Alright lets just put the answer to the first question anyone will ask and get that out of the way: it's pronounced "Ra-don-ha-gay-don".
Thanks. I was going to ask how you pronounced Connor's Indian name. xD
are you sure? I always thought it was Ra-ton-ha-kay-ton. look at the spelling 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".
well, in the only flat English pronouncement of the name (when Connor is first asked by Achilles what his name is) that time, it actually sounded like Rat-toe-hah-kay-tohn.
Why is Connor still walking around in a white robe? There aren't priests or gaudy Renaissance nobles to blend in with anymore.
He's wearing a light infantry coat. This makes perfect sense given the setting and explains away why people find it normal to see him walking around with ridiculous amounts of weapons.
Most of the trailers and early gameplay show Connor in a snowy environment so he uses it as camouflage.
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.
He doesn't wear a robe, he wears a white hooded longcoat, it's been adapted for the times and, other than the hood, would be a pretty normal cold weather outfit(and even then the hood works, since it covers the eyes from snow).
Mind you that hood looks removable so take that as you will.
Since you don't lose synchronization for changing the color of Connor's clothes, one could argue that this makes the color changes canon, which suggests that Connor changed the color of his robes to suit his environment.
While I agree with the conclusion, considering that in Brotherhood you can run around like this◊, the concept of changing the costume itself doesn't say whether changing clothes to suit environments is canonical or not.
Impaling a British soldier with a musket and shooting another one on the other side of him. While cool to see, that isn't how bayonets on muskets at the time worked. Socket bayonets are set off to the side from the barrel so you can still fire with a bayonet attached, but you wouldn't be able to stick your musket all the way through the target. You could shove the bayonet itself through a person, but how is the musket getting through? the barrel would just hit flesh and stop.
Remember, this is the same guy who, earlier in that very gameplay demo, freed someone from a stockade by knocking off the lock with his bare fist. Assassins are not ordinary people.
Genetic Assassins are explicitly superhuman. Their behavior across all the previous games to date has been consistent with that, and we know as of Brotherhood that genetic Assassins are the descendants of deliberate genetic gene-splicing between Those Who Came Before and humans. Connor, as a genetic Assassin, is not wholly human.
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.
Good lord, three comments and nobody gets it yet. He's stabbing the soldier with the musket and then firing through him to hit the other.
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.
...So, in the trailer, why did the Templar redcoat have a chain around his neck with the Templar insignia? Aren't the Templars supposed to be a secret organization?
It was hidden under his coat and carrying cross is not all that big of a deal, anyway. Most people wouldn't recognize it as a symbol of a secret society. It's not all that unlike with the Freemasons who also were a secret organization in their early days but their members still liked to wear signs that only a fellow Mason would recognize.
Connor fakes being a Spaniard... while wearing moccasins, a uniform with Native American bead-work, and using a tomahawk?
Connor "fakes" being a Spaniard for all of five minutes in which he has to talk to a single merchant, and everyone who sees him immediately identifies him as native.
Besides, at the time it was not unheard of for European colonists to run around wearing similar clothes and carrying a tomahawk. Trappers and other frontiersmen wore them all the time.
Why does the Animus not translate the Mohawk language spoken by Connor, his mother, and others? It translated Arabic into English, Italian into English, etc... Why does it stop working for Native American languages?
The answer is obvious. The Animus simply isn't translating anymore. In colonial America, everyone is speaking English at least as a second language, so it isn't bothering churning any other language through the translator anymore. So when people speak a language that's not English, it's not for Rule of Drama or a glitch; it's just that the Animus isn't even bothering to.
It could also be that the voice program isn´t evolved enough for their language. Current computerized voices sound nearly human in English but in most other languages, like cyborgs.
Presumably, the animus isn't translating it for the same reason that the animus didn't translate French in Brotherhood. Rebecca's translation program doesn't cover that language yet.
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.
How come people's clothing doesn't update to match the seasons? Boston is filled with people who apparently go around barefoot in the snow. No one wears coats or winter clothes.
