Just started Assassin's Creed II last night and already something bugs me. When Ezio picks up a discarded weapon or disarms a guard, why does he drop it whenever he sprints but not when he runs? We're talking about a man who scales the highest buildings in all of Italy with grace and ease. Why does he suffer an acute case of butterfingers if he breaks into a sprint?
It's probably because you enter into "free-run" mode, so he's leaving his hands open to grab onto ledges or posts.
When Ezio breaks into a sprint he sheathes his main weapon, because running flat-out while hold a large, sharp piece of killing in your hands is a Bad Idea. With guard weapons, he doesn't have a sheath to put them in, so he has to drop the weapon.
If Ezio has been disarmed (IE, lost his own weapon,) he can and will sheath the guard's weapon rather than toss it. Of course, it takes some pretty spectacular incompetence on the player's part for Ezio to be disarmed to begin with, and chances are the player will prefer to reclaim Ezio's own sword, but it can happen.
I beat Assassin's Creed II last night, and while I really enjoyed the ending, one thing bothered me: the justification for having Desmond keep playing around in the Animus. Apparently Rebecca set up the Animus to function inside their getaway vehicle once Vidic and his Abstergo cronies crashed the warehouse. So, why didn't the Hashashin put the Animus 2.0 in a Winnebago or something and drive around the country, making a moving headquarters where the Templars are less likely to locate them? I mean if the Animus 2.0 works on a car battery, there's no reason why this wouldn't be a more viable option than making an abandoned warehouse your headquarters.
I think the warehouse was for all their other stuff. Their files, their supplies, their computers for analyzing the Animus data, that sort of thing. All the stuff they couldn't take with them when they made their getaway.
Well, the game starts with Desmond still staring at his wall so any post-credits snooping/replaying events that the player does in the first game probably isn't canon. I'd guess that reviewing the memories on the road won't have much of an impact.
There's another point — warehouses don't typically get pulled over by cops. One busted taillight or speeding ticket, and they face a huge risk. They transported Desmond from Abstergo to the hideout in the trunk of a car. Their enemies are literally everywhere. An out-of-the-way warehouse goes unnoticed. If someone catches a glimpse of Desmond or Lucy through a car window, their cover is blown.
When Abstergo stormed the warehouse at the end of Assassin's Creed II, it's clear the Hashashin were in a hurry. I didn't see Shaun put away his files, which, as he explained near the beginning of the game, were essential for keeping every Hashashin around the world informed. So what happened to them? Did the Templars get them?
Probably not. Shaun probably destroyed the files he couldn't take with him. If he's even halfway competent he'll have backup copies hidden at some other location.
Given how important the information is, any half-way competent person would send a copy to each of their other divisions, just in case something happens to one of them. Besides, we know the Assassins have divisions in other countries, so having a backup there would make sense, so their allies can also benefit from what they discover.
Why doesn't Ezio have a scabbard for his sword? It's just flopping around uncovered on his belt. Isn't that bad for the blade? Not to mention really dangerous?
Maybe to you, but to this troper (a collector of replica swords and frequent Ren Fair participant) it seems pretty darn stupid. Scabbards exist for a reason. They protect the blade from wear and rust, and they prevent you from cutting your own leg by accident. Ezio is one awkward fall away from slicing open his femoral artery and bleeding to death.
It's because that's the style. Ezio keeps his weapons in a ring sheathe, which were often employed in lieu of a large scabbard. Yes, with some ring mounts you can secure a scabbard as well, but it's certainly not unheard of to carry a sword in the way the game portrays. Granted, it still doesn't make much sense, given his overt movements, but still. It also becomes silly with the larger weapons, and the daggers seem to be secured by assassin velcro, but the naked blade premise itself is not something to call out
Then he's just that skilled, and takes exceedingly good care of his blade otherwise. Alternatively, that's why they implemented the inventory system — Ezio keeps having to buy new swords because he doesn't take good care of his old ones! Genius!
Ezio can be disarmed by brutes. An empty sheath would be pointless to animate. Ezio can also disarm guards and take their weapons and use them when he has free hands. If you get your Sword of Alta´r knocked away by a brute, that scimitar you could steal afterwords sure as hell ain't gonna fill the same sheath. So it's much easier if Ezio carries no sheath to begin with.
The above troper is right on the money. Modelling and animating a scabbard is still more trouble than it's worth. very few (if any) games do it, and it only seems to bother a select few gamers. But for those who do care, it will probably become more common eventually.
Alta´r has the same scar over his mouth as Desmond. Fine. The Animus is inserting Desmond's look into Alta´r's memories. In Assassin's Creed 2, Ezio has the same scar. Same explanation, except we see when Ezio GETS the scar. So either the Animus inserted that scene to rationalize Desmond's scar on Ezio, or men in Desmond's family just always get that scar. And neither of those make any sense.
Maybe Ezio got a scar in that fight and hence constantly has "I have a visible facial scar" in his memories from that point on. It doesn't need to be exactly the same scar, just evoke the same feelings so that the Animus picks up on it and replaces it with Desmond's own "I have a visible facial scar".
This is supported by the novelization, which drops the meta-plot and mentions Ezio receiving a scar on his forehead in this scene.
Perhaps the point is that it's an example of Identical Grandson, and the rock scene in AC2 was added to make it clearer.
It's possible that in Reality, Ezio never got a scar from that rock in the first place, but a glitch in the Animus associates any injury to the mouth with Desmond's scar. Besides, I doubt getting hit by a rock would generally leave such a straight scar like that. It looked more like the kind of cut one would get from a knife.
If you look at the wound in the cutscene it's messier than the scar shown later would suggest. The rock may have only struck hard enough to scar in that particular spot. Plus a rock with an edge can still cut — how do you think people cut things before they learned how to work metal? I wouldn't put it past Vieri to sharpen a rock just to throw at Ezio.
In the tie-in novel, Assassin's Creed: Renaissance, the rock Vieri throws hits Ezio on the forehead rather than the mouth. So that could be supporting the theory that the Animus just associates any facial scar with Desmond's scar on his mouth.
Maybe it cut him so deep that he felt it in his testicles, and it was born as a birthmark ever since...
By the end of Assassin's Creed II, Desmond has retained Ezio's abilities and can not only free-run places, but hold his own in battle and use a hidden blade and stuff. Okay, but...why did he have to wait until he ran around as Ezio for a couple of days? Why didn't he already have all those abilities, not just eagle vision, after running around as Alta´r for weeks?
Assassin's Creed took place over a course of weeks from Alta´r's point of view. From Desmond's, it was only a few days (as you can see from the dates on the emails in Vidic and Lucy's inboxes). Assassin's Creed II took place over a course of 23 years of Ezio's life compressed into seemingly two days for Desmond. With Ezio going from a normal guy to an Assassin during that time, Desmond was learning the skills as Ezio was, while Alta´r had the skill of a master assassin from the start. There are countless Fanon theories as well, but Lucy said that after getting Eagle Vision, Desmond is more receptive to the Bleeding Effect.
Lucy outright states "You're more receptive to the Animus now. With luck, you'll learn everything Ezio learns in his memories." Desmond achieved full synchronization with Alta´r and thus gained the ability to learn skills from his ancestors, but only got this in time to learn Eagle Vision.
Or alternatively, the effects of the Animus are cumulative. If Desmond had decided to stall Vidic for a few more days he would've started learning Alta´r's skills instead of Ezio's.
Personally, I thought it was a combination of upgrades to the Animus 2.0 and Desmond being more cooperative. During his time as Alta´r he knew that he was working for the bad guys and was slightly reluctant to go deeper into his memories. In the Animus 2.0 he's actually trying to help rather than only save his own skin.
The Beat-Up Events seem awfully formulaic. Every single one is a woman who wants you to beat the crap out of her philandering husband. I refuse to believe these are the only people in all of Italy who deserve a good thrashing. Why not "Beat up the price-gouging merchant"? Or "Beat up the delinquent tax cheat"? Or even just "Beat up that creepy weirdo who keeps peeking in our window with a looking glass while my wife and I are having sex"? (Or for extra fun "Beat up ten minstrels in 2 minutes". That would've been awesome.)
I guess it's to show that Ezio's a lady's man. He's willing to do things to make them happy. Note how you never get hired by a man who's been cheated on.
It's because Ezio's Italian. The stereotypical Italian will beat up their female relative's unfaithful boyfriends. It's a thing.
I know, but still, are we seriously to believe that these are the only people in all of Italy that deserve to have the snot beaten out of them? Where are the corrupt landlords, the political rabble-rousers, or the teenage-punks-who-keep-wrecking-my-fruit-stand?
