History Headscratchers / AssassinsCreedIII

1st Feb '16 11:09:29 AM FF32
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Why in the world wasn't BenjaminFranklin the game's resident LeonardoDaVinci? Franklin makes a brief cameo in the beginning, but then the next time we see him, is signing the Declaration. That's it? No [[WhereDoesHeGetAllThoseWonderfulToys sweet new tools?]] Seems like [[TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodCharacter a missed opportunity]].

to:

* Why in the world wasn't BenjaminFranklin Creator/BenjaminFranklin the game's resident LeonardoDaVinci? Franklin makes a brief cameo in the beginning, but then the next time we see him, is signing the Declaration. That's it? No [[WhereDoesHeGetAllThoseWonderfulToys sweet new tools?]] Seems like [[TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodCharacter a missed opportunity]].



** The problem that seems to be is if he was not meant to be an {{Expy}} of Leonardo, then why wasn't his character noted as important at all? As said in BenjaminFranklin's trope page, he's the most famous American to people outside the United States. His two brief cameos didn't do him justice to his historical character. He didn't need to be a major vehicle in the game, but there wasn't any kind of exploration or emphasis on his work and depth. This could be said arguably about a few other historical characters in the game as well.

to:

** The problem that seems to be is if he was not meant to be an {{Expy}} of Leonardo, then why wasn't his character noted as important at all? As said in BenjaminFranklin's Creator/BenjaminFranklin's trope page, he's the most famous American to people outside the United States. His two brief cameos didn't do him justice to his historical character. He didn't need to be a major vehicle in the game, but there wasn't any kind of exploration or emphasis on his work and depth. This could be said arguably about a few other historical characters in the game as well.
12th Jan '16 7:04:08 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In the "Broken Trust" chapter where Connor has to race back to his village to stop his people from being massacred by the Patriots, I noticed there's a point at which you ride right past a big gaggle of Continental Army soldiers. Presumably these are the Patriot forces come to massacre the village. Why didn't Connor just attack them right there? We've seen that Connor (to paraphrase a term from [[TheSpoonyExperiment the Spoony One]]) can kill like a category five hurricane made of tomahawks and musket balls, so it really shouldn't have been much trouble for him to take these guys down.

to:

* In the "Broken Trust" chapter where Connor has to race back to his village to stop his people from being massacred by the Patriots, I noticed there's a point at which you ride right past a big gaggle of Continental Army soldiers. Presumably these are the Patriot forces come to massacre the village. Why didn't Connor just attack them right there? We've seen that Connor (to paraphrase a term from [[TheSpoonyExperiment [[WebVideo/TheSpoonyExperiment the Spoony One]]) can kill like a category five hurricane made of tomahawks and musket balls, so it really shouldn't have been much trouble for him to take these guys down.
8th Oct '15 1:09:39 PM Heavyman99
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

**It is revealed in Assassin's Creed IV that Abstergo has taken Desmond's corpse and started mining it for information and entertainment, so this is likely them rooting through Connor's data.
7th Sep '15 2:17:25 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Just because the redcoats resources favor one side doesn't make that side Templar. Most redcoats aren't Templars, they just soldiers whose resources are in some cases co-opted by the Templar cause. Remember how both societies work, from the shadows they use the resources of society. A lot of these forts were military positions that redcoats held (as they were originally the only military presence in the colonies. Templars simply installed one of their figureheads into these forts thus making them "Templar" with most of the redcoats inside none the wiser. From most of the soldiers' perspectives, your just some hooded battle crazy native man attacking the British army. They're not pledging negligence to the Templars. As for why aren't there patriot forts? It would make no sense for Templars to seek out and co-opt patriot resources because these people didn't even have their own supplies. Most of Connor's targets make that point resoundingly.

to:

*** ** Just because the redcoats resources favor one side doesn't make that side Templar. Most redcoats aren't Templars, they just soldiers whose resources are in some cases co-opted by the Templar cause. Remember how both societies work, from the shadows they use the resources of society. A lot of these forts were military positions that redcoats held (as they were originally the only military presence in the colonies. Templars simply installed one of their figureheads into these forts thus making them "Templar" with most of the redcoats inside none the wiser. From most of the soldiers' perspectives, your just some hooded battle crazy native man attacking the British army. They're not pledging negligence to the Templars. As for why aren't there patriot forts? It would make no sense for Templars to seek out and co-opt patriot resources because these people didn't even have their own supplies. Most of Connor's targets make that point resoundingly.
6th Sep '15 10:28:48 PM mickomoo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Just because the redcoats resources favor one side doesn't make that side Templar. Most redcoats aren't Templars, they just soldiers whose resources are in some cases co-opted by the Templar cause. Remember how both societies work, from the shadows they use the resources of society. A lot of these forts were military positions that redcoats held (as they were originally the only military presence in the colonies. Templars simply installed one of their figureheads into these forts thus making them "Templar" with most of the redcoats inside none the wiser. From their perspective you're just some hooded battle crazy native man. It would make no sense to co-opt patriot resources because these people didn't even have their own supplies.

to:

