PDA

View Full Version : Was ACU's story the worst story of the franchise?-DEBATE(HEAVY SPOILERS)-No rant



dimbismp
01-29-2015, 05:31 PM
I actually believe that ACU(+DK) had the worst story of the franchise,or at least one of the worst.And i claim something like that,even though i liked Arno and even though i used to think it had great potential.But,Ubi really disappointed me(the only ACU failed promise IMO),preventing ACU from claiming the 1# AC spot in my heart.So,here we go:

First of all,i admit this story had some nice and maybe memorable moments,but overrally it was so inconsistent and all over the place,that really hurts me.So:

1.The redemtion quest
As many fans predicted before launch the whole redemption/revenge plot fell flat.The very little time Arno spents with Charles Dorian and Francois de la Serre contributed to that.Regardless of that,though,Arno never convinced me that he truly wanted to redeem himself for those two murders.More specifically,the reason why he became an Assassin wasn't to find out who killed his adoptive father,but to protect Elise.This is false advertising Ubi.Secondly,Arno never-never-never thinks of his father death,except glaring at that stupid watch,which btw played no part in the story at all.Why have an important character like Shay kill Charles Dorian,if you won't use it in the future?!!?In other words,why Arno never tries to find what really happened to his father?Finally,it was advertised that the two murders were tied together.Well,the game maybe implied that,at most.Again false advertising.

2.The murder mystery+the templars
Ubi claimed that the whole game would revolve around the delaSerre's murder mystery.Well,it just didn't.Actually,for the part it did,the story was quite decent!But this part was small,as we found out that Germain is the Templar mastermind around sequence 6 or 7 if i recall correctly.This is halfway through.Again false advertising.Regardless,of that this was the turning point of the narrative.After this point,the story became really weird and rushed.For some reasons,which till this day i haven't properly realised,Arno kills 3(!) targets with no reason at all.These assassinations did nothing to further the plot,as Arno already knew who his ultimate target was.It totally felt to me that these assasinations were there for the sake of it.

3.Assassins and allies interactions
There were so many great characters,but none of them was really exploited.Both Mirabeau and Bellec were great,representing two different philosophies,but they were killed halfway through.Why didn't Ubi try to use these characters to create a real climax with an Assassin civil war?Two completely different Assassin philosophies clashing with each other....It is no wonder why that after their death the Assassin council lost all its charm and meaning.Napoleon and de Sade were decently portrayed and ofc i would want more.But how can i ask for such triffles if there are such important issues??...(I will refer to the Napoleon inconsistencies later).

* 4.Elise
What can i say about Elise?The whole concept of Templar-Assassin lovers was really promising,but again Ubi failed.Their relationship felt really forced.Elise herself was great and i cared for both of them,but in no point did i care for them AS ONE.And while Ubi tried too much to show how much Arno cared for Elise,it didn't happen the other way around...At many points,Elise was so obsessed for revenge,that she didn't seem to care for Arno at all.And her death was a little bit forced for the "feels".So much potential....

*** 5.The reign of terror
Ubi heavily advertised that the biggest part of the game would take part at the reign of terror.The result?One sequence...Great...

6.Coop inconsistencies
Being able to complete 1794 coop missions in 1789.Narrative all over the place.This.

7.MD and lore
I was never the MD guy,but this time Ubi really crossed the line.If they aren't going to make a decent MD,don't make one at all,because you are driving the fans nutts and you also worsen the ancestor's story..The whole Bishop thing and the ending was laughable.It didn't push the overrarching narrative forward even for a little.Plus,Germainbeing a Sage not only felt forced but practically destroyed any chance of having an epic morally grey villain.

8.The Creed and Assassins vs Templars
The game was advertised to return back to the roots and feature a true Assassins vs Templars story,in which we were going to be able to explore their philosophies.At very few points did the game IMPLY such things.Arno killed Templars because they were Templars and in no point at all did Arno really fight for the true meaning of the Creed.

9.Arno
As i said i liked Arno.But without saying much,as i have already referred to some issues,his motives were really narrow.He didn't fight for the Brotherhood,nor for the good of France.He literally fought for himself and primarly Elise.

* 10.Unanswered questions and inconsistencies
This is by far my biggest gripe.It really drives me mad.I will just point two facts:
A)Arno is rightfully expelled from the Brotherhood at the end of the main game,in 1794.Yet,two weeks later,during Dead kings,he refers himself as an Assassin.Also,at the closing monologue it is implied that he is an Assassin again.He even gets the Master Assassin outfit.Furthermore,he takes part in coop-Brotherhood missions in post-1794 period.Yet,from the novel we know that he actually rejoins the Brotherhood many years afterwards and then he became a master Assassin.WHY SO MUCH CONFUSION UBI?WHY ARE THERE SO MAY INCONSISTENCIES?WHY NONE BOTHERED TO PUT A 5 SEC CUTSCENE TO EXPLAIN ALL THESE THINGS,EITHER IN THE MAIN GAME OR DK?!?!??!?!?
2)Arno and Napoleon are besties during the main game.Yet,in DK not only don't they exchange a word but also Arno behaves as if he doesn't know Napoleon.And as if this is not enough it seems thar eventually ARNO DOESN'T LIKE HIM,EVEN THOUGH HE SAVES HIM IN THE COOP MISSION AND THEY ENTER THE TEMPLE TOGETHER IN 1808!!!!WTH?!?!?
Bonus)The Eve reference in DK.Hope it is explained in the future.