Again, Ezio's a ladies' man. The corrupt landlords, the political rabble-rousers, and the teenage-punks-who-keep-wrecking-fruit-stands all exist — but Ezio doesn't give two shits about them, he only ever went out of his way for the cheated-upon damsels. And since the Animus only allows you to experience what Ezio remembers...
Alternatively, the real answer is probably time constraints, as boring as that answer is. What with everything else that has to be programmed for the game, "variety in beat up missions" probably wasn't high on the priority list, unfortunately.
Marital fidelity isn't an issue with someone who's not married. He was involved with Cristina Vespucci for a while, but that...didn't end well (for either party).
Remember, he gets a fair amount of money after every successful beatdown, so in all likelihood he's just a plain 'ol crass mercenary...he'll gladly defend the honor of a jilted lady provided the jilted lady can pay up.
I know we can't really ever know the answer, but I'm curious as to whether Minerva actually said the words she said during the events as they actually occurred in Ezio's life, or if she was just speaking through the Animus to give Desmond her message. Basically, when Ezio entered the Vault, did he actually get horribly confused by Minerva speaking to a Desmond who wasn't there, or did something else entirely different happen that we weren't privy to?
The Animus, by definition, can only show things that Desmond's ancestors actually remember. And the only way they can remember it is if it happened to them. So yes, Ezio actually did get horribly confused by Minerva speaking to Desmond.
Or, alternatively, Minerva and the others were already aware in their time that Desmond would see them through the animus, meaning they're aware of all the events from that point on in the game, and aware of everything that happened up to that time.
Remember that the Pieces of Eden can apparently allow you to see the future (as written by Alta´r in the Codex); given that they were created by (or for) Those Who Came Before, Minerva may have seen Desmond's adventures in 2012 (after all, she apparently knows about the upcoming world-ending catastrophe), and therefore knew about the link between Ezio and Desmond. And yes, Minerva really did talk to Desmond "through" Ezio.
In the novelization, which doesn't take place in the Animus, she doesn't mention Desmond at all...
No, she doesn't, but the novelization isn't really canon.
Not really a plot hole, per se, but how exactly did Alta´r and Maria end up together?
Bloodlines for the PSP explains it. Alta´r goes to Cyprus because there are Templars there. Maria goes there too for the same reason. Much hijinks ensue and Maria undergoes a Heel-Face Turn. The two of them get together and go east to study the Piece of Eden. It also helps that Adha (the love interest from Alta´r's Chronicles) dies 'offscreen'.
When Ezio (and Mario, whom he learned it from) tells his victims to "requiescat in pace", it bugs the hell out of me. If someone did that to me, then my last words would be "Who's 'he'?" or "Why are you talking about me in the third person when I'm right here, you uneducated idiot???".
For those who don't know Latin, "Requiescat in pace" is literally "May he/she/it rest in peace". If you were directly addressing the dying/deceased person, you would say "Requiescas in pace", "May you rest in peace".
You know, even though the subtitles always say "Requiescat in pace" this troper swears that sometimes it sounds like Ezio is saying "Requiescas in pace". Transcription error, perhaps?
The obvious explanation would be that he isn't talking to them. Could it just be a prayer on their behalf?
Which actually makes perfect sense. You don't typically tell someone to "Rest in Peace" as they're usually, y'know, dead.
And he does tend to say it after they've died. Not while they're still groaning.
Alternatively, Ezio doesn't actually know Latin all that well, and is just getting it close enough.
So Ezio spends 23 years hunting down Rodrigo Borgia for murdering his family, learns over and over again that Rodrigo is abusing his power as Pope to do all manner of vile evilness. And at the end of the game he... doesn't kill Borgia once he has him at his mercy? I wouldn't object to this so much if it weren't for the fact that Borgia is a monster who Ezio should have killed to end his reign of terror. Admittedly, beating the hell out of him with Ezio's bare hands is still pretty cool, but still.
I'm right there with you — while a point could be made about Ezio choosing not to kill the man who murdered his family, understanding it won't bring them back (plus it being historically inaccurate, I guess), the fact that Borgia was a colossal psycho who had been bringing misery to so many others as explained by Shaun, and would probably continue to use his clout to make life difficult for the Assassins as well, makes Ezio's decision not to kill him selfish and short-sighted at best. Curious how other tropers interpreted the scene?
My interpretation: I don't think Ezio ever really believed in the Assassins' cause. I think that deep down, it was always about getting revenge for the death of his father and brothers. But by the time he finally made it to Borgia he realized his revenge wasn't really getting him anything (and was forcing him to miss out on a lot, like a potential relationship with Rosa) so he decided to stop. And since he never truly accepted his role as an Assassin (at least not yet) he didn't feel any personal obligation to kill Borgia. He'd beaten him, and that seemed like enough. I guess you could call that selfish in a certain sense, but remember that Ezio didn't choose to be an Assassin. He had it all pretty much thrust upon him. It's a bit unfair to expect him to accept a role that he never chose and may have refused had he been given a choice in the first place.
Well Rosa was the only girl I felt Ezio had any real chemistry with. The rest were just hot chicks he wanted to boink (notice he describes Caterina Sforza as "my next conquest" rather than "a beautiful lady" or something). But this troper swears he detected some serious sparks between Ezio and Rosa.
I'm pretty sure he was on board with the Assassins' cause around the time he was okay with them shoving a red hot ring onto his finger. That's not something someone does without dedication. Besides that, their mantra is "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." They are basically allowing enough freedom for it to be acceptable to not dispose of someone entirely if that will achieve the same goal.
I'd guess that he thought it a more appropriate revenge to let Rodrigo live with his total failure. Everything Rodrigo did was for the purpose of gaining access to the Vault in the belief that he was the Prophet; revealing that he wasn't and never would could be seen as more of a revenge than just killing the guy. Plus, there's that he's not due to die historically for another four years (and leaving a really nasty corpse when he does).
The most irritating thing about the "it's not historically accurate" defense is that Ubisoft chose which year to skip forwards to for the final mission. They could've skipped to the year he died if they had wanted to, so it's not really a good defense at all.
Not to mention Robert de Sable was said to have lived into old age and die of natural causes, despite Alta´r killing him in front of a crowd of Templars.
According to the novelization, it depresses Rodrigo so much that he immediately kills himself as Ezio exits the Vault. Which... yeah, maybe that's what actually happened — he died, but knowing that this would damage the status of the Templars and likely result in one of their enemies becoming the new Pope, his son Cesare uses another Piece of Eden to make people believe that Rodrigo is still alive. A few years later, Cesare falls ill and is unable to maintain the charade; this is why Rodrigo's body looks so foul at this point — he's actually been dead for several years, but somewhat preserved by weird technology!... Okay, yeah, I wonder why they didn't just set in the year he died too.
Hrm, yeah, both of those actually make sense to me. Ta!
OP here, and I agree. It does make sense that Ezio is not a true Assassin like the others, and would focus more on revenge than simply killing a dangerous man.
Rodrigo Borgia may not be the most famous historical figure, but there are a few who actually knew who he was before playing the game, and may have cried foul. Especially since Borgia's (allegedly quite horrific) real death from sickness and the ensuing funeral fiasco is a great example of karma.
Rodrigo Borgia may be evil, but he's also the pope. Killing him without first eroding his support (as Ezio does in Brotherhood) would make him a martyr and the remaining Templars would quickly turn pretty much all of Europe against the Assassins. By leaving him alive Ezio doesn't give the Templars such an opportunity, and so hopefully this would make them more cautious — note that it was Cesare who launched the attack on Monterigionni, and his father criticized him for this.
It is also worth noting that after Cesare kills Rodrigo, he gets arrested by order of the new Pope. Nasty bit of karma on both ends. If Ezio had killed Rodrigo he would be the villain and not Cesare.
Personally, I was wondering why Rodrigo Borgia never bothered attacking Monterigionni with his army. He knows where the Auditores are based, and he knows who Ezio is and that he's after him and his conspirators. Why doesn't he just attack and take the villa?
The best explanation I can think of is that by the time Rodrigo realized that Ezio was as big a threat as he was, Ezio had already secured his alliance with Lorenzo de' Medici and secured the Medicis' power in Florence, and attacking Monterigionni would incite the wrath of Florence as a result. Prior to that, Rodrigo seemed to consider the Auditoris to be little more than an annoyance, especially after Giovanni was killed. Once Ezio brought Florence onto his side, Rodrigo realized that the Auditores were still a serious threat, but by then the Auditores had control over Monterigionni as well, and the strength of that city's walls and the alliance with Florence would mean that they couldn't directly strike at the villa itself.