*** Just because the redcoats resources favor one side doesn't make that side Templar. Most redcoats aren't Templars, they just soldiers whose resources are in some cases co-opted by the Templar cause. Remember how both societies work, from the shadows they use the resources of society. A lot of these forts were military positions that redcoats held (as they were originally the only military presence in the colonies. Templars simply installed one of their figureheads into these forts thus making them "Templar" with most of the redcoats inside none the wiser. From their perspective you're most of the soldiers' perspectives, your just some hooded battle crazy native man. man attacking the British army. They're not pledging negligence to the Templars. As for why aren't there patriot forts? It would make no sense for Templars to seek out and co-opt patriot resources because these people didn't even have their own supplies. supplies. Most of Connor's targets make that point resoundingly.
6th Sep '15 10:24:59 PM mickomoo
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***Just because the redcoats resources favor one side doesn't make that side Templar. Most redcoats aren't Templars, they just soldiers whose resources are in some cases co-opted by the Templar cause. Remember how both societies work, from the shadows they use the resources of society. A lot of these forts were military positions that redcoats held (as they were originally the only military presence in the colonies. Templars simply installed one of their figureheads into these forts thus making them "Templar" with most of the redcoats inside none the wiser. From their perspective you're just some hooded battle crazy native man. It would make no sense to co-opt patriot resources because these people didn't even have their own supplies.
20th Apr '15 12:21:47 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


New entries on the bottom.

[[foldercontrol]]

[[folder:Ratonhnhaké:ton]]



*** The first one is closer - you can hear the name pronounced in some of the subtitled conversations in the Mohawk language. And in fact, the "R" is pronounced much like the Korean R, with the tip of the tongue against the roof of the mouth, almost like an "L".

to:

*** ** The first one is closer - you can hear the name pronounced in some of the subtitled conversations in the Mohawk language. And in fact, the "R" is pronounced much like the Korean R, with the tip of the tongue against the roof of the mouth, almost like an "L".



[[/folder]]

[[folder:White robe]]



*** And as we saw in other works, the Assassin's robes stayed in use until the 20th century, with the last confirmed use of it being around about the time of the Russian Revolution.
*** Technically the last robed Assassin who we've seen is Desmond. Yes, it's just a hoodie, but it invokes exactly the same image in contemporary styles as the old school robes. They all fit to the setting they're shown in; the only things off about them are the colour scheme and the hood, usually an unfashionable, though not entirely unknown garment.

to:

*** ** And as we saw in other works, the Assassin's robes stayed in use until the 20th century, with the last confirmed use of it being around about the time of the Russian Revolution.
*** ** Technically the last robed Assassin who we've seen is Desmond. Yes, it's just a hoodie, but it invokes exactly the same image in contemporary styles as the old school robes. They all fit to the setting they're shown in; the only things off about them are the colour scheme and the hood, usually an unfashionable, though not entirely unknown garment.



*** Mind you that hood looks removable so take that as you will.

to:

*** ** Mind you that hood looks removable so take that as you will.



*** While I agree with the conclusion, considering that in ''Brotherhood'' you can run around like [[http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111218005414/assassinscreed/images/7/73/Ezio-raiden-brotherhood.png this]], the concept of changing the costume itself doesn't say whether changing clothes to suit environments is canonical or not.

to:

*** ** While I agree with the conclusion, considering that in ''Brotherhood'' you can run around like [[http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111218005414/assassinscreed/images/7/73/Ezio-raiden-brotherhood.png this]], the concept of changing the costume itself doesn't say whether changing clothes to suit environments is canonical or not.
not.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Impaling and muskets]]



*** Even if he is strong enough to do that the gun wouldn't be able to fire afterwards, it would be too clogged with blood and gore. The damn things misfired if they were slightly damp; I doubt it would be able to do much when clogged with a dude's bowels.
*** Muskets would misfire in damp conditions because the powder was wet. The powder wouldn't have time to get wet before Connor would fire the weapon. Blood and guts in the end of the barrel wouldn't do much; it's literally just a pulpy mass mostly made of water by that point, and a lead ball propelled at sufficient velocity to tear a man's arm off at the elbow would blow through that without a problem.

to:

*** ** Even if he is strong enough to do that the gun wouldn't be able to fire afterwards, it would be too clogged with blood and gore. The damn things misfired if they were slightly damp; I doubt it would be able to do much when clogged with a dude's bowels.
*** ** Muskets would misfire in damp conditions because the powder was wet. The powder wouldn't have time to get wet before Connor would fire the weapon. Blood and guts in the end of the barrel wouldn't do much; it's literally just a pulpy mass mostly made of water by that point, and a lead ball propelled at sufficient velocity to tear a man's arm off at the elbow would blow through that without a problem.



*** That's its own problem. The bullet almost certainly wouldn't pass through his body and even if it did, you would be making an incredibly risky move given how if it fails, he would die.
*** Musket balls are ''huge'' and do enormous damage to organs. The chances are that a blast from point blank range would penetrate the entire body, although it would emerge at a lot slower speed in a completely uncontrollable direction. But if the enemy behind is at a point blank range as well, it wouldn't really matter much.
**** Yeah, plus Musket balls are a very high calibre. (some .69 & .70) That would probably go through you, easily.

to:

*** ** That's its own problem. The bullet almost certainly wouldn't pass through his body and even if it did, you would be making an incredibly risky move given how if it fails, he would die.
*** ** Musket balls are ''huge'' and do enormous damage to organs. The chances are that a blast from point blank range would penetrate the entire body, although it would emerge at a lot slower speed in a completely uncontrollable direction. But if the enemy behind is at a point blank range as well, it wouldn't really matter much.
**** ** Yeah, plus Musket balls are a very high calibre. (some .69 & .70) That would probably go through you, easily.
easily.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Templar insignia]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Fake Spaniard]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Animus and Mohawk language]]



