Assassin's Creed

Exactly. At the beginning at least the Templars were Well-Intentioned Extremist (At least the Medieval ones) and then clearly went for World Domination towards the end - well justified, as they want to stop evil etc etc.

But it seems they went with "Complex morality = INTERESTING STORY. But then the rest of the writers tried to keep it as a genuine good vs evil tale. The conflict is much more compelling when the Templars aren't moustache twirling evil. They're compelling when their motives are complex. The assassins are interesting insofar as how they have one method to solving EVERY problem (Stab it in the neck).

The Borgias are an example of the Templars going wrong - as they don't have ANYONE's interests in mind, only their own.

Shay's story would've been a good opportunity to really show that ideology, the passion, the commitment. The rationale - as to why you are Rooting for the Empire. How they intended to build out a structured world. Arguably, Templars tempered by the Assassin order would work really well. The Templars get a structured, order and safe society; the Assassins act as a check to things to ensure people aren't ground down on the way there.

The issue is the Assassins are just as bad as the Templars at times - they will kill people who get in their way even only tangentially connected to things. They will manipulate political structures to suit their goals as well. The only real difference is that the Templars are happier to use industry and business to suit their goals, whilst the Brotherhood acts more like a military network, and is overtly reliant on external resources. They don't seem to control their own revenue streams (in keeping with that romantic ideal of being the underdogs and supporting the voiceless etc)

We're supposed to root for the Chaos side in the Order Versus Chaos conflict because Rebels Good and Empire Bad. We're trained by our culture to feel that way since our first experiences of media. Never mind the obvious Fridge Logic, which is that Order gives us society, social norms, security, systems of government, technological development, and so on — all the trappings of modern life. When one realizes this, the first instinct is to radically change sides and start Rooting for the Empire, because at least they make The Trains Run on Time, or have trains at all.

I would postulate that it's just as myopic to take that point of view, because the Assassin vs. Templar conflict is taking place at the fringes of society. The Templars aren't driving innovation and cultural cohesion any more than the Assassins — at best they are parasitical in that regard, leeching onto new developments either to jealously hoard them or pervert them toward their dreams of domination. Neither are the Assassins trying to destroy social order; they are perfectly happy with government and culture as long as they don't become oppressive.

Here's the conflict in a nutshell: The Templars don't just want Order; they want the total ossification of human development. They want everyone thinking the same way, believing the same way, driven by fear of change into a total, mindless obedience to the Masters (themselves). They want to be the puppeteers pulling the strings of a docile, unthinking populace. They do this because they believe that freedom of thought, creativity, and independence inherently lead to revolt, conflict, disruption — chaos and uncertainty, which they loathe above all other things.

The Assassins, for their part, believe in the supremacy of the individual as a thinking, feeling, moralizing unit. They seek the elevation of each human being to their maximum level of awareness of self and of society. They believe that the struggle and flow of an organic society composed of individuals each seeking their highest self is the best way to promote innovation, growth, and maturation. Of course, conflicts will arise, because conflict is necessary to select the fittest genes, the fittest beliefs, the fittest knowledge. But coercion — the suppression of thought and creativity through fear — is anathema to this vision. And, of course, if any individual starts trying to dominate others through compulsion and/or fear, it follows naturally that the proper action is to remove that individual.

Depending on the Writer, we see the problems with each of these philosophies. The Assassins believe in the supremacy of individualism, but what if they're wrong, and most people lack the capability to be elevated to their ideals? Well, without a dominant social order, you end up with wars and slavery and all manner of human evil that the Assassins can only contain to a limited degree, since the problem isn't the nails that stick up to lead the evil; it's the whole structure. And the push for individualism can lead to the rise of opposing philosophies, which according to the Creed have as much right to exist as the Assassins themselves. What if not everyone likes the idea of a murder cult picking off anyone who gets a bit too "uppity"? What if some of those cultists disagree about who should be murdered?

The Templars aren't innovating or developing, either: they are just ossifying, struggling to impose their vision of an ideal society upon a mass of humanity that refuses to be kept in a neat little box. If they had their way, there'd be no innovation or change or progress: it'd just be a march of mindless drones all dancing to the whims of their masters, who would be the only ones possessed of true vision. But they do have a point when they observe how the Assassins consistently fail to make things better in any systematic way, because the very nature of the Creed is that they refuse to take the reins when offered, and thus abrogate their say in human progress.

The Templars consistently (and often correctly) call out the Assassins for their simplistic, even childlike view of the world, in which murdering the right people will magically make things better for everyone, the consequences be damned. The Assassins consistently (and often correctly) call out the Templars for imagining that they can some how exercise control over all of humanity without destroying that which makes us human to begin with.

The Assassins' dream is inherently impossible, because there will always be people seeking power over others. The Templars' dream is inherently impossible, because there will always be people seeking freedom of thought. Neither side is wholly right or wholly wrong.

edited 16th Oct '17 7:22:36 AM by Fighteer

The thing reminds me a little of the Geth conflict from Mass Effect - the Templars want to stagnate, while using the tech from Those Who Came Before. Progressing, rather going ahead with other people's designs). As the geth say "We want to choose our future". The "Old machines" offered a specific solution for the future, but it was guided.

Essentially, the Templars embody security and longevity at any cost, but the veer towards authoritarian ad draconian approaches.

The Assassins veer closer to Anarchy, definitely, but are themselves tyrants insofar as they only tolerate certain levels of anarchic activity.

The Assassins like to play God while pretending that they aren't doing so, in that they choose who will die for the "greater good", and as such appoint themselves the ultimate judges of morality. The Templars, on the other hand, aren't pretending that they want to play God. They want to toss God aside and take His place, and they won't be omnibenevolent.

edited 16th Oct '17 8:25:05 AM by Fighteer

So, been watching the trailers for Origins (And re-playing Black Flags).