Venice was also on Ezio's side, being ruled by a friend of the Assassins.
Well, judging from the new demo shown at E3 for AC: Brotherhood, the next game, it looks like the Borgias do get smarter and decide to go on the offensive against Monterigionni.
And much later, you see why Rodrigo had held back. Pretty simple, actually, when you think about it...
If Ezio didn't kill Rodrigo Borgia, then why is his picture amongst those that he did? What, did Mario send him back to finish the job?
Ezio may not have killed him, but he did defeat him. As far as Ezio is concerned, that works just fine.
No, Ezio never finished the job, and Rodrigo is still very much alive at the start of Brotherhood. Most likely, Ezio felt that "neutralized as a threat" was just as good (and with the two Pieces of Eden out of his hands, it really was).
The main storyline of ACII takes place over 23 years — yet, in that time, none of the characters age. What the hell?! Are we supposed to believe that Claudia looked the same at 38 as she did at 15? That Maria didn't go grey? That none of the Assassins died?
Because the Animus paints everything in Broad Strokes. Do you really think Rodrigo Borgia wore the exact same outfit with the exact same set of accessories for 23 years, too?
Ezio did start to grow a beard so he definitely aged. His hair also seems to gray a bit, but that might just be lighting or something.
I've never seen any game pull off the multiple-stages-in-a-person's-life thing seamlessly. I remember Mortal Kombat Deception having some really glaring examples, such as someone telling Shujinko to deliver a message that he'd delivered decades ago. Most likely UbiSoft decided it wasn't even worth attempting; just too many years, characters, and old wounds. (I'm actually more interested in what Claudia did for fun all this time...I can't even imagine how boring that desk job must have been!)
Well what about Ezio's mother? Taking a vow of silence and praying 24/7 for 23 years? That woman was a saint!
More like a severely traumatized victim who needed a long, long time (and a big show of compassion from Ezio) to recover.
In Assassin's Creed II, why is Alta´r's armor black? He wore white armor in the first, and in the flashback sequence in was still white.
Because the armor was designed afterwards. That and he didn't necessarily use the armor; he said he crafted it, but not that he needed to employ it. Also, even if he did employ it, he could have dyed the clothes and painted the armor (like, y'know Ezio can do in the very same game).
Also, as seen in the first game, the head of the Assassin Order wears black to distinguish himself from the white-robed mooks. At least, Al Mualim did. It's pretty strongly implied that Alta´r held this rank prior to his death — hence the black armor.
It bugs the hell out of me that Ezio never cleans his sword before he sheathes it.
Why should he do that in the Animus? Being a simulation designed to mimic his memories in Broad Strokes, the Animus isn't going to show Ezio doing irrelevant stuff. You might as well ask why he isn't shown donning his new armor every time he he buys a new piece, or why he doesn't sit around for an hour waiting for the blacksmiths to repair his armor, or why it doesn't show him picking his nose or stopping to take a wee. The Animus just doesn't show irrelevant animations.
We see Ezio pull his cape back over his shoulder when he stands still long enough. I don't see why that animation is any less irrelevant.
Ezio refuses to walk around like some sort of fucking heathen, cape all askew, and shit. It is important that he look like a gentleman whilst he's strutting about town. That is the purpose of the cape animation.
While I'm sure Ezio loves looking like a pimp, the constant rearranging of the cape is to keep him in low profile and to cover his vast array of sheathed weapons on his hip, since simply standing around and/or walking at a normal pace (versus running, which causes his cape to fly back) is considered a low profile action.
Rule of Cool aside, why was Machiavelli an Assassin!? With his political views, wouldn't he be more likely to be a Templar?
Machiavelli was not a proponent of strong-man government. He personally was more of a republican in beliefs and had served in Savonarola's attempt at republican government; he wrote The Prince more as an "Ok, if we must have a Prince, let's make him a strong, ruthless prince. This isn't the way I like it; it's just the way that it works." Besides, he also wrote it in an attempt to get work after being blacklisted — and tortured — after Savonarola fell.
Yes, but given that he admired Rodrigo Borgia and considered mercenaries costly and useless, he just seems like a strange choice.
You should remember that The Prince did not reflect Machiavelli's own personal beliefs. It was a collection of observations of how people and rulers function. At no point he says that this is a good thing, just that this is how things are. He himself was a proponent of the republics. The Prince hints at this at one point, mentioning how republics are difficult for an autocratic Prince to conquer and rule effectively, so it's best to leave them alone.
We're also forgetting that this is a series whose tagline includes the words "nothing is true." And this is also a series where some of the biggest heroic historical figures were actually Templars. Considering that the majority of history in Assassin's Creed is a flat-out lie, why are we going by the historical version of Machiavelli?
It's worth noting that some modern scholars have reinterpreted ''The Prince" as a political satire designed to expose and undo tyrannies .
What bothers me more is that he pops up in the last few minutes of the story and says he's an Assassin, with absolutely no foreshadowing or even an introduction. Not counting the DLC here.
Why did Dante Moro need to die? He was obviously not an evil man and had little to do with the Templars directly other than being one of their bodyguards. The letter from his former wife seemed to hint that she was attempting to get him to remember her.
Aside from the fact that he was still loyal to the Templars, Ezio really had no way of actually knowing the truth about Dante's condition.
Er...because he tried to kill Bartolomeo, someone rather important to Ezio's cause, and he would do the same to Ezio given half a chance. With a big ax. So this was not going to end nicely. An unfortunate necessity, nothing more. Also, there's a big difference between "attempting" and "having success at".
It was also something of a mercy kill, too. At that point poor Dante was basically a mindless slave of the Templars.
Ezio is inducted into the Assassins organization now? Now?! He's only been cutting a path through Italian nobility for the past decade like a plague. You should be crawling on your hands and knees, begging for him to allow you to join him.
Ahem. Prophet. Prophecized capture of the Piece of Eden which was the indicator that he was who they believed him to be? Also, inducting him into the Assassins completely is kind of a moot and unnecessary point.
And in the entire time Ezio has been carving through the nobility, he's been on a murderous rampage intent on avenging his family. That kind of mentality is not one the Assassins want to foster. They only reveal themselves to Ezio and offer to let him truly become an Assassin once he's matured. And yes, Ezio has been carving through the nobility of Italy, but he never would have gotten anywhere without Assassin support - covert or otherwise. Every step of the way he's had an Assassin backing him up in one way or another.
Every event between the first Lineage movie and Ezio's arrival at Monteriggioni happens in 1476. The problem with this is that the main event of the first Lineage movie is the assassination of Duke Sforza, which occurred, both in the movie and in the real world, on Christmas Day. How does every single event between that happen in one week? Especially considering how much time some of the other events take...
I don't see why that's a problem — the events of the first chapter of ACII only seem to cover about three days, and with Lineage, there's nothing to suggest it took Giovanni any longer than a few days to track down Borgia. It might be a bit of a squeeze and not allow much time for Giovanni traveling between Florence/Venice/Rome, but it's not too much of a stretch to assume it all took place within a week.
Except that in addition to suggesting the climate is warm, the Ezio we see at the Auditore dinner table is much younger than he appears in the game. He's supposedly 17 years old in 1476, but looks more prepubescent.
Why are crates so weak? One shove and they shatter into a million pieces.
...you really haven't read the rest of this page, have you? The answer: It's in the Animus.
That doesn't make sense even if it was the Animus. There is no reason for he Animus to make all crates weak.
It's an artificially generated world created by a program compiled by humans. Are you seriously implying that a man-made computer program won't have bugs or errors?
Because the Animus has only one object class for breakable objects, and thus they're all equally easy to break.
I don't quite get how upgrading the Thieves' Guild at your villa helps bring in tourists. Wouldn't they stay away through fear of getting robbed?
A thieves guild WOULDN'T attract tourists. It would attract THIEVES. Who then train at the guild and spend their money at your villa.
Just my own theory, and a warning that I haven't gotten that far (just got the game yesterday), but the inner conspirator in me suggests this: Due to upgrading the Thieves' Guild, they in turn have more thieves. Thieves steal stuff, right? But with the current tourist amount, there would always be a limit. So what better way than to have the others of the villa conspire with them to attract more tourists to steal from. I will point out again that I have not gotten to that part in the game yet, so I may be completely wrong.
It could be a protection racket. You pay the thieves not to commit quite as many crimes as they would normally, in exchange for looking the other way every now and then in regards to their activities.