This is not a rant.I really care for the series.And i was really amazed by ACU gameplay and setting.But they need to create a better story in Victory.This is a story driven series!ACU felt like many people randomly threw their ideas(Rumor has it that there wasn't a main proper writer,but Amancio did the job)

Do you agree?Have something to add?Disagree?
Discuss

dimbismp
01-29-2015, 06:11 PM
Your opinion is great interesting.

UBI did fraud in E3.
The E3 mission should have entered the game disk.

Arno should have fought for a citizen like E3trailer.
UBI should not have performed fraud.
If E3 mission is released as DLC, I do not complain to UBI.
UBI, please release E3 mission as DLC.
God,wasn't he banned 1 hour ago?

dargor5
01-29-2015, 06:18 PM
I actually believe that ACU(+DK) had the worst story of the franchise,or at least one of the worst.And i claim something like that,even though i liked Arno and even though i used to think it had great potential.But,Ubi really disappointed me(the only ACU failed promise IMO),preventing ACU from claiming the 1# AC spot in my heart.So,here we go:

First of all,i admit this story had some nice and maybe memorable moments,but overrally it was so inconsistent and all over the place,that really hurts me.So:

1.The redemtion quest
As many fans predicted before launch the whole redemption/revenge plot fell flat.The very little time Arno spents with Charles Dorian and Francois de la Serre contributed to that.Regardless of that,though,Arno never convinced me that he truly wanted to redeem himself for those two murders.More specifically,the reason why he became an Assassin wasn't to find out who killed his adoptive father,but to protect Elise.This is false advertising Ubi.Secondly,Arno never-never-never thinks of his father death,except glaring at that stupid watch,which btw played no part in the story at all.Why have an important character like Shay kill Charles Dorian,if you won't use it in the future?!!?In other words,why Arno never tries to find what really happened to his father?Finally,it was advertised that the two murders were tied together.Well,the game maybe implied that,at most.Again false advertising.

2.The murder mystery+the templars
Ubi claimed that the whole game would revolve around the delaSerre's murder mystery.Well,it just didn't.Actually,for the part it did,the story was quite decent!But this part was small,as we found out that Germain is the Templar mastermind around sequence 6 or 7 if i recall correctly.This is halfway through.Again false advertising.Regardless,of that this was the turning point of the narrative.After this point,the story became really weird and rushed.For some reasons,which till this day i haven't properly realised,Arno kills 3(!) targets with no reason at all.These assassinations did nothing to further the plot,as Arno already knew who his ultimate target was.It totally felt to me that these assasinations were there for the sake of it.

3.Assassins and allies interactions
There were so many great characters,but none of them was really exploited.Both Mirabeau and Bellec were great,representing two different philosophies,but they were killed halfway through.Why didn't Ubi try to use these characters to create a real climax with an Assassin civil war?Two completely different Assassin philosophies clashing with each other....It is no wonder why that after their death the Assassin council lost all its charm and meaning.Napoleon and de Sade were decently portrayed and ofc i would want more.But how can i ask for such triffles if there are such important issues??...(I will refer to the Napoleon inconsistencies later).

* 4.Elise
What can i say about Elise?The whole concept of Templar-Assassin lovers was really promising,but again Ubi failed.Their relationship felt really forced.Elise herself was great and i cared for both of them,but in no point did i care for them AS ONE.And while Ubi tried too much to show how much Arno cared for Elise,it didn't happen the other way around...At many points,Elise was so obsessed for revenge,that she didn't seem to care for Arno at all.And her death was a little bit forced for the "feels".So much potential....

*** 5.The reign of terror
Ubi heavily advertised that the biggest part of the game would take part at the reign of terror.The result?One sequence...Great...

6.Coop inconsistencies
Being able to complete 1794 coop missions in 1789.Narrative all over the place.This.

7.MD and lore
I was never the MD guy,but this time Ubi really crossed the line.If they aren't going to make a decent MD,don't make one at all,because you are driving the fans nutts and you also worsen the ancestor's story..The whole Bishop thing and the ending was laughable.It didn't push the overrarching narrative forward even for a little.Plus,Germainbeing a Sage not only felt forced but practically destroyed any chance of having an epic morally grey villain.

8.The Creed and Assassins vs Templars
The game was advertised to return back to the roots and feature a true Assassins vs Templars story,in which we were going to be able to explore their philosophies.At very few points did the game IMPLY such things.Arno killed Templars because they were Templars and in no point at all did Arno really fight for the true meaning of the Creed.

9.Arno
As i said i liked Arno.But without saying much,as i have already referred to some issues,his motives were really narrow.He didn't fight for the Brotherhood,nor for the good of France.He literally fought for himself and primarly Elise.

* 10.Unanswered questions and inconsistencies
This is by far my biggest gripe.It really drives me mad.I will just point two facts:
A)Arno is rightfully expelled from the Brotherhood at the end of the main game,in 1794.Yet,two weeks later,during Dead kings,he refers himself as an Assassin.Also,at the closing monologue it is implied that he is an Assassin again.He even gets the Master Assassin outfit.Furthermore,he takes part in coop-Brotherhood missions in post-1794 period.Yet,from the novel we know that he actually rejoins the Brotherhood many years afterwards and then he became a master Assassin.WHY SO MUCH CONFUSION UBI?WHY ARE THERE SO MAY INCONSISTENCIES?WHY NONE BOTHERED TO PUT A 5 SEC CUTSCENE TO EXPLAIN ALL THESE THINGS,EITHER IN THE MAIN GAME OR DK?!?!??!?!?
2)Arno and Napoleon are besties during the main game.Yet,in DK not only don't they exchange a word but also Arno behaves as if he doesn't know Napoleon.And as if this is not enough it seems thar eventually ARNO DOESN'T LIKE HIM,EVEN THOUGH HE SAVES HIM IN THE COOP MISSION AND THEY ENTER THE TEMPLE TOGETHER IN 1808!!!!WTH?!?!?
Bonus)The Eve reference in DK.Hope it is explained in the future.



