***HUGE SPOILERS*** Free-Range AC3 Discussion
Spoiler tags will not be necessary in this topic, unless
Connor
I think Connor is a very appealing character (in addition to having the most awesome hair in the history of gaming). His flaws, however, are more same old, same old; impetuosity and rashness. All the ancestral characters had this. For story purposes, it's just easier to create a “dramatic tension” when a character blunders into bad decision-making through haste. It's also lazy storytelling to rely on the same trick.
See, for example, Connor's disputes with Achilles. When Achilles tried to dissuade Connor from a particular course of action, he simply said it wasn't a good idea but provided no supporting evidence. So it was easy to dismiss his warnings, as indeed Connor (and therefore, us) were required to do. Even though Achilles turned out to be “right” (I guess), it wasn't a vindication of him, it was just story manipulation, like a fake conflict inserted just so there could be some.
On the other hand, fantastic hair.
I enjoyed that Connor was not on anybody's side except his own and his tribe. That was refreshing. His disillusionment with the people who he assumed were aligned with him then made feeling mournful on his behalf much more genuine for me, rather than feel as if I was shabbily manipulated into doing so.
And what was with another flower-picking mission? At least it was a side mission this time, and the flowers were fairly difficult to reach, but WTF??? I was expecting a “Connor Frolics with Widdle Bunnies” mission to pop up next.
Have I mentioned Connor's truly fabulous hair?
Paul Revere Character Assassination
If I had the ability to meet any individual living or dead, Paul Revere would be my first choice. In AC3, Revere was made to act like a grinning idiot. It was beyond annoying, it was blatant character assassination (what, no memory corridor for character assassination?). In RL he was a most interesting person, and the role he played in the Revolution was considerable. He absolutely deserved a better treatment than this.
I give props to Ubisoft for getting the history (mainly) right. The mis-handling of Revere seemed to be the most obvious sour note to me (after only 1 playthrough though), although there were a few others. In general, they did pretty well with the history. B-.
The Bad Guys
Haytham was just right as the bad guy. I was constantly reminded of the immortal description in the movie “Broadcast News”, where that one reporter talks about how when the Devil appears, he won't be ugly and scaly and scary. He'll be handsome and charming and seem reasonable, but little by little you'll be compromised by him and you won't be aware of it until it's too late (like the lobster in the pot). That was Haytham and it struck just the right note.
Not Charles Lee, though. He should have been more similar to Haytham. Instead he was a stereotypical olde tyme dastardly villian from a 19th century melodrama. He practically twirled his mustache! BIG missed opportunity.
Juno, also, should have been more like Haytham. (Although, her poem “Thinking About You” made me laugh heartily.) She was such an angry being, so dismissive of humans, that it makes Desmond choosing her alternative very hard to fathom.
The Story and Some Wild Speculation
Hurray for moral ambiguity! It was needed in the series desperately. The most brilliant thing of all the brilliant things of AC1 was the gradual increase of disquiet and discomfort as you begin to question your own motives over the course of the game. It was a masterstroke to include in a video game in the first place and I was really stoked to see it re-appear in AC3. It would have been nice if a touch of ambiguity was included in Ezio's games, making the player wonder if teaching Desmond to become an assassin was really the right thing to be doing. In light of what happens to Desmond later, that could have been a really interesting aspect to look back upon.
Desmond's Choice
So we have a choice between A) almost everyone dies horribly, but at least we have the hope that some will survive and the world can be rebuilt and repopulated by people who have retained their free will, or B) the catastrophe is greatly diminished and most people survive, but deliver their free will to another being who will rule for her own benefit. To put it mildly, I was not satisfied with the reasoning behind Desmond's choice at the end, mainly because there wasn't any reasoning behind it that we were given.
It feels to me as if the devs chose Option B because they assumed it would cause the most people to pee their pants, more like “let's gob-smack the players”, instead of “let's think up a really creative ending to this series, but one that makes a kind of sense if only in retrospect”. If Desmond is to betray what is supposed to be the deepest-held principle of the Order, there should be a way to see how that might make sense to him. I don't need to have it laid out for me like a feast. But I do need to see it. I seek enlightenment, masters.
Had Desmond been converted to the Templar way of thinking, like Lucy (apparently) was? It could certainly be argued that he wasn't treated very well by the Assassins.
Speaking of Lucy, doesn't her death make even less sense now? If she had become a believer in the Templar “way”, why would Juno manipulate Desmond to remove her, since Juno was aligned with the same outcome? Did she think that Desmond's guilt over her death would make him more amenable to her as an alternative when the time came to make a choice?
And what did happen to Desmond? Given that Ubisoft announced that AC3 would be the end of Desmond's story, it is logical to assume that this is the end of his story. But then who experienced the 3 memories of Connor that came later?
Is it possible that future game(s) will have Juno as the antagonist and that Desmond will work a la Subject 16 with a future animus user to defeat her? That might be cool. If what Desmond did resulted in his consciousness being transferred into the Animus, perhaps a different user of the Animus could then somehow live through Desmond's life even though he didn't leave any descendants (that we know of). That might be cool too, although unlikely if Ubisoft is serious about this being the end of Desmond's story.
I'm wondering this: is it possible that Juno has been manipulating all the events of the 4 protagonist's lives all along? That she was the one who alerted Abstergo to the existence of another Apple after theirs was destroyed in Denver, causing them to kidnap Altair's descendeant Desmond from whom they learned of the existence of another Apple? Caused the deaths of Ezio's family in order to set him on his path, culminating in his hiding the Apple for Desmond to find so he could enter the temple where she was hidden? Caused Connor to embark on his spirit quest using another PoE, culminating in him hiding the amulet for Desmond to use to enter her hiding place?
Might there be an alternate reality for these 4 people where their lives were undisturbed by her manipulations and that alternate reality can be rescued through the Animus and used to alter the past enough to undo what Desmond and Juno did?
On the other hand, am I over-analyzing and should I just go back to contemplating Connor's hair?
I'd like to see answers to everything below "Desmond's Choice" probably because that's the part that's the most important to me. Desmond's Story/the 2012 story is now more important than it ever was before. And it was interesting to know that Juno was the true antagonist all along. I suspected the final boss of AC3 to be a fight between Desmond and one of Those Who Came Before. Apparently it wasn't necessary (or Ubi is saving an Assassin vs First Civ battle for later).
Haytham was just right as the bad guy. I was constantly reminded of the immortal description in the movie “Broadcast News”, where that one reporter talks about how when the Devil appears, he won't be ugly and scaly and scary. He'll be handsome and charming and seem reasonable, but little by little you'll be compromised by him and you won't be aware of it until it's too late (like the lobster in the pot). That was Haytham and it struck just the right note.Not Charles Lee, though. He should have been more similar to Haytham. Instead he was a stereotypical olde tyme dastardly villian from a 19th century melodrama. He practically twirled his mustache! BIG missed opportunity.