Thieves' guilds, back in the day, were not just places for thieves to do their thing; they also served as security training and consulting. Essentially, they taught people not only how to bypass security and locks, but also how to strengthen their security as well. It's essentially the equivalent of having a security company working in the town. Also, the thieves' guild would let the Auditores get a better cut off the local black market, too.
Most likely, Ezio simply decided that thieves made better friends than enemies (and his experiences with Antonio quashed any doubts he may have had). Renaissance Italy didn't have highway patrols. The malcontents were coming to Monteriggionni; there was absolutely no avoiding this. The only question was whether they'd be allowed to do their dirty work unchecked or have a stable base of operations where Mario could keep an eye on them. Easy choice. And of course, they're good to have on hand to deal with any freelance dirtbag rogues who try to muscle in on Ezio's turf.
There's also the fact that The Fox and Antonio are Assassins, and we see thieves working for Giovanni before he gets killed. They provide information for the Assassins, and might even act as a recruitment centre of sorts. Thieves can actually do the whole free running/parkour thing, unlike any of the other groups (okay, guards can, but that's the Animus).
Consider the following facts: One; The whole goal of the upgrading Monteriggioni game is to make the city a place where people would like to visit and spend money. Two; the thieves are probably smart enough not to crap in their own back yard. Three; they've been granted a little clubhouse/training centre by a very scary guy with lots of blades who makes a living out of killing people before they know he's there. By granting the thieves a guild in Monteriggioni, it's unlikely that they're actually going to do their actual work there. How does this in turn make Monteriggioni a richer place? Firstly, there's probably some rent involved — "Hey, we've got a little place for you to kick back where you won't get hassled by the guards and we can give you alibis for anything you may have done. All it costs is a little rent per month and you don't cause trouble." The database entry for thieves does explicitly state that punishments for caught thieves were unduly harsh, so the more organized bands of thieves would probably appreciate and pay for a place that gives them some refuge. Third, if they're not stealing in Monteriggioni, that means the city has a low crime rate. If they're not stealing in Monteriggioni, they're stealing from other cities and raising the crime rate. This goes back to the first goal of Monteriggioni — a nice little vacation spot. "Hey, Guiseppi; I know we were going to Roma, but my sister said that she and her family were pickpocketed every day there. Let's go to Monteriggioni, there's apparently no crime there at all." Centralizing the thieves in Monteriggioni makes sense — you make money of the thieves when they're there not stealing, and you make money off the tourists who are all flocking to your nice little city because the thieves are busy stealing elsewhere. It's a perfect scam.
Alright, so after Ezio's family is executed, why doesn't he just go back to Florence and plead his case to Lorenzo Medici, saying, "Hey, my dad was your right hand man, and he would never ever betray you! Why can't I get a pardon already and go back to my old life?" Fine, I can see that Ezio would need evidence of his family's innocence (which he did turn over to that fat bastard Uberto). But couldn't he at least get a pardon for everything after saving Lorenzo's ass from the Pazzi Conspiracy? Are pardons really that hard to get in Renaissance Italy? Or is it simply that Lorenzo doesn't have the power to do that, despite being called "Il Magnifico"?
Once Ezio's taken out the Pazzis, I think it's become more than a matter of his father and brothers being executed for a crime they didn't commit. And what worth would his old life have without his family?
Prior to saving Lorenzo's life, Ezio didn't really have the capability to meet Lorenzo and plead his case anyway. Being a wanted man has that effect. After saving Lorenzo's life, he probably is granted a pardon.
I always assumed that the Medici cape was the pardon. It stops your notoriety from going up, so I figured that was the equivalent of a pardon.
I'm pretty sure he was pardoned once he got rid of the Pazzis, as I do not recall the Florentine government mounting a massive manhunt to take Ezio down at any point (aside from when I got carried away with the gun, of course). Prior to eliminating the Pazzis, a pardon probably wasn't high on Ezio's "Things I Need" list.
In the final mission, Borgia stabs Ezio in the stomach. Blood pools on the ground, Ezio collapses and passes out, Borgia walks away triumphant. Fade to black. We're lead to believe that we have failed. Yet, moments later (as the priests are regaining consciousness), Ezio recovers. What the hell is going on?! It can't have been an illusion, because there's clearly blood around the wound. Was it some kind of trick on Ezio's part, then? Or did Borgia not stab deep enough — which can't be right, as the blade went in all the way to hilt. So, has Ezio somehow recovered, or is he dying and using what's left to kill Borgia, or was healed afterwards? What is this I don't even
It takes days if not weeks for a gut wound to kill you, unless he was completely disemboweled. The only part that doesn't make sense is that he passed out so quickly (or at all) from such a minor wound.
The issue is that, at first, he appears to die from the wound, but then gets up as if nothing had happened. Ezio is badass incarnate, but he's not fucking immortal.
He just got stabbed. He's not going to get up from that immediately! It took him a while to get up the adrenaline to shake it off, that's all.
As much as I love Ezio and dig how badass he is, "adrenaline" alone is not going to allow you "shake off" a hardcore knife wound through the gut. If anything, I more readily buy that Borgia was creating an illusion with the Piece of Eden, and that Ezio had built up a tolerance to it, hence he was able to shake off the "illusion" versus a real stab wound. Especially considering he remained unaffected enough to competently commence "Operation: Beat the Pope's Ass" without even flinching.
Supported by the original Assassin's Creed, where Al Mualim appears to run Alta´r through with a dagger near the beginning of the game, and yet he survives as it's simply an illusion. Still if this is the case, why Borgia would cast an illusion rather than you know, actually stabbing Ezio, is beyond me.
Considering Ezio stabs Borgia first, thinks he killed him and the man get back up just fine I'm guessing the Staff and the Apple do give you some mild immortality while using their power.
This. Considering what we know about the Assassins — and the fact that they seem to actually be able to do most of what they do in the Animus, judging by how Desmond can move and fight — they are significantly more than vanilla humans. This can potentially extend to being able to shrug off injuries that would be fatal to vanilla humans.
In Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, at the beginning of the game mentioned right after the end of the AC 2, Ezio explained that his armor (of Alta´r since he was wearing it) blunted Rodrigo's knife attack, so it is now canon that Ezio wore the Armor of Alta´r in the mission to Rome at the end of AC 2.
I have problems too with the above scene but from another point of view: What is the purpose of this scene? Ezio gets stabbed so that Borgia can open the vault and then Ezio wakes up while Borgia still has to open the vault. It feels like a Big Lipped Alligator Moment.
Not really, Borgia just has trouble finding/opening the vault (since he's not the "prophet" and all), and hadn't managed to get it open by the time Ezio catches back up to him, because when you find him he's all like "How do I do this?!".
Surprised nobody's mentioned this yet. So it's the last fight in the game, Vidic is hell-bent on capturing you and Lucy and finding those world-controlling Pieces of Eden. Abstergo essentially controls the world at this point, with basically limitless resources, technology, and manpower at their disposal. They have the political leeway to do whatever they want with no repercussions whatsoever from the public. So, when choosing the loadout for your elite squad of men to capture highly-trained killers, they decide to give them... metal sticks. I know they can't use lethal weapons, since they're trying to capture them alive, but metal sticks? You'd think the world's most powerful organization would have some tasers, rubber bullets, or even some airsoft guns or rubber bullets on hand. Just bugs me...
Depending on where they are in the world, the security guards carrying guns might have caused complications. If they were in Europe, especially, the guards packing firearms would have resulted in many, many stern glares from local law-enforcement. The Templars are powerful, but not so powerful they can openly flaunt the law.
You can hardly say that carrying a gun in the secret hideout of the Assassins is openly flaunting the law. All that law-enforcement would see is a truck driving up to a warehouse. They could take whatever weaponry they wanted in the truck without seeming even slightly suspicious.
And if law enforcement stops them? If they encounter a checkpoint that requires an inspection, someone is going to raise a few eyebrows.
Tasers also aren't guaranteed to stop someone — especially people with Assassin pedigree; as we've already seen, Ezio was stabbed through the chest and it didn't do much more than slow him down for a bit. Rubber bullets can still kill, too.
I'll buy that, but what about a tranq gun?
See the bit on tasers. To tell the truth, too, tranquilizer guns are a big case of Hollywood Style; they're nowhere near as effective in real life as they are in movies and video games. If they were, they'd be used regularly as LTL weapons. Not to mention the issues involving dosage; if they use too much, they potentially kill Desmond. If they use too little, they don't even slow him down.