This is not a rant.I really care for the series.And i was really amazed by ACU gameplay and setting.But they need to create a better story in Victory.This is a story driven series!ACU felt like many people randomly threw their ideas(Rumor has it that there wasn't a main proper writer,but Amancio did the job)

Do you agree?Have something to add?Disagree?
Discuss

Honestly I liked it, just thought it was waaaayyyyy to short, and side missions are good but never as fulfilling as main quests. Arno's love story made him feel more human, not the usual super hero who always fights for the greater good, he had feelings and emotions for someone and whiling to forsake everything for a loved one.
As for the thing with Napoleon I thing that was wrong and too inconsistent with main game, like it was a spin off.

What I would like for the next AC is more back story to the character as to how he got those skills, I can get were Arno learned fencing, but climbing and parkour? Same thing happened with Edward, he is a pirate, he has to be strong, good at climbing and fighting, but how he instantly knew how to wield the hidden blade and how assassins behave is beyond me. It doesnt have to be a whole segment of the game like AC3 but a little backstory with a flashback or cutscene would be nice.

What I am is tired of dead family members, assassins should have another reason for joingin than revenge

dargor5
01-29-2015, 06:20 PM
Your opinion is great interesting.

UBI did fraud in E3.
The E3 mission should have entered the game disk.

Arno should have fought for a citizen like E3trailer.
UBI should not have performed fraud.
If E3 mission is released as DLC, I do not complain to UBI.
UBI, please release E3 mission as DLC.


Lol you even write the same as your old account, but to reply to your post.
Arno was Aristocrat, he would never fight for the citizens, much less take integral part on the revolution

SixKeys
01-29-2015, 06:22 PM
Lots of good points, OP.

Liberation is a pretty close second, it's even more confusingly presented. But at least Aveline had a clear character arc and the plot managed to stay on its two biggest mysteries and resolve them in the end (finding Aveline's mom and discovering the identity of "the Company Man").

ACU advertised itself as a love story, but …lise was only even present about 40% of the time. It felt like they couldn't decide which plot thread to follow, so they bounced all over the place. It's about Arno and …lise! Wait, actually it's about the murder mysteries! Oh, what if Arno gets expelled? Yeah, but he needs to come back as an assassin! Oh crap, we forget modern day, throw it in there somewhere, I guess. Shouldn't there be some kind of moral lesson in here somewhere? Just throw some ex tempore speech for Arno at the end, that'll work.

So yeah, ACU probably does have the worst story in the series so far.

Alphacos007
01-29-2015, 06:28 PM
Honestly, I couldn't agree more. The only part of the story I actually liked was the beginning. The Tragedy of DeMolay up untill the point where Arno joins the Assassins. After that everything was "meh" for me.

Perk89
01-29-2015, 06:37 PM
"An epically morally grey villian!!!!!"


well there's a horse we've beat into the ground. Germain was a good villian, but like so many integral characters in this franchise before him, he fell victim to poor development decisions-namely the fact that he had like three and a half minutes of screen time in the entire game.

Making something "morally grey!!!!" doesn't make it more entertaining, and it certainly doesn't make it more realistic.

dimbismp
01-29-2015, 06:37 PM
Does Aristocrat not fight for a citizen?
Does assassin not fight for a citizen?
Do you like this?

Please say your opinion.
I will try to answer,even though you are a troll:
No it is known that 99,9999% of aristocrats don't fight for citizens.
And the whole point of the story was that the Revolution was a background.

And no,ACU's story cannot be remade so that we have the E3 cinematic trailer mission!LOL

dimbismp
01-29-2015, 06:39 PM
"An epically morally grey villian!!!!!"


well there's a horse we've beat into the ground. Germain was a good villian, but like so many integral characters in this franchise before him, he fell victim to poor development decisions-namely the fact that he had like three and a half minutes of screen time in the entire game.

Making something "morally grey!!!!" doesn't make it more entertaining, and it certainly doesn't make it more realistic.
I think that Germain was decent.But we did not get to see his motives etc at all,as you said.So he served as an "unknown enemy" IMO.

And also,morally grey equals more realistic most times.Ac1's templars are more realistic than Cesare.

SixKeys
01-29-2015, 06:45 PM
Does Aristocrat not fight for a citizen?
Does assassin not fight for a citizen?
Do you like this?

Please say your opinion.

Please learn English before you attempt to start a debate. Your posts make no sense half the time.

ze_topazio
01-29-2015, 06:46 PM
I can't believe that guy made a fourth account, can't his IP be banned?

dimbismp
01-29-2015, 06:51 PM
Please learn English before you attempt to start a debate. Your posts make no sense half the time.
I don't think English is the main problem.

Xstantin
01-29-2015, 07:01 PM
I think that Germain was decent.But we did not get to see his motives etc at all,as you said.So he served as an "unknown enemy" IMO.

And also,morally grey equals more realistic most times.Ac1's templars are more realistic than Cesare.

I thought he was all about bringing De Molay's vision forward, building a new order on the bones of the monarchy, purging decadence yada yada

Journey93
01-29-2015, 07:15 PM
very good and detailed post OP! I agree on all points
Hopefully someone at Ubisoft reads this because as seen in previous games they are capable of much more
such a bad story has no place in a story driven franchise

aL_____eX
01-29-2015, 07:17 PM
auditorevita is back! Inb4 ban. :)

To the topic: For me it was, ACUs had nothing I would care to remember. It was just pointless in my opinion. It tried to much too combine a love story and the story of a Revolution which lead to a half-baked story in the end.