I liked the contrast between the two. It was implied that Lee went through hell and was mistreated during his time away, so seeing him come back a completely different man was interesting. He was clearly broken and scarred. He hated the world and life itself after, and that makes him very dangerous. Trust me, I can tell you from real life experience that you don't want to get on the bad side of someone who's become so unhinged. It can be downright scary.
I always found myself thinking, "Why? What happened to you to make you like this?" after every scene of his post-Sequence 3.
Haytham was a great villain because, like your comparison to the devil, he was hard to pin as 'evil'. You didn't want to hate him. You always felt like maybe he's not so bad and he just has more information than you do and is playing it close to the chest. He had his goals and they generally seemed reasonable, though his methods of reaching them were questionable, as were his ethics. From Sequence 9 onward, it was feeling more and more like Connor was beginning to see Haytham's side of things and that he might even come to share the same goals given even more time spent together (though with different paths to reach these goals). I was pretty disappointed when the info about Washington ordering the burning of Connor's village came out and Connor basically said, "Screw you guys, I'm going home" and broke off all his non-homestead allegiances in a single stroke. That was a huge example of his aforementioned impetuousness. 
I didn't feel that a truce with Haytham had outlived its usefulness just yet, so I was annoyed that Connor was so rash in his anger. I thought by now he was wiser than that. Clearly not.
But then Haytham's character degenerated. While he didn't seem to be very surprised or hurt that Connor told him to go to hell in the previously mentioned situation, in his next appearance he was so angry at Connor and they were mortal enemies. (Yet another example of where this game makes me feel like I missed some cutscenes somewhere.) So when it came down to the big fight between these two, it was anti-climactic. The point where they went from almost-friends to mortal enemies was way too quick to really feel for either of them, and the intensity of this final confrontation was really watered down as a result. I didn't feel any of the things you're supposed to be feeling during this fight; I was mostly wondering why things got to this point so quickly and how the writing could have been better. It was very disappointing, as was the gameplay of said fight. And then everything with Haytham was over, just like that. What a waste of a great character who was built up over the game up until that point. 
I think that Connor, out of our three main ancestors, is the one who had the least impressive character development. Though he started from the best place – he was always respectful, honorable and trustworthy. He didn't start off as some cocky punk who needed to be taken down a few pegs and learn some humility, like our first two ancestors did. That said, starting from such a high point, his character development more or less only left room for a downward slope. As he got older and witnessed more and more killing and betrayal, he became quite jaded. He would be your best ally unless you lied to him even just once, and then he's your worst enemy. I've known people like that (though they weren't killers). It was great that Connor was able to cling to his morality, but just barely. Towards the end of the game, his obsession with killing Lee really made me feel like if anybody tried to stop him he might just outright kill them, whether they deserved it or not. It felt like Connor's optimism and faith in humanity suffered some serious blows throughout his adult life, and that really jaded him. Makes him more real and relatable, I guess, but I'm not a huge fan of the main protagonist having that sort of fall from grace. I know a lot of people love that sort of story, so I'm probably in the minority. But Connor is certainly not my favorite ancestor.
Haven't had time to read the Desmond stuff as I have to head off to work now. I'll check back in later.
Hurray for moral ambiguity! It was needed in the series desperately. The most brilliant thing of all the brilliant things of AC1 was the gradual increase of disquiet and discomfort as you begin to question your own motives over the course of the game. It was a masterstroke to include in a video game in the first place and I was really stoked to see it re-appear in AC3. It would have been nice if a touch of ambiguity was included in Ezio's games, making the player wonder if teaching Desmond to become an assassin was really the right thing to be doing. In light of what happens to Desmond later, that could have been a really interesting aspect to look back upon.
I was really glad too to see the "bad guys aren't really bad guys" feeling of AC come back in ACIII. After the Ezio games I thought this was lost, so when ACIII's setting was announced, I thought "here we go again, another 'the British are evil and the Americans are oppressed heroes ' story". Shaun alone contradicted this brilliantly, what with his entries in the animus database and his conversations with Desmond (the "paying for dinner" allegory was really good).
Too bad these are all optional, because those in the obligatory gameplay are a lot less to-the-point than Shaun's national pride, making the "main storyline only" players miss out on some good historical/political controversy.
Yeah but all the Founding Fathers are portrayed as frustrated and unhelpful in-story, and the biggest betrayal of the game is on their part, when A) Connor learns Washington ordered the destruction of his village and B) despite his efforts his land is given away in the end.
It feels to me as if the devs chose Option B because they assumed it would cause the most people to pee their pants, more like “let's gob-smack the players”, instead of “let's think up a really creative ending to this series, but one that makes a kind of sense if only in retrospect”. If Desmond is to betray what is supposed to be the deepest-held principle of the Order, there should be a way to see how that might make sense to him. I don't need to have it laid out for me like a feast. But I do need to see it. I seek enlightenment, masters.
I don't see this as betraying the principles of the Assassin order. The choice was to allow nearly all of the world's population to die and to try to bring it back from there or to let Juno out and let her prevent the catastrophe, knowing that she also intends to enslave mankind. I totally agree with Desmond – you save humanity so that they may fight back against Juno and liberate themselves.
Enslavement isn't a guarantee, it's simply Juno's intention. She can't just flick a switch and every human on the planet is an instant drone. The humans have to be enslaved, and they can fight back. And they will. The Assassins will make sure of that.
It was implied that the original 'enslavement' of humans by TWCB wasn't a brutal life, but rather a good one. It simply removed personal freedoms like being able to leave the cities or not report to their jobs. It's not like they were starved and whipped. They were basically the working class while TWCB were the royalty. Juno wants to recreate that world.
I can't possibly see the alternative being the better choice. Would you condemn your family to death rather than spare them that fate and give them a chance to fight for their freedom? Think about that as a parent. As a sibling. As a son or daughter. What choice would you make?
I completely agree with Desmond's choice. The humans broke free of TWCB once, they can do it again. Especially since now there is only Juno and not an entire race of them. And with the Assassins' current knowledge, they stand an even better chance.
Speaking of Lucy, doesn't her death make even less sense now? If she had become a believer in the Templar “way”, why would Juno manipulate Desmond to remove her, since Juno was aligned with the same outcome?
Juno isn't a Templar. Nor would the Templars wish for the population of the world to be destroyed by the sun. Desmond's decision wasn't Assassin-vs-Templar. His decision transcended that distinction.