*** This foray into the Animus wasn't planned, but instead triggered by the temple. Presumably Rebecca never expected to have to write a translation program for Mohawk.

to:

*** ** This foray into the Animus wasn't planned, but instead triggered by the temple. Presumably Rebecca never expected to have to write a translation program for Mohawk.
Mohawk.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Clothing changes]]



*** Animus limitations. Rebecca patched in seasonal and weather changes but forgot to alter clothing to match.

to:

*** ** Animus limitations. Rebecca patched in seasonal and weather changes but forgot to alter clothing to match.
match.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Animus and e-mails]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Franklin]]



*** Except he did exactly what they said he'd be in those scenes, and I fail to see how saying he would be a comic-relief character is implying he would be a major part of the game.

to:

*** ** Except he did exactly what they said he'd be in those scenes, and I fail to see how saying he would be a comic-relief character is implying he would be a major part of the game.



*** It's really quite simple; the 13 colonies are a big place, and the likelihood of one man running into every historical figure of the time for a decent length of time is just breaking suspension of disbelief. Franklin gets a cameo because he serves no meaningful role in the plot, just like how Ezio ran into a whole heap of historical figures in II, Brotherhood and Revelations but only has meaningful interactions with a few of them. Both Haytham and Connor are more concerned with the military and conflict side of things, which Franklin was not involved in. So why try and shoe-horn him in just to appease people who want to see him in the game?

to:

*** ** It's really quite simple; the 13 colonies are a big place, and the likelihood of one man running into every historical figure of the time for a decent length of time is just breaking suspension of disbelief. Franklin gets a cameo because he serves no meaningful role in the plot, just like how Ezio ran into a whole heap of historical figures in II, Brotherhood and Revelations but only has meaningful interactions with a few of them. Both Haytham and Connor are more concerned with the military and conflict side of things, which Franklin was not involved in. So why try and shoe-horn him in just to appease people who want to see him in the game?



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Vidic and the end]]



*** He definitively knows it could be used like that, he saw the Animus recordings of Al-Mualim doing it - and most likely was informed by his mole Lucy that Desmond had spent time as Ezio using the same Apple the exact same way.

to:

*** ** He definitively knows it could be used like that, he saw the Animus recordings of Al-Mualim doing it - and most likely was informed by his mole Lucy that Desmond had spent time as Ezio using the same Apple the exact same way.



*** But he literally had no plan for how to deal with the Apple. There was nothing stopping Desmond from just whipping the Apple out the moment he got into the building's lobby and make the guards escort him straight to Vidic and his dad (And it's not like Vidic would have killed William if Desmond had done that, since he didn't do it when Desmond murdered a bunch of guards and their head hit-man). Heck, that way Desmond actually was nice to Vidic in actually giving him a chance by deciding to just murder his way to the top of the building.
*** The whole Abstergo scene just bothered me. I mean, the templars know Desmond is coming, he's walking straight into their HQ, he has a crappy disguise (Everyone in the building turned to look at him the second he steps in) and the templars had no real good reason to even attempt to capture him alive (Vidic mentions he wants to go through Desmond's memories again, but come on! The real objective was the apple, not him). "[[WhyDontYouJustShootHim Why didn't they just have like a sniper shoot him the second he walks up to the building and take the apple from his cold, dead hands?]]"
**** Vidic didn't give the order to use lethal force until after Desmond killed Cross, so I would assume they wanted to stick him in the Animus again.

to:

*** ** But he literally had no plan for how to deal with the Apple. There was nothing stopping Desmond from just whipping the Apple out the moment he got into the building's lobby and make the guards escort him straight to Vidic and his dad (And it's not like Vidic would have killed William if Desmond had done that, since he didn't do it when Desmond murdered a bunch of guards and their head hit-man). Heck, that way Desmond actually was nice to Vidic in actually giving him a chance by deciding to just murder his way to the top of the building.
*** ** The whole Abstergo scene just bothered me. I mean, the templars know Desmond is coming, he's walking straight into their HQ, he has a crappy disguise (Everyone in the building turned to look at him the second he steps in) and the templars had no real good reason to even attempt to capture him alive (Vidic mentions he wants to go through Desmond's memories again, but come on! The real objective was the apple, not him). "[[WhyDontYouJustShootHim Why didn't they just have like a sniper shoot him the second he walks up to the building and take the apple from his cold, dead hands?]]"
**** ** Vidic didn't give the order to use lethal force until after Desmond killed Cross, so I would assume they wanted to stick him in the Animus again.
again.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Attack on the village]]



