Assassin's Creed

Well, it's still impossible for the Templars to ever have a moral high ground, given what they're working towards. But I rather not revisit that. The best they can achieve, so long as they genuinely believe in the Templar doctrine of enslaving the world, is Anti-Villain status or Evil Versus Evil.

Anyway, I'm going to start reading today and I'll create something of a log of everything I find out in the thread as I go. I really can't say much about the quality as I've yet to crack it open, plus it's ultimately a subjective thing anyway.

This early section so far can be summed up as Elise is a tomboy and her mother encourages it. Her mother is grown up Spirited Young Lady from vibe of things and Elise takes after her. In relation to the Templar Order, she is a member, but she's more concerned with her own principles than she is the orders stated goal. She even outright states she wishes to change the order entirely, as she feels it's ends and such are too extreme and a more moderate, balanced solution would serve humanity far better. Also, it's definitely clear that her mother is the one that's clearly training Elise more than anything else. Covertly training, such as taking Elise with her for private meetings, testing her ability to learn certain things, etc. She also cautions Elise about becoming like "other women", the types she dislikes, which Elise studies and comes to realize she means those who are more concerned with gossiping and only concerns are their own status & possessions.

I'm starting to think Elise and her family were Templars in Name Only.

edited 5th Jan '15 7:20:13 AM by Prime_of_Perfection

Just finished Rogue, making a start on Unity. If nothing else, both games are gorgeous.

The Templars in Rogue are... mixed. I do feel they play up the moral element to keep Shay on side, but that's a lot of effort for one person. That said, I get the impression that both the Templars and Assassins are silo'd and fairly factional.

The Assassins in Rogue seem to have far too many conflicting politiking plans going on (Supporting the French in one area, fighting them in another) and are a near shadow archetype of the Templars.

The Templars in the Colonial era are more idealistic, les focuse don the whole "mind control" thing and more focused on building a structural society, whilst quarantining POE and researching them. Even in AC 3 I felt they were more about structure, whilst the Assassins seemed more about vendettas and revenge; I never really "got" what Connor was trying to achieve; the Templars were ingniting things to make the Revolution happen.

Achilles is a straight up idiot, and when he realises that Shay may have been right his first thought is STILL "disobedient and disrespectful"; he made a major rod for his own back. Also, the Brotherhood has massively abandonned its tennets, becoming more like Al Mualims Brotherhood of thugs. Adewale was also weirdly out of character, sanctioning mass death with the use of POE to trigger city destruction. And the Caribbean brotherhoods that were focused on just killing nobles and influential people regardless of alliance...

Now, granted, Abstergo is quite clearly made up of various Machiavellian punch clock villains and mad scientist, no doubt, but Otso Berg is, weirdly, ruthless and yet an example that there is still free will within an ordered structure - he even mentions it in an audio log - the Templar ideal of Order still allows for personal achievement and ambition, provided it is not reckless.

I don't know much about the Templars or Assassins in Unity, though I get the impression that the Templars are in a civil war of sorts. I loved the opening where you play as a 14th century templar - the lighting, the look, I wanted to keep playing as that guy!

Ultimately, Abstergo IS evil because they've gone down the rabbit hole of "protecting society via influence and subtle control" to full on "Mind control satellites". They are massively ruthless; it says something when the hardcore military man, with no outward emotions is actually less scattergun than the corporation he's working for (His superiors are puzzled why he didn't just attack a target in front of school-children) and shows that the Templars may be focused and deadly, but not need to be "Eat this kitten evil".

He also mentions that, due to the work Abstergo does, humanity is closer to a singularity. Which poses a risk in the form of Juno, who could just take over, so he recognises that their mad rush to capitalise on POE and advancement is not 100% correct.

He does show that the Assassins seem to have little reason to exist other than "Kill Templars", without any longer term plans or structures for alternatives to the Templar methods.

Anyway, need to play more Unity to get an idea. Already the Paris brotherhood seems to be... too formal, too obsessed with their grand strategy (And they seem to be Monarchists, at least Arno's father appears to be)

I find the lack of Shay in the opening slightly jarring as well, as I walked RIGHT PAST ARNO AND ELISE in Rogue, yet you don't see even a casual look at the sinister Irishman...