I heard of cases where people were hit with softair "toy" guns at the forehead and got nasty scars. I bet even somebody like Desmond would then be off guard and three or four of the guards could have knocked him out completely. Additionally, Abstergo could have at least gave their men some kind of protective armour. They probably know that Assassins are bone-breaking soldiers, sending some lousy security guards with metal-sticks (that┤s how the Templar guys seem to me) will probably result in utter failure. Even when they weren't expecting Desmond getting superpowers, it┤s not like they have to look on their money.
On another note, why didn't Desmond jump on the truck and beat Vidic's ass/kill him at the end? Especially with his newly acquired Le Parkour skills, it would've been easy for him to do it, if only to slow down the Templars and force them to regroup for a bit while the modern Assassins make their escape.
Pulling a Leeroy Jenkins on Vidic might not be too bright of an idea. What if Vidic had a hidden weapon on him, or had more goons waiting in ambush? Hell, the way he was standing there, taunting Desmond, I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to bait Desmond into a trap.
It's also a fan theory that Lucy and the two other "Assassins" aren't really Assassins. I wouldn't put it past the Templars to sacrifice a few guards to see if Desmond is combat ready.
In The Truth: Why does Eve suddenly have the Apple in her hand? She had two hands free before. Did she just telekinetically steal it from Minerva below through her superpowers?
I assumed that was a slight skip in the video since the video isn't of the highest quality and there are a lot of cuts previous to that that.
Is it just me, or does it seem like you're more likely to increase your notoriety for quick, quiet takedowns than you are for long swordfights? If I take a guy out with the hidden blade, even from behind as a stealth kill on a quiet rooftop with no one around, it somehow results in wanted posters being put up, yet a swordfight with multiple guards in the middle of a crowded street apparently leaves no witnesses. It just seems odd considering most games with stealth elements tend to reward players who choose stealth over action.
Your Notoriety only goes up in street fights if a guard escapes to report what happened. Otherwise, they've got unreliable eyewitness testimony from civilians, and remember, this is Renaissance Italy; without guards to actually verify who you are, civilian witnesses' reports are likely going to be chaotic and confused, and the murders would easily be attributed to rival groups of mercenaries, thieves, or other people with swords and murderous intentions. Couple this with the fact that the civilian populace apparently supports Ezio (just listen to their commentary during the swordfights) and many of them may even be falsifying their reports. Also, if you use a high-profile assassination, your Notoriety always go up. This is probably a reflection of the fact that no one else is running around on rooftops brazenly killing guards like you are.
If you take out an enemy stealthily (i.e. a low profile assassination), your notoriety doesn't increase. If you openly brandish your hidden blade, or, worse, pounce on the guy, that ain't stealthy, Hanzo. On the other hand, if you allow him to draw his sword, fight him, and win, you're not dinged. You get off scott-free if he falls off a roof, too. The upshot seems to be is that if you manage to keep your dirty deeds hidden (either by stealth or making it look like an accident), or not be dirty in the first place, your reputation remains intact. This is definitely an improvement over the first game, where defeating a guard in a completely fair fight would have the bystanders screaming "Murderer! He's a murderer!"
Still, it is confusing when you walk around rooftops and stealth kill guards there, they know it's you, but when you run up to them, so that he knows your presence and you quickly high profile hidden blade kill him it get┤s ticked off as some mercenary? The corpse looks the same either way but the stealth approach is the only registered one.
It actually does make sense if you consider that the Animus is registering your actions and comparing them to your ancestor's. If Ezio is performing a high-profile kill, the Animus notes it and Rebecca's programming that tracks your notoriety registers it, automatically raising it. If Ezio is performing high-profile actions, the Animus responds by adjusting the notoriety level to match the level of suspicion Ezio suffered under while doing so. It appears to be a way to improve synchronization, which is the goal here, and not matching up Ezio's notoriety to his actions may result in a loss of synch. If Desmond has Ezio performing high-profile actions, the Animus adjusts the simulation to match Ezio's memories of his experiences on the streets while being high-profile and notorious.
The way Rosa kept on shouting "I'd be better off on my own!" in that Escort Mission in ACII — immediately after I take out all four guards in the area with my double hidden blades. Yeah, like you could kill the guards that efficiently.
It actually does make sense; wounded or not, she might have been able to sneak away if the Amazing Technicolored Ezio hadn't been following her.
Except that if you don't follow her, the guards just kill her.
She doesn't know that. From her perspective, having a hooded, fruity-looking guy with a shiny, colorful cape and shiny reflective armor following her around is just going to make things harder.
Some people are just reeeeeally bad at dealing with crisis situations and are colossal ingrates when receiving help. This bug you? Congratulations, it's supposed to. Please also note her dialogue with Antonio after you bring her to safety. I half-expected him to say "Someone shoot her again!"
Also...Italians can be like that.
Also also, she's in a lot of pain. Determined or no, it's probably affecting her judgement.
What was going in the ending? What was the whole thing with the poles and stuff? It bugs me that I don't get that. Also why is Alta´r's sword for sale at the blacksmith's? It would make far more sense to just include it with his armour after you get the seals.
The poles are nightsticks, like those used by the police. They wanted to bring Desmond in alive so they needed non-lethal weapons. As for how Alta´r's sword ended up at a blacksmith's, I guess it was just passed down through time. The developer's probably figured it'd be too easy if the player could unlock the sword and armour at the same time. Besides, the sword you acquire is Alta´r's first sword. By the end of the first game, he had swapped it for a better sword, so it wouldn't make sense why he would have still had it and left it with his armor.
By the end of the first game, he had swapped it with a sword that historically speaking wasn't made yet. The sword Alta´r gets in the end of the first game is actually one from the 17th century, despite the game taking place in the end of the 12th century... (This is probably yet another case of The Animus Did It)
Or the sword is just a replica.
Oh sorry, I meant the whole pole shifting/earth's magnetic field thing that was dropped at the end of the game, I didn't really understand what was happening and it all felt so rushed.
Hi there, welcome to the concept of the Sequel Hook. Also, Lucy was foreshadowing the thing with the sun and the magnetic fields at the beginning of the game, when she mentioned that they needed to find something hidden in Ezio's memories that was more important than the war with the Templars.
Apparently, the developers of this series like throwing a mind screw of a plot twist at the player and then immediately cutting to the credits (at least the second game handles the cut better). The Codex and Subject 16's puzzles also provide some foreshadowing to the ending. Fully understanding the meta-plot requires more work than the casual player will realize but the coming apocalypse will probably be clarified in the sequels.
About the magnetic pole reversal bit: Basically, every once in a long-ass while, the Earth's magnetic poles...well, reverse. Magnetic north and south switch places. This is normally heralded by a weakening of the magnetic field that protects us squishy beings from solar winds. As of right now, we're apparently due for another switch, which I guess makes as good a plot point as any, because it is sort of a Big Fucking Deal.
So, why do the Templars spend so much time with Desmond to get the map from the Pieces of Eden at the end of the first game if there are something like 20 of these things floating around, and apparently the Templars already have most of them anyway? Did the Assassins steal them all (doubtful) or are they all locked up somewhere?
...because they needed the map to find them because they didn't have any Apples. It doesn't matter how many there are, if you don't know where they are, you're SOL. From the records gathered thus far, the Templars only had a couple of the Pieces of Eden, and all of the available Pieces have been destroyed, i.e. the Staff being used to destroy one of the Apples at Tunguska, or the Apple being used in the airport at Denver being destroyed by accident.
In the first game Alta´r actually looks fairly different from Desmond, their eyes and face are fairly different and the only thing they seem to have in common is the scar (at least that's how it looked to me). In the second game when Desmond has his dream sequence, instead of recycling the Alta´r model, they seem to use a new one that basically looks just like Desmond wearing Alta´r's clothes. Is there any specific reason for this stylistically? I mean it's not like they needed to redo the model, the old one worked fine, what was with that? Is it supposed to represent Desmond getting even more in sync with his genetic memory (although that point was already brought across by the fact that he was reliving the memory without the animus). I can't see how it's laziness seeing as it means they had to update a model rather than just reuse it, so...yeah, there has to be some meaning behind that right?
Increased synchronization, plus the Animus 2.0 is infinitely more badass than the glitchy Animus 1.0 that the Templars had, coupled together with the memory bleeding effect, probably resulted in the similarity.
Actually, since he wasn't in the Animus 2.0 at the time, it's probably just his mind projecting his face onto a deep, genetic memory that was never meant to be brought to the surface. His mind is also not as cool or in control as the Animus 2.0 is. It's projecting Desmond's mental image onto Alta´r because he's dreaming.
