Assassin's Creed

technically the Normans did take part in the 1st Crusade didn't they?

I was talking about the fictional factions, no reason they wouldn't be fighting over northern Europe.

Or we could just ignore the myth arc again, I guess.

The first crusades were in 1096, and this game seems to be set before then, in the Viking Age, which had definitely come to a close by then.

Also, the Crusades took place in the Middle East, and the game seems to be set in Western Europe.

Edited by Redmess on Mar 13th 2020 at 11:46:49 AM

Were the Crusades really the first time the Templars and Assassins came into direct conflict (not counting their proto-forms)?

technically the Templars made that particular branch didn't they?

The Hashashins were founded in 1210, the Templars in 1119. Which means we shouldn't be seeing either group in the Viking Age.

Isn't the usual canon that both of those are merely the "public" form of their much older and more vast organizations?

From what I can tell, the groups that call themselves assassins and templars were the historical groups with their historical foundation dates, and any earlier groups are precursors to these two.

It's all a bit hand wavey, honestly.

I think it’s both. The group that calls itself the Assassins are the historical Order of Assassins and anyone we see that predates them are precursors.

The group that calls itself the Templars is much older, and “Templar” is just a name they go by. Only one of the targets in the original game even is a Knight Templar. The other two Christian targets are from different orders, and there were several Muslim targets that were part of the same group.

The Order of Assassins in its current form stems from The Hashashin, but as we see in all the tombs and statues in II and Brotherhood they clearly count the Hidden Ones, as far back as the co-founder Aya/Amunet herself, to be one and the same with them.

Origins is called that for a reason, the Assassin’s present organization is just a formality

Edited by TheAirman on Mar 14th 2020 at 12:06:25 PM

Well, that's also a bit of a retcon so they could include older periods.

Yeah, but it was a retcon from 2. A lot of stuff from the first game, both gameplay and story, got immediately changed in 2 because it wasn't really conductive to a full franchise. Like all those real-world news articles about the world going to shit turned out to be a trolling hacker.

The "true" Assassins were dead by the Crusades weren't they? Al Mualim technically helped save(?) the world there.

Wait what? WHAT? It's been years, may i have a reminder?

Edited by RedHunter543 on Mar 16th 2020 at 12:06:28 PM

Yeah, the first game honestly feels more like a glorified tech demo compared to everything that came after.

Remember that storyline in Revelations about the end of Altair? Remember that brief mention of the Mongolian invasion? That was how the historical Assassins ended. The Mongols invaded Khwarazm and eradicated them. Lambsar (one of their other strongholds) fell in 1257, Masyaf in 1260. Their final stronghold was al-Kahf (Syria) in 1273, and their last known activity is with the Mamluks in Egypt. They basically disappear from history at that point.

The Templars, meanwhile, were abolished by King Philip IV of France in 1307 (a possible origin for the Friday the 13th superstition). They were eventually absolved of all heresies in 1308 and disbanded officially in 1312 by the Pope.

So yes, historically the Templars outlived the Assassins, though of course with enough historical ambiguity to have them live on underground, especially the Assassins.

And no, the time of the historical Assassins pretty much overlaps with the time of the major crusades, so they were definitely not dead by the time of the crusades, but rather, they rose and fell with them.

Edited by Redmess on Mar 16th 2020 at 8:31:17 PM

Unity's co-op missions are awful to play solo...and of course they locked significant skill points behind them.

Other than that, the stupid lockpicking game and most of the plot, Unity isn't bad. Its probably the weakest in the franchise (other than 1, which gets a grandfather pass) from what I've played. Paris is an amazing map for an AC title, it just came at too high of a cost.

There's a lot of Retcon going on there. Assassins Creed 2 said that the Assassins dated back to the time of Darius and Xerxes. Revelations implied the Assassins are actually a First Civilization Revolutionary movement founded by Adam and Eve.

However, Assassin's Creed: Origins has the Assassins now being founded in Ptolemy, Egypt. Which, honestly, I prefer. Kassandra is not an Assassin at all just a person who dealt with some odd people with an interest in First Civilization Artifacts.

Altair made the "Modern" Assassin order that survived the destruction of Alamut.

I don't know if it's retcon really as... it's a very complicated history that kinda gets glossed over in the same way real history tends to get glossed over on more complicated details. I think saying the Assassins originated from Adam and Eve's slave rebellion isn't exactly wrong but it requires a lot of preverse presentism to make it work and only is really justified in the 'We're fighting a similar war of similar morals as those who came before' than a legit 'Same organization centuries later'.

Like, think of how often someone goes 'X was the first feminist in history'. Feminist was most likely not a word at the time of whomever they're talking about and, while sure they fought the same kind of war, they probably wouldn't prescribe to a lot of modern connotations of the word feminist either?

It gets a bit dangerous but isn't exactly like no one does it either.

"Or we could just ignore the myth arc again, I guess."

more likey they are going to give you hints of a arc that is going to led nowhere.

just like always.

Ah the JJ Abrams school of writing

The Game Informer had an interview with Ubisoft's CEO after Origins.

He said something akin to, "We don't actually write the storyline first. The historical setting is what we look at and is what's important. We don't focus on the possibility of sequels either."

You're right, people claiming that [x] person from before about 19th century should be taken with a huge grain of salt, and should be understood as that person having some views that correlate with modern feminism.

Basically, all women throughout patriarchal history would have liked to be treated a bit better and to be taken seriously once in a while. This certainly doesn't mean that most of them wanted to throw over the patriarchy and revolutionize society.

This is basically teleological history, where everything that came before seems to have built up to the present. It is an explanation for something as a function of its end state. In the history of Assassin's Creed, that would be explaining any group that opposed tyranny, oppression, what have you, and killed people for it, as being a proto-assassins group, and that all these groups are necessarily related and building up to the modern assassins.

See this is why III is one of my favorites in the series, because it tears this idea to absolute shreds. Connor thrusts himself into a society he doesn't fully understand in pursuit of revenge, and after joining the Assassins thinks he and Achilles should ally with the Continentals because they claim to be fighting for freedom and liberty from an oppressive government. That Templars he's seeking revenge against happen to seemingly be on the British side? Icing on the cake.

Then he finds out about his dad attempts to make peace while still trying to work the Revolution, and it all falls into a glorious tragic mess when he realizes peace can't work; he's spent the entire war helping the dude actually responsible for his people's genocide; the guy he thought was responsible, while a Templar bag of dicks, actually had nothing to do with it; has to kill his best friend because of the clusterfuck he [Connor] helped create; and after he finally kills his dad and Lee, the first thing he sees of the new nation is a slave auction.

And the second his abandoned village.

Yeah, III was brutal in its deconstruction of the War of Independence.