So much headshaking at Shay playing while playing Rogue. ><

On another note:

Due to the unsavory talk surrounding Unity I decided to hoc that game on Black Friday.

Don't know if this has been posted before, but: Assassin's Creed: The Land of Morning Calm. A blogger and artist's proposal for an AC game set in Korea during the thirty-five year Japanese occupation, stretching from the Japanese invasion in 1910 to the country's "liberation" and subsequent partition by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1945.

Personally, I think this would be a stunning idea. Though I suppose any game during the time period would have to feature Kim Il-sung at some point, which could annoy Best Korea.

I'd be interested, but I'd like to wait a few games just simply because I'm tired of the game's being about 'revolution' and 'freedom' and 'liberation' because the words have been thrown around too much for me to know what they mean anymore. Especially after Unity.

The whole Assassin "Schtick" is freedom. Yet what that actually IS seems to vary. Protection from Po E, stopping the Templars? They seem happy to indulge in fairly drastic measures with plenty of collateral damage when it suits.

We do have the nice "family friendly" assassins in Shaun and Rebecca. The rest seem to swing between extremes.

Also, I am actually (now it's working) quite enamoured with the Unity ap. Yes, it's more busy work, but its an interesting device. Yes I have chests that i need to work outside the game to open, but it means I can do stuff in the background... or play during loading screens (making the best of a bad situation...)

Had my first Unity lock up yesterday, which froze the game then locked up the PS 4 meaning I had to unplug at the socket. Didn't lose much progress, but shows how the game is straining the system; engine doesn't seem very optimised.

Now I have the hang of the combat, I rather like it. And it makes sense that, at the beginning of the game, you get your arse kicked: your character doesn't KNOW how to fight, so is basically flailing with a sword.

Upgrade mechanics.... hmmm... I'd rather buy equipment from a shop in the game rather than a menu. But the upgrade idea is interesting. So many unlockables though! I think they did confuse the issue with all the currencies and attempts to bring in P 2 W mechanics.

However I don't... hate Unity. I like Arno, he is snarky and bitter but charming, like Ezio. I also, weirdly, don't miss the sailing bits.

I love how they got Blackbeards voice actor back to voice what looks like a carbon copy of him (Is... Blackbeard a sage?!)

I miss the modern day segments (I actually liked Desmond, I'm weird, yes; also I enjoyed the Abstergo industry stuff)

Elise... well they should have done an AC 2 and had you spend more time as young Arno and Elise, to show that relationship develop, make us more invested. What we see is pretty good though, with Arno actually being a very broken bird about the whole thing and Elise being a suffering revolutionary within the Templars.

The idea of a Templar civil war is rather interesting as well, which goes to show that they are also fairly "factional" with differing ideas on what "The Father of Understanding" wants, plus maybe a lot of personal gain being factored in.

Dead Kings cinematic trailer.

I know the Assassin's are all about freedom and equality, but that doesn't mean rebellion and revolution and etc all have to be major plot points. Assassin's Creed 1 and 2 didn't have either. I've tired of the same ideas been thrown around here. AC 3 through Unity (sans Rogue) had strong themes of rebellion to gain freedom and liberty and justice which became more and more ill defined as the series progressed. Unity somewhat vaguely throws the terms around; "The people are fighting for what they're owed. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite." is said by Arno when the plights of the people really haven't been discussed to this point. The concepts went from pretty decently examined in Connor's era as he's an outsider to the British and Pre-American Conflict, but those concepts became cheap.

I think that the themes are somewhat losing their welcome due to lack of writing focus. Its also telling when we've had a few games now use similar 'Ignite the Revolution' slogans for their marketing. Why not a setting where freedom, to an extent, has been secured and its merely a matter of holding it and refining the concept further? One where large wars and rebellion isn't a common set piece?

On Arno and Elise, I think that what is there is solid, but solid if there were scenes earlier to explore their characters. Ezio was explained pretty nicely with several missions centered around his family and who they are and his relationship with them. Arno really doesn't have all that many scenes with Elise nor does she have much dialogue talking about her values and objectives. She is a Templar. She is someone who is Arno's enemy through factions. It never comes up exactly what she believes in about her own order and how Arno's values (presumably, since Arno seemingly joins them out of nothing better to do) are in direct conflict with her's. There are so many wasted opportunities to see how a Templar and Assassin may reconcile their ideas for a relationship, or maybe to explore that their relationship doesn't work.