AherasSTRG
01-29-2015, 08:22 PM
What story?

ACU had no story developement, just a background. Something that doesn't exist cannot suck or be good.

VestigialLlama4
01-29-2015, 08:26 PM
I don't know what we mean by referring to "grey morality", the game has a very simple black and white story. Arno has to fight "Evil Templars" but this time he gets to fight those evil dudes with his Nice Templar Girlfriend. It's actually less gray than the Ezio games. The Templars in UNITY are monsters and never shown to be anything other than that (except for La Touche and Rouille).

Shahkulu101
01-29-2015, 09:55 PM
Probably is the worst yeah, ACB takes a lot of stick but it's entertaining in it's own right. Unity just has nothing going for it, it's just so, so dull.

The only AC where I honestly felt like skipping the cutscenes, I didn't out of principle but boy was I close. I was completely unengaged, apart from the great opening, the few humorous De Sade scenes and Napoleon's 5 minutes of screen time.

Hans684
01-29-2015, 10:01 PM
It's comparable to a handheld game.

phoenix-force411
01-29-2015, 10:07 PM
None of them are bad, but it just wasn't strong enough, but then I don't want every assassin to have such an OP story line like Ezio. I believe Arno is the second the assassin to not have built the brotherhood up from a downfall. I still question the story of ACIV on how Edward got his assassin robe. Conveniently, there was an assassin outfit on a table laid there just for him, and the only ones to blame are the assassins for being so careless.

Namikaze_17
01-29-2015, 10:17 PM
Making something "morally grey!!!!" doesn't make it more entertaining, and it certainly doesn't make it more realistic.


http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mad8a4hnAK1r6aoq4o1_250.gif

DumbGamerTag94
01-29-2015, 10:17 PM
I replayed the entire game to decide if I liked it or not since I was previously on the fence and leaning toward not liking it.
However after my replay I have decided that it was actually pretty good. While kind of dull compared to the action packed sequences of AC3 and 4. It was actually pretty good and focused entirely on Arnos personal struggles. And the dangers of fanaticism. The only way you can fully understand the story is to understand what it is and how to properly put the story in context.

The proper main plot and way to frame the enire story:
-The relationship between Arno and Elise.
With a sub plot of the dangers of radicalism.

That is it

These things ACU is not but people are confusing it for.
-a game about the French Revolution
-a story of solving a murder
-a story about the assassins and Templars

These things are nothing more than props/devices/settings to tell the story of Arno and his love for Elise. If you try to consider ACU any of those lower list items then you are probably very confused and/or disappointed with this game.

I went in to a little more detail on this in another post in the threat about unity being nominated for an award for the story.

Plain and simple AC Unity is a ROMANCE/REDEMPTION STORY. It is not a history of the French revolution it isn't really a historical fiction either as the revolution is mainly used as a setting/backdrop to the love story. ACU IS A PERIOD DRAMA meaning a dramatic story SET in a historic period. Not a drama ABOUT a period.

Xstantin
01-29-2015, 10:34 PM
Plain and simple AC Unity is a ROMANCE/REDEMPTION STORY. It is not a history of the French revolution it isn't really a historical fiction either as the revolution is mainly used as a setting/backdrop to the love story. ACU IS A PERIOD DRAMA meaning a dramatic story SET in a historic period. Not a drama ABOUT a period.

I thought that was the point as well even from the pre-release interviews/diaries they made it pretty clear they didn't want to repeat ACIII and keep the revolution itself for the backdrop since you still see guillotines, angry crowds etc.

DumbGamerTag94
01-29-2015, 11:01 PM
I thought that was the point as well even from the pre-release interviews/diaries they made it pretty clear they didn't want to repeat ACIII and keep the revolution itself for the backdrop since you still see guillotines, angry crowds etc.

Exactly!!! They tried to explain this before it came out!!!

But ironically people seem to be very upset because this is so disconnected from it.

Honestly I believe people weren't as upset about being envolved in the history of AC3(because all the games before were just as stuffed with historic events and people particularly the rail games). I think the problem was more with cramming in a bunch of historic figures just to show face. Paul revere, Sam Adams, Ben Frankin, Lafayette. Etc. all people who are only in the game to be there and have no real effect on the story aside from one or two missions or a few cutscenes. That just felt bad in AC3.

ACU did the same mistake with the Paris stories. Which were even more truelh gump missions more than AC3. And what's worse is that the main story was so disconcerned with the history that all the historic events and characters just seemed kind of forced and gumpy just so they could say there was history there. Because 90% of the story doesn't care about the revolution it's just there happening in the background which just felt wrong and confusing for people that expected a game ABOUT the French revolution which ACU is not. It's a game IN the French revolution.

AC3 was a combination of both. Though it was flawed by shoehorning but I consider that more a fault of trying to be too ambitious rather than just throwing it in last minute. AC3 is historical fiction. You are a person who's story has impact on the historic setting and your characters actions and interactions effect the period or are about important issues/people of the day. Historic Fiction.

ACU is PERIOD DRAMA. The drama was over an unrelated issue to the history. Your only interactions with historic figures ie Mirabeau, Napoleon, and Robespierre are not relevant to the period you don't discuss the major issues, when you do things it has no major impact on the period. The closest moment to interacting with the period is when Elise shoots Robespierre. But just the shooting part as he was being apprehended anyway without you're help. And you were only after him to find Germains location. Not to do anything to effect the period. Arnos story is not really effecting/interacting with the period. He is present for things like to Robespierres arrest, the Kings execution, the Estates General, the Bastille, the storming of the Tuileries, the September massacres. Etc. but you have no impact on the outcome or progression of these events. You're just there. Inconsequential really. That is what makes ACU Period Drama rather than Historic Fiction.

