Assassin's Creed

I don't know he has side burns instead of a pony-tail, but even otherwise I don't think they look alike except in the Action Genre Hero Guy sense. Arno was more of The Dandy than Jacob is.

I will say that where Arno was an Ezioclone in looks and personality, Jacob Frye is a Edwardclone in personality but not in looks.

"Well, part of the design process, it's really expensive to animate a whole new character, different joints, whole different method of moving arms, so we just stuck with what we knew."

Maybe that's the real pandering! Except are people who liked Arno large enough a group to be pandered to?

I liked Arno. I suppose that's not good enough? To clarify, I liked his character arc. He was a spoiled, impetuous, impulsive man-child, and paid for it quite heavily — a refreshing break from the brooding, reserved, hyper-competent anti-heroes who seem to be popular these days. I'm sure this will start yet another interminable argument and I don't give a damn: there is no such thing as "objective quality" when it comes to characterization.

Anyway, Jacob's facial structure, eyes, expressions... it's a straight copy-paste job from Arno. He looks nothing like Edward.

edited 25th Sep '15 7:40:47 AM by Fighteer

Ink Dagger: On the other hand, there are plenty of cultures around the world where trans, genderqueer, and non-binary people exist without using those terms (and often with significantly more acceptance than "western" cultures).

I can't delve into too much detail, because it was a couple years ago, but I remember that discussion being one of my more interesting Intro Anthropology classes.

Basically, I don't see an issue with using terms that exist in the present to describe a time where they didn't exist if you're aware of that fact and don't let yourself get tied to a modern definition. To use an example from a course I'm taking this year, the word "anti-Semitism" didn't exist until the 1860s, but that doesn't stop the widespread hatred of Jews for the previous 2000 years from being anti-Semitic.

The issue, the way I see it, is more that trying to be prescriptive about the gender identity (or anything else, really) of someone who lived over 300 years ago (or at any other point in history) is bad historiography. It's letting your point-of-view in the present overwhelm the point-of-view as the past. The context of my post is taking a person who was alive in the 1700s and saying "By today's standards this person may have been transgender." The game itself takes care to frame the discussion only in terms of the Chevalier as the subject of one of the earliest discussions on gender identity in Europe.

The term "transgender" didn't exist until the 1960s, so the character in Syndicate wouldn't be "transgender" by your standards either. Nor would the character from Dragon Age Inquisition whose name I don't know (haven't played the game), since it takes place in a setting that is fictional, but aesthetically based on medieval Europe, long before the terminology existed. So it would be inappropriate to describe them that way in the games themselves, but I don't think there's anything wrong with framing the discussion around it.

Getting back to Assassin's Creed, I've come to the conclusion that the Marquis de Sade is the best thing about Unity's story, and I wish he was a bigger presence. While I think Black Flag stumbled in trying to work its non-Assassin characters into the plot, revolving around them as being non-Assassins, I like that de Sade is fairly neutral (at least so far), but seems to know what Arno is and uses it to his advantage.

Well, the game essentially has watered down De Sade, and I honestly don't know what's the point. If you are going to have a bisexual sex-offender (who did rape his male and female servants) turned proto-communist pro-revolutionary hippy and then make him into this vain dandy I don't see what's the point. They didn't even get the Sade from Marat/Sade. It would have been interesting if they made De Sade the Sage, personality wise and in terms of his philosophy he would fit the character type of Black Bart. But then Unity ruined the Sage concept by picking this obscure dull guy as the Sage.

The only historical character that works in Unity is Napoleon and even then it's a little iffy since he has these wretched side missions. The others are...well what was that phrase Gabe Newell used to describe Windows 10, "this great sadness".

Black Flag used the historical cast best in my view. It was incredibly accurate in terms of deaths, chronology and progression. It's essentially a biopic of Blackbeard, Hornigold and especially Black Bart. To me whether or not they fit in with the Assassin plot or non-Assassin plot is largely irrelevant. If Assassins aren't there to interfere with history and hang out with these guys, they might as well not make these games.