Trailer is about what I expected it to be. Arno goes there to brood over the death of Elise and ease his own pain. How trite and cliche'.

The writing has become a bit unfocused, that I would agree with. The arc of Ezio was very strong, with good themes of revenge which became wisdom and then finally acceptance.

Black Flag felt like a hiatus, whilst Rogue was very solid (in my opinion) although it took turning the Colonial Assassins into what they wer eunder Al Mualim - dogmatic zealots.

Unity, I haven't gone far in the story, but I don't really know why a) Arno is with the Assassins, or where in the timeline he is and b) why the assassins would help him find out who killed a Templar, albeit one with whom they had a truce.

I had hoped the game would explore something along the lines of the two sides finding common ground amidst one of the most turbulent periods of history but I find it ironic that a French Canadian studio has bungled the actual representation of a pivotal moment in FRENCH history.

However, it's probably like being surprised at a Boston studio bungling a story about the Industrial revolution in the UK...

I do feel that the story telling has lost some of its subtlety - in AC 2, the Medici had nothing to do with the Templars or Assassins, but profited as a sideline; Cesare was a Templar in name only and was more just a power mad psychopath. It could've been interesting to see both sides having to come together to survive against the background of the Terror. Which could've linked in with the theme of the Templar order being purged, not by assassin intervention or guidance, but by the "normal" people who might've just gotten sick of their shennanigans.

Instead we get the most basic of shoehornings which AC 3 tried, and AC 2 touched on, with EVERYONE bing a templar or assassin. Which just makes me think that a lot of game writers are the most fanboy of fanfic writers, obsessed with scenes rather than subtle stories.

And I say that as someone who likes and writes fanfic.

Their apparent interest in historical accurancy seems to have waned since AC 3, which is a shame. I think that may be pressure from Ubisoft central and maybe a draining of the team, who are a bit tired of churning this out. They may lack distance to see what would make a gripping story.

As for Dead Kings... yeah not sure, but I get a proper "brooding hero" schtick there. God dammit, I'm tired of brooding.

I will say that in spite of the fact that I thought Unity itself was dull, Dead Kings isn't that bad an idea for DLC. It looks like it's an old fashioned ruin exploration mission. Of course, Ubisoft has lied before...

Story wise I'm completely uninterested, which given how invested in the story I used to be is rather sad.

What's upsetting me is the ap; the chest mechanic is broken and it break immersion. The idea is great but the implementation is rubbish. Just disappointed at how broken things are and they can get away with still selling this stuff carte Blanche.

I like the game but it's the niggling irritations...

Plus the game's present storyline is ridiculously phoned in IMO in Unity.

DEFINITELY.

Someone has hacked my TV - why the HELL would I believe them or listen to them? Also, I'm an assassin now? Really?

What I am most annoyed with now is how the Initiates site still isn;'t working and that means even more stuff in the game won't unlock. And the Nomad chests etc.

It's kinda like a triple threat in terms of failure to execute - the writers falling in love with their own mythos and "talent" so thinking anything they bash out will do. Hell, I could've written a better plot in my sodding sleep.

That said, I like the city, love the gameplay and for the most part don't mind the story. I quite like Arno. He's a naive, angry teenager who has, essentially, joined the assassins because they MAY give him an opportunity to get "revenge" and get the girl he loves back. He is snarky but not, I feel, that bright. HE doesn't have the agency or initiative of Ezio - he is REACTIVE and thus, weirdly, the story is appropriate for his character - he IS fairly useless in the meta-game between the Templars and Assassins, but effective as a footsoldier.

However, that doesn't make for a fun game with regard to player agency and "feeling attached" - it's a similar mistake that Bioware make with its characters, forcing people into THEIR story, which, yes, all games do, but most do it well enough that you feel like it's you. Once you get the disconnect, the scales fall from your eyes and you feel disatisfied and start to notice the other flaws.