Ezio grows a beard between Sequence 11 and Sequence 14. Fine. We all like to change our look from time to time (which is why I don't like to wear Alta´r's armor — Venetian Azure FTW!). But the DLC makes things weird. End of Sequence 12: Ezio gets stabbed in the stomach by one of the Orsi Bros. and passes out. When he comes to, he suddenly has a beard. What?? Was he in a coma? Did he suddenly age five years? Were they planning to give the beard-growing some thematic relevance and then lost interest? He looks hot either way, so it's fine, but the pointless randomness of it bothers me.
I think he passed out for at least a couple of days. Not really enough time to grow a full beard I know, but I guess that's the Animus handwave popping up again. At that point Ezio probably only had a stubble or a thin, patchy beard.
...and apparently decides to go with the look for the rest of his life, so far. He's also rocking the beard in the "Brotherhood" demo and trailers.
Also, he does get a bit more stubbly as the game progress, though it's subtle. He has a bit of five o'clock shadow going on in the sequence where he meets up with Rosa inside the Palazzo Seta and she flirts and kisses him on the cheek. He also looks slightly aged up there as well (deeper voice, slightly thinner, a bit more serious with his "Yeah, I didn't come here to play, I have see Antonio" spiel).
So, what happens if you download the extra levels first and then play through the game?
Do it yourself and find out.
You mean the DLC stuff in Assassin's Creed II? After getting the apple back there's a minor scene where Desmond wakes up and then says something along the lines of "nah, it's ok" and then goes back into the animus and the DLC sequence starts with Rebecca telling Desmond that she's fixed the broken sequences.
Thanks. I was curious if it made the narrative flow better.
That is exactly what this Troper did, and now he's wondering what happens if you don't. Is there an extra Desmond scene about how he can't remember what happened next?
In Brotherhood, Desmond can try and achieve Full Synchronization with Ezio by being particularly badass in missions (don't get caught, don't get hit).
Another question: I probably need to study the Italian Renaissance more, but what is the deal with Uncle Mario? He seems to be the ruler of that town you always go to (can't spell it) and is apparently in charge of repairing and maintaining it. He also has mercenaries, but the mercenaries live there and are more loyal than other mercenaries. So... is the town independent? Is he a governor like figure? Can someone explain, please?
Hard to say since the game doesn't really go into specifics here. He probably serves in a similar capacity as the Medici family does in Florence. Maybe the city has some sort of formal government but the Auditore family are really the ones in charge. He's also apparently the commander of a mercenary group and the mercenaries serve the dual role of city guard when they're not fighting elsewhere. Maybe.
Back in the day, Italian City States like Florence, Milan, Venice and so on were ruled as either Principalities and/or Republics, with powerful families like the Medici, Sforza, and Borgia at the top of the heap. In a thirst for power, the larger city states tended to swallow up any smaller surrounding towns into their political fold, via either outright force, diplomacy/alliances against other competing city states, or shared culture. So a city state like Florence would try to exert control over a smaller but profitable town like Monteriggioni. As Mario says while giving Ezio the tour of the villa when he first arrives, sometimes Monteriggioni is Florence's enemy, who they try to forcefully control, and sometimes it's Florence's ally, to whom they give a little more autonomy.
Also, Monteriggioni seems to be the Auditore seat of power. Considering that Uncle Mario inherited the villa since he is older than Giovanni, as was expected of the time, local rulers/Dukes who ran their town were actually expected to be savvy soldiers, with their own companies of soldiers, who they paid for, trained, and even fought along side with. It was not uncommon for Dukes/rulers to be soldiering condottiero, which loosely translates to "mercenary." So it makes sense that Uncle Mario has a group of condottieri or mercenaries at his beck and call, since it's established that he's a condottiero himself. While Italian city states did rely on paid troops, a lot of times, those troops were made up of second and third sons of various powerful families that were from said state/area (since second and third sons had little chance of inheritance, and being a mercenary was a pretty good way to rake in cash). So likely, the loyal mercenaries of Monteriggioni are from that town, and therefore had a vested interest in protecting it. And for all we know, they could be lower-level assassins themselves, considering that the Auditores are as well.
In Lineage, Ezio seems to suspect that Giovanni is hiding something ("what business does a banker having leaving in the dead of night"), which kind of makes his incredulity at the revelation that his father was an assassin in the actual game ("he was just a banker" "all this talk of Assassins and Templars, it reeks of fantasy") oddly incongruous.
It's one thing to know your father is sneaking out at night to do shady business — especially considering this is freaking Renaissance Italy, where everyone and their mother is sneaking out to do shady business at night. It's another thing altogether for your father to be part of a secret global-spanning sect of assassins who've been secretly controlling history for thousands of years.
In one of the interludes in ACII, Lucy has Desmond activate the warehouse's defense system for when the Abstergo goons inevitably find them. She specifically says defense system, so it's got to be more than just a burglar alarm. But when the goons do show up at the end, said system does absolutely nothing.
Hate to burst your bubble, but an alarm system is a defense system. A fairly basic one, but that's what it is. The system may have had additional components like an electrical shock system, but ultimately the defense system is only going to slow the Templars down, and judging by what we see during that cutscene, the Templars just slammed a truck through the garage door and went rushing inside. Not much you can do to defend against that without setting up a defense way beyond the resources of three Assassins.
During one sequence in the second half of ACII, Ezio is spying on the Big Bad and the remaining members of the conspiracy. Aside from the plot/history demanding that these people get killed at a later time, what's stopping Ezio from jumping down, dropping a smoke bomb, and killing all of them right there?
I believe that Ezio is smart enough to know that he might not be able to take them all down on his own, as all of them are skilled fighters, and he's also investigating their conspiracy. He's not exactly aware that these men are the extent of the conspiracy, after all, and he still needs to know what they're all planning.
It would be a pretty sorry ending if there had been a Man Behind A Man, after all, and Ezio just destroyed his only chance of finding him. Taking that risk wouldn't have been worth it.
Remember also that most of the time when he's assassinating someone, Ezio is either isolating them for information, striking when they are vulnerable, or taking out a target in order to stop them from doing something.
Not to mention that the player could simply not have smoke bombs at the moment.
In "The Truth", Adam and Eve are white. I realize the game calls into question the standard interpretation of past events, but all I see in the video is white people, and supposedly that's not the color of our ancestors. I think it's kind of a trope when white skin is the de facto standard. Also, aren't they supposedly in Africa, considering that's Kilimanjaro in the background?
They looked Japanese to me. I originally thought The Truth was a future event.
Humans in this setting are a manufactured species whose history has been completely fabricated. Why are you accepting anything in history as fact when we know most of our history has been distorted and fabricated right down to our fossil records? For fuck's sake, the tagline of this series is "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
Just because Adam and Eve are white doesn't mean all the humans enslaved by the Predecessors/Forerunners/Whatever are white. All it means is that those few humans we see in the Truth video are white. If I was a Sufficiently Advanced Alien who was going to construct an entire species of beings to serve as slave labor, I'd be sure to throw some genetic diversity into the mix to ensure the population stayed healthy.
The existence of non-Caucasians is a fabrication of the Templars. Whenever you see a black person, it's a Templar in a clever disguise.
How about Lucy? She's a Reverse Mole who managed to infiltrate the Templars' organization. The same Templars who have unlimited resources, and probably know at least a little bit about background checks. The Animus and Alternate History can't hand wave this one: somehow an Assassin, almost certainly descended from a line of Assassins, got put on an obviously high-priority project by the Knights Templar. Even if Lucy and the rest of the Assassins had faked evidence, the Templars probably have enough resources and training to spot faked evidence and find the original. You'd think that if there was even a sign of evidence-tampering anywhere near Lucy's backstory, they wouldn't have touched her, because she would have at least screwed with the Templars' version of the Animus, introduced faulty codes or something, which she likely did (the first game's Animus is surely less advanced than the second game's Animus 2.0), and what she ended up doing was certainly far, far more devastating. You'd think that before taking her and putting her on a sensitive project, they would have examined every corner of her background, making sure that her ancestors since Alta´r's time had never met anyone who knew someone who might have ever talked to the brother of anyone who ever passed an Assassin in the street, plus screened for misleading, tampered, or faked evidence. Unless Shaun Hastings is some kind of Physical God of Computers, it would have been impossible to hide her involvement with the Assassins, too much cross-referencing.
You're ignoring the obvious explanation, which is that Lucy was turned after she joined Abstergo, probably by one of the Subjects. I may be wrong, but I can't remember her ever mentioning she was descended from assassins.