*** In real life Washington was retired from the Militia and living in Virginia around the time Connor's village was attacked, making his involvement in a raid on a Native village in upstate New York unlikely at best unless Ubisoft was going the alternate history route, made an honest goof, or Haytham was lying and Washington was not responsible for that particular attack. Given that Lee just so happened to be skulking around that particular village on that particular day, it makes much more sense that he was behind it and either lied to Haytham, or Haytham lied to cover him.
**** The above troper is forgetting that the Templars have been rewriting history for centuries. Obviously in the AC universe Washington wasn't retired at this point (since he is responsible for the order and never denies it), and the Templars saw some sort of advantage of him not being associated with the attack on one of the most influential assassins of the time. Why they did this is a mystery, but that's more because we don't know much about what the Templars get up to outside of their interactions with the series' protagonists.
***** The above troper is making a rather sloppy and hasty assumption, jumping to conclusions and assuming that only one explanation can be borne out by the available evidence. The idea that the Templars automatically benefit from concealing Washington's hypothetical role the raid on Connor's village (as opposed to the Revolutionary war raids against them and ones taken before his retirement at the end of the 1750's, which he *definitely* did do) is far from guaranteed, and while it isn't *impossible* there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to cast doubt on it. We clearly know that it is in the Templars' interests to see Washington thrown from his position of CinC, and given the aid the splinter factions of the Iroquois offered the Continentals, publicizing such raids would seriously undermine his credibility to them and the Continental leadership. Which would in turn help Haytham in h is chosen mission of unseating Washington and replacing him with Lee. It certainly benefited them when it came to turning Connor against Washington, and if it weren't for the fact that he already had a massive axe on his shoulder about Lee and Dad it's possible that it might have helped them in their efforts to do so. Washington's refusal to deny he gave the order certainly raises a lot of suspicions, but he too might have clear motivations for not giving out the names of whoever really did do it. Not the least of which because it might be someone who Connor would feel is less necessary to his cause and who thus could be targeted for elimination by the massive, superhuman guy who spews musket balls, arrows, and blades against anybody who he feels needs to die. It certainly doesn't do Washington any favors since it would indicate he is protecting whoever the heck did do it, but it also would mean he wasn't directly responsible. That's just one potential alternative interpretation for what we see in the game and extended materials; I'm sure there is more. But to cut to the chase, "Nothing is true" for certain about this yet, and "Everything is permitted" in WMG until we know more.
**** Second above troper here, George Washington all but admits to being responsible for the attack on Conner's village when Haythem accuses him. Considering how much Washington respects Conner (his journal in the collector's edition speaks highly of him considering he singled Conner out while on his death bed) and trusts him if he truly was retired at the time all he needed to do was say "I had nothing to do with it, this man is a liar." OccamsRazor in effect; it only takes a single premise for Washington to have ordered the attack on Conner's village, it takes several for him to have not been retired at the time, that he knew about the attack, he knew who was behind it, he has reasons for not disclosing that information to Conner. The simplest explanation to the original argument is that the history books are wrong about Washington being in retirement, which was established all the way in the first game by Vidic and Lucy about how the Templars have rewritten history more than once. The why of this instance is not defined and has several possible explanations, but that is an entirely separate argument entirely.
***** As a serious logician will tell you, OccamsRazor is a helpful tool but not a concrete rule of law. For one, the scenario I opted to disclose was only one amongst many possible where Washington is A: not (at least directly responsible for the 1760 attacks and B: did not disclose this to Connor or at least acted as he did in game. There are many, many, many more where those came from. In particular, the use of a "simplest explanation" as evidence in and of itself is severely damaged by the other major premise of the ''Assassin's Creed'' world: namely that not only are the history books wrong but *there are wheels within wheels of conspiracy going on, even asides from the overarching Templar-Assassin war* Does this mean that the simplest explanation is necessarily false? Hardly; it's a perfectly valid tool, but it just cannot be taken as certain. Also, it is factually inaccurate to say that only one premise must be true for Washington to have committed the attacks while several premises must be true for the scenario I outlined above (which I personally do not believe in any more than any other theory) to be true. In reality, both consist of a huge but equal or nearly equal number of premises; it's just that the context of the game makes it easier to notice them for alternate theories rather than for the "canon" one, and some of which are easier to swallow than others (like Washington telling the truth to Connor vs. lying). Not the least of which being that we can take everybody's word in the crucial Reveal when there are a huge number of potential motives. In particular, Haytham has nothing to lose by making the accusation regardless of whether it is true or not, and for Washington It's called a Double Bind, lose-lose, or getting hit by a XanatosGambit regardless of the truth. If he is guilty, he either tells Connor a lie and risks having the doubt linger and distrust grow- and possibly alienate the more die hard anti-Indians-, or he tells Connor the truth- in large part because his word is one of the crucial cornerstones of that relationship- and we see what happens in the game on top of alienating the rebel Iroquois. If he is innocent, he can lie and say he did it and see the very foreseeable result we see in the game on top of said Iroquois alienation, or he could tell the truth and risk lingering doubts anyway (especially given Washington's historical conduct doesn't make it that far fetched) and possible backlash from the die hard elements of the European mainstay of the Continentals. That's just what I could think of offhand (and there is more for all of those), leaving aside possibilities and hypothetical like the idea that he's protecting someone. No matter how that situation plays out, there is at least a near certain chance of Haytham walking away with a benefit from that, and Washington taking a loss. Why he would answer a given way in any given scenario is something we could construct yet more hypotheticals around, but I think I've made my point. In a series as labyrinthine as Creed is, it's awfully presumptuous to assume a given theory or motivation is automatically true, and I don't think in a scenario like this- with the evidence we have seen in the canon materials- we can automatically exclude alternatives beyond a shadow of a doubt. I say this as someone who does believe in the "canon"/vanilla explanation personally.
**** This discussion is all well and good, but is missing the point of what spawned all this. The original argument tree was "In real life Washington was retired from the Militia and living in Virginia around the time Connor's village was attacked, making his involvement in a raid on a Native village in upstate New York unlikely at best unless Ubisoft was going the alternate history route, made an honest goof, or Haytham was lying and Washington was not responsible for that particular attack." The original troper assumed there was only three explanations and discounted the fourth; that the Templars rewrote history books to say Washington was retired. The simplest explanation and the only one that has any actual evidence towards it is that everything we saw and heard is the truth; Washington was responsible for the attack on Conner's village, as evidenced by Washington never denying it and justifying it, and History-Buff Shawn confirming it with his database entry. It's theoretically possible that Washington was not responsible and was lying to cover for someone else, but nothing in the game suggests that (compared to every other conspiracy and lie having some proof involved to say it's not as what it appeared) and the developers moving onto ''VideoGame/AssassinsCreedIVBlackFlag'' with the only story DLC being a What-If scenario.
***** Yes, indeed it is all well and good. I agree that I don't see a *really serious* case for an alternate theory other than Washington being the responsible party for Connor's village being raided; I was simply playing devil's advocate to prove that it is "theoretically possible" as you said, and so it's hardly "obvious" even if it might be very close. However, claiming that the original troper discounted "the fourth" explanation of the Templars rewriting the history books relies on a highly dubious assumption on the original troper: namely that he did discount it, and that there even is a "fourth." "The templars rewrote the history books" would constitute "going with an alternate history approach" both in the general theme of the franchise (which is again alternate history based on the idea that Real history/our history is lies and this is what Really happened) and in the "Washington was Retired and did not/could not have burned down Connor's village in 1760" specifically, and that was one of the three he mentioned.