So, Arno'd be an interesting character in a book, a butt monkey (A-la Richard in Neverwhere) who could grow, but pinballs between situations. But as a game character he isn't too effective as his ineptness undermines any achievements you make as a player. Now, that could've been handled better if the writers were practiced and nuanced. However, that is something games still haven't tackled - the difference between a players actions and character agency, whilst tackling that third stool-leg of narrative.

So, you may liberate Paris, murder hundreds of criminals, solve murders, establish safe houses...

And still have a character who seems to hit failure after failure, which creates that disconnect that makes you think "Why am I bothering...?"

Mass Effect had that exact same problem. As soon as your actions are rendered moot, you start to lose investment. And i think that's where Unity really drops the ball - you like Arno, but he frustrates you and thus you start to see all the other issues, which are then compounded by a bad technical implementation of other features.

Ok. Who the FUCK came up with this asinine way to unlock Legendary Equipment.

Yes, let's put in poorly implemented 'Clubs' because that's what this game needs! Also, let's force players to 'compete' on a weekly basis for a RANDOM LEGENDARY EQUIPMENT PIECE TO UNLOCK as the prize. And only first place winners get the unlock. So its a wasted week if you lose. Assuming you have enough cooperating 'club members' to actually win because god knows there's no legitimate organization and structure to these goddamn clubs, you still have to pay ABSURD in game cash to use them. Did I mention that it RANDOMLY unlocks equipment? There are, what? 8 Legendary sets? With 5 pieces per set? That's 40 items! Which means 40 Club Competition wins!

And what the hell happens to them when NO ONE is playing the game anymore? And, do they remain unlocked if I come back and restart the game???

And there's not even some stupid little 'Buy Now for $19.99' option here either which, while it would still make me angry, at least the items would be available.

I can't believe how angry this is actually making me. Now that I'm actually getting a Let's Play Series going, I'm seriously considering playing Unity AND WATCH_DOGS just to mock how horrible they are.

ANYWAY, back to the plot conversation.

Its stupid, unneeded, I'm tired of these 'tie-in' things everywhere, and its even worse when you need the companion app to achieve 100% completion.

Ok, but that's what bugs me about the plot the most, in regards to Arno. If he's joining the Assassin's to win Elise back, that makes no sense because that literally makes her a sworn enemy of his. If he's joining to solve De La Serre's killer, that also makes no sense because why would the Assassin's investigate his murder. Sure, they sort of do anyway, but Arno doesn't know that and it seems perfectly logical to assume that they wouldn't investigate his death since he's a Templar. It seems more like he joins because he's nothing better to do with himself which is a piss poor motivation in any narrative or anything in general really.

And I'm surprised NO ONE in the Assassins question this. I suppose its kind of a deconstruction of the whole 'You're in because your dad was one of us' thing since that's seemingly the only reason he gets in and, well, no one exactly explains what being an Assassin means. And Arno as an Assassin suffers for it because he's floundering in an organization he doesn't understand and no one bothers to explain to him or really ask why he's even there.

Its also very much agreed that Arno is an absolute idiot and really disconnects me as the player from Arno the character. The most glaring instance of this is when Arno just takes two lanterns and tosses them into a room of gunpowder and then nearly dies countless times as the building burns. Really? If you absolutely had to destroy that cache that moment, could you have not waited until you were by the exit? He's an absolute moron from this action alone and I don't think it was intentionally written that way but just an excuse for a big explosion scene.

I've always wondered this of the series. Ok, so, obviously there is someone 'experiencing' these memories in universe. But, HOW are they experiencing them? And, to what extent? Are they watching all the memories like a movie (which makes sense considering the Animus designs) or are they playing them like a game (which makes sense with Black Flag to Unity's dialogue). I can only wonder that, if you're literally playing their memories like a game, then I have no idea how that works since, well, you wouldn't have a clue what the ancestor would do. Like, if I were playing Arno's memories in-universe, my first idea on destroying the cache of weapons would not be to throw lanterns and get trapped into an Inferno. But, since that's what Arno evidently did, I could see it becoming incredibly frustrating for whomever if playing the memories.

This entire game is a paint-by-the-numbers installment that couldn't even be bothered to stay in the lines and created a mess instead.

