The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

well it's not really a waste of money. remember that there are hundreds of millions of last-gen console owners out there right now, compared to about 16 million on next-gen.

Rogue will almost undoubtedly outsell Unity initially, but Unity will probably sell a lot of consoles and its sales likely won't trail off as quickly due to people joining this gen and catching up on games.

It's not that I think there shouldn't be a game for last-gen, it's just that this particular story (Rogue) feels like a filler that could easily have been translated in another way. I think they could've kept it fresh and given last-gen players something different like Unity is doing. It doesn't need to be Unity on both generations, just something new. Rogue looks to be more of the same whereas Unity looks like it's breaking down AC's established barriers finally. If that's still the case by release of both games, I'd feel bad for players that felt as if Rogue is a copy and paste of Black Flag. I'd want both generations to get quality games.

Black Flag was one of the most well-received AC games in years. (especially when comparing to the likes of ACIII and Revelations). I think the purpose of Rogue is to tell a novel story, not a gameplay mechanics overhaul. I can't say without seeing both games in their final form, but from a story point-of-view I'm certainly more interested to play as an Assassin hunting Templar with NPCs actively trying to kill (Rogue) me than as another low level Assassin working through the ranks and struggling with Creed to free his nation, again (Unity). Unity got a mechanics overhaul, yes. But it seems like the story in Rogue is shaping up to be much more novel, and mechanically it's based on one of the more well-liked AC games in years. I see no problem with that.

To kill an assassin, you must think like an assassin, DAZ I'm sure Shay won't be all point-and-shoot. After all, using eagle vision to find your predator in a crowd is too sweet to not give us the option of sneaking up behind him for a nice low-profile back stabbing.

Also I'm pretty sure you'll get that "rogue" feeling from this game. You have to!

Also @ McStab: If the franchise has tried to show us anything, it's that generally the templars are the guys we love to hate, because we disagree with their methods, at least I do. I quoted "bad guys" because you can't tell me there's someone out there who looks at Warren Vidic and thinks "Now there's someone who should get his way!"

The templars kidnap, manipulate and murder to get what they want. The assassins basically only kill templars or corrupt, greedy or otherwise dangerous people. Sure, Altair killed the heralds in AC1 but had he left them alive his targets could have been tipped off. Ubisoft sure as heck didn't try to show us that there is no good or bad.

They tried to show us that the assassins methods were much better than the templars, who were doing things by all means, wrong. I have yet to see the franchise creators show us that the templars as an organization are justified. They argue their points like pissed off children. Even when playing those first few missions in AC3 as Haytham, as soon as the ship captain refused to obey him he threatened his life. NOT AN ASSASSIN'S WAY.

Sorry if this all seems like a rant, it's just a clarification that I had to get out. If ubi really wanted us to make up our own minds about these two warring factions, they wouldn't have called the games Assassin's Creed. And we'd get to choose what side we're on right at the beginning of each game, I'm willing to bet. This is why I'm trying to justify playing through Shay's story because being that he follows his own creed, it must have some sensibility, otherwise we'd just think "villain" or "evil".

since they're trying to humanize the templars in this game, I figure they have to appeal to our good nature, not our bad nature. And everybody justifies revenge when it's carried out in a particular way. This all makes me think that Shay might become a Darth Vader, if you will; Guy starts out good, guy gets betrayed and manipulated, guy switches sides, but in the end does what HE feels is right, which is a noble action of compassion, or righteousness, whatever. Either way if the templars aren't seen as flawed in their methods in this game, then I'm going to question why these templars didn't side with the assassins instead.

A templar doing things the right way would never join the templars, unless they were corrupted. [spoiler] Ex: Lucy. Hated vidic, hated the things she'd done for him, was a very nice person, but probably didn't agree with the assassins, well, assassinating people who were bad. Much better to make the world comatose than have to resort to violence, I guess. Lucy thought she was with the good guys, because that's what they showed her. Also, Haytham. Got corrupted at an early age and became morally confused in my opinion. He was ALMOST a decent person, if he didn't just use people and dispose of them once he got his way.

