The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

Well I was just thinking realistically. I mean, because Desmond is reliving memories as a male ancestor, the only strange and different things to him are the people, places, and historical experiences. If he has to learn how to walk without a penis, that would be a very hard thing to do, just like it would be for a woman to relive memories of a male ancestor. lol. I'm sorry, this is just a silly thing to talk about, but it's still interesting. Besides, the game would have a 99% chance of being ridiculed with some "Transexual scandal" and not be taken seriously after that. I would totally play as a female, though. Only if they could dodge such an incident. Does that make sense?

I do understand what you mean. And thank you greatly for not using the "men outnumber women gamers" argument . I hadn't thought about ridicule and not taking seriously, but that's a very good point.

Thanks for responding!

I hadn't even thought of that argument, but this site shouldn't really be about arguments. I always thought it was for help with AC, other games, and just fun things to talk about. That's why I proposed the idea of putting Lucy into the Animus at some point so we could play a female Assassin. I'm saying I'd like to! lol

The animus only views memories so it would be easy to walk without the female parts.

regardless of that fact, it would just be weird for Desmond. i just think that's common sense. lol

I disagree.

The animus causes individuals to relive memories. We all know how memories work – it's like watching a movie in your head that takes place from your perspective. During the event you're remembering, you're not specifically thinking about what it's like to have a penis or to not have breasts. You're focused on the events, the things that aren't regular everyday norms.

The ancestor in question didn't feel uncomfortable in their own body. It's their memories, so the memory won't feel uncomfortable either. It's not like every single detail is there. Think of your own memories and how detailed they are. In these memories, you're not thinking about your own anatomy. At least I hope you're not.

Think about one memory in particular. Now picture it again with something different from how it actually happened, like say you're a foot shorter or 10 kilograms heavier. Did it "feel" uncomfortable? It didn't actually feel like anything at all, did it? It wouldn't be any different in the animus.

The big misconception is where the fourth wall is situated in this series. Because this is a video game, the fourth wall is somewhat blurred for the sake of maintaining the entertainment and immersion factors. The game's dialogue makes it clear that the animus is a machine which accesses an individual's genetic memory stored in their DNA. For the individual in question, the memories are relived in a sort of trance, almost like lucid dreaming.

The animus interface and puppeteering controls are beyond the fourth wall. Desmond isn't actually controlling the individual – they only did that to make this a game rather than a movie. Desmond is merely reliving immutable memories stored in his DNA. He can't change what really happened. The animus is not a time machine. It simply brings out these dormant memories in his DNA and gives his mind access to them. He wouldn't need to learn how to control a new body or anything like that.

Actually, Asaic, the Animus controls and interface are within the bounds created by the "fourth wall." Remember, the beginning of AC1 with the Tutorial? Desmond is controlling the ancestor to an extent.

I usually describe the Animus as an advanced video game console, with the ancestral memories being the "game." Desmond can do things within the parameters of the Animus that don't necessarily fit within the bounds of what actually happened. Hence why you can get into fights at any point, or not get the Armor of Altair, or not renovate the Villa yet still "complete the game."

Certain important things absolutely have to happen (cutscenes, assassinations) but the exact way of things happening in-between isn't as strict, such as the way you take down a guard or group of guards, or even how you assassinate some of the targets.

I thought my post made it clear enough, but I guess not. I'll expand on it.

The animus allows an individual to relive memories, not play a video game. Memories are immutable. They are events that actually happened in one and only one way. There were specifically coded into DNA (in this game's universe), much like a movie is encoded to a DVD or Blu-ray disc. It's not like the mass code required for all possible what-if scenarios were encoded into DNA.

Memories are immutable, and any change to a memory is imagination. The animus is designed to retrieve and view memories, playing them back on a screen for those outside the animus. It is not designed to allow people to live out their own imaginative fantasies. There would be absolutely no point in designing it as such, as they (Abstergo) just want certain information. They didn't get Lucy to design the animus to allow people to play video games to see what might have happened had the ancestor instead jumped off a tall building or ran headlong into a camp of soldiers. It's not a What-If machine. Abstergo just wants cold hard facts, and they want them now.

The only reason we as the player get to control things is because this is a video game, not a movie. Anything related to controlling the character happens beyond the fourth wall, where only we as the player see it. Just because we get treated to an animus voice-over tutorial doesn't mean that Desmond actually did. No more than most game's tutorials actually take place in that game's canon with a disembodied voice or floating text telling the main character to "Press the Action button". It's a compromise to allow this to be an interactive game. If Desmond actually was controlling the memory playback, he would simply change events to give Abstergo false information. No, he's being taken for a ride, reliving memories. He's not playing a video game. It is we who are playing a video game.