It was made clear (to me at least) from the dialogue that Lucy was taken out because she was ultimately planning to capture Desmond and return him to Abstergo. Or possibly even kill him, as Daniel Cross tried to do. Whatever the case, Desmond would have been prevented from doing what he was doing, ie: release Juno. Juno doesn't care about affiliations, she only cares about being released. Lucy would have been a detriment to that, knowingly or not.
And what did happen to Desmond? Given that Ubisoft announced that AC3 would be the end of Desmond's story, it is logical to assume that this is the end of his story. But then who experienced the 3 memories of Connor that came later?
Could be anybody. It's made clear in the multiplayer story segments that ancestral memories can be saved and downloaded and experienced by others.
Or it could still be Desmond. One of the big theories going around is that his mind was uploaded into the 'machine' the same way Juno's was, that his was used to replace hers. His body will end up dying off, if the initial shock of the process didn't already do that. He'd essentially become the next Subject 16, only to people interacting with the machine in the grand temple, rather than an animus.
I have a feeling that this machine is essentially the precursor to the animus, and probably much more powerful. I'm sure we'll have some new pivotal Assassin come along and Desmond will initiate some key ancestral memories within them the way that Juno first sent Desmond on a trip to the opera. And then we'll go from there.
We might even see some funny emails from Desmond as he struggles to separate his mind from the machine and recover his individuality and humanity from within.
If what Desmond did resulted in his consciousness being transferred into the Animus, perhaps a different user of the Animus could then somehow live through Desmond's life even though he didn't leave any descendants (that we know of). That might be cool too, although unlikely if Ubisoft is serious about this being the end of Desmond's story.
I don't really see any point for someone else to relive Desmond's life. Nothing important was revealed that wasn't also known by Shaun, Rebecca and William. Nothing from the earlier portions of Desmond's life were important because he didn't know jack before September 2012.
I'm sure it'll be a new mordern-day Assassin and new ancestors. That's the staple of the series, and I believe Ubisoft devs have been quoted as saying that they intend to never remove the ancestor as being the main part of each future AC game's gameplay.
I'm wondering this: is it possible that Juno has been manipulating all the events of the 4 protagonist's lives all along?
I don't see how. Juno couldn't actually do anything to anyone outside of the temple. She required heavy specifics just to be seen by others. She required that clear orb thing to show visions to Connor. She required Ezio to go to the temple beneath the Vatican and use the apple and the staff together in order to show things to him. And she required Desmond to be within the grand temple, the very place the machine was in which she was trapped, in order for him to see her. Look at how much trouble she had just figuring out how to send emails once they were connected to the machine in the grand temple.
So no, I don't think she had any influence in their lives. One, she never had the capability. Two, she was never known for being the list bit subtle, so they'd all know if Juno had contacted them before.
Alright. So here's my recap with my date with Ubisoft:
We were eating some of those delicious avocado eggrolls in CPK. During the entire duration of the dinner, she began to erratically spitting and choking on her red wine, occasionally made extremely irrational statements, and at one point farted out loud. Overall, it was a pleasant experience despite the strange behavior.
Flashback 4 hours later, and we're now making love in a bed covered with rose peddles by candlelight. As I began to make my way to her holy grail, I pulled her dress of and discovered....a penis.
That was my experience playing ACIII.
L.M.A.O
I suppose in that case, my experience would be similar except the discovery of such an interesting thing wasn't detrimental to my enjoyment (figuratively speaking.) I still liked the ending. It wasn't BRILLIANT. But it was alright. I'm excited for more Assassin's Creed, I mean who isn't?
Which type of Connor's hair, Lisa? When he was a kid, teen, adult, or with a mohawk?
Ah, the ending. I take issue on not only the decision Desmond made, but how it was presented as well.
What did Altair and Ezio die for? For what purpose was their decision in carrying out those assassinations throughout their lifetime? For what reason did they become Assassins in the first place?
For freedom.
Desmond, however, just spits at that idea. And the funny thing about it: Shaun, Rebecca, and his dad never objects to his decision. They just rolled with it. Plus, they never flesh out Juno's intention. Is she gonna kill all of them, or subjugate them into mindless slaves. She is, after all, the only member of her surviving race, correct? What's she gonna when she's all alone? Make more mindless human servants? As for the presentation: no epic monologue, video, analogy, or speech. Just a abrupt cut to a news anchor narrating about minor volcanic/earthquake activities. Then another cut to Juno beginning to play her part? What part? What's gonna happen? I demand more answers! Most likely, there gonna make another spin-off of the series. Fingers crossed for a First Civ. version.
Lisa seems to describe Connor perfectly: a bit brash and impatient. His true quality lies in his interactions with others during the colonial era. He's the foreigner here - the minority - the most discriminated sect of humans in the New World.
The 3 characters that stand out are Achilles, Haytham, and Benjamin. You see - this is why he's on the $100 bill. Because older woman are experienced down there.
However, Achilles and Haytham's backstory are painfully lacking. We don't know how Achilles became an Assassin, what his life was like, or how he came to be. Likewise, we don't know how Haytham got to be a Templar in the 1st place. I demand answers, Ubi!
I felt that Juno's intentions were pretty clear: she wants things back the way they were before the humans revolted. The dialogue wasn't difficult to follow.
I'm pretty sure that we'll get answers to what Juno intends to do with humans and what happens to Desmond in the next saga. Desmond is passing the torch to someone else.
Connor's story
I kind of got a different feeling from Connor. At first it seemed like it would be the same revenge tale, but it quickly morphed into something bigger:
I definitely agree he was brash and impatient, but I don't think it simply stemmed from inexperience. He was simply unwilling to compromise in his goal. The thing he wanted was for his people to be free, with no need to worry about outside influence. And it didn't make sense for only his people to be free, so he became dedicated to absolute freedom. But he refused to compromise on that. At first, he criticized Sam Adams for tolerating slavery. Everyone else treated him as naive for being so idealistic, and so this led to his conflicts with everyone else:
Achilles was the most supportive, but gave off a cynicism, a lack of faith that they could achieve their goals. I would honestly like to see what made him so. He seems almost stuck in the past, unable to accept change. He even named his student after his dead son.
The Founding Fathers were simply seeking freedom for themselves. Sure they talked about extending it to everyone, but their passion for that secondary goal was questionable at best.
Haythem claimed to seek the same ends, but by another means. He would've compromised freedom to artificially create its benefits by ruling society. His arguments were tempting but a red herring: Whereas Connor aimed for freedom because it is the right of all people, Haythem tried to convince him that it was simply a means for peace and prosperity, but that Templar control would be a better means of obtaining these. He really was the devil in that he won the argument by changing its terms.