Anyways, I think Shay will either be corrupted and manipulated (hope not) or he'll get revenge on these assassins that betrayed him while being ushered into the templar order, then he'll see that his views don't align with theirs and he'll follow his own "creed". I just don't want to play Templars Creed, that's all. Give me a good guy, even if it's as much of a grey area as a pirate. Even if he does stay with the templars, let it be from manipulation, not self-justification.

But that would defeat the entire purpose of this story. It's meant to show that both sides have good and bad to them. I hope that Shay stays as a full-fledged Templar at the end, believing in his Order completely, otherwise Ubi would still be saying that Assassins are the "good guys" no matter what we theorize. This series started making its players ask tough questions, and this game should continue to do so.

But they did. The Assassins think they act for peace but always fail to achieve it. They've shown time and time again that they always put freedom before peace. The Templars don't care for freedom but only for peace, and would obtain it if the Assassins didn't get in their way :
- Garnier de Naplouse : takes unhappy people off the streets to "free them from their own mind", therefore give them peace. The Assassins want these people to not be taken by force by someone else (freedom) but continue to live their lives full of hardships (not exactly peace).
- William of Montferrat : as he says himself, "[his] district is without crime". He achieved peace. Through conscription, yes, but he didn't claim he wanted freedom.
- Sibrand : wanted to use a blockade to stop the Crowns from sending more troops to fight -> peace.
- Jubair : wants to burn books to erase the reasons the Crusades began, that would be peace. Altaïr prevented it, giving people the choice to believe in these books or not (freedom). He didn't bring peace, since the third crusade wasn't the last.
- William Johnson : wanted to control the natives to keep them safe (peace over freedom). Connor prevented this, and the natives were chased out anyway after the war.
- John Pitcairn : wanted to negociate peace with both sides, to let the Templars pull the strings (take away freedom to give peace).

They seem pretty mature to me. If anything, it's Connor who sounds like a child in most of these conversations.
As for Haytham, except this time on the boat, I'll take these two speeches (this one and this one) as examples of him being wise and truthful.

"Principle and practice are two very different beasts", Haytham says. But everything that the templars practice lead to oppression so that they can one day wipe the slate clean and start things fresh, with people all believing they have all they want and need, under the templar rule. The assassins don't want to rule anyone, they just want the people to stop trying to control and manipulate each other. The templars seem to be the pecimistic (is that right?) faction, where the assassins are optimistic. If the templars could just have faith that mankind is capable of living in harmony then I'm sure the two would be allies.

The homestead was a pretty awesome place where freedom was valued more than order. Not order as in things should be in the right place, but order as in there's a ruling body. Yes, I do agree that what haytham says makes logical sense, but it lacs faith in humanity's capacity for reason. Sure some people always want more than they need, and are willing to take it, but that's why the assassins combat them; In hopes that one day, when the people can understand that control is a desperate man's game and is unecessary that we can all HAVE those castles in they sky, so to speak.

Exercising violence or force to get what you want is different than defending yourself, or humanity. Nobody asked the assassins to step in and make it their business, but they're generally thankful for what they do. Nobody asked the templars to make it their business, but the people seem to be quite opposed to how they execute their idea of peace. Basically the templars are frustrated with the chaos that is freedom because they believe that the world will surely burn, but it's those types of thoughts that actually prevent true peace and freedom from ever forming, if you choose to act on them. As long as there's someone holding a leash, there's going to be someone else that wonders what gives them the right to hold it. And I would too.

It's like if you had two kids that were arguing and the templar father would see that they're going to start beating each other up, so he restrains them, locks them in their rooms and turns cartoons on all day so that it avoids the chance of conflict entirely. The assassin mother (funny concept ) would see that things are getting heated and explain to both kids that if they fight they're not going to solve anything. They might still fight, but then whoever threw the first punch (or insulted the other first) would go in the corner until they understand that they can't just throw their weight around.