Now anything not shown or spoken of in a game is open to interpretation. This is a fictional universe, after all. But I prefer to go with the most likely scenarios and just ignore the compromises made when breaking the fourth wall for the player's benefit. Look at Metal Gear Solid (1998). They really satirized the whole concept, and it's ignorable when you're focused on immersion. The animus tutorial in Assassin's Creed to me is no different than Campbell telling Snake to "Stand in front of the ladder and press the Action Button". If the characters and events in MGS actually existed, you can bet that nobody would have said anything about an "action button".

The main point is, if we really could relive old memories, I don't see how we could control or play around with them. It would be like watching a video – all we can do is watch and learn. And we certainly wouldn't be able to feel our own genitalia.

See, that's the thing. Even the handbook that came with AC1 mentions that Desmond has to learn how to use the controls in the Animus, rather than just giving the generic "here's the controls" spiel that basically all other manuals give. It's clearly more than just a movie being played back. Not to mention I think I recall (I don't know if it's actually true or not, so correct me if I'm wrong) someone saying early on, maybe before AC1 was released, that Desmond experiences a slight electric shock when he loses sync.

Here's another thing. Memories aren't infallible. Some things you remember more vividly than others. Sometimes you might remember things slightly differently than how they actually happened (think of yourself as a hero? You fought off 20 guards instead of the 7 you actually did). This explains the various cutscenes, and also explains the "interactive" cutscenes as well. Did Ezio actually hug Leonardo? Did he actually expose the blade to Paola? Did he actually stab the two guards holding him when he goes to find Jacopo in the amphitheater? We don't know. Yes, it's also a trick that Ubi used to draw us into the cutscenes, but it doesn't rule out my explanation.

Of course, this argument could go back and forth for while.

But I do agree with you about the whole genitalia bit. I think the issues would be mental and not "physical." Just the idea of being in control of a woman's body might be a little disconcerting to Desmond, though actually controlling the body wouldn't be a problem.

I think that depends on how the event gets encoded into the DNA in the first place. If it happens simultaneously with the event, then the memory would be infallible. It would only be able to happen that one way. However, if it doesn't become a genetic memory until it is recollected later, then it could be recollected differently than it actually happened. I think the first option is the more likely one.

Disconcerting to Desmond, or disconcerting to the male gameplayer? I must confess that I would like to see a world where the latter simply isn't an issue. It already isn't an issue for me (and I'm assuming other women gamers) since we have to identify with a male lead character if we want to play practically any action-type games at all. Sometimes girls like to smash stuff up too!

I'm really glad to hear that there are males who wouldn't mind playing as a female Assassin and I'm also glad to see that Ubisoft doesn't seem to have a problem with the idea (even though the women are pretty much just support staff at this point ).

If anyone feels as if I've gotten too far away from the purpose of our website here, please feel free to say so and I'll drop it. I won't be offended.

See, that's the thing, memory as we know it actually starts in one part of the brain (short term) and then transfers to another (long term). Who's to say that somewhere in-between the two, the chemicals that store memories might get altered in some way? Of course, Ubi's been twisting science and pseudo-science to create this story. But I would agree that it really depends on how and when the memory enters the genetic "script."

I'd say more Desmond, but there are way too many sexist male gamers that would have some problems with it. I wouldn't have a problem with it, providing Ubi gave good reasoning for it, but if they do it just to have a female main character, then I would have a problem with it. This assumes also that they would write her well, and not create a barely-more-than-generic action girl.

EDIT: I'd say that this discussion is well within the purpose of this website. I mean, why else have a website like this if not to discuss theories and ideas about the series?

I don't consider a manual as anything canon. Few people ever do. Look at all the goofy notes they put in there from Vidic. They break the fourth wall much more than Vidic's dialogue in the game did. In fact, I don't think his dialogue in the game did at all.

It doesn't really support it either.

Whether he remembers killing 7 guards or 13 or 20 doesn't actually matter. The memory will contain only one version of the event, accurate or not. It will recall that he killed several guards and then went into the church and eavesdropped on a conversation. It wouldn't be so open as to "Did I go into the church next, or did I run around the countryside for five days killing hundreds of guards and dozens of Templars?" Whether the memory is correct or not doesn't matter; only one version of an event will be remembered.

And this does nothing to explain how one could control a memory. However something is memorized, it is memorized in one and only one way, whether that way is accurate or not. It simply doesn't make any sense to have it fully open and controllable. That is purely for the video game aspect.