As Connor interacted more with these characters, he learned to compromise. He started to accept the Founding father's limited freedom. It was, after all, simply about beating the redcoats now, right? They were the only enemies to freedom. And maybe Haythem was right about seeking peace and prosperity by any means, not just blindly seeking freedom. Maybe these two thoughts could be joined together? And what he saw when he tried was appalling. Haythem didn't care about peace or prosperity, he cared about control. Washington's limited freedom was really just another form of ruling a lower class. Connor saw that these ideas meshed together so well because they both compromised universal freedom for some personal goal. That's why he freaked out. He had one goal in mind when he set out: Free his tribe of influence from surrounding conflicts so they can be safe. By learning to compromise, he instead endangered his tribe to the ensuing conflict.
Honestly, I loved every minute of it I thought it really mirrored today's politics in a way. (Warning: Shameless Libertarian political plug). Templars claim to know what's better for everybody and insist that some individual freedoms must be sacrificed for the greater public good. The Patriots claimed supporting individual liberties and rights, but in reality only cared about a small ruling class, and didn't mind using the sacrifices of others to support them. (Sound familiar to anyone?) Connor saw that both sides used their demagoguery for control. He completely rejected the Templar notion of control, but though he liked the Patriots rhetoric, he saw them as simply using it to take control as well.
Modern Day
Desmond's choice... man. I personally would have gone the other way but I can understand why he made his choice. The humans fought the precursors before, and they could do it again. I just would've better understood trying to build on man's collective knowledge. Maybe mankind expanded to quickly pushed by rulers and leaders simply as a way of attaining their goals for more control, and did not get to adequately study the world around them. They could not sustain their current course. But on the other hand, we could let Juno save the world, then try to stop her from enslaving us. The assassin's would be fighting for freedom, just as always.
And it did click to me that in the Adam and Eve video from ACII, you saw a precursor controlling and whipping humans. I didn't know what to think. The being didn't looked like Minerva, the only precursor we had seen at the time. At the time. I remember thinking she looked kind of like Medusa, with locks of hair going everywhere. Occurred to me in the final cut scene that it looked just like Juno.
Also has anyone played Halo 4? Because the modern day plot and that share a lot of key points.
Walton's comment was pretty nice and very fun to read. If only because I found myself agreeing with everything you said. When I first played AC3, I was stunned at the ending, just like I was stunned at every other Assassin's Creed ending. I was sitting in my living room at 3:00 AM in the morning. My jaw was just open and refused to close. It felt so strange. It was over, but it wasn't over. And I tried to think of what direction the story would go in next, but I couldn't think of even a single thing. In all previous games, I kind of had a vague idea of what would happen next. In that moment, I didn't. My mind was blank. I just sat there, staring at the credits screen. Although it wasn't the greatest ending in the world (I didn't mind it too much, most other people did, however) it still felt like one of the greatest gaming moments in my life.
There are so many directions that the story can go in that I couldn't really stick to my guns with any one of them. Not like with AC1 (Desmond has to escape Abstergo), AC2, (they need to save the world) Brotherhood (Desmond's going back into the Animus to get out of his coma) or Revelations (They have to open the Grand Temple). Now, the ideas I can think of are quite a few. And to be honest - I may have said this before - I am more excited for the Modern Storyline now than I ever was before. That's hard to do, by the way, because the Pieces of Eden/Those Who Came Before/2012 story was my favorite part of the AC games.
Some reviews also said that the Desmond sections felt lacking. I didn't really think so. I freaked out in joy every time I played one, especially the Leap of Faith from the Skyscraper into the apartment, the stadium blending and Daniel Cross chase, the Abstergo break-in and Assassinations. Wait. That's all of them.
If this game were to have any flaws (and believe me, there's so many of them), then it's most biggest one would have to be it's pacing. The 1st 3 SEQUENCES were decent. Slowed around the beginning to establish it's Haytham and his associates, but the twist was absolutely phenomenal.
Connor's life prior to donning the white hoodie is an absolute chore to get through. I appreciate learning about Native American culture, but the cut-scenes are dragged way too long, each mission that introduced a gaming element seems padded and tedious, and his back story never seemed that tragic too me. Here's how I would've envisioned it:
1. Charles Lee kills Connors mom when he was a little kid.
2. The village disbands and scatters.
3. Connor grows up with a few of his childhood friends and elders in remote areas
4. Connor goes back to the burned village and finds the P.O.E.
5. Connor goes to Achilles, becomes an Assassin
6. Flash forward, Connor discovers that Washington ordered the attack. He flees back to his remote area.
7. At there, he is rejoiced to discover that most of his people survived, but are willing to fight for the British.
8. Connor kills friend, and is deemed an outcast.
There. That's just how I personally would've liked it to develop...but I didn't write the story.
But the worst of all has to be the last sequence. Here's how it plays out: a boring chase sequence. I was expecting a big confrontation, or a super hard stealth mission (seeing as how Charles Lee is fleeing him, and Connor has to track him down bit by bit). But all we get is a generic chase filled with your summer blockbuster set-pieces. And don't give me some metaphorical response, as to say that represents Connor's burning ambition to kill Charles. OF COURSE I KNOW. However, compromises have to be made if you wanna hook the player in the LAST FREAKIN' levels! Fuck!
Vesferatu, I totally agree with you by the disappointing conclusion to Connor's story.
Everything with Lee at the end was terribly disappointing. It came down to the two of them sitting in a bar, both so injured they were barely able to move. That is the complete opposite of exciting. And what was exciting before that, the chase? Chases are only exciting when you're rooting for the chasee. In this case I was almost expecting Connor to just go around the other way and be leaning up against a wall when Lee sneaks out the back of the ship and plunge his blade into his chest and see the shock on his face. That would have been anti-climactic too, but at least Connor would have been more of a badass with a satisfying kill under his belt and not some ninny who can't keep up in a foot race with a 50-something guy who probably hasn't run 10 feet in the last 20 years (let's be realistic for the time period). I hate how everybody is a track and field superstar in these games. 
Everyone, think back on your experiences with this series. Think back on the most exciting moments you've experienced in an Assassin's Creed game. Were those moments highly scripted foot races? Probably not. 
So why did they give us that as the big "climax" conclusion for Desmond's whole animus journey?
SO disappointing.
And then the "fight" with Haytham before that? Holy hell. I'm just glad the Desmond ending was tense, otherwise the entire final quarter of this game would have been a complete letdown.
You know, most people seem to be in favor of Desmond condemning 99% of the human race to a fiery death (which blows my mind), but to each their own. Yet so few people talk about the final portion of Connor's story. I wasn't the least bit disappointed with how Desmond's story ended, but I was very disappointed with how Connor's did.