Oh yeah, Arno is a suave, jock-like fop who basically is aimless, angry and your atypical teen with no real goal.

His joining the assassins seems to be because that is his only option, other than getting drunk, but he doesn't know what they do, their history, their real relation to the Templars, or why they do what they do.

Now, if this is all intentional, to show that the French Assassins are not all shiny and heroic and just as murky as the Templars, well... then it fails in exposition.

And playing as the village idiot is not fun.

I haven't even touched multiplayer or the club houses, except for accidently jumping into a mission after trying to jump off a roof... where a mission giver was crouched and me trying to jump to my next objective activated the mission giver and dragged me into a multiplayer game *sigh*.

The idea of co-op assassins - great. The implications and implementation - really rather poor. It also doesn't look anything like the super sneaky trailers, as it just ends up with everyone running around hidden blading EVERYTHING. So, mega stealthy *rolls eyes*.

I think we can chalk this up to: pretty environment, misstep in story telling and implementation. Hoping they take a lessons learned here and dial back the inane number of things they try to cram in.

I'm confused as fuck. My game said it downloaded the DLC, but its not listed in my 'Unlocked Content' tab in game and all the locations to jump to the new town just give me a thing saying 'In the north lies the town where the French twice buried their King. This is apart of the Dead Kings DLC' but there no 'Start Mission' option. I don't know what to do at all and this is getting absurd.

@modern day storyline

Why...why don't the Templars care about the pain they're causing people. Whenever I see AC Revelations Archives.

I really am upset. Clay should definitely go down in history as being the best agent in the Assassins and Templars war.

Also lol and facepalm @ even though Abstergo being aware of Juno's existence they're thinking of a way to take advantage of TWCB's like Aita. Have they ever thought that Juno could pose more of a problem to them in the future than the Assassins and humanity as a whole?

When was it established that they know Juno is around? Hell, I'm not even sure the Assassins know considering they've done nothing in 3 years to stop her.

@Ink Dagger

In AC Rogue Berg makes reference to her as does Violetta and Melanie Lemay.

Ah. The stream I had of Rogue skipped all of the Modern Scenes because they're not cutscenes per say. Well, ain't everyone in this franchise a massive idiot...

@Ink Dagger

HEY! Shaun Hastings isn't an idiot. He's a sarcastic jerk. But not no idiot. >_>

EDIT:

Seriously, William and his team were at the Grand Temple when Juno was released why haven't they focused on her?

edited 13th Jan '15 4:12:38 PM by Couchpotato20

(Inspired by youtube comment section of Assassins Creed Rogue ending) If you guys were to pick between Assassins and Templars which side would it be? Assassin for this dude. Someone said assassins lost their way in comment section I think otherwise.

That's a difficult question to answer because each time of Assassins and Templars have different values and interpretations of their respective creeds.

In terms of objectives and methods, The Templars in ACII are far more concerned with gaining as much control of their respective worlds as possible, while AC 3's are more concerned with subtle manipulation of events. Unity's are a mix of both with Marie Levesque and Robespirre.

EDIT:

Ok, this DLC is probably even more of a mixed bag than the base game. (Or, it is when you don't have to re-install the entire game a third time to get it to run because 'Files corrupted'. Bullshit)

Some of the gameplay has been changed up; Regular Missions have 'X Oppostunity' things going on which is really nice and I like that the death of an 'Enemy Leader' results in everyone else running away in fear. That's really cool.

Some other additions are a bit annoying. The lantern is a nuscence, especially since I can't seem to find anyway to turn it off. Liked it better in Connor's era where oil/resource management wasn't a thing. It just makes exploring an already confusingly multi-level environment. And the legions of animals to be scared off aren't that particularly interesting.

So, the story is a bit mixed too.

I'll start off that their historical accuracy of this time period is still absolute shit. One of the first lines is 'I thought you were Guillotine'd?' to the Marquis de Sade, but nothing in the main game (as far as I'm aware) suggested that the Marquis has been given to Madame Guillotine, and, if there was, I'd be pissed about that two because, as far as I'm aware, the Marquis was never sentenced to a demise by her. Thrown in jail a dozen times, sure, but never Guillotined. So, if there's nothing in the game to suggest that he was guillotined, why have this line at all?