to:

*** ** In real life Washington was retired from the Militia and living in Virginia around the time Connor's village was attacked, making his involvement in a raid on a Native village in upstate New York unlikely at best unless Ubisoft was going the alternate history route, made an honest goof, or Haytham was lying and Washington was not responsible for that particular attack. Given that Lee just so happened to be skulking around that particular village on that particular day, it makes much more sense that he was behind it and either lied to Haytham, or Haytham lied to cover him.
**** ** The above troper is forgetting that the Templars have been rewriting history for centuries. Obviously in the AC universe Washington wasn't retired at this point (since he is responsible for the order and never denies it), and the Templars saw some sort of advantage of him not being associated with the attack on one of the most influential assassins of the time. Why they did this is a mystery, but that's more because we don't know much about what the Templars get up to outside of their interactions with the series' protagonists.
***** ** The above troper is making a rather sloppy and hasty assumption, jumping to conclusions and assuming that only one explanation can be borne out by the available evidence. The idea that the Templars automatically benefit from concealing Washington's hypothetical role the raid on Connor's village (as opposed to the Revolutionary war raids against them and ones taken before his retirement at the end of the 1750's, which he *definitely* did do) is far from guaranteed, and while it isn't *impossible* there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to cast doubt on it. We clearly know that it is in the Templars' interests to see Washington thrown from his position of CinC, and given the aid the splinter factions of the Iroquois offered the Continentals, publicizing such raids would seriously undermine his credibility to them and the Continental leadership. Which would in turn help Haytham in h is chosen mission of unseating Washington and replacing him with Lee. It certainly benefited them when it came to turning Connor against Washington, and if it weren't for the fact that he already had a massive axe on his shoulder about Lee and Dad it's possible that it might have helped them in their efforts to do so. Washington's refusal to deny he gave the order certainly raises a lot of suspicions, but he too might have clear motivations for not giving out the names of whoever really did do it. Not the least of which because it might be someone who Connor would feel is less necessary to his cause and who thus could be targeted for elimination by the massive, superhuman guy who spews musket balls, arrows, and blades against anybody who he feels needs to die. It certainly doesn't do Washington any favors since it would indicate he is protecting whoever the heck did do it, but it also would mean he wasn't directly responsible. That's just one potential alternative interpretation for what we see in the game and extended materials; I'm sure there is more. But to cut to the chase, "Nothing is true" for certain about this yet, and "Everything is permitted" in WMG until we know more.
**** ** Second above troper here, George Washington all but admits to being responsible for the attack on Conner's village when Haythem accuses him. Considering how much Washington respects Conner (his journal in the collector's edition speaks highly of him considering he singled Conner out while on his death bed) and trusts him if he truly was retired at the time all he needed to do was say "I had nothing to do with it, this man is a liar." OccamsRazor in effect; it only takes a single premise for Washington to have ordered the attack on Conner's village, it takes several for him to have not been retired at the time, that he knew about the attack, he knew who was behind it, he has reasons for not disclosing that information to Conner. The simplest explanation to the original argument is that the history books are wrong about Washington being in retirement, which was established all the way in the first game by Vidic and Lucy about how the Templars have rewritten history more than once. The why of this instance is not defined and has several possible explanations, but that is an entirely separate argument entirely.
***** ** As a serious logician will tell you, OccamsRazor is a helpful tool but not a concrete rule of law. For one, the scenario I opted to disclose was only one amongst many possible where Washington is A: not (at least directly responsible for the 1760 attacks and B: did not disclose this to Connor or at least acted as he did in game. There are many, many, many more where those came from. In particular, the use of a "simplest explanation" as evidence in and of itself is severely damaged by the other major premise of the ''Assassin's Creed'' world: namely that not only are the history books wrong but *there are wheels within wheels of conspiracy going on, even asides from the overarching Templar-Assassin war* Does this mean that the simplest explanation is necessarily false? Hardly; it's a perfectly valid tool, but it just cannot be taken as certain. Also, it is factually inaccurate to say that only one premise must be true for Washington to have committed the attacks while several premises must be true for the scenario I outlined above (which I personally do not believe in any more than any other theory) to be true. In reality, both consist of a huge but equal or nearly equal number of premises; it's just that the context of the game makes it easier to notice them for alternate theories rather than for the "canon" one, and some of which are easier to swallow than others (like Washington telling the truth to Connor