As a quick aside, did anyone else find it weird that Connor was still clutching his side and walking slowly "six months later" during the epilogue? It looked like that wound never healed. I was starting to think that he was going to be about as mobile as Achilles. I was almost expecting some other young Assassin-to-be to show up and then Connor would dedicate his life to training this young man or woman to bring his life as an Assassin full circle and have a nice irony to it. Then we'd get a slow pull-back with some animus 'glitching' and then a loading screen, moving right into the pivot hacking dialogue. But no. Instead injured Connor just looks up at the sky, stands up straight, and now he's in perfect shape again and we can immediately control him and do whatever we want. I certainly wouldn't have done it that way.
I guess it's pretty obvious by now that I was completely disappointed in the latter part of Connor's story.
I don't take issue with Desmond's choice - I take issue on how it's presented. As stated before, I was expecting a big recap, where Desmond is narrating throughout his entire life. Then suddenly Ezio, Altair, and Connor appears in the room (don't ask, just go with) and debates with Desmond about what he should do.
Desmond convinces them to allow him to set Juno free. After the decision and he's later reduced to a smoldering, crispy, human, we should've got a narration from Williams.
But no, we didn't get that.
This game could've been good. However, Corey May squandered his opportunity, and as a result, has made himself an enemy from this point on. Rating: 83/100
Dafuq, guys? I loved he ending to Connor's story. I hated the chase with a burning passion, but the cinematic ending showing them both basically dying was badass in itself. Lee decided to have one last drink before he died, but Connor joined him. They both showed respect to one another, with Lee realizing himself to being bested by his most honorable and courageous foe. Sure a classic assassination layout like the others would have been neat, but we've never gotten that in any AC game for the final target, now have we?
A solemn goodbye to the man that took away everything from our hero is what we get. The fact that Lee accepts the blade shows how brave he is, even if he's made out to be the worst kind of person in the story.
As for Desmond's ending: I was expecting more like you guys, but after finding all the pivots, I'm not worried about it anymore. It was a good ending. Kind of wish he survived, but I think most people expected him to die. The next series in the AC saga will be a big one.
Well, to each is own, I guess...
*reaches for the nearest POE and begans to activate it*
Since i'm pretty much done with the story i think its time i share my thoughts:
Overall, the story was ok,rushed though. I liked connor but ezio still is my favorite ancestor. Connor's story is anothor revenge tale, And the american revolutiOn haad very little to do with his story.
Desmonds missions were the best parts fr me. I liked being in the modern day.
So yeah pretty over hyped...
And the american revolutiOn haad very little to do with his story.
Well yeah. They said many times over that the American Revolution wasn't the focus of the storyline. It's the backdrop.
Niandra and I had a discussion today.
This is all theory, and we have no idea if any of it is true or not. I'm gonna need him to remind me of some of it.
Theory Below (don't kill me).
If you can listen to this while reading it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alrWz1ZMztc
The Templars are not actually evil. They wanted to launch the Eye Abstergo Satellite on Dec 21, 2012. They wanted to do this to mind control the entire population with a Piece of Eden. This is fact, and actual Assassin's Creed story. Now, the interesting part is that in Assassin's Creed III, Juno mentions that while Pieces of Eden can control and hold the thoughts of millions, if those millions of people actually strongly believed in those thoughts, they would manifest and become real. She said that one of the theories Those Who Came Before tried to use in order to stop the Apocalypse was to enthrall everyone on Earth into believing that this tragedy would never come to pass. In such a way, it would be stopped.The Eye Abstergo satellite was aiming to do the same thing. The Templars doubtless knew of the end of the world. In the Assassin's Creed III Multiplayer storyline, one of the files (Miles' Folly) even says that the Assassins are walking around in the dark and have no idea how to stop the apocalypse. "Miles' actions are not a means to an end." This means that the Templars clearly had good intentions, and considering that the story is no longer Templar vs Assassin, but rather Humans vs First Civilization, this is fine and dandy.
Erudito is a presence that has made himself known much more in recent years, starting from AC Project Legacy to ACIII. (I will refer to Erudito as 'him' because I've heard 'his' voice in Multiplayer Story and because it's easier that way.) He's clearly an Assassin hacker because;
He knows of the Templars. He knows of the Brotherhood. He is against the Templars. Putting all three of those pieces of info together would highly suggest that he's an Assassin himself. Although his face has never been shown, we know his motives, he wants to stop Abstergo. At the end of the game's Single Player Story, a group of hackers uploads "His data to the Cloud!" The Piece of Eden that Desmond touched at the end (I will call this the Spark of Eden or the Proto Animus) is most likely the very first Animus (Juno's presence was locked inside of it, at a previous point in the story, she mentions an Animus saying 'To enter was easy. But to leave required something else.. Something.. Wrong.' The something 'wrong' was another soul to take its place. This is Desmond's soul at the end of ACIII. He gets in so Juno can get out. His body is dead, for sure. But his soul/personality exists, like Subject 16.
Because of this, it's most likely Desmond's data that Erudito refers to being uploaded to the Cloud. This is either his Synchronization Data (most probable) or his actual personality data (ala S16). If his Personality Data was uploaded, this means that Desmond is effectively inside the Internet now. Which means he can go to any computer, any Animus (in the Multiplayer Story we learn that the consoles Abstergo sends out to the public consumers are Animi).
Erudito will be the new player character in Assassin's Creed VI. Reaching through every Animus worldwide, Desmond will tell the public what's going on. It doesn't matter which of the many players of Abstergo Entertainment become Templars and which of them become Assassins, because that struggle will be over. It's not about Templars vs Assassins. Both factions will work together to destroy the true threat, the First Civilization. In this sense, the Templar-Assassin conflict will end and the series will be complete.
You know, i started to think the same while playing ACIII.
I'm pretty disappointed about the ending, i was fine when all the other games were just a roller-coaster but for this i expected them to give You/Desmond some control over how this story ends. What was the whole point of Minerva coming in at the last second and trying to stop Desmond if he already made his choice? In one of those cut-scenes where Juno talks to Desmond, Desmond says "what's ever behind that door serves Juno, we have to be careful". Why the sudden change to believing that Juno's solution is best?
I actually liked that long cinematic scene where Minerva shows Desmond and crew emerging from the cave and rebuilding society based on all the lessons they've learned from the Animus(Altair, Ezio, Connor). Also, am i the only one that liked that image of Old Desmond as mentor of the Assassins?
What happened to all that stuff S16/Clay said about "Find Eve" and "The key is in her DNA"? Did Haytham's amulet contain a piece of Eve's DNA which was used to seal Juno's prison?
