I haven't gotten that far into the game yet so I can't answer your question but I love how your question implies that you would have a problem if the game required you to kill animals but you don't seem bothered by the mass killing of people that goes on in the game....classic.
To answer your question... Yes you will undoubtedly have to kill animals in this game.. Considering you are playing as a Native American protagonist and hunting was an integral part of their life, it seems to make sense..
Depending on where you go in "the frontier" different animals will be in that zone from rabbits, deer, elk, wolves, bears, bobcats etc...
If it makes you feel better, you only "have to" kill wolves when they attack you... *SPOILER ALERT* one of the missions requires you to go hunting and kill animals.
Well I can tell you that you do kill wolves. Not sure about other animals yet, I haven't gotten that far. But one mission requires you kill the wolves and not lose more that 50% health, and let me tell you what, the little boogers are fast!
Well technically in the scientific terms, humans are animals too, and since this game is called "Assassin's Creed III", yes, you probably do have to kill animals. But on a serious note, you are looking at the wrong game if you are worried about some wolves or rabbits being killed...
Yeah you definitely will. but what's the big deal? People do it in real life! It looks realistic yes, but that's what Native Americans did! Think of it this way....if you don't kill them, they EAT YOU!
If you want to make money, even a little, you will NEED to kill animals. Connor takes their pelts, meat, heart, brain, etc. to trade in at the General store for cash. The money making system in this game is drastically different from AC2/Brotherhood. There are chests strewn all over the cities yes, but they require lockpicking in order to open it. And you won't get any money from completing missions, either. Money comes in much slower in AC3, so if you are broke and in dire need of some British Pounds, whip out your weapons and go hunting some animals. Sorry but that's how it goes.
Yes, yes you do. When Connor is a kid, his training is to kill animals (shame you get no actual battle training), an entire sequence is dedicated to killing to killing innocent little rabbits and deer that run past. I made someone else do it for me. While I enjoy killing the bad people plotting against (us), the animals are just living in the woods, not attacking, not plotting world domination...They don't show anything fortunately, although the sounds are pretty graphic. I actually felt kind of bad killing the very very first man as Haytham because he didn't seem bad at all and didn't even fight back. AFTER you complete the training, killing the wolves and bear that attack you is OPTIONAL don't listen to anyone that tells you you have to kill them. YOu can kick them and run. I ran away every time. You can't make money selling their "parts" that way, but you have a gun and a sword that can beat the game just fine without the fancy weapons.
Ok so some people don't want to kill animals in a video game, even if it's a bear attacking you but it's okay to kill humans because they're trying to take over the world, I get that, kind of. My question is what about all the normal soldiers that aren't part of this evil plot, the ones unlucky enough to just be in the way? I mean the vast majority of the people you kill are just poor regular guys trying to feed and protect their family. If it's wrong to kill animals that are trying to kill you b/c that's the way they survive, then it's wrong to kill humans that are trying to kill you b/c that's their job. For the people who are so concerned with killing a fictional animal, do you avoid killing ANY humans except the ones directly involved with the templars? I don't see how the logic works out if you don't.
I guess it's all in what you're used to. I grew up in a family where hunting was part of life. My dad took all four kids hunting to see if we liked it. My sisters did not, me and my brother did mostly (aside from waking up at the a$$-crack of dawn). We didn't set out into the woods to kill anything in our path, we went to find food. We ate what we killed. Granted, we didn't use near as much of the animal as early native americans did, but we did not kill just for the sake of killing. Whether that's right or wrong is a matter of opinion, but I get the feeling, given the protagonist's background, that his intent is not to "kill innocent creatures" but to prolong his survival through those creatures. Just my two cents...
I know it's not logical. I am not bothered by killing the people in most games. Although, I would be bothered by killing babies or little old ladies... I remember in Assassin's Creed II you would be taken out of the animus for killing civilians, so why not for animals? At the very least, it would be nice to skip the animal killing missions.
This is pretty typical. In any given R rated movie the audience barely batts an eye when people get butchered up, shot, and otherwise maimed. Audiences will totally lose their #%^ the moment fido bites the dust though...it's just how it goes.
Connor is a Native American... guess what their life entailed? Yep, hunting. He was raised with the mentality that he HAD to kill animals to survive. I wonder how many of the people crying about the poor cuddly animals they have to slaughter are pure vegetarians who never ate a single pound of meat. Even if you didn't kill it, that piece of meat came from an animal, an animal that was likely killed in a very gruesome way.
This is a video game. I wouldn't want to kill babies in a game either and I can't think of any games that even show babies, let alone have to kill them. There are lots of unpleasant things in life that aren't included in games, such as going to the bathroom. Very few people want babies or bathroom breaks in games even though they are part of life, so I don't understand why the developers chose to include the killing of animals in this game. I expect to kill people in an "Assassin's Creed" game, not animals.
You can't compare killing babies to killing animals, it is ridiculous for multiple reasons. Humanity NEEDS to kill animals to survive, if we stopped eating animals then we'd starve. The human race can survive without killing babies.
Most American Indians from that time period killed animals, I'm guessing most didn't kill babies for the fun of it. In this specific game the killing of animals is a way to gain money, you can sell the animal parts by themselves or craft other items to sell. The hunting and killing of animals provides a semi realistic economy for the players. What logical purpose would killing babies or going to the bathroom play in this game? The killing of animals in this game adds something to the game in a positive way that killing babies or taking a crap would not. To sum up no normal thinking person would equate killing a wolf that is attacking you to killing a new born baby.
Wow, I'm getting a great laugh reading these posts. There's really someone here worried about killing animals in a video game? That is pretty sad. Guess you wouldn't want to play Red Dead Redemption lol.... And its also great that you compare killing civilians to killing animals, that makes perfect sense. I'm guessing your next comment will say something like "animals don't have wars" lmao. Oh and lots of video games have babies in them, even babies being killed, but I don't recall any that you do the killing as the character you play. Call of Duty has a level where you slaughter hundreds of people in a busy airport... There one huge thing that bothers me: do we really live in a world where people can't separate a video game from reality? Guess that was a stupid question....
You're a friggin' assassin. Your job is to kill people, oftentimes lots of them. How many do you have to kill to liberate a fort??? We truly live in a screwed up world where people are okay with that but not killing critters. So detached from reality.