vs. lying). Not the least of which being that we can take everybody's word in the crucial Reveal when there are a huge number of potential motives. In particular, Haytham has nothing to lose by making the accusation regardless of whether it is true or not, and for Washington It's called a Double Bind, lose-lose, or getting hit by a XanatosGambit regardless of the truth. If he is guilty, he either tells Connor a lie and risks having the doubt linger and distrust grow- and possibly alienate the more die hard anti-Indians-, or he tells Connor the truth- in large part because his word is one of the crucial cornerstones of that relationship- and we see what happens in the game on top of alienating the rebel Iroquois. If he is innocent, he can lie and say he did it and see the very foreseeable result we see in the game on top of said Iroquois alienation, or he could tell the truth and risk lingering doubts anyway (especially given Washington's historical conduct doesn't make it that far fetched) and possible backlash from the die hard elements of the European mainstay of the Continentals. That's just what I could think of offhand (and there is more for all of those), leaving aside possibilities and hypothetical like the idea that he's protecting someone. No matter how that situation plays out, there is at least a near certain chance of Haytham walking away with a benefit from that, and Washington taking a loss. Why he would answer a given way in any given scenario is something we could construct yet more hypotheticals around, but I think I've made my point. In a series as labyrinthine as Creed is, it's awfully presumptuous to assume a given theory or motivation is automatically true, and I don't think in a scenario like this- with the evidence we have seen in the canon materials- we can automatically exclude alternatives beyond a shadow of a doubt. I say this as someone who does believe in the "canon"/vanilla explanation personally.
**** ** This discussion is all well and good, but is missing the point of what spawned all this. The original argument tree was "In real life Washington was retired from the Militia and living in Virginia around the time Connor's village was attacked, making his involvement in a raid on a Native village in upstate New York unlikely at best unless Ubisoft was going the alternate history route, made an honest goof, or Haytham was lying and Washington was not responsible for that particular attack." The original troper assumed there was only three explanations and discounted the fourth; that the Templars rewrote history books to say Washington was retired. The simplest explanation and the only one that has any actual evidence towards it is that everything we saw and heard is the truth; Washington was responsible for the attack on Conner's village, as evidenced by Washington never denying it and justifying it, and History-Buff Shawn confirming it with his database entry. It's theoretically possible that Washington was not responsible and was lying to cover for someone else, but nothing in the game suggests that (compared to every other conspiracy and lie having some proof involved to say it's not as what it appeared) and the developers moving onto ''VideoGame/AssassinsCreedIVBlackFlag'' with the only story DLC being a What-If scenario.
***** ** Yes, indeed it is all well and good. I agree that I don't see a *really serious* case for an alternate theory other than Washington being the responsible party for Connor's village being raided; I was simply playing devil's advocate to prove that it is "theoretically possible" as you said, and so it's hardly "obvious" even if it might be very close. However, claiming that the original troper discounted "the fourth" explanation of the Templars rewriting the history books relies on a highly dubious assumption on the original troper: namely that he did discount it, and that there even is a "fourth." "The templars rewrote the history books" would constitute "going with an alternate history approach" both in the general theme of the franchise (which is again alternate history based on the idea that Real history/our history is lies and this is what Really happened) and in the "Washington was Retired and did not/could not have burned down Connor's village in 1760" specifically, and that was one of the three he mentioned.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Ending and the Disaster]]



*** No more so than any other First Civilization structures. The First Civilization was smart enough to build engineer their towers to survive the flare and autoconstruct themselves.

to:

*** ** No more so than any other First Civilization structures. The First Civilization was smart enough to build engineer their towers to survive the flare and autoconstruct themselves.



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Switching to Connor]]



*** This is correct. Notice that you very briefly play as Ziio in a loading screen between Sequences 3 and 4.
**** Ooooh! Okay, I get it now. I guess I just forgot that plot point. Thanks for clearing that up.
*** That doesn't make any sense, because you can play as Altair ''after'' he has children in ''VideoGame/AssassinsCreedRevelations''.
**** Those aren't genetic memories. They're memories recorded on First Civ artifacts by Altair as viewed by Ezio.

to:

*** ** This is correct. Notice that you very briefly play as Ziio in a loading screen between Sequences 3 and 4.
**** ** Ooooh! Okay, I get it now. I guess I just forgot that plot point. Thanks for clearing that up.
*** ** That doesn't make any sense, because you can play as Altair ''after'' he has children in ''VideoGame/AssassinsCreedRevelations''.
**** ** Those aren't genetic memories. They're memories recorded on First Civ artifacts by Altair as viewed by Ezio.