If I were to close my eyes and recollect my events from yesterday, I wouldn't mentally control myself and make myself walk out to the middle of the living room, then rotate left, then move forward, then stop, then rotate right, then move forward some more and enter the bathroom. From a memory recollection perspective, that's just ridiculous. That's simply not how memory works. The animus wouldn't be any different; it's simply a machine that accesses memory stored in our DNA. We don't store interactive video games in our DNA.

Think about it this way – if they were to make an Assassin's Creed movie, how do you think they would handle it? Do you think they would make the animus some sort of machine that allows people to imagine any situations they want and we would see Desmond changing historic events just to have fun? Or do you think it would be exactly as Abstergo describes it and it is a machine that allows the viewing of ancestral memories? I think it's pretty obvious. These are memories, not The Matrix.

I've never had a problem playing as female characters. Even in MMORPGs where you're tasked with creating an entirely new character from scratch and creating a reputation for them in the world by controlling their actions, I have no issue with that. And I know that many males, especially adolescents, do have a problem with that. But it's their problem.

I find that in games where I have a choice, I play the female characters more often. I find females much more appealing to look at (not just in a sexual way), and I know that I'm not alone in that feeling. When I play as a female character in MMOs, I get more attention and a higher degree of forgiveness and acceptance than as a male character. Other males treat you differently (they assume that you're a female player) and even when they know you're not, they still tend to act a little better around you. And female players also seem to respect you more, probably for the same reasons.

I never lie to other players. If they ask my gender, I tell them I'm male. If they ask, I tell them I'm heterosexual. But I don't volunteer that info, and I find that most people don't ask. I guess it's my way of using the anonymity of the internet to make people act better, rather than supporting the fact that many act like pricks behind the shield of anonymity.

Another thing that I think is very interesting in this regard relates to games in which you can design the entire look of the female character. The types of characters you see others create tend to be quite unrealistic. I never do the typical male thing and give her the largest breasts and big puckered lips and all that crap. I try to make my characters look as realistic as possible. I make them look like a person you might run into on the street. Sure, I tend to work hard on making the face quite attractive by my own standards, but never unrealistically so. You won't see Angelina Jolie lips or anything like that. And I'm often complimented on my characters' appearances. By females as often as males.

I also tend to favor a role reversal, compared to what is typically expected. When I make a character who is taking on a role of a fighter, perhaps with a sword and shield, I always go female. She'll be like 5'6" and not very muscular, but she can still perform her job adequately due to skill and being nimble and intelligent. It's still realistic, just not typically thought of in that way. I also enjoy creating a 6'2" muscular male and making him a spell caster or some such role where his size and strength aren't actually a factor in performing the role. I enjoy the contrasts.

Fine then. How do you explain the Glyphs? They weren't there in Ezio's time, yet they're displayed in Renaissance Italy. If the memories were displayed as just a movie, then he wouldn't be able to do that. Desmond does have control. The big things have to happen (ie the story) but the other stuff (the side missions, collecting the treasures/upgrades) don't necessarily have to happen.

Wow, it's great to have so many highly-evolved people here. Thanks everyone for responding.

I was just going to say something similar, only not as well!

I thought Subject 16 put the glyphs in, but they're just in the animus; in the memory core.

As to the side missions, they did happen - it's just that sometimes Desmond chooses not to engage in those memories. Desmond has some choice with story missions as well. In what order did Ezio complete the Carnevale games? In whatever order Desmond chooses to relive them.

Assassinations can happen differently as well. In stabguy's game, Ezio jumps stylishly from a tall tower onto the target's head. In IanXO4's game, Ezio sneaks in and poisons and sneaks out again. (In my game, Ezio stumbles around like a headless chicken, trips a few times then messily chases down the target and stabs him while shouting swear words.) And in each case, that is how it happened.

So YurkleNorf and Asaic are both correct. In this case, everything is true.

AC1 made it clear in-game that Desmond has control in the Animus:

As far as playing a female character, the last non-AC game I played was Portal. Because it's first person and the protagonist doesn't speak, it took me awhile to realize she was female. That was cool. I'd like AC3 to at least acknowledge a female along the Altaïr to Desmond bloodline. It will be disappointing if they continue with the patriarchy. For example, Desmond's mother could turn out to be Ezio's descendant.

Desmond has already had his share of awkward moments in the Animus: "Whoa, Maria looks hot! *shudders* Put some clothes on, great-grandma."