Also, don't forget that the Assassins have been around just as long as the Templars — if anyone can slip someone through their security, its them.
Given the ending to Brotherhood, it seems likely that Lucy was never a Reverse Mole.
In the Lost Archive DLC, it's revealed that While in Abstergo and isolated from the Assassins, Lucy changed her loyalties after Warren Vidic showed her compassion and acted as a confidant to her while William Miles (the de facto leader of the Assassins at that point) was cold and distant. Coupled with the loneliness Lucy faced, this caused her to switch forces without the Assassins ever noticing.
I don't get the assassinate-from-ledge in 2. The one where Ezio stabs the guard, then pulls him down so he falls to the ground is considered Low Profile, whereas the one where Ezio jumps onto the roof and kills the guard there is considered High Profile? What's so Low Profile about a body falling from above to the ground? Any moderately sensible person would be led to look up and thus would spot Ezio. On the other hand, the so-called High Profile kill would not leave any immediate reason for passers-by to notice unless they were somehow on the roof as well.
I think the game defines high- and low-profile kills differently from how you or I would define them. It seems to be less about whether people are watching and more about how much of a spectacle the kill was. Leaping 20 feet to stab a dude in the esophagus is very showy and dramatic. Reaching up from a ledge and shanking a dude in the gut is not as showy or dramatic. And IIRC, a ledge-kill WILL get you noticed if you don't quickly move to where the crowd on the street can't see you.
It's also worth noting that by the time the crowd looks up, Ezio is already on the roof and out of view. It would be easy to dismiss it as the guard losing his balance or something.
Why is it that, during the "Chase That Fucking Templar!" sequences in those goddamn tombs, they straight-up disable your throwing knives, and later, your gun? There's not even a pretense towards explaining it ("Oh, uh, Ezio forgot to load up on knives! And bullets. And common fucking sense."), you're just left with absolutely no option but chasing those irritating bastards. I get that they didn't want you to Combat Pragmatist your way out of a no-doubt painstakingly designed sequence, but it still reeks of bullshit. The worst part being that, if you fail and can't catch them (likely on your first try), you have to fight an entire room of those jackasses and you still don't get your stuff back. What happened to striking from stealth? A hailstorm of knives is a pretty damn efficient way to take down a room full of guards, last time I checked.
Because of Gameplay and Story Segregation. It's a scripted sequence, killing him as soon as you see him would ruin it. That's exactly why he's just out of your reach the entire time, until the end. More than half the time, the guard isn't even out in the open enough so that Ezio could even hit him with a throwing knife, let alone his gun. Also, think about it this way: There's only one way for the Templar to go, and that's deeper into the tomb, where his friends are having a meeting...exactly where Ezio wants to be led. Now, you could either be chasing this Templar, or pulling some lever and hoping you don't make a mistake so that you can get to the other side of a chasm before the gate closes. I'd take a Templar sequence over a time trial any day. Now go wash your mouth out.
Simple. Learn how to catch the guard before he gets away. It's not impossible, just tricky. Near the end of every chase you enter a long straight room with an elevated section on one side. If you free-run up on top of that elevated section you can gain enough height to do a high-profile assassination. Then you can calmly sneak past the rest of the guards.
Most likely Ezio just didn't do that, so you can't. I haven't played the 2nd game, but maybe he was too caught up in the action or emotion to think of using them. He isn't as professional as Alta´r.
Ezio has Improbable Fencing Powers, is Not Quite Human, and comes from a city historically famous for inventing a swordfighting style where you use two weapons at once — why can't you use your sword and dagger at the same time? Maybe they're saving that for the third game?
Maybe he needs his left hand free to use the hidden blade?
Why does Minerva address the camera? Even if she's not really talking to Ezio, surely Desmond is seeing things from his viewpoint. The only person watching from that angle is the player, and as much of a mind screw as that whole sequence may be, it makes no sense in-universe.
Desmond isn't seeing things from Ezio or Alta´r's perspective. The player perspective is his perspective.
I've had dreams in the third-person many times. A second in-game example that nods at Desmond sharing his perspective with the player is in his dream where the camera angle stays on Maria, zooming towards her abdomen while Desmond questions why the camera is no longer following Alta´r.
It seems odd that Desmond could develop the same balance, reflexes, skills, etc. as Ezio while watching everything from a third-person perspective, though.
Did Alta´r and Maria ever actually get married, or was it just a relationship that also involved children?
I'm not sure if the Assassins of his time even practiced marriage. Alta´r talks about his parents in very distant terms, but beyond that we don't really know anything about marriage for his order.
In the Secret Crusade novelization, it states that Alta´r and Maria were wed in Cyprus. So yes, they were married.
Why did the development team feel the need to state that the game was made by people of varying faiths and beliefs (something along those lines)? Diversity is good, but it kinda feels like a dubious disclaimer considering how they attribute things such as the parting of the Red Sea to something other than the power of God, as well as unnecessary.
Well, it probably has something to do with the fact that sometimes you're doing things like killing the Pope. They wouldn't want to be seen as anti-Catholic or supporting anything in particular. That's probably why they had Rodrigo Borgia and others explain that they don't even believe in their religion. The game has also showed (mostly) good examples of clergy.
Because the game is being played by humans. Humans, as you may have noted, have a tendency to get easily offended, especially over things that play around with historical fact. When humans are offended, lawyers ensue.
Also, this game is essentially made for Americans and the first game came out during the Iraq War. Assassin's Creed is about a Middle-Eastern culture killing The Templars (pre-dominantly white/Europeans). It's so that any real-world allusions aren't made.
Somebody at Ubisoft decided it would be a good idea to put "grab ledge" and "drop right off the fucking ledge" on the same button. Yes, Ubi, they both involve ledges, but in a game where there is often a lag (even a slight one) between controller input and game output, this leads to players grabbing a ledge, not realizing they've grabbed it yet and pressing the button again, and ending up on the ground.
You can actually hold down "grab ledge" to avoid this. It's really the only way to get into the Castello the first time — though, like me, it might take you a half-dozen desyncs to figure it out.
I've never had this issue when grabbing ledges.
Then, you're a fucking prodigy with a controller.
When Ezio collects all of the Codex pages and brings them back to Monteriggioni and then solves the puzzle, he concludes (correctly) that it's a map of Earth. This makes absolutely no sense. How would he KNOW that, given the time period? There is no corroborating evidence to support his theory, making it an illogical conclusion, and beyond that... He just deciphered a map of the entire world! Why is no one astonished or excited? I—I don't even... ARRRRRRRGH!
You forget that Ezio solves the Codex in 1499, seven years after Columbus set sail. By that time, Europe's intelligensia was already fully aware of the existence of the Americas. Ezio, an educated gentleman, (whose hobbies include running around on rooftops and murdering people) would already know this.
Because the Assassins already know what the world looks like. Y'know, that whole giant global map that Alta´r discovered inside the POE in the first game? How the hell do you think Alta´r knew how to draw such a map in the first place? Alta´r knew what the world looked like, drew a map, and that information was passed down through the years to the other Assassins.
I'm personally confused as to how anyone missed this. I mean, wasn't the fact that Alta´r was shown a map of the entire planet kind of the entire point of the first game?
If the Troper hadn't played the first game, they wouldn't have known. Also, we're never shown in-game that Ezio would have knowledge of the map, so...
It's a sequel in a plot-heavy series. If you haven't played the first game, then you should be confused. Its like reading The Two Towers before reading Fellowship of the Ring.
You're all missing the point, Ezio has never seen a full map, he himself said that there were undiscovered lands on the map. However Asia and Northern Africa were discovered well before his time, he just guessed that the Americas were undiscovered lands.
Exactly. Ezio has never seen a full map of the world, but he has probably seen Europe and most of Asia and Northern Africa. Another landmass to the West was discovered six years before this point in the story by Columbus, so it's likely the gathered Assassins simply put two and two together.
Columbus did not discover another landmass — or rather he did, but never realised it. America was not realised to be a continent separate from Asia until the voyages of Amerigo Vespucci (thus the name), who first set sail in 1499. So at that point, no one would have any idea that America existed, they would expect to see Europe, Atlantic Ocean, Asia. With Africa to the south.
Also, in Assassin's Creed II: Discovery, Ezio has contact with an Atlas that depicts new lands.
Aside from how Ezio has been an Assassin for decades by that point and has likely read hints in Alta´r's journal regarding a map of the world, this isn't some random drawing he found in a scrapbook. It's a magical map drawn by a man who had access to ancient knowledge, moreover one that required a super-sense to assemble and view. Ezio wisely decided that it trumped all then-current ideas of geography.