[[/folder]]

[[folder:Connor and the Marquis]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Kanen'tó:kon and Lee]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:British forts]]



*** That, my dear, is simply complaining. Your perfectly valid question of "why are all these particular targets both British and Templar?" has gone to "why can't more of these targets be Patriots?" Ubisoft has already demonstrated that Templars are on both sides (Hell, the BigBad was a patriot!, they don't need to replace targets just to confirm something they've already established.
*** If you want an explanation for why the American forts aren't commanded by Templars, remember that while they have a huge influence, they don't have a huge number of actual members. It could have taken years of maneuvering to get Templars as the commanders of the forts, whereas when Connor liberates a fort, it's the highest ranking officer of the Patriots becoming the new commander, and it's simply that those people weren't Templars.
*** There is no need for that as I did admit at the start that it was a case of minor complaining rather then an actual headscratcher. I have played the game and I know that the game was fairly neutral. But, it is hardly complaining to ask why couldn't just one Templar Fort be commanded by the Patriots.
*** Questions about wether or not it's complaining aside, realistically very few rank and file Patriots would have even been considered to be made Templar agents, since the war started very unexpectedly and Washington's army was thrown together in a hurry. These aren't ideal situations to sneak an agent into a fort's command structure since like the troper two up says the commander of Patriot Forts was whoever happened to be in the right place at the right time, which doesn't mesh well with the Templar's standard "manipulate events so we can get out man into the right job."

to:

*** ** That, my dear, is simply complaining. Your perfectly valid question of "why are all these particular targets both British and Templar?" has gone to "why can't more of these targets be Patriots?" Ubisoft has already demonstrated that Templars are on both sides (Hell, the BigBad was a patriot!, they don't need to replace targets just to confirm something they've already established.
*** ** If you want an explanation for why the American forts aren't commanded by Templars, remember that while they have a huge influence, they don't have a huge number of actual members. It could have taken years of maneuvering to get Templars as the commanders of the forts, whereas when Connor liberates a fort, it's the highest ranking officer of the Patriots becoming the new commander, and it's simply that those people weren't Templars.
*** ** There is no need for that as I did admit at the start that it was a case of minor complaining rather then an actual headscratcher. I have played the game and I know that the game was fairly neutral. But, it is hardly complaining to ask why couldn't just one Templar Fort be commanded by the Patriots.
*** ** Questions about wether or not it's complaining aside, realistically very few rank and file Patriots would have even been considered to be made Templar agents, since the war started very unexpectedly and Washington's army was thrown together in a hurry. These aren't ideal situations to sneak an agent into a fort's command structure since like the troper two up says the commander of Patriot Forts was whoever happened to be in the right place at the right time, which doesn't mesh well with the Templar's standard "manipulate events so we can get out man into the right job."



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Achilles and Connor's father]]



*** There's a time skip between Connor being let into the house, as Achilles begins telling the story of the Templars and Assassins, and them going to the basement for the first time later the same day, where Achilles mentions Connor's father for the first time. Presumably it came up during that conversation.
**** Before the medicine woman sends Connor to find Achilles, she mentions that he helped Zio in the past. Presumably she told Achilles about Haytham.

to:

*** ** There's a time skip between Connor being let into the house, as Achilles begins telling the story of the Templars and Assassins, and them going to the basement for the first time later the same day, where Achilles mentions Connor's father for the first time. Presumably it came up during that conversation.
**** ** Before the medicine woman sends Connor to find Achilles, she mentions that he helped Zio in the past. Presumably she told Achilles about Haytham. \n

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Connor and his people's land]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Broken Trust and the army]]



*** They're the only white people in the area, so what else could they be?

to:

*** ** They're the only white people in the area, so what else could they be?



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Haytham just knows]]



*** He only tries to convert Connor when they have a common goal (catching Benjamin Church). Haytham is, above all else, a very practical man. He knew Connor would be useful in tracking down Church, which is why he held back from killing Connor in the abandoned chapel. While traveling together Haytham was able to see the full scope of Connor's not inconsiderable skills and realized he could be a great asset to the Templar cause. Before that, though, he would've had no problem killing or having Connor killed if it served his own interests.

to:

*** ** He only tries to convert Connor when they have a common goal (catching Benjamin Church). Haytham is, above all else, a very practical man. He knew Connor would be useful in tracking down Church, which is why he held back from killing Connor in the abandoned chapel. While traveling together Haytham was able to see the full scope of Connor's not inconsiderable skills and realized he could be a great asset to the Templar cause. Before that, though, he would've had no problem killing or having Connor killed if it served his own interests.



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Washington and Templars]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Connor and Lee after Ft. George]]



*** Also, Rule of Drama. As mentioned elsewhere, with Achilles dead and the Templars all but eradicated in the Colonies, Connor is not in any mood to be thinking in terms of subtlety. Note the suit up of destiny before the confrontation, he intends to finish it while proudly showing his Native features. He wants Lee to know that the little Native child he held in such contempt has grown into a fierce and proud warrior.

to:

*** ** Also, Rule of Drama. As mentioned elsewhere, with Achilles dead and the Templars all but eradicated in the Colonies, Connor is not in any mood to be thinking in terms of subtlety. Note the suit up of destiny before the confrontation, he intends to finish it while proudly showing his Native features. He wants Lee to know that the little Native child he held in such contempt has grown into a fierce and proud warrior. \n

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Connor just knows]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Achilles owning a manor]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Animus secrecy]]



** They made the game with the "Animus OS". They used the software and presumably the hardware from the acual Animi, but the main function of the Animus, the part that Shaun considers dangerous, is the reliving of genetic memories, which Abstergo presumably isn't putting in their propaganda machine for obvious reasons.