Well they did borrow a lot of his animations from Arno yes. He has Arno's Hazel eyes so that probably did include his expressiveness as well. I didn't say he looked like Edward. I was saying personality wise, he's based on Edward as opposed to Arno who was based on Ezio (with Edward's alcoholism, Mushroom Samba and "Assassin cult" jokes thrown in because Ubisoft are woefully lacking in ideas).

I agree that the revelation of the Sage in Unity was lackluster — almost a Giant Space Flea from Nowhere given the total lack of setup for it. "Hey, let's go stop the Grand Master Templar dude... WHOA he's an Aita clone with a LIGHTNING SWORD."

On your other point, Black Flag remains one of my favorite games in the series for the historical portions. In terms of overall ranking, I'd put it behind only Revelations — and I will rhetorically assassinate anyone who tries to call that latter game dull.

edited 25th Sep '15 9:10:53 AM by Fighteer

I have a pretty solid idea who the Sage in Syndicate is going to be. http://www.gamesradar.com/say-hello-alexander-graham-bell-and-queen-victoria-assassins-creed-syndicate/ Number 4 on the picture gallery, squint and tell me you can't see a resemblance between him and De Molay and Black Bart, of course he's gray and everything. Generally Sages are people who assert power by use of texts. De Molay used the Codex, Black Bart used his Pirate Articles, John from IT has that ugly Instruments. And this guy fits just in.

I love Revelations too. My favorite AC games are : AC 1>BF>AC 3>AC 2>ACR>ACB. My general feeling is that until 2014 (the evil year of Rogue-Unity), there wasn't a bad game in the franchise. They were all worth playing. I do like how Syndicate is shaping up but I don't know, I still would have preferred a game set in Elizabethan London, and now we'll never get that time and place.

Speaking of the LIGHTNING SWORD (fine, the Sword of Eden), isn't that one of the artifacts that Abstergo recovered and then destroyed trying to unlock its secrets? I'm still fuzzy on the exact progression in the modern story. Do we know how it left Arno's hands?

It seems that half of the history of the Assassin vs. Templar conflict is the Assassins stealing some Piece of Eden from the Templars and then locking it up in a hilariously complex vault that predictably fails to withstand the test of time.

edited 25th Sep '15 9:22:41 AM by Fighteer

That I believe was an Apple of Eden at Denver Airport. In fact it was Altair's Apple which the Templars recovered but didn't know what to do. That's why they needed the memories of AC-1, to find more Apples. Then they went with Ezio (and nobody knows what happened to that Apple after AC-3, did it get swallowed by the Temple, hijacked by the Assassins, I can't believe they would just leave it there).

In any case for me, the series is about the historical part, for me the Apples/Swords whatever, they're just McGuffin to get the plot in moving. By themselves it's not important. To me the background, the period, how the events fit in and how that worked, that matters more to me. ROGUE ruined things by introducing this Earthquake Machine and now the writer of Rogue in a podcast says there are many boxes and not just one Precusor Earthquake Box, which is needlessly complicated. I think it's rotten to suggest that human beings cause earthquakes anyway.

Well one method did withstood the test of time. Connor took the Temple's Key and put in his namesake's grave and that's it. It stood there until Desmond and company dug it out. No fancy vaults under the earth, no Great Library and Memory Seals scattered across Istanbul, just the grave of a small boy who died of smallpox.

You know AC-3 is really unique in that it's the only game that the Assassins and Templars fight over history. Haytham isn't interested in magical artifacts, he wants to build his Templar base. Connor doesn't need any vault or magic object to fight the Templars. The actual issues between Assassins/Templars is what the game is about. All the others are about magical objects and McGuffin.

Or in UNITY's case if Arno can stop the evil poor people from France from preventing him and Elise making out.

I think you're misrepresenting the games somewhat. All of the games have used a Piece of Eden of some sort or another as a MacGuffin to drive the metaplot, but the story doesn't dwell on them except in the margins, until the endgame at least.