FINE! IT DOESN'T MATTER! IT'S OKAY TO BE A FEMALE WITH DESMOND! lol

oh, and Desmond is in control of the Animus all by himself. he's not just along for the ride. because the memories are from his DNA, the Animus uses that information to create each sequence of events. and since Desmond is a descendant of each ancestor, he will think and act accordingly in each "main memory." like LisaMurphy said, Desmond can choose in whichever order he will access each memory. the "puppeteering" concept is what Desmond uses to manipulate the Animus Avatar (Altair, Ezio).

think of it like this: if you were shoved into your father's body when he was going in for a job interview years before you were born, you'd be sub-consciously given his traits, thoughts, and actions that he performed at that specific time in history. you can't help it. it's in the DNA. genetics make it possible. Desmond (the player) can choose to perform any extra event he/she wishes, because they are in control. Abstergo and the Assassins both wanted to view SPECIFIC memories and information, so Desmond was allowed to do whatever the hell he wanted up until the key moments.

those are just my thoughts on the subject. i know some of that probably could have been clearer. i do that sometimes.

I'll admit that anything is possible in the realm of video games. In real life, you cannot control a memory. Period. Maybe you can in the AC universe, and that's pretty messed up. It's about as realistic as a mushroom making you double in size or walking through the east door of a room and appearing in the west doorway of the very same room.

The thing is, I find it far, far easier to ignore the control aspects in the AC games than I do believing that a person can change history via memories stored in their DNA. There's absolutely no logic behind it, whereas I can see the logic in breaking the fourth wall in a minor way for the benefit of this being a video game (as has clearly been done in countless other titles) rather than a movie. Far less rationalizing needs to be done, and I'll take that any day.

I addressed this very thing in an earlier post. Somebody didn't read the entire thread before responding...

I was responding to what you said about the manual being non-canon. The same things are said in-game.

If you dismiss the Animus tutorial as non-canon also, then turn your attention to the Synchronization Bar. It's there for the remainder of the game and measures Desmond's success/failure at doing things in a manner consistent with Altaïr. If Desmond were just going along for the ride, then Altaïr would never kill a civilian or fall in the water.

i see it also as Desmond controling the memory. like when the collectibles are first brought up i distinctly remember Lucy saying something about "you need to collect all to be in complete synch"
or something of that effect.

i see the Animus as a trial and error-machine.
if Desmond does something that Altair did not, like getting stabbed or killing the innocent or drowning, he will lose synch because Altair did not do that.

yes, exactly! obviously, if Altair was killed or fatally wounded, he wouldn't be alive to even be an ancestor of Desmond. the ONLY reason that Desmond is able to do everything how he wants is because it's a game. if it was a movie or book or something else, then it would follow exactly 1 path every time. otherwise, this would be the most pointless game in the world. we'd just turn the game on and set down the controller as the game played itself.

I was going to respond again, but you basically made my point for me. And yes, I've already said this exact thing several times in this thread, but people seem to ignore it.

I heard you, Asaic!

I don't quite understand why the male/female thing even came up for this game. It's not like we have a choice (not that I care).

Game Informer just had an interesting article about genders in gaming. I mean female characters and those that may play them. Female gaming has gone up about 5% (if I remember correctly), but frankly, me being a female, I prefer to play male characters. I like the power I can't get in RL (in looks not in actual gameplay...call it an alter ego if you must). I have played as a female in MMO's and frankly, most ppl think I'm a 13 yr old jacking off to my own character. I really have never gotten insulted when the only choice of gender in a game is male. I'd prefer it that way.

BTW, for example, ME2 now has a choice of male or female. I would never dream in my wildest days of playing as a female. ME1 was male only. It'd be like going transvestite!

I think it's because of the rumors that AC3 might have a female ancestor. Some people might have an issue with that. But not us!

ME1 gave you a choice. I only played as a female in that game, and I haven't played the sequel (and don't plan to).

yeah, i've played almost exlusively females in both Mass Effect games.
i always found that i liked her voice much more than i do the males voice acting.

but off course, that's the only game (besides Tomb Raider) where i played as a woman at all

yes, i just wanted to make it a little more blunt so people can understand the simple point! haha

i thought ME1 had the choice of female as well. they came out with all those lesbian "sex scenes" on Youtube and it caused a huge controversy. or am i just the only one that saw that? lol

I plead guilty. I said that I would like to play as a female Assassin over in that thread of AC3 predictions. Then the discussion veered off topic so I moved it here.

Neither have I. That was my point. It's never been an issue for me, nor for my daughters, nor my daughters' friends. I was just wishing that men (present company excepted ) could be as comfortable with the role reversal as women already are.

Wow, in all the times I played ME1, I never saw that I had a choice (maybe because I didn't care so I didn't look that hard). Well that's new for me!