to:

** They made the game with the "Animus OS". They used the software and presumably the hardware from the acual actual Animi, but the main function of the Animus, the part that Shaun considers dangerous, is the reliving of genetic memories, which Abstergo presumably isn't putting in their propaganda machine for obvious reasons.
reasons.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Using the Apple earlier]]



*** Not doing anything to them personally hasn't stopped the Assassins from killing people before.

to:

*** ** Not doing anything to them personally hasn't stopped the Assassins from killing people before.
before.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Templar diplomacy]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Power source bracelet]]



*** While that's a bit of a generalization, it's true that some women might be willing to wear bracers, even heavy ones, as a fashion statement. Though that's not really a thing in real life yet.

to:

*** ** While that's a bit of a generalization, it's true that some women might be willing to wear bracers, even heavy ones, as a fashion statement. Though that's not really a thing in real life yet.
yet.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:More hidden blades]]



*** Just because Haytham uses one doesn't mean he understands it. Looking at the diagrams from Ezio's own hidden plays shows it's a complicated piece, and who knows what changes were made over the next three centuries? Perhaps other Templars did, but the American Templars didn't have access.
*** Haytham mostly keeps his own as a personal preference. Templars already have their own version of a hidden blade, one that swivels to the side out rather than straight like the Assassins' (check some of the executions in ''Revelations''' multi-player). If something functionally identical to the Hidden Blade is already available to Templars, it's an indication that they simply don't favor using it, so why bother duplicating something you won't use.
*** In-game, Haytham was one of the only one of the American Templars that regularly ran around jumping off buildings and shanking people. The other Templars had lines of work that facilitated, at most, a knife strapped to the boot in case of a random Assassin attack. Well, Hickey's a special case, as he's not a Templar. Really, why make a complicated tool if you're not going to use it?

to:

*** ### Just because Haytham uses one doesn't mean he understands it. Looking at the diagrams from Ezio's own hidden plays shows it's a complicated piece, and who knows what changes were made over the next three centuries? Perhaps other Templars did, but the American Templars didn't have access.
*** ### Haytham mostly keeps his own as a personal preference. Templars already have their own version of a hidden blade, one that swivels to the side out rather than straight like the Assassins' (check some of the executions in ''Revelations''' multi-player). If something functionally identical to the Hidden Blade is already available to Templars, it's an indication that they simply don't favor using it, so why bother duplicating something you won't use.
*** ### In-game, Haytham was one of the only one of the American Templars that regularly ran around jumping off buildings and shanking people. The other Templars had lines of work that facilitated, at most, a knife strapped to the boot in case of a random Assassin attack. Well, Hickey's a special case, as he's not a Templar. Really, why make a complicated tool if you're not going to use it?it?

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Bear pelt versus rug]]



** That's how it works in many multiplayer games with crafting, such as ''VideoGame/WorldOfWarcraft''. You can sell materials to other players for far more than the finished products, with a few exceptions.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:The Ending]]




[[/folder]]

[[folder:Sixth Sense]]




[[/folder]]

[[folder:William and the animus]]



* When Desmond and Bill are talking about Lucy, Desmond says something along the lines of "It all just keeps happening, again and again." Bill is apparently a bit creeped out by this and says "Don't get weird on me, Desmond. What was he talking about, exactly?

to:

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Cycle]]

* When Desmond and Bill are talking about Lucy, Desmond says something along the lines of "It all just keeps happening, again and again." Bill is apparently a bit creeped out by this and says "Don't get weird on me, Desmond. " What was he talking about, exactly?



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Haytham climing the balconies]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Epilogue POV]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:The Boy Who Cried Wolf]]



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Sequence 8 dates]]



** You are partially correct, the latter sequence says June 16, 1775. However, that scene shows the founders signing the Declaration of Independence (complete with Franklin's famous, possibly apocryphal quote), so unless there is something meta going on about the Templars altering history, I think any grade schooler can tell you what's wrong with that date.

to:

** You are partially correct, the latter sequence says June 16, 1775. However, that scene shows the founders signing the Declaration of Independence (complete with Franklin's famous, possibly apocryphal quote), so unless there is something meta going on about the Templars altering history, I think any grade schooler can tell you what's wrong with that date.date.

[[/folder]]
----
14th Mar '15 3:54:17 PM Archangel1138
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

**** Yeah, plus Musket balls are a very high calibre. (some .69 & .70) That would probably go through you, easily.
8th Dec '14 8:12:04 AM tylerbamafan34
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

***Also, Rule of Drama. As mentioned elsewhere, with Achilles dead and the Templars all but eradicated in the Colonies, Connor is not in any mood to be thinking in terms of subtlety. Note the suit up of destiny before the confrontation, he intends to finish it while proudly showing his Native features. He wants Lee to know that the little Native child he held in such contempt has grown into a fierce and proud warrior.
17th Apr '14 4:18:15 PM 4mation
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

**Don't forget about the Bleeding Effect. Desmond is immune to it, since he managed to find a Synch Nexus in Revelations, but William could and probably would still be susceptible to it. Given the damage it causes to those who become afflicted by it, the Bleeding Effect would obviously prevent William from attempting to use the Animus. It would be extremely unhelpful to the Assassins' cause if one of their presumably high-ranking members went completely batshit insane.
This list shows the last 10 events of 217. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.AssassinsCreedIII