AC: The Chain Story Discussion *** SPOILERS *** | Forums

[Gil_217]

For example, in the Brotherhood novel, Claudia stepped down as Madam of the Rosa in Fiore in 1504, while in the Da Vinci Disappearance she is still Madam by 1506. The Encyclopedia backs the novel up by saying she stepped down in 1504. The same is said for the events concerning Swami's and Maria's deaths in The Secret Crusade, as the Encyclopedia says that these are canon instead of how the events unfold in Revelations. Oh, and Rodrigo survived at the end of Renaissance...

Claudia could had stepped down as Madam of the Rosa in Fiore in 1504 and Rosa took her place but only for awhile. When Claudia felt she was ready to return, she did, and in 1506 she returned. It's a possible explanation that makes no source wrong.

Regarding the other example, you are assuming that the Encyclopedia, just because it sometimes backs up the novels and not the games is the one that defines what is canon and what is not, which I think is wrong, since the games should always be the top tier regarding canon.

For example, in the Encyclopedia, it says that Sofia Sartor was born in 1473, while in the Assassin's Creed: Revelations database it is said that she was born in 1476. I think that we should always go with the information presented in the games, and everything that contradicts it should not be considered canon.

With this said, I don't even know why they contradict themselves so much regarding this kind of information, even if this information is considered trivial. Take the example of Sofia's birth year for example. I think they should take your advice Sima, and hire someone to keep track of all this information, in order to not cause confusion.

[MasterSimaYi]

Claudia could had stepped down as Madam of the Rosa in Fiore in 1504 and Rosa took her place but only for awhile. When Claudia felt she was ready to return, she did, and in 1506 she returned. It's a possible explanation that makes no source wrong.

Regarding the other example, you are assuming that the Encyclopedia, just because it sometimes backs up the novels and not the games is the one that defines what is canon and what is not, which I think is wrong, since the games should always be the top tier regarding canon.

For example, in the Encyclopedia, it says that Sofia Sartor was born in 1473, while in the Assassin's Creed: Revelations database it is said that she was born in 1476. I think that we should always go with the information presented in the games, and everything that contradicts it should not be considered canon.

With this said, I don't even know why they contradict themselves so much regarding this kind of information, even if this information is considered trivial. Take the example of Sofia's birth year for example. I think they should take your advice Sima, and hire someone to keep track of all this information, in order to not cause confusion.

From 1504 to 1507 Claudia resided in Florence with Paola. She didn't return to Rome until then.

And yes, I do. Assassin's Creed is long past the point that it's just a game series, it is now a universe. When there are two sources saying one thing, when there is only one source saying something else, even a game, why would the game have precedence? I've thought and theorized long and hard about several of these conflictions, whereas in some cases the games are most fitting and in others some other media is. It's really a bad system, I agree, and at this rate there are bound to be a lot more of these errors...

The Encyclopedia is riddled with trivial errors like that, a whole lot more than just Sofia's birthdate. Whereas going into detail about events isn't just a trivial error. If you try to find out when Domenico Auditore bought the Villa Auditore, you will only find conflicting sources. :/

[eagleforlife1]

Just to confirm what I feared I had the following email exchange with Ubiworkshop:

Hello
I was just wondering whether AC: The Chain would be releasing in independent stores as The Fall was. I would be interested in purchasing it but the cost of shipping to get it to England is more than the book itself.

Unfortunately, I can confirm that Assassin’s Creed The Chain is solely available on UbiWorkshop.com at this time.
No release in independent stores has been announced so far.

[MasterSimaYi]

Just to confirm what I feared I had the following email exchange with Ubiworkshop:

Hello
I was just wondering whether AC: The Chain would be releasing in independent stores as The Fall was. I would be interested in purchasing it but the cost of shipping to get it to England is more than the book itself.

Unfortunately, I can confirm that Assassin’s Creed The Chain is solely available on UbiWorkshop.com at this time.
No release in independent stores has been announced so far.

Darn. Sounds like I'm really going to have to order it from Ubiworkshop then...

[Gil_217]

From 1504 to 1507 Claudia resided in Florence with Paola. She didn't return to Rome until then.