At the end of the DLC, it shows Napoleon being arrested... except he never got arrested ever and continued to have a successful military career and etc. So, why show this at all then if its either blatantly untrue or the charges aren't going to stick?

I think there are some good elements here and there, but they take no time to develop any of them out. One of the main ideas thought about the DLC was that this would be Arno's period of mourning after Elise's death. Ok, its cliche but fine. And they seem to try to do this an even kind of half ass it; the most we get is Arno thinking he sees Elise in the market, chasing after her, its someone who miraculously looks like Elise, and Arno sits defeated in the street. This is never mentioned again.

I also had assumed that this DLC would take place after Elise's death but before the final scene of the game with Arno and Napoleon entering the tomb and filling in the blanks here of; Why is Napoleon here? Are he and Arno allies? How much does Napoleon know about everything? When did Arno get back with the Assassins to have this 'Master Assassin' outfit?

Well, none of these questions really get answered... Arno's speech at the end of the main game felt like it took place some time later (no date is given) and Germain's corpse has been reduced to a broken skeleton suggesting a large amount of time has passed since. Napoleon is even shown during this scene suggesting the two are on good terms.

However, the game starts on August 3rd, 1794. Elise died on July 28th, 1794. The DLC is less than two weeks after Elise's death. By the end of the DLC, Napoleon is Arno's enemy or at least Arno has no reason to trust him at all because the two never really have a scene together. So, what the bloody hell is the context for that ending cutscene?!?! They don't reconcile at all.

Arno being apart of the Assassins order never really comes up. Arno says 'for I am an Assassin' at one point, but there's no reflection on the fact that, well, he's not anymore.

Ok, enough on that. The main plot is that Arno wants to leave France. He meets the Marquis de Sade and they strike a deal; Get the Marquis a manuscript from the tombs of Frances kings and Arno gets passage out of France, to Egypt I think? Anyway... Arno's loyalties are drawn when he meets some young kid who reveals that Napoleon's group and the Raiders are after some artifact under the catacombs. Arno has to choose between helping stop Napoleon or escaping with the Marquis. Except, it doesn't entirely come down to a choice since Arno has plenty of time to do both...

Anyway, Arno decides to help the kid when he and his guardian call Arno out as 'You could have saved all of France! Been the hero France needed!' and etc... How the bloody hell they know what Arno has done at all or anything about him is unknown. Its also kind of even more confusing when the object Napoleon is after is referred to as just an 'artifact' so, how they know that the artifact is detrimental to France's survival and everything is beyond me.

Arno recovers the Artifact from the First Civilization Temple (does Arno even know anything about them???) after having a boss battle with the nameless-in-dialogue Raider Leader. The Artifact turns out to be a Piece of Eden operating as a Lantern. It is used basically the same as the AC 3 sequence where you make everyone kill themselves but it looks pretty cool anyway. The last scene of the DLC is Arno removing the power source of the lantern, a sphere like the Apple, giving it to a (Assassin???) coachmen taking people to the port, and telling him it must be given to Al Mualim in Cairo, Egypt. Who is this Al Mualim??? Why is he in Egypt? Why not take it to him in person because there's really nothing left in France for Arno? I'm so confused.

So, I don't know what to think of this DLC. It basically answered none of the questions I had about the end game and doesn't really reconcile with the game's conclusion of Arno entering the Temple with Napoleon. Or when Arno rejoined the Assassins. Or who Arno eventually passed his genetics through. It doesn't answer anything. It doesn't even really have Arno go through stages of grieving after Elise's death as we were meant to believe. Bishop briefly appears suggesting that this will lead to some Modern Assassins development, but she never speaks again.

The best I can make is that it acts as a preview for the next plot of Assassin's Creed if Victory is the next installment in 1830s London. Egyptomania is going on at the time and Napoleon had a failed Egyptian Campaign (to get the Artifact from this Al Mualim?) so I can see that artifact being smuggled from Egypt into England for the plot of Victory. But, that seems to be the only lasting purpose of the DLC as far as I can tell.

So, it has a lot of good potential but no time to develop any of it.

edited 14th Jan '15 4:12:15 PM by InkDagger

Nice