Poor Ziio. Hanging out in the brutal midwinter without any furs on...
Animus limitations. Rebecca patched in seasonal and weather changes but forgot to alter clothing to match.
So the Animus can tell you you've received new email, but not let you READ said emails... Why?
Because Desmond is working while in the Animus. He can read emails while on break.
And you can leave the Animus at any time to read them.
They said early in the pre-release interviews that they didn't want to make him a Leonardo Da Vinci Expy. He's just another of the founding fathers that we saw, who also got similar screentime. In the end, he was mostly an inventor and speaker, and was actually in Europe during most of the Revolution so it's unlikely that Connor (who was helping the Patriots mostly militarily) would encounter him often.
I remember them talking in an interview about using him as a comic-relief character with emphasis on his womanizing. In a way similar to Leonardo but not a direct copy. It is still a bit ridiculous to speak of him as if he was a major part of the game, when his on screen appearances are only two scenes.
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.
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 Benjamin Franklin'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.
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?
The reason he's not doing a Leonardo was explained by the devs: For much of the game's time frame he's not in the USA, but in France, working to get support for the rebellion.
It seems UbiSoft recognized this complaint though, as not only is he showing up in the Tyranny of King George DLC but apparantly will have a major part in the 2nd and possibly 3rd episodes as well. So Hooray.
Why does Vidic puts himself in a room with guards where Desmond can reach him with the Apple??? He knows the apple can Mindcontrol people. Abstergo's entire plans revolve around the apple doing that. Did he seriously never consider that Desmond could just use the apple for what it is meant to do?
He was attempting to use a Batman Gambit. He assumed Desmond would hand it over when his father's life in Vidic's hands. Either he was unaware that the Apple could be used in that way, or if he was, unaware that Desmond was able to use it like that, or even then, hoping his ranting at Desmond would convince him to give it up. Underestimating opponents is practically the MO of Abstergo, considering their guards only ever use telescoping batons and are apparently afraid to fire their pistols and Vidic never thinks to get better security. He also was undergoing a Villainous Breakdown at the moment, and people don't often stay calm and rational at that point.
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.
He hadn't expected Desmond to get that far, so he was simply bluffing. At least with bluffing there was a chance Desmond might give up the apple. Surrendering might have kept him alive, but what good is Vidic without the Apple? Human life has notoriously low value for the Templars, their own probably no exception.
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.
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.
Regarding the attack on Connor's village near the beginning, was Charles Lee responsible for that? Haythem seems convinced Lee didn't do it. Even during Haythem and Connor's final battle, Haythem says that he's proved to Connor that the Templars were innocent of that attack. Yet Connor is still determined to kill Lee anyway. So who's responsible for it? And if it's not Lee, why does Connor concentrate on killing Lee rather than finding the true perpetrators?
It was implied that George Washington was actually the one who ordered it. He had somewhat justifiable reasons, as Indians were raiding colonists and they don't know their Indian types. Connor just has a grudge against Lee for his attacking him and ranting about how the Indians lived in the dirt would all die, so he hated how someone as racist as Lee could potentially become one of the highest officers of America. Also, Connor finds Lee to blame for turning his childhood friend against him , resulting in said friends death. Really, neither have been particularly nice to each other.
Plus, don't forget guilt by association. Even if Lee himself didn't lay waste to Connor's village, he's buddy-buddy with the man who is implied to have given the order. Since Lee did nothing to stop Washington from giving out the order, did nothing to try and save the Natives (and Lee himself clearly shows nothing but contempt for the Natives), the blood of the Natives (and Connor's mother) is on both Lee and Washington equally. Connor just hates Lee more because it was Lee who physically attacked him and knocked him out all those years ago.