The line "They (presumably the order) are responsible for all your pain and anger" uttered by Cleopatra makes me wonder what are the odds of Aya not being fridged

edited 22nd Oct '17 11:30:08 AM by Ghilz

I'm also playing Assassin's Creed: Rogue again. This time, I'm going for 100% synchronization for the missions.

Outside of the missions, I'll try what people call a "Ghost run".

Edit: I've also begun reading the Assassin's Creed books. I'm not expecting anything that will impress me but I'd like to read them, anyway.

edited 22nd Oct '17 6:33:25 PM by fredhot16

Launch trailer's up.

Game is up for Pre-loading on Steam

Jim Sterling has a Jimpression

I've found out today that my college is holding an Assassin's Creed: Origins Release Party this Friday at 5 P.M!

Wow that is a good college.

Nice to know that there's hype for this game & hopefully the AC brand can revitalize itself with Origins.

I'm skeptical after the mediocrity of the last two games, but I'll probably give Origins a shot. I assume the PC release is delayed, as is usual for this franchise?

edited 25th Oct '17 1:54:22 PM by Fighteer

Nope. It comes out at the same time as the consoles this time.

I'm hopeful. I mean, the mere fact we're supposed to see the Brotherhood's beginning (Though how will they address the plot holes is a question) implies we're getting a story that isn't nearly as much filler as Unity and Syndicate were.

For the record, Jim Sterling mentions that in terms of gameplay, this probably his favourite one i the franchise (Though he mentions a fair share of hilarious bugs). I am hoping we also got a return to the modern segments having some flesh to them, not just cutscenes.

edited 25th Oct '17 2:05:33 PM by Ghilz

Indeed compared to Unity & Syndicate Origins actually feels important.

I wonder if the modern story involves seeing the origin of the Assassin's revitalizes the Modern Assassins like in real life & makes them finally go on the offensive against Abstergo.

Hopefully we get a modern day protagonist.

I don't even need a protagonist (I actually really liked what Black Flag did), but I want it to have gameplay. Not just Bishop telling me stuff.

It also helps that Ubisoft has had time to actually polish the game and put work into it, rather than having to pump them out year after year. Unlike EA and Activision, Ubisoft very quickly learned that you can't make yearly releases work and be different.

I'm still hoping that Assassin's Creed: Origins kept the "Special Assassination" system from Assassin's Creed: Unity and Assassin's Creed: Syndicate. Those are the best parts of those games and I'd hate to see them go.

His opinion: Wait for Sale/Patches. Sort of average, some stuff is good, some stuff is bad. The battle system never comes together. The story is apparently convoluted as all hell and not particularly great - he rates it as the worst story of any AC game and Bayek comes across as boring. The map is beautiful and fun to travel. There's a high degree of repetition.

It's currently at 8.4 on Metacritic.

edited 26th Oct '17 9:13:39 AM by Ghilz

Did the game keep the "Special Assassination" system!?

He doesn't say. He says the game cut down the collectibles usually seen in Ubisoft games, in favor of more content that has some plot associated to it. IE: No feathers, flags, sea shanty, animus fragments, etc... That said there is still a lot of repetition, like forts and outpost with captains to kill.

I don't mind the repetition. I like to use those forts as challenges such as using only the Hidden Blade or focusing on Sleep Darts.

edited 26th Oct '17 6:10:55 PM by fredhot16

This is a game that lets me ride camels to hunt crocodiles and hippos.

There's also detective segments and I can finally take weapons and armor off my slain enemies.

I think I'll actually enjoy this Assassin's creed.

Ah fuck it I'll buy it on day one or at least this weekend.

I really, really want this game to be a revitalization & return to form for the franchise.

Jeez the last AC game I truly loved was Black Flag. Damn how long has it been since the franchise's high-point?

edited 26th Oct '17 6:42:40 PM by slimcoder

Apparantly you can ride a unicorn.

I do hope the game is good. Like, I don't need it to be Black Flag level, but at least, good. Brotherhood or Revelations level will do.

Played about 3 hours.

• They were not kidding on side quest with stories over collectibles. Like, wow.
• The map is gorgeous.
• Senu is finicky. Not sure I wouldn't have preferred regular eagle vision. She seems to often not "Tag" things right in front of her. She's VERY finicky about perceiving things through obstacles. Sometimes she'll tell you everyone inside a building and what they are doing. Other thing she'll fail to tag a guard coz he's obscured by the corner of a building.
• The assassins clearly degraded over time. Bayek has climbing skills that would make Spiderman blush and makes Ezio look like he's a wheelchair bound cripple.
• The combat is more dynamic but I am not sure how well it... meshes togheter. Mook Chivalry is gone, so combat where you are outnumbered is dangerous as hell,
• The story starts of slow, too early to make up my mind on this.
• Similarly, I am not yet getting a feel for Bayek.... For a man who describes himself as consumed by vengeance.... this seems to have shown itself like twice so far? And the second time only due to apple-related hallucinations. He's otherwise a nice chill dude who seems to have no issue delaying his vengeance to help literally everyone.
• No sign yet of the modern segments.
• Why is the Animus Egypt themes? Like the UI has golden eagles and eyes of Ra appearing. Like... none of the previous games had that? Like, When you synchronized in Black Flag, the Animus didn't super impose a pirate flag.... Is this not an Animus?
• No collectibles, but coins to pick up every three inches. This is an OCD's nightmare.

edited 27th Oct '17 12:44:30 AM by Ghilz