I liked the movie "2012" because after all the horrific devastation it ends on a happy note which leaves hope for the future. If it ended with that lame reporter monologue then it would have sucked big time.
===
As for things about the game i did like:
Connor was pretty cool and he reminded me of Altair from AC1 at some points. The moral debates between him and Haytham the thing i always loved about the series(there was some of that in the recent game but overshadowed by the Assassin/Templar war story). If i'd change one thing about Connor's story i'd reverse Haytham and Lee's assassinations were reversed. Maybe Haytham could have had a long monologue telling Connor why he switched sides and joined the Templars.
I liked the way they did Lee's assassination, i half-expected Connor to say something like "This is for my Mother." in is native tongue.
I haven't completed all the homestead missions yet but i really like the way Connor interacts with it's citizens, it really makes him look like a man of the people. Also the homesteaders are quite a colorful bunch of characters which are fun to talk to.
I liked the one Epilogue titled "Evacuation Day" specifically the part where Connor looks over at a group of black slaves on what looks like an auction block. As if to say "The Revolution may be over but the Civil War is just around the corner."
I liked the one Epilogue titled "Evacuation Day" specifically the part where Connor looks over at a group of black slaves on what looks like an auction block. As if to say "The Revolution may be over but the Civil War is just around the corner."
I assumed this was referencing Liberation's themes of slavery. Connor looks concerned, but doesn't act on it, because it isn't his story that deals with it.
I liked the one Epilogue titled "Evacuation Day" specifically the part where Connor looks over at a group of black slaves on what looks like an auction block. As if to say "The Revolution may be over but the Civil War is just around the corner."
Yes, that - but also that Connor could see and acknowledge that the ideals of the Revolution had already been tarnished. I was really glad to see that noted in the game.
There is a wonderful story from the time of the Revolution concerning the Sedgwick family of Stockbridge, Mass. The family was sheltering a black slave woman who had escaped her master, also in Mass., due to cruelty. She listened to the patriarch and his associates discussing the creation of the new state government and realized that the freedom and liberty they were speaking of - which were written into the state constitution - should also apply to her. After talking to him (his name was Theodore Sedgwick), he concluded she was right. So, being a lawyer, he filed a lawsuit on her behalf and won her freedom. The case led to the banning of slavery in Massachusetts.
The former slave worked for the family for the rest of her life (for wages) and when she died, was buried in the family plot.
Jedted wrote:
I liked the one Epilogue titled "Evacuation Day" specifically the part where Connor looks over at a group of black slaves on what looks like an auction block. As if to say "The Revolution may be over but the Civil War is just around the corner."Yes, that - but also that Connor could see and acknowledge that the ideals of the Revolution had already been tarnished. I was really glad to see that noted in the game.
There is a wonderful story from the time of the Revolution concerning the Sedgwick family of Stockbridge, Mass. The family was sheltering a black slave woman who had escaped her master, also in Mass., due to cruelty. She listened to the patriarch and his associates discussing the creation of the new state government and realized that the freedom and liberty they were speaking of - which were written into the state constitution - should also apply to her. After talking to him (his name was Theodore Sedgwick), he concluded she was right. So, being a lawyer, he filed a lawsuit on her behalf and won her freedom. The case led to the banning of slavery in Massachusetts.
The former slave worked for the family for the rest of her life (for wages) and when she died, was buried in the family plot.
That sounds like a great story.
Anyone have any ideas how the King Washington DLC will fit into the game? Will it be like the Lost Archive where you access it through the menu? Minerva seems to be an expert at temporal calculations so maybe she saw that as one potential outcome for the Revolution. Or maybe it has something to do with these Animus hackers.
I liked that idea: Minerva introducing us an alternate reality.
The Tyranny of King Washington seems to be kind of.. Less of a serious thing. Considering that Erudito is a prankster and a joker at heart, I'd say he could easily introduce a sort of Animus hack that deals with that. However, it doesn't seem as likely as Minerva giving us an alternate timeline.
OK! So I was replaying the game all over again when I kept getting into more glitches and problems with the game. It seems to me that every time I play ACB, ACR, and ACIII, the games feel less inspired and rather dull. ACI and ACII, however, have aged gracefully, and I revel at every chance I get to play those 2 games again. So I came with a list of ideas of how ACIII might have been a better game. Here are some examples:
- Don't make the loading screens white. Whoever came up with that idea should seriously be considered in getting fired. I know that it fits in the Animus theme, but it actually started to hurt my eyes - and I know I'm not in the minority in this. This makes the transition between cinematic and gameplay more pronounced, and reduces the interactivity of the game somewhat. It keeps telling me that I'm constantly playing a video-game, which sort of defeats the point of story telling. If only they used a static shot of the entire scene, like when Altair goes to a Rafiq or watches his assassination target
- Change how the story is paced. It's important to flesh out characters. Which makes Haythem's and Achilles' all the more interesting, since there's is never fully elaborated. As for Connor's perhaps we could have played when WHEN he got the freaking white hoodie! Solution: maybe at the end of every main story assassinations (which many of them were poorly scripted chase sequences) we can have him remenensce about his childhood. Something similar to ACR
- Difficulty. This one is a no brainer. Add a difficulty option. Increase damage output dished out from slashes, gunshots, and falls. There. Simple. Done.
- Historical moments. Here is where the game falls completely. In the trailers, they build Connor and Washington to be best buds. One concept art has Connor guiding Washington through the Delaware river, where the pivotal moments in the American Revolution took place. That was the place where the Continental Army got their moral. HOWEVER, this should be the part when Connor began doubting his concepts of freedom and piece. But no. Ubisoft decided to lift their middle finger and say, "screw you, gamers". We barely interact with Washington. The Battle of Bunker Hill seemed to be rather linear by nature. I sort of wanted to charge through enemy lines, using my horse and rocks as shields - then jump in and attack. And don't counter with "Oh, it's too unrealistic" or "It's programming difficulty". BULLOCKS! If I wanna charge in enemy lines and chain kill over 200 Redcoats, then give the player to do that! But no. All we were given was the assassination. That's it. Just climb avoid the trees. Climb around the camp. Horseback assassinate him. Boring...
- Midnight Ride of Paul Revere: him shouting directions in your ear? Really?
- The Battle of Lexington and Concord: merely commanding your troops to fire in waves whenever 3 groups of Redcoats get near. Seriously?
- Battle of Chesapeake Bay: OK. This was seriously some cool stuff. Props to stuff that is actually good.
- VR training rooms? And why, Ubisoft, was this not added in?