So there I was, standing on the wall of Monterrigioni, waiting for the sun to rise. And as I watched, the full moon, slowly, majestically, sunk towards the horizon, touched it, and disappeared. And then, the sun rose from the spot it had vanished.
Doesn't the moon set in the east? *does research* Ah, yeah....good point...
The gun. I agree with Yahtzee. Yes, it's incredibly pimpy to headshot people, but could the technology of the day really deliver a wrist-mounted micro-musket?
What Yahtzee forgot is that it isn't just the "technology of the day". It's knowledge gained from the Apple of Eden itself. Alta´r pulled the design out of the Apple, wrote it down, and built it. Shazam, wrist-mounted micro-musket made.
Remember, Yahtzee has never been terribly good at following the plot and in-game information of any story he's experiencing (for pity's sake, he had trouble following Black Ops' story) so he's not likely to catch something like an optional codex page that explicitly spells out how Alta´r engineered the gun.
Also, clockpunk. Clockpunk needed.
And furthermore, it takes a day and a night to set up the shot as it is. Sure, it kills in one hit, but it takes a good five seconds for the shot to be completely lined up for accuracy.
Also keep in mind that the fourth glyph all but outright says that firearms were never invented by mankind, and that gunpowder itself was created using a Piece of Eden. Revelations implies that Alta´r engineered the actual first firearm using the Piece of Eden to provide him with the schematics.
It's a video game, who cares?
It's a narrative within a video game, those following the narrative ought rightly to care.
How the hell did Caterina Sforza (who can't swim) get stranded on a rock in the middle of a marsh?
If the rest of the area is anything to go by, the tides tend to vary greatly in Romagna (hence the flooded buildings near the coast). Maybe Caterina got up on that rock to read a book or watch the ships come in or take a nap or something and got stuck there when the high tide rolled in.
In the novel, she and her husband were out in a boat and she was yelling at him about something he did, so he lost his temper and abandoned her on the rock.
Which kinda explains why she had him killed.
Actually that was only part of the reason, he was also aiding the Templars in finding the Codex pages. If you finish the Battle of Forli and still don't have all the Codex pages Caterina will give you a map that will lead you to the rest of them and mentions it repeatedly throughout the DLC.
During the game, Medici is declared to be dead yet after the game contracts it's still possible to kill guards wishing to kill Medici.
Lorenzo may be dead, but Medici family members are still around and still in control of Florence.
Also, are the Assassination missions not just memories of Ezio's that you don't play in chronological synchronisation with the plot? You're accessing memories of Ezio's assassinations that he could have completed way before he went to Venice, for example, but since they only add to your overall synchronisation with him, rather than being the meat of it, you can do them whenever.
How is it that all the codex pages written by Alta´r in 13th century Syria end up spread around renaissance Italy? Same goes for his armor and the tombs of six random assassins.
The Assassin's Tomb in Monteriggioni explains this. Basically, the codex pages were entrusted by Alta´r to Marco Polo, who in turn wound up entrusting them to an Auditore ancestor (the one who built the Monteriggioni villa, and whose tomb it was). Said ancestor's ship was overrun by pirates (presumably Templars looking for the codex), so he tore off all the pages and stuffed them into boxes the ship was taking to market. That's how they got scattered over Italy. The implication is that some of them made they way into Templar hands eventually, but they did not realize that the pages were part of a whole codex.
Revelations reveals that both the Codex pages and the Keys Alta´r carried were passed off to the Polo brothers. Unfortunately for them, the Codex pages ended up getting stolen by the Mongols, and never properly recovered. It's fairly easy to assume that from that point on, the Templars and Assassins were both scrambling to collect them, even if they had little use for them without Eagle Vision. This is why you find some pages around Mario's house and most locked up under Templar guard; the Codex had been so messed up after trading hands so many times that all the pages might as well have been scattered to the wind.
Apart from holding the coveted title of Most Irritating Sons Of Bitches On The Face Of The Planet, they seem to legitimately sing in English, because they occasionally sing a verse in English and finish it with a word in Italian that rhymes with the English word. You could explain this away as part of the Animus 2.0 compensating but I don't think it has — in its large, large list of Headscracher-defeating features — a 'Turn Minstrel's Songs Into English Versions Of The Song With The Occasional Italian Word That Doesn't Break The Rhyme Of The Song' setting.
I like to pretend the Minstrels were a practical joke by Rebecca. She finished programming the Animus with time to spare so, just to be a smartass, she coded in a bunch of annoying Minstrels complete with annoying makes-no-sense songs.
If that's the case it's a goddamn horrible joke.
So what's the deal with the fact that Desmonds free-running animations completely change from Assassin's Creed 2 to Brotherhood. In the training in 2 he has a much more loose and bouncy style that doesn't use his hands as much where as in brotherhood they seem to have just copy and pasted Ezio's
The bleeding effect?
Yes, it's the bleeding effect. The whole point is that Desmond picks up Ezio's skills. The fact that he starts running exactly like Ezio means that the bleeding effect is having exactly the effect that the Assassins want on Desmond.
Actually after looking closer, his free-running in Brotherhood is closer to Alta´r's than Ezio's, he lacks the hand over hand climbing, and the big jumps that Ezio can perform.
If the subtitles are only available on Animus 2.0, how are there subtitles when you're in the Animus 1.0 and Ezio is born?
No one said that the original didn't have subtitles.
Except Desmond says the subtitles were a "huge plus", and there were no subtitles options in the Animus 1.0.
That was a reference to the Animus sequences being in English with the occasional foreign word — the subtitles translate the non-English, which is useful for the viewer.
In Venice, Ezio eavesdrops on a meeting of the Templar leaders, including Borgia himself, in order to learn about their plans to assassinate the Doge. This meeting takes place in the city streets, where said leaders are completely unarmed, unescorted, and unguarded. There is absolutely nothing to stop Ezio from just walking up behind them and jamming his hidden blades into their backs, thereby foiling the plot and ending the game right there, except that the plot says he has to stay at least 5 meters away from them and he'll desynch if they notice him. And that just bugs me — in a metafictional sense, it can be justified since Desmond is only re-experiencing Ezio's memories of watching and not interfering, but it doesn't make any sense that you don't have the ability to just shank them when they're vulnerable and unprotected.
But they are protected — Dante Moro isn't there as a part of the conspiracy — he's the bodyguard.
Also, he's kinda in public. He might be an Assassin, but just knifing all of them lacks subtlety. He's trying to take out the whole conspiracy, and if there's others he just eliminated his only link to them.
Why is Ezio so disrespectful of the Assassins' tombs he uncovers? He jumps through all the hoops to open them, then just shoves the Sarcophagus open to take the seal and leaves it that way. Indeed, in the San Marco cathedral he doesn't even close the entryway behind him, which is of course open to the main area of the cathedral.
Because he got what he came for and therefore exhausted his supply of shits to give. He's still (relatively) young when he completes the seal collection — he probably didn't develop a sense of respect and awe until later in his life. Or he just figured that it didn't matter because the tombs were only built to house the seals, not to actually pay any real respect. Pick which one you like better.
I played the PC version, which has the DLC sequences for 12 and 13 baked right into the main plot (indeed, I didn't even know they had originally been DLC until reading it online, leaving me a bit confused when Rebecca and Lucy referred to 'broken sequences' once or twice). The large timeskip may have been more justifiable when you're playing through and going straigth from 11 to 14, but it felt really odd to me here - sequence 12 ends with Ezio getting stabbed, passing out, and having the Apple stolen from him. He wakes up, presumably a few days to a week (two weeks at MOST - considering how easily he shrugs off Borgia's stab at the end of the game he's obviously tougher than that). I can understand his suddenly having a beard (and deciding not to shave it for the remainder of the game), but what I CAN'T understand is that the next sequence is TEN YEARS after the fact!! Most other timeskips were a year or two, but now he's just had an insanely powerful brainwashing device stolen right out from underneath him. It also wouldn't take too long to question the monks and find out who was responsible, and where he was headed. So why the Hell didn't he just rush back to Florence as soon as possible to handle the Bonfire of the Vanities sequence? The fact that the devs chose THIS moment to skip ahead another 10 years just baffles me, when they could have at least done it AFTER he'd retrieved the Apple (and before assembling all the codex pages) if they wanted to end the game in 1499. What possibly justifies Ezio waiting around for 10 whole years, letting Savonarola brainwash and terrorize the general populace of Florence, before getting off his ass and getting that Apple back?