I believe that AC should stick to Historic Fiction and let the player interact with and impact history. Rather than ACUs Period approach that only allowed us to witness history rather than it's sales tag line said "make history"

The history needs to both effect the protags separate story. While the protags story also contributes to the history. This is when AC is at it's best for me as seen in AC2 3 and 4. But they should avoid shoehorning too much or a boring/unrelatable protagonist(the things that held back AC3 the most)

arthur-peresb13
01-29-2015, 11:47 PM
I actually believe that ACU(+DK) had the worst story of the franchise,or at least one of the worst.And i claim something like that,even though i liked Arno and even though i used to think it had great potential.But,Ubi really disappointed me(the only ACU failed promise IMO),preventing ACU from claiming the 1# AC spot in my heart.So,here we go:

First of all,i admit this story had some nice and maybe memorable moments,but overrally it was so inconsistent and all over the place,that really hurts me.So:

1.The redemtion quest
As many fans predicted before launch the whole redemption/revenge plot fell flat.The very little time Arno spents with Charles Dorian and Francois de la Serre contributed to that.Regardless of that,though,Arno never convinced me that he truly wanted to redeem himself for those two murders.More specifically,the reason why he became an Assassin wasn't to find out who killed his adoptive father,but to protect Elise.This is false advertising Ubi.Secondly,Arno never-never-never thinks of his father death,except glaring at that stupid watch,which btw played no part in the story at all.Why have an important character like Shay kill Charles Dorian,if you won't use it in the future?!!?In other words,why Arno never tries to find what really happened to his father?Finally,it was advertised that the two murders were tied together.Well,the game maybe implied that,at most.Again false advertising.

2.The murder mystery+the templars
Ubi claimed that the whole game would revolve around the delaSerre's murder mystery.Well,it just didn't.Actually,for the part it did,the story was quite decent!But this part was small,as we found out that Germain is the Templar mastermind around sequence 6 or 7 if i recall correctly.This is halfway through.Again false advertising.Regardless,of that this was the turning point of the narrative.After this point,the story became really weird and rushed.For some reasons,which till this day i haven't properly realised,Arno kills 3(!) targets with no reason at all.These assassinations did nothing to further the plot,as Arno already knew who his ultimate target was.It totally felt to me that these assasinations were there for the sake of it.

3.Assassins and allies interactions
There were so many great characters,but none of them was really exploited.Both Mirabeau and Bellec were great,representing two different philosophies,but they were killed halfway through.Why didn't Ubi try to use these characters to create a real climax with an Assassin civil war?Two completely different Assassin philosophies clashing with each other....It is no wonder why that after their death the Assassin council lost all its charm and meaning.Napoleon and de Sade were decently portrayed and ofc i would want more.But how can i ask for such triffles if there are such important issues??...(I will refer to the Napoleon inconsistencies later).

* 4.Elise
What can i say about Elise?The whole concept of Templar-Assassin lovers was really promising,but again Ubi failed.Their relationship felt really forced.Elise herself was great and i cared for both of them,but in no point did i care for them AS ONE.And while Ubi tried too much to show how much Arno cared for Elise,it didn't happen the other way around...At many points,Elise was so obsessed for revenge,that she didn't seem to care for Arno at all.And her death was a little bit forced for the "feels".So much potential....

*** 5.The reign of terror
Ubi heavily advertised that the biggest part of the game would take part at the reign of terror.The result?One sequence...Great...

6.Coop inconsistencies
Being able to complete 1794 coop missions in 1789.Narrative all over the place.This.

7.MD and lore
I was never the MD guy,but this time Ubi really crossed the line.If they aren't going to make a decent MD,don't make one at all,because you are driving the fans nutts and you also worsen the ancestor's story..The whole Bishop thing and the ending was laughable.It didn't push the overrarching narrative forward even for a little.Plus,Germainbeing a Sage not only felt forced but practically destroyed any chance of having an epic morally grey villain.

8.The Creed and Assassins vs Templars
The game was advertised to return back to the roots and feature a true Assassins vs Templars story,in which we were going to be able to explore their philosophies.At very few points did the game IMPLY such things.Arno killed Templars because they were Templars and in no point at all did Arno really fight for the true meaning of the Creed.

9.Arno
As i said i liked Arno.But without saying much,as i have already referred to some issues,his motives were really narrow.He didn't fight for the Brotherhood,nor for the good of France.He literally fought for himself and primarly Elise.

* 10.Unanswered questions and inconsistencies
This is by far my biggest gripe.It really drives me mad.I will just point two facts:
A)Arno is rightfully expelled from the Brotherhood at the end of the main game,in 1794.Yet,two weeks later,during Dead kings,he refers himself as an Assassin.Also,at the closing monologue it is implied that he is an Assassin again.He even gets the Master Assassin outfit.Furthermore,he takes part in coop-Brotherhood missions in post-1794 period.Yet,from the novel we know that he actually rejoins the Brotherhood many years afterwards and then he became a master Assassin.WHY SO MUCH CONFUSION UBI?WHY ARE THERE SO MAY INCONSISTENCIES?WHY NONE BOTHERED TO PUT A 5 SEC CUTSCENE TO EXPLAIN ALL THESE THINGS,EITHER IN THE MAIN GAME OR DK?!?!??!?!?
2)Arno and Napoleon are besties during the main game.Yet,in DK not only don't they exchange a word but also Arno behaves as if he doesn't know Napoleon.And as if this is not enough it seems thar eventually ARNO DOESN'T LIKE HIM,EVEN THOUGH HE SAVES HIM IN THE COOP MISSION AND THEY ENTER THE TEMPLE TOGETHER IN 1808!!!!WTH?!?!?
Bonus)The Eve reference in DK.Hope it is explained in the future.