Lisa, you sound like a pure gamer...not some feminist that plays only to promote the strength of women in gaming. I like purists! Let's face it. I'm ok with women mainly taking the 'nurturer' role. It's unnatural for women to be violent. I only take exception in certain cases. For example if a video game was based around a woman losing her husband and children to some assassin and she seeks vengence. THAT could cause hatred and vengence in women. Killing for the sake of honor and pride? That's a 'man' thing. So no, women killing in video games does nothing for me without some strong emotional baggage to go along with it.

So I take it you're not a fan of Tomb Raider and Laura Croft?

Some of the best games and most memorable characters I've played in games are female.
Examples include Jill Valentine, Faith from Mirror's Edge (That story is... I want to live Mirror's Edge XD), Chell from Portal, Nariko, from Heavenly Sword (I like how the beginning of the game, is actually the end.)

A female assassin could potentially open up new gameplay options. We've seen how each and every guard in ACII practically has a seizure every time even a mildly-beautiful woman walks up to him, imagine having a "Lure" command and then stabbing him in the neck/torso. It would LOOK like a hug.. but it wouldn't be a hug, would it

Come on, Ubi. You teased us with that footage of Adam and Eve stealing the Apple of Eden. I want to actually USE a Piece of Eden in gameplay, probably with Eve. That huge war between Those Who Came Before and the Humans? During the final battle of AC3, possibly, while Desmond is in that huge war with the Templars, destruction and devastation happening all around him, he turns around, slides his enemy's blade away from himself and stabs his foe. Suddenly, the Bleeding Effect occurs for several seconds and he's no longer Desmond, his enemies are no longer Templars. Those Who Came Before and the Assassins are in combat.

Sick idea?
I think so, yes.

Technically speaking, it would be impossible to play as a female ancestor based upon the genetic guidelines the devs have set.

With a man, new sperm is created every couple of weeks, so the memories are updated consistently. With women, their eggs are created at birth, and are never 'updated', so it wouldn't work very well, considering what we've seen so far.

This complicated and very interesting argument can be summed up quite easily in my opinion. Due to the fact that each player can act differently (Stab, Ian etc.) and choose to do side missions, collect feathers, loot chests etc. it is not clear where the true boundaries of the memories are and a player is permitted to do pretty much what they like:

"Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted"

I'd like to think that the real Ezio did either as little or as much as the player did, thus Desmond will be in sync either way.

Yeah I think thats a good way to look at it. At the end of the day, its your game that you're playing so, whatever you do and however much you get done, its correct and in sync.

While this debate is very interesting and brings up many questions about the fourth wall and even real-life memories, Assassin's Creed II is, ultimately, just a game. Its good to discuss the intentions of a game and how far the characters actions are set, especially in a complex game like AC but TBH I think everything varies depending on who is playing. I'll never be able to assassinate and manipulate the game as Stab, Ian etc. do but I still complete the same missions as them in the end.

Ezio is a character.
Desmond is a character.
We are gamers/players who see these characters as almost real.
As players, we are allowed to take on the role of Desmond who in turn takes on the role of Ezio (even if it is only a memory).
Therefore, however much we do Desmond/Ezio does, and without the players there is no Desmond, there is no Ezio, there is no Assassin's Creed II.

It's a game. Games are meant to be played with one central theme, but to the player's liking.

In Assassin's Creed, you use a machine that lets you live the life of your ancestors, and you're complaining about sperm?

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Haha. Good point. The game's theme is so unrealistic/far-fetched there's no real need to debate realism

The fact that Ezio's memories are stored in his sperm proves that he was thinking with that part of his anatomy.

Wait, that's not normal?

I was reading a bit more about this subject and what I got from my experience and ability to rationalize my numerous deaths is...you are incapable of changing history. Sure you die a million times, but the Animus will not allow you to continue until you have repeated the events that Altair accomplished. That's how I rationalize the game anyway. Even if you are a female in the animus, Altair was a male. So just like a video game, you play a male character. The animus is a video game within a video game. Desmond had no control over history...it was like a personal video game in linear progression. He had no choice but to go one way.

so, is this topic still about gender issues or just how the animus works?

cause i just found something here. Activision (who i already dislike due to what they did with Infinity Ward) are saying something along the line that female protagonists don't work
they apparently went as far as taking a game called "Black Lotus" which was supposed to be about a female asian assassin in Hong Kong inspired by Lucy Liu, and turned it into True Crime: Hong Kong, a GTA copy in Hong Kong with a male lead

big freaking article here

i really don't like Activison

That was some screwed-up logic. So female protagonists don't work because there aren't many of them, which they use to argue that there aren't many of them because they don't work. Hurrah for circular reasoning!

I really don't like Activision now either.

At any rate, thanks for the link to the article.