I think it's partially to do with Juno. She told Connor to protect the sanctuary by seeking out Achilles. Achilles, being an Assassin, figured that that meant stopping the Templars and told Connor that that was what he needed to do. Since Connor originally believed Lee burned his village, that suited him just fine. But even after he learned that Lee wasn't responsible, he still figured he needed to stop the Templars. But since he was hoping to make peace with Haytham, Lee moved to the top of his list. I like to believe that Juno was manipulating Connor a little, knowing that he'd go after Lee so he would end up with the amulet. Her first conversation with him seems to imply that doing as she says will protect his village (even though it turned out to be a lie), so that was his main motivation.
It's important to remember that, while it's implied that Washington might have been the one who really burned Connor's village, it's never confirmed. It's still entirely possible that Lee really was the one who did it. Lee may have hated the Natives so much that he defied Haytham's orders to leave the village alone. And Washington's campaign against the local Indian tribes would have given him plausible deniability. If Haytham found out Ziio's village was burned Lee could always blame it on Washington.
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 Cin C, 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." Occam's Razor 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, Occam's Razor 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 Xanatos Gambit 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 Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag 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.
So, the ending. How is it that releasing Juno magically resolves the solar flare apocalypse thing? Juno's exposition when you put in the power supply things goes through the details of how everything TWCB tried, failed. Minerva's dialogue at the end collaborates this, when she says they had hoped the humans could build on what they started in the hope they could succeed (evidently, they hoped their message would be received in time to allow something to be done, a plan which also failed). Yet releasing Juno somehow resolves the problem on its own, according to that newscast. What gives?
Those that came before all died not because there was no solution, they died before they could find one. Juno had over 70,000 years to come up with a solution. Once it was completed, she could easily have rigged it to release her bonds to the grand temple, and Minerva was smart enough to see what Juno was up to, proved by her admittance. Minerva wanted the humans to find their own solution, because she knew what would happen is either extinction or enslavement by Juno if they failed. Really, it's not as unlikely as you think.
It's one of two things: A. The first of the six solutions mentioned, the four towers around the world that would absorb the solar flare, and were set to auto-build, and Juno has rigged it so activating them releases her as well or B. Minerva had some sort of solution that Desmond releases by touching the Eye, and Juno rigs it so she is released when Desmond touches the Eye.
I could see option B maybe but wouldn't the towers have been destroyed during the First 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.
In Juno's chats with Desmond about solutions the First Civilization tried, she explains why each proved unworkable except for two. One was the one where they tried uploading themselves into computers, and it's fairly clear that that's how Juno survived all those thousands of years. The other is those towers; after explaining that they couldn't possibly work on them fast enough to finish them in time, she says "some thought to automate the process." This is partly speculation, but I'm thinking Juno was one of those "some". She had no way to stop the coming disaster, but she knew that she could survive in a computer, but that to get out she needed someone else to poke a magic ball. From the FC's future-seeing powers, she also knew that the FC would be extinct by this time. So she set the towers to keep building themselves, and manipulated the Assassins so that they would find her just when their time was nearly up. They release her, she turns on the towers, and she's got a world to conquer.
It is (sort of) explained at the end of the game. Near the end (of first civ), Juno goes nuts, stops trying to save the world, and starts trying to conquer it, so Minerva and Tinia imprison her, and go back to their search for a way to stop the apocalypse. They succeed. Minerva develops the device Desmond finds in the end (the eye),in order to stop the apocalypse via manipulating the underlying math of the space/time continuum. However, while debugging it or something, she discovers that Juno has manipulated the device so that by using it to stop the flare, Juno will be released, and I think, have total power over the eye. Minerva is so scared of that happening that she chose to let the flare happen rather than release Juno. I still have some questions about that too, though. for them, see the last entry on this page
My question is WHY we switched over to Connor while using the animus. Not just because I would have liked to continue playing as Haytham, but because he and lee were the ones who had the key Desmond was looking for. Wouldn't it have made more sense for Desmond to use Haytham's memories until the point where Connor kills him? By then Desmond for sure would have known that Lee had the key on him and he could have just followed Connor from that point onward if need be. I get that from a narrative perspective it would have been really stupid to play as Connor for like 5 minutes, but story-wise I think it makes way more sense. They had no reason to think Connor would get his hands on it right, or am I forgetting something?
