do we continue to play as the modern character when Eve’s descendant has been teased in Liberation and AC 2? What happened to Desmond father? It’s like they keep stalling and don’t want to progress on with the modern day story.

        I hope AC V let’s us play as Eve’s descendant in third person during the Modern Story, takes place in China during the Assassin’s Story, Juno finally in a human body as immortal and Shaun, Rebecca, and William Miles return with some new Assassin’s assisting.

    • KOKAYI5

      I gotta agree with the modern day concerns.

  • Guest

    It’s kind of late, but happy Bastille day!

  • AdamBoy64

    The visuals look really nice.


    They should play viva la vida from coldplay in this game