If the kid never listens and always fights, the punishment gets harsher. Just as since the templars are the type that will never allow freedom to exist (they want to play god) they must die if they decide to carry out imposing actions on others that they aren't responsible for. Everyone should have the freedom to choose what is right and wrong, nobody should have the right to decide for others what right and wrong are. This normally makes both parties seem like they're incorrect, however if it weren't for templar-minded people, there would be no hidden blade. Just white robes, homesteads, and yes, castles in the sky.

So if freedom and peace is a naive child's dream, then to me it would seem that control and manipulation is an angry child's desperation. I'd rather befriend the dreamer, personally. And to think, last year I would have said that haytham is sooo right; the people are absent minded already, and fight when they should rejoice. I think now that there must be room for error, else there would be no improvement.

Actually, I can see where the Templars are coming from, and they're completely right in what they want. Humanity has proven time and again that it can't stay in peace for too long. People are greedy and lust for power. We hate one another and are the most selfish species on Earth. The Assassins believe that humanity can one day get over themselves and find that peace, however the Assassin method has been in place since society began, even in real life, and there has been no progress whatsoever. We still go to war, we still murder our neighbors; we lie, cheat, and steal. The Assassin ideals are nice, but flawed.

Templars know this fact and realized long ago that complete obedience is the only way towards peace. Sure, it makes every human being a soulless shell of who they were without much of their individual personalities intact, but there would still be no war, lying, or suffering. Believe it or not, Templars are the more merciful of the two Orders.

Actually, I can see where the Templars are coming from, and they're completely right in what they want. Humanity has proven time and again that it can't stay in peace for too long. People are greedy and lust for power. We hate one another and are the most selfish species on Earth. The Assassins believe that humanity can one day get over themselves and find that peace, however the Assassin method has been in place since society began, even in real life, and there has been no progress whatsoever. We still go to war, we still murder our neighbors; we lie, cheat, and steal. The Assassin ideals are nice, but flawed.

Templars know this fact and realized long ago that complete obedience is the only way towards peace. Sure, it makes every human being a soulless shell of who they were without much of their individual personalities intact, but there would still be no war, lying, or suffering. Believe it or not, Templars are the more merciful of the two Orders.

one thing I like about this game is the music, particularly the track that starts around here (6:36): http://youtu.be/R6M_jpmLydw?t=6m36s

gives me a heavy AC2 vibe.

This is like watching an Assassin and a Templar engage in civil debate.

It's beneficial to both parties to play Devil's advocate sometimes.

Yeah good point, people have never been in a complete state of peace but I don't think that means it's impossible, just very hard to achieve. I guess the real question is would you rather be a shell of a person and have your choices all made for you with zero conflict, or would you rather have free will and do what's necessary to protect it? You know what side I'm on!

late to this, but I definitely agree that it's really easy to see the appeal of the templar order. They offer a solution, an end to all problems. and that's why they can so often recruit the lost and the broken, the kind of people who have just had enough of being pushed around, and would gladly sacrifice free will for some peace.

I think their philosophies have been far more common throughout history than the Assassins' have been.

Look more closely at the endpoints of these groups ambitions. For Templars it exists only in theory and can likely never be fully reached. But the Assassins don't believe in an endpoint, only in a way of moving forward. They don't believe they have the answers, they don't believe they have the authority or wisdom to say how things should end up. they want to help the world guide itself down its own path, not one of their choosing.

What historical society does that remind you of? does that really seem like a common theme through history?

obviously things have usually been somewhat in the center of the templar/assassin philosophies, they're extreme versions of what we've actually had. but I feel like the world has always leaned more towards the templar side, in terms of how our societies actually behave. our art/media suggests we're far more humanistic than we are in practice. and that in itself is a very templar thing to do. make those who think like assassins feel at home in their everyday lives, while the system they live within tightens its grip.

Lets not forget the vast amount of corruption both Orders have, and how it has effected civilizations through out the world. Rodrigo Borgia, anyone?

True, there'd be "nice" Templars, like Haytham, but how many of them remain true, pure, peaceful, and uncompromising towards their cause? Haytham himself got corrupted.