If I remember correctly, the animus only allows access to the ancestor's memories until the point that they have a kid and therefore, past on their genetics. This was in the second game I believe.
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.
Those aren't genetic memories. They're memories recorded on First Civ artifacts by Altair as viewed by Ezio.
Aside from the above-mentioned passing-on of genetic information, playing as Connor just long enough to see where the key was buried would probably not have been enough information to find it quickly. By living his life through a few years, you get a sense of not only where the key was later hidden, but where that place was in relation to Boston, New York, etc.
From a gameplay perspective, it's simple. The whole point of playing as Haytham is to find out how he establishes his order in the colonies (as well as the, heh heh, true nature of said order). Once that's done, there isn't really anything left for him to assassinate, climb, free run, hunt, or tail until he meets his son much later. Besides, Connor has a lot more weapons and we don't want to waste too much time getting to use them.
When did Connor meet the Marquis de la Fayette? He can be talked to in Valley Forge acting like he'd already met Connor and later he shows up completely willing to help Connor bombard New York. He isn't even named in game, in fact for the sake of clarity he's the Frenchman in the powdered wig in the third act.
He's willing to help Connor with his plan because he's grateful for his help at the Battle of Monmouth and witnessed first-hand Charles Lee's mismanagement of the battle, abandoning his troops, and apparent betrayal, so he's more inclined to believe Connor. As for how he knows him at Valley Forge, Connor had helped out the colonist forces enough by that point that he's probably more widely recognized among them. Also there's a pretty big time gap in between sequences so it's possible they were introduced offscreen some time.
When Connor's childhood friend Kanen'tó:kon tells him that Charles Lee told him that Connor had betrayed their people, why did he believe him? Why would you believe a complete stranger over a friend that you have known for years? Or why didn't he give Connor a chance to explain himself? In addition to this, why didn't Connor say that it was Charles Lee that burned down their village and killed his mother all those years ago? You would think that make a convincing argument.
Well, Kanen knows that Connor has been assisting the Patriots, and a whole platoon of them were waiting just outside the village waiting for the orders to raze everything. Lee took advantage of Kanen's shock and told him what he wanted to hear; that Connor has been subverted, and offers him a way to save his people. As for Kanen's death, that's the point. Kanen is so infuriated, and within seconds gets so close to killing Connor that the assassin has no choice but to retaliate. Connor just takes Kanen's avoidable death as another reason to hate Lee.
As for why he never told Kanen years ago, maybe he did, but Kanen simply forgot. It was a decade ago, after all, and all the emotional stress from having your home burned down won't help with your memory skills. And maybe Connor never told anyone else; it was his personal vendetta.
This is properly more a case of "It Just Bugs Me", but why were all of the forts under a British flag? During development (and during all of the trailer backlash from Non-American fans) Ubisoft were always telling us that the games were going to be played neutral and that there was Templars and Assassins on both sides in the War. Yet, despite the fact that all of the forts were under Templar rule, they also all flew the British flag.
Well, Connor was on the side of the Americans most of the time, considering he did help them with several battles, so logically he'd still continue helping the Patriots. As for why they were Templar forts, they really weren't. Instead, the Commander of the fort was a Templar. He's able to use his authority as the one in charge of the fort to spread Templar influence in the area, like patrolling for wandering Assassins, help smuggle Templar supplies, or arming Templar mercenaries.
As for Ubisoft's claim, they weren't lying. Connor's second target, about half of the Templar agents killed in recruit missions, and many mercenaries were on the Patriot's side. That said, the Templars did eventually find it preferable for the colonies to gain independence, and Connor had already killed the Templars that were on the British side.
But despite all of that, couldn't they have made at least a few of the fort's manned by the colonies, just to show further that not all redcoats were Templars.
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 Big Bad 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."