• AC 1 is about Al Mualim using Altaïr as a pawn to eliminate his rivals in the Templar Order. The Apple doesn't even come into play until the very end.
• AC 2 is about Ezio getting revenge on the Borgias for killing his family. The Apple, again, only becomes an issue towards the end.
• ACB is about Ezio getting revenge on Cesare for killing his friends (seeing a pattern there). The Apple does nothing to affect the story until the end.
• ACR is about Ezio solving Altaïr's riddle about the purpose of the Assassin Brotherhood and developing a Love Interest amid the turmoil of Constantinople. The Apple merely serves as a vehicle to deliver a message to Desmond via the Animus.
• AC 3 is about the Assassins and Templars struggling to shape the future of the American Colonies. The Piece of Eden is incidental to that story.
• BF is about the pirates fighting to live a life of idealized freedom and discovering how impossible that was. It's also about Edward discovering how not to be a selfish prick. The Observatory is there mainly to drive the Assassin-Templar conflict.
• Rogue is about... okay, fine, the Assassins misusing world-destroying artifacts and the Templars trying to stop them. I'll give you that one.
• Unity is about the Assassins and Templars struggling to shape the course of revolutionary France, while Arno tries to make out with Elise. The Pieces of Eden are barely mentioned.

edited 25th Sep '15 9:50:39 AM by Fighteer

Well, I think Dragon Age kind of gets a free pass when it comes to using terms that 'wouldn't exist'. Its got anachronisms of its own all over the place and it isn't 'our world' so much. They also never use the term transgender and have their own in universe word and definition for the concept and explanation for why it exists so there's really no 'historical accuracy' going on in Dragon Age.

I think the concept of Presentism gets a bit muddled when it comes to 'Historical Fiction' and etc. While it would go against the concept to label a historical figure as something that would be anachronistic, a character designed specifically for the work can be anachronistic and Word of God can say they're one thing and things get grey very fast.

I'm not sure how to explain it when it comes to gender identities, but the class I got this information from was using examples of historical figures who were 'famously gay' and having us divorce the concept of Homosexual Behavior and Homosexual Identity.

I apprecieate the healthy discussion and respectful nature we're having though. :) You wouldn't believe the arguments I've been having all week on Social Media because of other 'Gay Rights' related things. So dull after the third time, even less so by the 7th.

My issue with Black Flag is and always has been that it's not interested in being an Assassin's Creed game. If you remove Ah Tabai, the Observatory, and the concept of the Sage, the game still makes sense on its own as a work of historical fiction about an original pirate interacting with Blackbeard, Ben Hornigold, Charles Vane, etc. before being betrayed by Bartholomew Roberts and going after him in revenge. The historical bits are the most interesting, and nothing about them requires the game to be Assassin's Creed.

If you want to use a Watsonian explanation, the Animus is filtering everything in the game through what is in effect a "cultural translator" in order to make it comprehensible to modern audiences, so someone using the "transgender" label with respect to a character In-Universe is a case of the Animus' Translation Convention.

To be sure, it would make a great Age of Pirates game, but one has to remember that the Assassin's Creed games are all set within the era in which they occur, embedded into the pre-existing stories. Assassins in the Caribbean Sea during the time in question would have been sailors and quite possibly pirates/privateers by the simple fact of the setting.

edited 25th Sep '15 11:00:06 AM by Fighteer

I could see the term being used via Sean's data entries. But characters within the Helix/Animus/Whatever-It-Is-Now going "Oh, so-and-so is transgender" would feel out of place.

If they're going with transgender, will George Sand appear?

That's really not a bad thing at all. Assasin's Creed is Genre-Busting Historical Fiction after all. In any case, "nothing requires it to be assassin's creed" applies to any game set after AC-1, the period in which the Asasiyun actually existed and operated for real.