This is not a rant.I really care for the series.And i was really amazed by ACU gameplay and setting.But they need to create a better story in Victory.This is a story driven series!ACU felt like many people randomly threw their ideas(Rumor has it that there wasn't a main proper writer,but Amancio did the job)

Do you agree?Have something to add?Disagree?
Discuss

agreed with almost everything.

I don't read the novel to know about when Arno re-join the Brotherhood, so I don't know if this is an inconsistency or not.
But the Assassin's been pro-revolution during the Coop-mission, but been anti-revolution during the main game, the ending of the main game and the ending of dk don't connect or make sense, is too much to handle.

Also I hated Arno. He's the first protagonist that don't have a clear goal, he say something but do other, he don't think of he's actions, He Kill Bellec and and enemy with the same face without hesitation, he can be emotionless as Connor and stil don't show the convictions, he selfiish as Edward but don't is funny, he complain about everything but don't takes a stand, that ending monologue also was the worst ending ever.

All Characters in the game have terrible development, I don't even know the name's ot the templars I kill. The plot is so rushed and dull.

The game also ruined itself when they decided to make Louis XVI a poor guy without guilty that the bad templars used and condemn this poor nobleman. what a crap!

Journey93
01-30-2015, 12:26 AM
agreed with almost everything.

I don't read the novel to know about when Arno re-join the Brotherhood, so I don't know if this is an inconsistency or not.
But the Assassin's been pro-revolution during the Coop-mission, but been anti-revolution during the main game, the ending of the main game and the ending of dk don't connect or make sense, is too much to handle.

Also I hated Arno. He's the first protagonist that don't have a clear goal, he say something but do other, he don't think of he's actions, He Kill Bellec and and enemy with the same face without hesitation, he can be emotionless as Connor and stil don't show the convictions, he selfiish as Edward but don't is funny, he complain about everything but don't takes a stand, that ending monologue also was the worst ending ever.

All Characters in the game have terrible development, I don't even know the name's ot the templars I kill. The plot is so rushed and dull.

The game also ruined itself when they decided to make Louis XVI a poor guy without guilty that the bad templars used and condemn this poor nobleman. what a crap!

agree its like the writer's forgot that AC is a story driven franchise and instead focused on fancy graphics and boring co-op

Fatal-Feit
01-30-2015, 12:35 AM
Unity is another title that suffers from misleading marketing. AC3 was not pro-patriotic and Black Flag still suffers from being called ''Pirate's Creed'', which upsets me because it's the 2nd game to honor the Assassin's Creed. Assassin’s Creed Rogue never questioned the Creed.
After multiple titles with false advertisement, I think we all should learn to take every story teaser with a grain of salt.

Anyway, fantastic post and in-depth criticisms. I'm game today, so I'll dive in and debate with you since I know you’re an open-minded forumer.
No, I don’t believe Unity has the worse story in the franchise, it sits right in the middle between the Ezio Trilogy (what I deem the worse) and 18th Century Saga (what I deem the best) for me.



First of all,i admit this story had some nice and maybe memorable moments,but overrally it was so inconsistent and all over the place,that really hurts me.So:
Couldn’t be worse than AC2.


1.The redemtion quest

As many fans predicted before launch the whole redemption/revenge plot fell flat.The very little time Arno spents with Charles Dorian and Francois de la Serre contributed to that.Regardless of that,though,Arno never convinced me that he truly wanted to redeem himself for those two murders.More specifically,the reason why he became an Assassin wasn't to find out who killed his adoptive father,but to protect Elise.
It was never advertised as a revenge plot. It was always about redemption and it was present throughout the game.
Joining the Assassins to protect Elise was exactly why it’s a tale of redemption. Both Charles and his adopted father left a hole in his heart, and protecting the only other person left who mattered was his means of redemption.

This is false advertising Ubi.Secondly,Arno never-never-never thinks of his father death,except glaring at that stupid watch,which btw played no part in the story at all.
Actually, it does. The watch is a symbolism of Arno’s internal struggle and his development. When he glances at the watch, it’s a reminder of Charles’ death. The loneliness. Arno is still traumatized by the loss of his father, so he’s dependent on others to fill the void. It’s apparent throughout the game. After the prologue, you can see that Elise had filled his void. He was dependent on her throughout their childhood. In sequence 2, Arno did whatever he could to see her. Even in jail, she was the only person he mourned for. When she left him, he glances back at the broken watch, showing that he’s back to square one. Then he searched for Bellec in hopes of restoring the loss. I don’t want to stay too long in this subject, but basically, every time someone who meant a lot to Arno is lost (Bellec, Elise), he looks back on the broken watch. It symbolizes his broken heart. At the end of the game, when you see Arno holding up the watch, which was restored and working, it shows that he had moved on and developed past needing someone to fill his void.