Why are there not any Templar forts under the American flag prior to the end of the war? Because the BRITISH are the established government and standing army in the colonies! Fortifications and their garrisons are really expensive to properly maintain, and generally require large stocks of heavy armament and professional soldiers to do in peacetime which the British Empire proper had and the Colonial administrations did not. When the uprising started, none of the forts featured in the game or in the colonies in real life actually *were* controlled by the colonies, but by the British Army for that precise reason: they were the only ones trusted enough to man them for both political reasons and because they were the only military force of sufficiently high caliber to do it. Of course, the fact that it was managed as part of the standing political order just allowed the Templars to insert their chosen men into command of it, which they could have never done working through a Continental government and army that *didn't exist at the time.* You'll also note that if you haven't kept up with your Liberation missions and some forts are still around by the time Evacuation Day rolls around, the Templar Forts turn American but remain Templar. Funny thing, that.....
How did Achilles know that Haytham was Connor's father? Did he pay a visit to Connor's village at one point? Did the Ones Who Came Before tell him in a vision? From the moment Achilles allowed Connor into the home, and to when they went into the basement, there didn't seem to be a moment where he was, "Hey, Achilles. My dad's name is Haytham." "Oh? He's the Grand Elder of the Templar!" It just seems to come out of the blue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there was a Time Skip of about several months from Connor meeting Achilles to being able to play him again. Plenty of time for a conversation about Connor's history, the Assassins or the Templars to bring up Haytham, which would lead to Connor's connection to him being revealed.
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.
Why doesn't Connor offer his people land in Davenport when they are forced to move? Sure he got there after it occurred but they surely could again. It is large enough, close to the original camp location and he can protect them as he outright owns the land after Achilles dies.
Connor seemed pretty surprised to see that his entire village was abandoned, so it's probable that they never told him. After all, he was working with the people who ended up driving them off their land, and did kill their previous chief, which would make them reluctant to turn to someone they weren't sure they could trust. Even if he did, they wouldn't want to become "civilized" and like many Indians at the time, thought they could escape the colonist's influence by moving west.
By the end of the game, Davenport Homestead is a small town. Theirs not too much space for an entire village unless they were to set their longhouses on the edge of a cliff and try to ignore the growing area around them.
To expand on that, would the colonists of Davenport Homestead want to have Connor's tribe right next to them? Connor would have to do a serious meeting with all the colonists of the Homestead, and his own tribe and let them debate that issue, because somehow, I don't think they'd appreciate it if Connor suddenly moved his tribe to the Homestead without letting them know.
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 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.
Did he know that these would be the specific gaggle that would attack his village?
They're the only white people in the area, so what else could they be?
I'm guessing it's because he figured the Patriots would just send another, bigger expedition if their troops were slaughtered, to clear out the obviously hostile Natives.
Was anyone else confused why there wasn't a scene where Haytham figures out Connor is his son? He seems totally oblivious up until sequence 9 where he jumps him and already knows who Connor is. We can assume he just put two and two together off screen at some point but it seems like it would have been pretty easy to have a short scene where he's talking to the other Templars and figures it out or something.
Let's assume that at some point in time, Connor refers to himself on some official document (say, trading or tax form) as "Connor Kenway." Since Templars are the guys who can find those sort of documents, plus the fact they know that he's Indian and the age Ziio's potential son would be, Haytham put two and two together.
Haytham obviously still has a soft spot for Ziio even years after they broke up. It could be assumed that he kept tabs on the village for enough time to see his son grow up, even if he didn't interact with him.
If that's the case shouldn't he have interacted with him at some point before? He runs into him at least twice before sequence 9, once during the Boston massacre where he attempts to pin the first shooting on Connor, and again in the jail cell in New York where he discusses the plan to eventually execute him with Charles Lee and Tom Hickey. We know Haytham cares about his son at least enough to attempt to convert him to the Templar side later so it seems unlikely he'd do this unless he hadn't realized who he was yet.
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.
Haytham had suspicions beforehand when he first heard of Connor's existence, but he only put two and two together when he first saw Connor at the prison, according to Forsaken. It's only All There in the Manual, for some reason.