I felt like the 11th and 12th sequences in this game should have been combined into a single sequence. Additionally, 4 and 5 could have been shortened and combined into one sequence. This would have given the game 10 solid sequences.
I felt like Lee's Last Stand, as the second to last stealth mission in the game, was very fun and very rewarding to full sync. Connor had to make use of stealth, hidden attacks, and proper navigation, which speaks directly to the core of what Assassin's Creed is and aspires to be. However, Haytham's assassination felt too rushed and unrefined.
Sequence 12 felt, overall, less finished and less rewarding. The first memory didn't make sense... you kill some mercenaries (with no weapons) and once they're all dead, you instantly have your weapons back and have to find your way to a boat? The boat stealth was nice, and would have been more interesting had we had a real reason to get the boat captain. As an optional objective, I found and easy enough way to do it... but there was no reason for in the story. Perhaps if we had seen Lee leaving the boat in a cut scene (similar to Cesare leaving the Castello when you are climbing it) it wouldn't have felt so out of place. The whole reason for that mission was to find out you need to go to Boston? Okay.
Chasing Lee was okay. It was a short chase, really. And ended not as I was expecting. I didn't have a real problem with the way Lee's final death was handled. I thought it was actually quite good. Two adversaries who respect eachother know that one is at an end. And he finally accepts it.
Leaving the same missions in place, what do I think would have made it a better conclusion to Connor's story and not feel so rushed and anti-climatic?
- You don't kill Haytham in the fort.
- You are tag teamed by Haytham and Lee, who ultimately both escape to the boat.
- You battle the mercenaries and get to the boat.
- Eavesdrop on Lee's conversations with the captain of the boat and learn that Haytham has gone back to Boston.
- Lee is your assassination target on the boat, rather than a faceless captain.
- The chase occurs with Haytham instead of Lee, exactly as it does in the game.
- At the bar, father and son share a drink. Haytham tells Connor of his mother. How she was a good person, but manipulated by the Assassin Order (the Clan Mother essentially says that Ziio was trained as an Assassin, right? When she tells him to seek out the symbol). That she would have never seen true peace that the Templars were offering, instead focusing too much on personal freedoms. This is why Haytham/Lee/Templars convinced Washington to burn the village and rid the land of Ziio and other potential threats to Templar mandated peace. Connor stabs Haytham. Says something like, "Only now will my people find true peace," (in his native tongue) and walks out.
EDIT: Line from clan mother at end of sequence 4: "You will find what you seek in a place to the east. It was there that I saw the symbol. It was borne by a man who will surely help you, as he once helped your mother."
My favorite sequences in the game were 9 and 10. Connor and Haytham, working together. You know it's temporary. You know one will kill the other. But you don't know why, given that they seem so aligned in purpose... even if their means are different. You get a lot of character development in these two sequences. I think Haytham may be my favorite character in an AC game. He may have passed Yusuf.
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
That...actually seems like a good ending. Connor and Haytham talking in a calm and civilized manner - instead of them trying to kill each other.
But no, Ubisoft - or rather, Corey May, fucked it up big time. This was his one chance to redeem himself after the abortions that is ACB and ACR. He will forever be a stain in the AC franchise. Come to think of it...has there ever been a game trilogy where the fans themselves carve their video-game character's fate?
Haytham and Connor
Al Mualim and Altair
I found the relationships between these sets of characters incredibly interesting.
That...actually seems like a good ending. Connor and Haytham talking in a calm and civilized manner - instead of them trying to kill each other.
Not only that, but it REALLY reinforces the "Assassin vs Templar/are they really that different/why is one right and one wrong/are the Assassins even the good guys" plot point.
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
Haytham and Connor
Al Mualim and Altair
I found the relationships between these sets of characters incredibly interesting.
Al Mualim to Altair: You are foolish in your ways. I will lead you to see your flaws.
Haytham to Connor: You are foolish in your ways. We don't have time for you to keep putzing around. We have important things to do! This is what we do, because I fucking said so.
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
Haha yeah, what I meant was both sets of characters were Assassin/Templar collaboration and up until the very end it wasn't the worst thing in the world. It helped both characters. The problem is that one will always manipulate the other (the Templar) and eventually the one being manipulated will always break out and grasp freedom (the Assassin) because that's the kind of person they are and what their entire fight is based on.
Haha yeah, what I meant was both sets of characters were Assassin/Templar collaboration and up until the very end it wasn't the worst thing in the world. It helped both characters. The problem is that one will always manipulate the other (the Templar) and eventually the one being manipulated will always break out and grasp freedom (the Assassin) because that's the kind of person they are and what their entire fight is based on.
I fail to see how the relationship helped Altair. He was acting as Al Mualim's pawn in blind faith until Robert told him otherwise... I'm not sure what Altair was really gaining from the relationship expect potentially personal growth and clarity to his cause.
Connor and Haytham truly worked together for a sequence and a half to accomplish the exact same goals (for different reasons). And by "worked together" I mean Connor did all the work while Haytham stood in the shadows stroking his own ego.
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
I'm not disagreeing with you fully... just moving the conversation along.
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
My turn to gripe. What is up with all the scene assassinations?!?! Instead of killing a target with stealth, or in a fight, or in a chase, you push 
. If I wanted to see a cool looking kill scene, I'd watch an action (or slasher) movie. What I want in a video game, especially one that's all about freedom and choices, is to create my own scenario. If Ubi wants any more money from me they need to
STOP MAKING LAME ASSASSINATION TARGETS! Please.
My turn to gripe. What is up with all the scene assassinations?!?! Instead of killing a target with stealth, or in a fight, or in a chase, you pushSTOP MAKING LAME ASSASSINATION TARGETS! Please.
While replaying Assassin's Creed right now, I know exactly what you mean. There was true freedom of choice and each Target's environment, behavior and how they would be assisted by guards changed EVERYTHING. There was no need for constraints or automatic desynchronization. I loved it.
While replaying Assassin's Creed right now, I know exactly what you mean. There was true freedom of choice and each Target's environment, behavior and how they would be assisted by guards changed EVERYTHING. There was no need for constraints or automatic desynchronization. I loved it.
This is what I too miss most from AC1. As that was the first AC game I (and most others) played, that set the bar. Yet much of what made it a great game were thrown away for the sequels. Despite how good the first game was, Ubisoft basically threw away everything they had and started over with the concept.
I remember when AC2 was on the horizon and the Ubisoft reps were making it abundantly clear that "we listened to our fans" and "no more repetitive missions". But they missed the mark. They went the total opposite direction. While AC1 was like an assassin sim with a great story and an interesting tie to the present, the subsequent games were more about exploring the life of the ancestor and focusing more on story than gameplay. AC2 still had a lot of assassinations, but they weren't as free nor as interesting as what we had in AC1. And each subsequent game has moved further and further away from AC1's formula.