Why have an important character like Shay kill Charles Dorian,if you won't use it in the future?!!?In other words,why Arno never tries to find what really happened to his father?Finally,it was advertised that the two murders were tied together.Well,the game maybe implied that,at most.Again false advertising.
Inb4thisbecomesthenew’’why-didn’t-Connor-kill-Washington-after-the-grand-reveal?’’
I don’t recall the two murders being advertised as being tied together, but I could be wrong. As I said, it’s best we take things with a grain of salt. Edward was never trained by Assassins either.
Anyway, the story doesn’t need Shay to reappear, he already did his thing (not that I don’t want a sequel for Shay). He was responsible for Arno’s first loss, the start of the void in his heart. It’s what lead to him joining the Assassins and finding a Templar conspiracy.
As for why he didn’t search of Charles’ murderer, Arno isn’t an avenger. It’s a story of redemption, not revenge. Like Connor (who didn’t want to kill the Templars (or Washington) despite being what he thought was responsible for burning his village and killing his mother), Arno had moved on from that, and it’s present during the Assassins’ trial. He joined the Assassins to redeem himself by protecting Elise. As soon as he heard Elise was in danger, he stopped everything to find and protect her. Even when he had the chance to eliminate Germain, he let him get away to help her. As Elise said it herself in her journal, she knew that, if given the chance, Arno would allow Germain(the man responsible for De La Serre’s death) to rule France if it meant keeping her safe.


2.The murder mystery+the templars

Ubi claimed that the whole game would revolve around the delaSerre's murder mystery.Well,it just didn't.Actually,for the part it did,the story was quite decent!But this part was small,as we found out that Germain is the Templar mastermind around sequence 6 or 7 if i recall correctly.This is halfway through.Again false advertising.Regardless,of that this was the turning point of the narrative.After this point,the story became really weird and rushed.For some reasons,which till this day i haven't properly realised,
UBI didn’t lie, the conspiracy always revolved around De La Serre’s death. Germain didn’t take anything away from it. He was the man who started the revolt and was responsible for his death.
IMO, he enhanced the journey. It added more weight and drama to Arno’s quest for revenge and his relationship with Elise.

Arno kills 3(!) targets with no reason at all.These assassinations did nothing to further the plot,as Arno already knew who his ultimate target was.It totally felt to me that these assasinations were there for the sake of it.
The three targets Arno killed, even after knowing of Germain, was to support Elise’s endeavors and keep her safe. Why do you think he looked for her after killing the woman at the palace? To tell her the job was done and she was safe. It’s part of his redemption quest.


3.Assassins and allies interactions

There were so many great characters,but none of them was really exploited.Both Mirabeau and Bellec were great,representing two different philosophies,but they were killed halfway through.Why didn't Ubi try to use these characters to create a real climax with an Assassin civil war?Two completely different Assassin philosophies clashing with each other…It is no wonder why that after their death the Assassin council lost all its charm and meaning.Napoleon and de Sade were decently portrayed and ofc i would want more.But how can i ask for such triffles if there are such important issues??...(I will refer to the Napoleon inconsistencies later).

I agree that characters could have used more screen time to flesh out and everything.
But anyway, that’s exactly what was represented. Bellec was the only one of reason in the order. He was right, the Assassin’s Order (like the Templars) were corrupted. He also showed how wrong Arno and Elise were.
Unity’s characters are represented as more of a whole, than individuals. The point of the story was to show that dogma becomes fanaticism. Not just the people of France during the Revolution, the Assassins and Templars, as a whole, were also victims of said philosophy.


* 4.Elise
What can i say about Elise?The whole concept of Templar-Assassin lovers was really promising,but again Ubi failed.Their relationship felt really forced.Elise herself was great and i cared for both of them,but in no point did i care for them AS ONE.And while Ubi tried too much to show how much Arno cared for Elise,it didn't happen the other way around...At many points,Elise was so obsessed for revenge,that she didn't seem to care for Arno at all.And her death was a little bit forced for the "feels".So much potential....
You didn’t get in-depth enough for me to counter-argue, so I’ll just give my opinion. Their relationship didn’t feel forced, it was natural and very relatable (I’ve gone through a similar loss). I’m a romantic teenager(late 17) so take that as you will, but I’ve had more than a few convo with friends who could also relate to their relationship. From the start of Elise’s influence on young Arno, it was clear a bond would happen, especially after the loss and being raised together. Growing up, Elise filled Arno’s void and made him happy. As soon as stuff hit the fan and she was gone, Arno became a desperate man. He needed her and he did all he could for her. That’s something that hit me hard. Fighting for someone you’re so attached to who’s astray for her own duty and responsibility. And losing them, no less. I can’t tell you how happy I was when Dead Kings showed up. Arno’s line ‘’I can hide here’’ was like Dťjŗ vu in AC form for me. I haven’t read Unity’s novel yet so I can’t speak from her perspective.
Her death was inevitable, but I don’t believe it was done so much for ‘’feels’’, but for Arno’s development. Her death was something Arno needed to become an Assassin. As Arno had said, he once thought the Creed allowed him to do whatever he deemed correct, no matter the cost. He used it as his means to an end. Protecting Elise, regardless of her own feelings. Her death was the start of him opening his eyes and realizing the outcome of the French Revolution and understanding the Assassin’s Creed.


*** 5.The reign of terror
Ubi heavily advertised that the biggest part of the game would take part at the reign of terror.The result?One sequence...Great...
The game needed more guillotines and beheadings, that’s for sure. Haha.


6.Coop inconsistencies

Being able to complete 1794 coop missions in 1789.Narrative all over the place.This.


I actually didn’t mind this. I’m happy they kept Arno’s personal story to himself (a promise UBI delivered) and allowed me to experience the French Revolution with friends.
It could have been done better, though, I agree. Playing the CO-OP mission with Mirabeau’s tomb before even reaching the part in the main narrative was just bad inconsistency.