Wonder how many Assassins got corrupted over the centuries? Would love to see a DLC on that, but I'm not sure how they'd pull of an idea. An anarchist who wants civilization to return to "the strongest survivalist" mentality?

This is the first AC game that I have gotten super hyped for. Too bad I'll need a new GPU and wait for it be cheaper, that and I already pre-ordered Alpha Sapphire so there goes any other game.

I have always been interested in the Templar side, seeing the whole picture one sided is boring creates too much bias. Seeing it from the "evil" party I'm hoping that there will be a lighter tone on the Templars and not the usual "we must defeat the destroyers of freedom" or something along the lines of that. I know most of this has already been said ( and in better detail that mine own) but still, this game is going to be awesome.

"Even when your kind appears to triumph, still we rise again. And do you know why? It is because the Order is born of a realization. We require no creed. No indoctrination by desperate old men. All we need is that the world be as it is."

exactly.

"quicker, more seductive", to borrow a phrase.

The way Haytham says it, even if you ignore forsaken, it's almost like he's realizing it for the first time, and is disgusted by it. the hopelessness contained in that phrase.

and it's another example of how the templar cause pretends to be more concrete than it is. Assassins shroud themselves in vagueness to justify what they do, Templars justify their power through their power. neither are really appropriate justifications, but the latter is dressed up to seem less challenging.

not saying that makes assassins superior, just that it highlights one of the differences I feel like people often miss.

I agree that it'd be interesting to see more corrupt assassins like the ones in The Fall and The Chain.

would enjoy if Templar games became a spinoff series focused on manipulation and commanding guards as opposed to parkour and direct conflict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ0teGZD4pg

Achilles and Adewale make their appearances. Would love to see how they interact with Shay and Haytham.

Wouldn't it be more possible to make this a DLC? Just a rather big one. Perhaps a single expansion pack that only costs $35.

Are you talking about on next-gen systems/PC? because I bet this game will be available for cheaper on there, but maybe in like a year or so, not any time soon.

it's not going to be treated like an addon, though, cause it's not addon sized. Even though it has three locations I'd say it's about on the scale of brotherhood or revelations.

This appears to be AC Rogue's title screen. It looks really clever, I like it.

I like that in this game they are reinventing some familiar concepts and not just rehashing all of them.

Take the Assassin Contracts, for example. They still exist, but it's your job to thwart the Assassination attempt but protecting the target. We've seen similar missions before, and I have my reservations that this could get monotonous quickly. But then again, all side content can.

Reinventing the Templar stalker from Revelations by having to constantly watch your back from Assassins in the crowd.

Mostly, I'm looking forward to the new protagonist POV. I really hope they humanize the Templars in the same way they did at the beginning of ACIII. That was one of the shortcomings of the last two Ezio iterations, in my opinion. It became all about "assassin good-templar/borgia bad."

Mostly, I'm looking forward to seeing Haytham in his prime. Having seen him at the beginning and end of his reign in ACIII, it'll be nice to hopefully see him in all his glory (hopefully similar to the middle chapters of Forsaken). Disclaimer: Haytham is still my favorite major character in the AC universe.

Also, early 2015 for PC. I haven't seen anything on PS4/Xbone.

That would be a big middle finger to last-gen gamers if they re-released Rogue for current-gen. I hope they keep the exclusivity.

I'd be SHOCKED if they didn't come out on the PXbone4 eventually... Liberation made the jump with updated graphics... and not even to just PS3, but across to Microsoft too...

All about the benjamins...

A couple questions.

Is anyone else playing this?

Would anyone like me to review it when I'm done, comparing to previous AC games in regard to story, gameplay, settings, new/old features? (as spoiler free as possible)

Assuming a yes above, would people want me to comment on the present day aspects at all?

Not yet
Yes please
Why not?

I'm not playing it. Unity's controls and feel is so different from previous ACs, it would seem like a different game. CAN'T GO BACK!

Ditto. Rogue is on my Christmas wish list. I intend to play it after Unity and would appreciate a spoiler-free review. Thanks!