So is George Washington a templar or not? the previous games seemed to imply he was since he came to possess a Piece of Eden and was implied to pass it down the line of succession to use to better control people, but that seems like it was jossed in this game since Haytham clearly doesn't want him as president and if he was another Templar it seems like whether he or Charles Lee were in running the States shouldn't have made much of a difference.
it's always been kind of fuzzy, but I suspect that he, in fact, was not. Rather, he was aware of the existence of the Templars, maybe worked with them later on, and perhaps agreed with some of their philosophies, but didn't consider himself one. Presumably, the Templars either reconsidered working against Washington and started to work with him, if only to get closer to the Apple of Eden that he had. Or perhaps it was simply altering history like the Templars are keen to do: they simply claimed that Washington was a member of their order, to make it appear like one of America's greatest heroes supported their organization (as Shaun says, "Look mommy, a dead man agrees with me!" When George finally died, they could have set things up so a Templar agent would receive the apple. Remember, history is written by the winners.
Also, what George Washington was in real life was a Freemason, as was a good portion of the other Founding Fathers. I'm really surprised that the writers never did anything more with that than 'secret tunnels.' One could infer that the Masons were a third party with their own agenda during all of this, and simply worked with the Templars and the Assassins whenever it suited their goals.
This one is kind of minor compared to the others but what exactly was Connor's plan when going to assassinate Charles Lee after fighting Haytham at Ft. George? He just walks right up to him in the middle of Haytham's funeral and...immediately gets grabbed by 2 guys and has most of his weapons taken away. Couldn't he have air assassinated him from a building or shot him or something?
I think that, after suffering such traumatic injuries (which may not be 100% healed at that point) and being forced to kill his own father, Connor was not exactly thinking rationally.
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.
When did Connor learn that Haytham was his father? Did Achilles tell him?
His mother told him.
That, or Achilles told him during the timeskip where he told him the story of the assassins.
Was it really possible for Achilles to have his own manor in the 18th century, even though he was of African descent and all the other assassins were gone?
It was in colonial Massachusetts so its enough of a rarity there would almost certainly be no law against it. If he ended up inheriting it from the other members of the order who died then it would probably be seen as a local oddity more than anything else.
Also it's not like there was much of a system in place tracking these kinds of things yet. His manor is far enough out in the frontier that most of the townsfolk in Boston or New York probably wouldn't know of the place.
Is the Animus a secret or not? Shaun goes on about how mankind shouldn't know all the secret information they are collecting and how the Animus is a part of that, but then Abstergo makes video games out of it and says it's based on old genetic memories.
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.
It looked so easy the first time, why not walk into all the Abstergo headquarters and Apple them to death? Or hack into their computers, wait until everyone important is in one place, and Apple them to death?
There's a not-unjustified concern that the Apple corrupts anyone who uses it too much. In 2, the codex even suggested that Altair himself was succumbing to its influence.
That, and you and your team are supposed to be the good guys. Going all over the world Apple-ing Abstergo agents to death, especially when they hadn't done anything to you (unlike the Abstergo company that captured Desmond and later his dad) would probably be overkill and not heroic at all. Besides, not enough time anyway, considering doomsday was just a few days away.
Not doing anything to them personally hasn't stopped the Assassins from killing people before.
Why didn't the Templars have any understanding of diplomacy? If Johnson wanted to protect the natives, why did he screw them over in the previous round of treaties? If Pitcairn wanted to parley, why did he do it by turning up unannounced in the middle of the night with an entire battalion at his back? Connor would never have associated Lee with the attack on his village if Lee hadn't beaten the kid up for being reluctant to tell a total stranger his home address. For that matter, if Haytham had just written to his colleagues in England and explained that the Patriots honestly believed that they had valid grievances that needed to be addressed and convinced them to get Parliament to make some token effort to show that someone was listening to their concerns, the entire problem could have been de-escalated before the revolution even started. In fact, this even continues to the modern era? Why didn't Vidic understand that abducting people off the street isn't conducive to making them useful allies and try to recruit a man with Assassin bloodlines with no affiliation with the order instead?
