The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

I want to get killed by Daniel Cross.
He is currently the most powerful individual in all of Assassin's Creed, if you read his backstory and what he did and his allegiance and all that craziness, you'll know why. Also, he's CRAZY. He is actually, legitimately INSANE.

I really need to borrow my friend's AC Encyclopedia. I only know that he was an Assassin forced to obey the Templars. He comes up in ACR's multiplayer off screen. I bet we'll have to kill him. That'll be fun. haha

Oh, definitely.
If he's not the final boss of Assassin's Creed III, THEN I will be shocked.
In all likelihood though, he will be.

They kinda stress that being the case in ACIII. Well...if you played the mulitiplayer ofcourse.

I hate that I so often have to be a downer, but I'm kinda bored of alternate endings in games. They just don't really add anything to it for me. What ifs are more fun when they're left as what ifs, in my opinion.

I'm ok with choices that somewhat affect the way the story plays out, but I'd prefer for them to be through how you choose to play the game, not dialogue options or a straight up "light side/dark side" choice. And the ending shouldn't be different. Then we have to get into what's canon or not, and since this isn't going to be the last AC game, most likely, if they ever refer to the events of AC3 they'll have to pick which ending is canon. Which devalues the non-canon ending. It just seems more trouble than it's worth.

I agree with that,nice to see you here after forever.

Obviously the ending that saves the world is the canon one. I thought it would be fun to put in something at the very end that would cause the player to really screw up. Not necessarily a time limit or moral choice at the end of the game, but something unique.

I wasn't thinking that either ending would involve failure, just a different way that success plays out.

An actual straight up "You lose" cinematic? I dunno... I think that would annoy a lot of people. It took us 5 games to get to this point, so screwing up and not getting the big finish would be really aggravating, wouldn't it?

BTW, I think someone mentioned Daniel Cross. Ubi seems to be keeping Daniel's story separate from Desmond's, most obviously by having it take place a decade or two before then. I expect Daniel to die before 2012. His story is prolly just gonna be kept to the comics.

EA, nice to be back! Now that AC3 has been officially announced, I'll be checking in occasionally. Probably mostly just lurking until we see gameplay.

I thought Daniel and Desmond's stories where going to intersect. Being that revelations kinda made it clear,if you played the multiplayer, either some mystery Templar agent or Daniel would be going after Desmond's father.

If not well, that's sad. I was really looking forward to the interaction of Daniel and Desmond. That would be an awesome moment,if done right.

Well really, the main reason I think that Daniel and Des won't meet is because the comic was created specifically to be it's own self-contained story, and to not have to be shackled to what goes on in the main storyline. I doubt they'd give up that freedom. And I also doubt that Daniel is still with Abstergo by Desmond's time.

Did you read the comics?.

Daniel is basically a sleeper agent for abstergo. They put some kinda chip into his brain, so no matter how much he resist, he'll always go back to abstergo.

I know, but there's a new series of the comic coming out. I'd bet on him somehow getting the chip deactivated and going rogue. His story isn't over, is all I'm saying.

"The chain" right.

He was in the multiplayer, Calvar. He's in the background and is told by Vidic to "be patient" or something because he's going after Desmond's father. He'll be in AC3. That's a fact.

Is he mentioned by name/subject number and physically shown?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vh1fuMUn58

Ahh, the way you first described it I thought it was unclear who it was and you were just guessing. Cool cool.