And yes, I do. Assassin's Creed is long past the point that it's just a game series, it is now a universe. When there are two sources saying one thing, when there is only one source saying something else, even a game, why would the game have precedence? I've thought and theorized long and hard about several of these conflictions, whereas in some cases the games are most fitting and in others some other media is. It's really a bad system, I agree, and at this rate there are bound to be a lot more of these errors...

The Encyclopedia is riddled with trivial errors like that, a whole lot more than just Sofia's birthdate. Whereas going into detail about events isn't just a trivial error. If you try to find out when Domenico Auditore bought the Villa Auditore, you will only find conflicting sources. :/

And that's why they should hire someone, like you said, to keep track of all of this information.

Off-Topic: In The Secret Crusade, it is said that Altaïr, Maria and Darim returned to Masyaf after Genghis Khan assassination in 1227, but in Revelations they showed that they returned in 1228. In this case, the information from the game looks more fitting, since they killed Khan in August 1227, and taking into account that the travel between Mongolia and Masyaf is very long, especially in those times, it seems most fitting that they arrived at Masyaf in 1228.

[MasterSimaYi]

And that's why they should hire someone, like you said, to keep track of all of this information.

Off-Topic: In The Secret Crusade, it is said that Altaïr, Maria and Darim returned to Masyaf after Genghis Khan assassination in 1227, but in Revelations they showed that they returned in 1228. In this case, the information from the game looks more fitting, since they killed Khan in August 1227, and taking into account that the travel between Mongolia and Masyaf is very long, especially in those times, it seems most fitting that they arrived at Masyaf in 1228.

Yes, early 1228 seems more likely, but it's possible they arrived in very late 1227, I suppose. Revelations also says that the event is also spread over a longer period of time, while in TSC it is spread over 2 days. TSC sounds more plausible in that case, as Altaïr met with Abbas when they arrived, broke Malik out of prison during the night, and confronted Abbas after that. Altaïr doesn't have much reason to stay there for about a week, let alone a month or more.

[Gil_217]

Yes, early 1228 seems more likely, but it's possible they arrived in very late 1227, I suppose. Revelations also says that the event is also spread over a longer period of time, while in TSC it is spread over 2 days. TSC sounds more plausible in that case, as Altaïr met with Abbas when they arrived, broke Malik out of prison during the night, and confronted Abbas after that. Altaïr doesn't have much reason to stay there for about a week, let alone a month or more.

When did they say in Revelations that the event spread over a longer period of time? I don't remember. And I agree with you, it makes much more sense that particular event just spread over two days.

[MasterSimaYi]

When did they say in Revelations that the event spread over a longer period of time? I don't remember. And I agree with you, it makes much more sense that particular event just spread over two days.

From the "A New Regime" memory:

Maria: Where is our eldest son? Does Darim know his brother is dead?
Altaïr: I sent him a message four days ago. With luck it has reached him already.

[Gil_217]

From the "A New Regime" memory:

Maria: Where is our eldest son? Does Darim know his brother is dead?
Altaïr: I sent him a message four days ago. With luck it has reached him already.

Actually, I think now that makes more sense. That dialog indicates they stayed in Masyaf 5 days, which is not even hard to believe and actually makes more sense because of Darim. Think with me, if you remember, in The Secret Crusade, as soon as they arrived in Masyaf, Altaïr sent Darim to Alamut to retrieve Sef. In that same day, when he goes to talk to Abbas, he's informed of Sef's death and Malik's imprisonment. He immediately sent someone to reach Darim, but obviously it would take time to find and intercept him, some days I say, and I believe that's why they created that dialog. Altaïr just waited 4 days in order for Darim to arrive in time.

[MasterSimaYi]

Actually, I think now that makes more sense. That dialog indicates they stayed in Masyaf 5 days, which is not even hard to believe and actually makes more sense because of Darim. Think with me, if you remember, in The Secret Crusade, as soon as they arrived in Masyaf, Altaïr sent Darim to Alamut to retrieve Sef. In that same day, when he goes to talk to Abbas, he's informed of Sef's death and Malik's imprisonment. He immediately sent someone to reach Darim, but obviously it would take time to find and intercept him, some days I say, and I believe that's why they created that dialog. Altaïr just waited 4 days in order for Darim to arrive in time.

Darim doesn't arrive in Masyaf at all in TSC, Altaïr doesn't send him a letter. Altaïr simply meets Darim in Alamut.