Ubisoft got it wrong. It wasn't the big, open, freestyle assassinations with a big lead up that people hated. That's what was great about it! It was the tedious tasks of pickpocketing and doing flag runs that needed to go. Really, who makes you chase down a handful of flags in 30 seconds before giving you a single (mostly useless) piece of information about your target?? They had it right in the Masyaf 'tutorial' where you had to track down the traitor. The tasks you performed were directly connected and lead you closer and closer to identifying the target. Bravo! But once you got to the cities, every task felt completely disconnected, with only some providing any real insight into the target. If you chose the best lead-up missions, it actually felt like you were progressing the story rather than doing tasks for the sake of gameplay. It became very interesting. And what came next was the best of all. AC1 was by far the most exciting game of the series.
You get to this new city, it's big and vast and so different from where you come from. You start looking around, getting a feel for the people and the guards and learn the lay of the land. You then speak to an inside source who starts you off with a tip that leads you in a general direction to began gathering more information on your target. You make your way around town, opting to help a few locals who are being wronged and you start learning about your target.After several days (to the character), you've learned a lot about this man whom you are charged with assassinating. He is a prominent figure, known by all the locals. Some hate him, some love him, many fear him. You now know what sort of personality he has, what things he's accused of doing and have a good sense of why he needs to die. You have information that he's holding a public gathering in two days. You will be there. You will take his life...
That day comes quickly, and before you know it you're walking up the steps to a courtyard filled with anxious people. Then suddenly there he is, up on the stage, making a grand entrance. He begins to address the people. He elicits reactions from the crowd. The energy builds. You steady your nerves as you watch for an opening, a chance...
There it is! You make your move and your blade lands true. In a surreal and candid conversation, he tells you what he was doing and why, and it doesn't seem to line up with what you've been told. Is he really the enemy? No, he must be... I would never be charged to kill a virtuous man. He's lying. He must be.
Suddenly you're jolted back to your senses as loud bells toll and you hear the shouting of guards over the screams of the crowd. Time to go! You spin around and sprint off, bounding off walls and over rooftops, not even slowing down to take a glimpse back. You know he's dead. And it was for a good reason. It had to be...
Finally you've made it back to the safehouse and can take a deep breath. It's done. Your heart isn't pounding so hard anymore. You can finally sit down and rest. Before you know it, your eyes begin to close and you fall asleep....
Fast-forwarding memory to a more recent one.
Man, I f'ing loved AC1. It was amazing. It was exciting and thrilling and a total blast. The slow parts were slow in order to build up the hype and suspense. It made the actual assassinations a much bigger deal. And they played out so much better. There were so many ways to do them, and what you learned over the previous days helped shape your strategy and your feelings about the target.
That's what I want in a sequel. None of this meeting somebody and killing them a mission or two later when we hardly know anything about them. We should feel a strong connection to the target. They don't have to be connected to the main character in any way. We can become close to them by learning about them as we gather information. That's the part that needs to be more story-based. We should be eavesdropping on his right-hand man, learning why he follows his leader and why he would die for him. We should be beating confessions out of goons he's hired to spread lies and uncover how far his misguided influence reaches. We should be tearing down propaganda posters to alter the public's opinion of him. We should be stealing key items and assassinating key witnesses to alter the nature or timing of his next public event. We should be spying on him and seeing what he does and how he behaves when he thinks only his most trusted followers are present. We should be learning exactly what kind of man he is and what we're up against. But most of all, we should be doing all of this in complete and utter secrecy. If he gets any notion, any at all that there is an Assassin stalking him, he'll call it off and go into hiding. Revealing yourself or your intentions means desynchronization. The missions should all be geared in that direction.
To me, that is what the series should be about. Really, if you look back on AC2 through AC3, the whole Assassin/Templar thing was just a way to connect the ancestors' stories to the present day struggle. If you threw away the modern day segments and never mentioned "Assassin" or "Templar", the stories wouldn't change at all. Yet it was so important in the first game... It was AC1 that, to me, had the greatest tie to the present day events. I would have played it up as the entire present day storyline would have been unraveling the mystery that is Abstergo and the Templars, and using various ancestors' memories to get this information over the course of several games, with plot twists abound. There could have been so much mystery and intrigue in the modern day storyline.
Oh well.
The mystery and intrigue in the modern storyline has been relegated to Erudito, who is a highly influential presence in the world of Assassin's Creed. I'm greatly interested to know what's going to happen with him in ACIV.
But no, Ubisoft - or rather, Corey May, fucked it up big time. This was his one chance to redeem himself after the abortions that is ACB and ACR. He will forever be a stain in the AC franchise.
Pretty sure Corey May didn't write ACB and ACR. Wasn't that Bowden?
And I think we need to calm down here. It's just a game.
I agree that we do need to calm down, I disagree with "It's just a game." I don't think anyone on this site would have signed up as a member if we thought it was "just a game." This is the same thing TomBrady brought up on the TestYourMight.com Mortal Kombat forums. If it was "just a game" we wouldn't be here You see what I'm sayin'?
Life is also just a game. And by Life, I meant the board game, not actual life.
EDIT: We do need to calm down. But we can't just forget the time and money we put into these games.
I know it means a lot to us, but expecting absolute perfection with every little thing about this game is a little far-fetched. It was a great game regardless of the little glitches and an ending that was in bad taste. We shouldn't be crucifying the developers for those reasons. That's all I was saying.
I know it means a lot to us, but expecting absolute perfection with every little thing about this game is a little far-fetched. It was a great game regardless of the little glitches and an ending that was in bad taste. We shouldn't be crucifying the developers for those reasons. That's all I was saying.
That's more than fair and I also agree completely with this. I don't hate any Assassin's Creed game, I love them all, and I actually don't think Corey May is terrible either because it's hard to write a series like this. Also because he looks EXACTLY like me, happens to be a writer (my desired profession) and happens to be the writer of my favorite game series.
Corey is a great writer. He's one of the people that keeps the series consistent (at least the numbered games). Same as Alex Hutchinson, Patrice Desilets, and Jade Raymond. They're all great, but if something is considered bad by someone, they're blamed for it. It's not really fair.
But Bowden is just plain awful. I think that's almost factual.
(yay humor)
It's a shame that Patrice and Jade don't have anything to do with the AC series after ACII. Patrice quit and Jade, well I don't know about her.
... Same as Alex Hutchinson, Patrice Desilets, and Jade Raymond.
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
...
Nice Eagle Vision there McStab. Wow. God damn. Holy crap. Wow..