This is a bit of a cop-out answer but...it's because they're Templars. The whole point of the Templars in the series is that their ideals are admirable and some of them are sincere in their beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still violent extremists that want control more than anything else and will use whatever means necessary to get it, often defaulting to violence because they view any non-Templar opinions with disdain. Johnson may have wanted to protect the natives, but he still wanted them under Templar control, so he may have screwed them over previously to keep them under his thumb. Pitcairn could have chosen more peaceful conditions to negotiate under, but he may have felt it necessary to show the colonists that even though he wanted peace, he COULD crush the colonists with his army if he wanted to, sort of a "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick" approach, though this backfired in a big way. Charles Lee is just straight-up racist and having a dirty native boy spit in his face probably just set him off. As for Haytham, he very well could have written to his Templar brothers in England to ask them to negotiate more with Parliament. We know from history that Britain started to draw down more of its troops from the fighting in America toward the end of the war because they had other conflicts to take care of and that war front was becoming much more of a burden on the economy than they felt it was worth, so maybe in this game that's justified with the British Templars persuading Parliament to gradually withdraw. Either that or Haytham's ego got the better of him and he wanted to control the situation itself without outside help. Vidic....well cant think of an excuse for him beyond just holding the Villain Ball.
In addition to the above, remember that these men are still products of the time periods that produced them. Despite wanting to protect the natives, Johnson may still have had racist motivations. He may not have not seen any need to honor every treaty with them if it stood in the way of what he wanted. Pitcairn may have viewed the Patriots with disdain and felt they would be more likely to stand down if they saw an overwhelming force waiting to slug it out with them. Same with Haytham. He may have initially viewed the Patriots as nothing but a bunch of tantrum-throwing children and seen absolutely no need for Parliament to listen to their concerns. And Charles Lee is obviously a racist who views the Native Americans as filthy monkey-people, much like many other white colonists at the time did. As for Vidic, well, he's just an asshole.
Maybe I misheard the line, but supposedly the power source you get in Brazil was being worn by a woman as a bracelet. How? It's a big, chunky piece of rock. You could kind see of gaps in it where a person might worm their wrist through, but there's no way that's going to be comfortable or fashionable- it would probably just cut of circulation to the hand. Who would sit through a sporting even with a brick on their arm?
Honestly - and this probably sounds sexist - a lot of women would if it were pretty enough and was made out to be very expensive.
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.
How come Haytham never tried to duplicate his hidden blade, and have copies made for his subordinates?
Many reasons, in fact:
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?
Why do you get more money for a raw bear pelt than for a bear rug? Usually there's value added when you craft something out of raw materials. There's probably a few more examples of this, but the bear rug was the most obvious to me.
Just speculating here, but a raw bear pelt can be used for many different things, while a bear rug can only be used as a rug. The price is lower because there's less demand for a bear rug than a bear pelt.
Ok, I have some questions about the end. What does the eye actually do? How was Minerva Imprisoned in the first place. Most of all, How will Juno be "released"? I thought the "new vessels" the first civ built for themselves were computers. So will Juno be released into the net as a kind of AI? or will she actually assume a physical form?
June already answered your question FYI. She says that consciousness is just an electrical impulses. And it can be stored in a machine. When she says so, she touches the wall of the Temple. Ergo the entire Temple Is a vessel for June, i'm assuming. The Eye is a force field generator, engulfing entire planet, which can only be activated by genes of TWCB (i'm assuming). And finally once the Eye was activated it sent out sad electrical impulses, liberating her from her prison. The reason why she hanged out to chew out Desmond for being an idiot, is just that - she wanted to gloat a bit. I'm assuming that her mind was torn from her body (like Clay's) and uploaded into the hardware of the Temple. However she isn't an Art In. She's like GLA Do S, in a way sure, but she retained herself, albeit ~Slightly mad~. As for what will happen after, i think in her Ghost from the Machine form, it will be a lot easier to take over the world. Sure, no sexing for her, no sex slaves and what not, no kids, but plenty of slaves period. I also think that June will simply take over Abstergo, seeing that they are rather close to taking over the world.