AC-2 - If you removed the Assassin stuff, the story is about a Renaissance Noble fighting other Renaissance nobles and establishing his banking empire by investing in shops and stimulating economies in Tuscany and Rome. He's also interested in architectural restoration of old monuments and so explores tombs for secrets of lost Roman scrolls and information. And he patronizes artists like Da Vinci. Ezio is essentially the archetypal Renaissance Patron of the Arts and in Revelations he becomes a Scholar type. It can very easily be a straightforward historical game with say Indiana Jones' Italian Ancestor, Indio Giovanni.

AC-3 likewise deliberately dialed down the Assassin stuff for the history part, so much so that it's the only game where the Creed isn't even mentioned once. They wanted it to be focused on the history part, and it can very easily be an American Revolution game. It's very much inspired by James Fenimoore Cooper after all. Cf, The Spy. Or for that matter read Gore Vidal's Burr.

People say Black Flag is like a Pirate game more than an Assassin game because Pirates unlike Renaissance Arts Patrons and American Revolutionaries is a familiar cultural archetype. It's part of folklore like cowboys, ninja, knights, Samurai. But you know, Black Flag is different from other pirate games which as Darby Devitt said, has skulls, walks on planks. With AC's approach, Black Flag has pirates in a realistic context, it has seafaring music, it has issues dealing with slavery and pirates being proto-democratic.

UNITY is essentially the Scarlet Pimpernel/Scaramouche/Tale of Two Cities version of the Revolution. It's essentially a love story and you know a lot of people (me included) don't care for SYNDICATE because the Victorian era is kind of overexposed and done to death, whereas earlier AC settings had a kind of monopoly.

The truth of the matter is if people want to do a real Assassin's Creed story, you have to go back to the Crusades, when they did exist. After that they're just metaphors for equivalent factions or movements in different periods of history. AC is primarily a Historical Fiction series that uses Conspiracy Theory as an Excuse Plot, the Assassins-Templars-First Civ they are just there for McGuffin, to provide some plot and a set of villains. That's it. What the games are really about is the open world in the past, the old architectural styles, the way people lived back then.

edited 25th Sep '15 11:15:06 AM by JulianLapostat

Despite the title it's actually a Charles Dickens mission.

My problem is that they're not. If the pirates had been the Assassins, I would have considered it a much better AC game. Instead, the pirates mainly did their own thing completely unrelated from the stuff I actually care about in this franchise. The Assassins were mainly Ah Tabai and his people.

Once I'm done with Unity, I'm definitely going back to play Freedom Cry, since it sounds much more like the Assassin's Creed I want to play, instead of Pirate's Creed.

Which, I should emphasize, I do want to play also. I just don't want it to pretend it's something else next time.

Mary Read was an Assassin, mind you. My major problem with Black Flag wasn't the Assassins per se, but how neither the Assassins nor the Templars actually did much of anything for the whole story. They could have been a much deeper part of the game, but Ubisoft chose to make it all about the pirates.

Yeah... The Assassins don't really show up in Black Flag until just before the Climax. Besides that, its Pirate Documentary the video game. Not that that's BAD exactly, but not what everyone wanted from Assassin's Creed.

Looking at the Charles Dickens mission, Spring-Heeled Jack? "The Lower class are animals and we treat them as such" ? "We like Jack and know how to treat the lower class" ?

That sounds... awfully foreshadowing of Jack the Ripper.

Oh, I had a lecture on Darwin in one of my classes yesterday and have decided that the publications of On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man bracketing the time the game takes place is not a coincidence, and has something to do with the Sage.

Ooh, now there's an interesting idea, especially since we know from the Abstergo material revealed in Unity that they've been systematically hiding the discovery of triple helix DNA and promoting the idea that humans evolved from apes rather than being bred by the First Civilization.

This discussion about "What Assassin's Creed is and what it should be" interesting, since I'm finally able to play some of the games.

The fact that there is nothing about human evolution in On the Origin of Species is what twigged me to the idea. The first time he ever brings it up is after the game would take place. 1867 suddenly seems like a very intentionally selected year.