I will be 100%ing Rogue as soon as I 100% Unity.
By that I mean, starting Rogue as soon as I Full Sync Unity.
I would like some review with as few spoilers as possible.
Firstly I'd just like to know, IS THERE a Modern Day? If there is, I don't want to know what it is.
I would like to see for myself :3

Yes. There is modern day. I hinted at that already and it's not really a spoiler.

I will do a three part review in two topics:
1 - Spoiler-free gameplay and mechanics review (past and modern)
2a - Story and mission specific review (past and modern)
2b - Overall feelings/how it fits in other games

I will start it this weekend, but I don't game 24/7 so it may be another week.

One thing I will say now is that I am loving it so far. Lots of nostalgia mixed with new. If it stays like this the whole game, it will have been a great send off for last gen consoles.

Just watched a lets play of Rogue. It felt like the saturday morning cartoon version of AC! I may think Unity's plot is rather weak in comparison, but something I appreciate about it is its "Classy HBO Original Show" aesthetic and its fairly regular use of subtlety in dialogue and cutscene direction.

It also reminded me of how uninterested I am in each AC being super connected and having a ton of recurring characters in the animus segments. I feel like Achilles' backstory was more interesting when it was vague, this didn't really add anything to his character. And his assassin brotherhood's resemblance to the exaggerated multiplayer characters helped push the saturday morning cartoon feel.

But hey, it was nice that they tried out this kind of story. I think I came to the conclusion after watching this that I'll probably buy every future main game in the series, even if I don't always get them at launch. Even when they're dumb, I just like seeing these teams try to do something new with the premise. Unless it sounds totally horrible, I'll be there.

And oh, I don't care that you "make your own luck", Shay. Whatever that actually means.

Rogue doesn't feel particularly special to me, but it's a decent Assassin's Creed game like Black Flag.
The only thing I want to say I actively dislike about it is Shay's voice. He's my least favorite voice actor of the entire series.
It gets so much worse when he's on his ship and he starts bellowing orders. My brain KNOWS he doesn't sound like a donkey, but my HEART YEARNS to EXPRESS that he does anyway xD

I completely agree. It's more fun to theorize and figure things out yourself. I had a more interesting story played out in my head before I watched a Let's Play of Rogue. But then again, I'm a sucker for mysteries and mysterious characters.

Yeah. I suppose this pleases the crowd who thinks "Connor's story was not complete" or whatever. I'm glad that they're getting away from filling us in on every detail of each assassin's lives. I'm even tired of all the legacy costumes that appear in each game. I'd much rather they spent their time on more cool outfits specific to the time and character. More time on the "present" (in terms of where we are in the animus at any given point) and less on fanservice for past characters, in general.

The only legacy outfit that will ever be necessary is Altair Ibn-La'Ahad.
And it will forever be necessary. This is concrete. THIS IS NEEDE-
[SOUNDS OF BEING DRAGGED AWAY BY FORCE]

Lol. I can accept a variant on them being used as ceremonial robes when someone becomes a Master Assassin, but only because they were the master robes of his order, not his unique outfit. So yeah, they can stay!

but then how will Ubisoft appease the vocal majority Ezio-fanboys?

If someone's a TRUE Ezio fanboy (forgive the fallacy, just roll with me here) then they recognize that Altair was essentially the person he looked up to the absolute most. He was his mentor and his brother across time. They have so much to thank Altair for - not least of all him telling Ezio to die not as an Assassin like he did, but as an average man, happy. I could go on and on but I love Altair so anywho.

Ezio fanboys can have Ezio's skull as a throwable distraction item.

(As a Connor fanboy, I'd like a morose adventure game about the final days of his life (Hey, Telltale!) I absolutely love that they gave him a sad, unheroic, and interesting ending. It doesn't really need expanding on but has potential as a smaller, moodier thing. Just so long as it's not in a main game.)

I'd also like to see Connor's ending, to be honest. I mean, it was revealed in text but I'd really rather see it.

Yeah, it would be neat, but it seems like too personal and small-scale an ending to justify as content in a main game.