When the first Civ talk about how superior they are to us, they usually mention that they had six senses, while we have 5. However, since Juno has mentioned that Desmond possesses their sixth sense, we have to assume that they are referring to eagle vision. So my Question is, what makes Eagle vision so special? We obviously don't know why it works, but as far as the uses the assassins have for it, its primary function seems to be general enhancement of the existing senses, along with the ability to identify potential dangers, guards and identify and follow assassination targets. It doesn't seem like eagle vision had that much to do with the amazing technological and evolutionary advancement the first civ made. So why is it so important to them?
Maybe the abilities of the eagle vision as we know them are just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe the First Civ knew how to use it for much more than that.
June says that the afromentioned 6th sense is Knowing. And Eagle vision, and later Eagle Sense is somewhat demo version of it or something that attempts to be said Knowing. As for what it is, i assume that such sense is actually exactly what it says on the tin. And Apple emulates it in a way. So with Knowing TWCB knew the future, knew the technology and so on. As for humans they know their target, people of interest, allies, enemies, hiding spots, see through illusions, access memory discs and so on.
Desmond has a point. Why doesn't William hop in the Animus? It was necessary for up until this game, but now that William is here he can go in. Unless Connor is from Desmond's mother's side of the family, but no one mentions this.
Presumably because he's the de-facto leader of the modern day Assassins, and co-ordinates and updates all the other Assassin groups out there, so as a result doesn't have time to go jumping into his ancestors' memories.
William has a conversation with Rebecca in Revelations where he says that Desmond has a higher concentration of Those Who Came Before DNA in his veins. It likely means that he can synchronize with Connor, Altair and Ezio faster as a result. That, and most of the messages Those Who Came Before are labelled for Desmond.
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.
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?
I suppose Desmond is talking about the various tragedies and lost loves that Ezio and Altair went through. It's a bad sign because Desmond is starting to think of those experiences as part of his own identity, giving him a rather fatalistic and depressive demeanor.
How the hell did nobody see Haytham climbing along the balconies in the theatre? There's hundreds of people and not one of them saw him? Likewise, what about when Desmond was running along the catwalk of the stadium and passes right under the sign? How could thousands of spectators fail to see that? Acceptable Breaks from Reality can only be pushed so far.
It was dark, and everyone's attention was on something else. Except for the people who were asleep, in which case they were asleep and therefore had no idea what was going on.
Two things. Who is viewing Epilogue in the end, searching for Pivot points, and being talked to by Shaun? And - Are we sure that Desmond is dead for good? He can be resurrected you know...
It's a member of some hacker group that somehow managed to hack into the Animus, IIRC. Shaun isn't the one talking to him or her, by the way, it's the leader of that hacker group.
If by "resurrected" you mean recreated as an electronic Animus imprint a la Subject 16...yeah, not gonna happen. (For one thing, it needs to be done while the person is still alive.) He left quite a legacy, though, so he's not completely out of the picture just yet.
What does the tale Boone tells you for "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" have to do with the mission it gives you, or even the tale unlocked in the Animus Database?
Mmm...best guess (going by memory here, details may be off): The tale was about a wolf that killed an entire hunting party in their camp. What really happened was that one of the hunters murdered the others, after which the wolf attacked and killed him from behind. The gist of it is, no, there isn't some super-powerful devil wolf running around slaughtering hunting parties, this was just Laser-Guided Karma at work.
I may be mistaken, but I could swear the beginning of Sequence 8 says that the year is 1776 as it loads up the Homestead. But then after preventing Hickey from assassinating Washington and Connor is following Achilles and talking about whether to tell Washington he still isn't safe, the date reads June 6, 1775. Is this an error in the game, or am I just seeing things incorrectly?
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.