7.MD and lore

I was never the MD guy,but this time Ubi really crossed the line.If they aren't going to make a decent MD,don't make one at all,because you are driving the fans nutts and you also worsen the ancestor's story..The whole Bishop thing and the ending was laughable.It didn't push the overrarching narrative forward even for a little.Plus,Germainbeing a Sage not only felt forced but practically destroyed any chance of having an epic morally grey villain.


MD is a topic I don’t like to talk about (especially since I don’t like the Desmond Saga) but I’ve got to agree. Bishop’s trolling was awful. They should never do it again. And don’t tease us about a supposed MD narrative if it’s not a thing. I actually forgot the game was about finding the sage until just recently.
That said, I like Unity’s approach to MD and its lore. I don’t like the whole ‘’you-in-the-Animus’’ thing (still better than Desmond, IMO), but keeping it at a minimum, throwing cinematic/visually pleasing rifts into our faces, and maintaining the lore in the game. It all could have been better, but I was okay with it (aside from Bishop’s trololo). I never cared about MD nor did I ever feel like endorsing myself in MD First Civ shenanigans. Again, it’s just me. I know many would beg to differ.


8.The Creed and Assassins vs Templars

The game was advertised to return back to the roots and feature a true Assassins vs Templars story,in which we were going to be able to explore their philosophies.At very few points did the game IMPLY such things.Arno killed Templars because they were Templars and in no point at all did Arno really fight for the true meaning of the Creed.


Besides reiterating on what I said in the other topics above, the Templars and Assassins’ conflict was about corruption, which was shown throughout the game (and in Arno’s ending speech).
Regarding the Creed, I may or may not have reiterated earlier, but I’ll just post what I had on ACHUB to save time.

Arno started off like Altair, Edward, and Desmond. They didn't care about the Brotherhood, the Creed, or its cause. It was their means to an end. While Arno used its grant of permission to protect Elise, Desmond used it to get wasted, --to throw away his future and life, Edward used it for piracy, --to obtain his goal of wealth, and Altair used it to hone his skills, --to murder as he please.

As the game progresses, (like Desmond as he's influenced while viewing Altair's life, Edward as his family and friends deceased/departed, and, well, Altair as he regained his honor), Arno's view of the world and the Assassin's Creed progressed. The French Revolution, the results of Elise, Bellec, the corrupted Templars and Assassins alike, and even himself (blinding pursuing his dream of protecting Elise), they all paved a reality for Arno. As he said in his ending speech:

''Ideals too easily give way to Dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism.''

''I understand now. Not a grant of permission. The Creed is a warning.''



http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CNrEQHdPqM


I'm posting the speech because it's so damn awesome and shed plenty of light on his story and development.

The results of everything that had happened during the French Revolution had changed him for the better. Like Desmond, like Altair, and like Edward, he neglected the Creed, and it had bit him in the back. And now in the end, he's become someone who's worthy of the Brotherhood, of the Creed, a proper Assassin. It's poetic for AC.

Now, as for Ezio in AC2/B, the Creed and Brotherhood are not of importance to him. Nobody, except _M and a few others on the other forum, ever give him **** for that. The Creed didn't affect his life, purpose, or development. The Brotherhood were his means to an end. We never get much more than an appreciation from Ezio until Revelations (thank you, Darby McDevitt). Prior to Revelations, it had always been about himself. His own revenge and closure. In AC2, he used the Brotherhood as a means of getting his revenge. And at the end, when the Brotherhood recruited him and he reiterated the Creed (the only time it was ever mentioned! --but no lesson or philosophy, whatsoever), he let Rodrigo Borgia live. Yes, he neglected the Brotherhood and Creed, and let their worse enemy live. Why? Because he's ''too good for revenge.'' He had ''overcome'' it. People give Edward **** for being a pirate, but when he became an Assassin at the end (like AC2 Ezio), he didn't throw the development right down the drain. No, Edward actually did as he was suppose to for the next 3 contracts. --Kill his contracts in the name of the Assassin's Creed. The problem here for Ezio is that it neglects his development. So does he become an Assassin or what? When they announced Brotherhood, I was hoping that would change him. That would give him his closure, but it didn't. The Creed is still a background in the story. --Only reiterated for recruitment. The Brotherhood continues to be his means to an end. And his development got worse. As soon as AC2 ended, he RETIRED! Yes, retired because his OWN BATTLES were done. Some ''Assassin of the Creed'' he was. And the Borgias appeared at his doorsteps and things went back to where it started. Another revenge flick. AC2/B's Ezio's development was non. It's rhetorical. And his motives? Revenge, however, unlike the others, he doesn't change. It stuck to revenge until Revelations. With Arno, sure, we only got some speech at the end, but at least that was something. --We got a valid development. It was no Black Flag where Edward got his revelation in sequence 11 and some awesome contracts, but we got something. AND most importantly, some philosophical touch on the Creed. <--Something many of the games lack.


9.Arno

As i said i liked Arno.But without saying much,as i have already referred to some issues,his motives were really narrow.He didn't fight for the Brotherhood,nor for the good of France.He literally fought for himself and primarly Elise.
That’s the point. I already tackled this point in the subjects above, so I’ll leave it as that.


* 10.Unanswered questions and inconsistencies
This is by far my biggest gripe.It really drives me mad.I will just point two facts:
A)Arno is rightfully expelled from the Brotherhood at the end of the main game,in 1794.Yet,two weeks later,during Dead kings,he refers himself as an Assassin.Also,at the closing monologue it is implied that he is an Assassin again.He even gets the Master Assassin outfit.Furthermore,he takes part in coop-Brotherhood missions in post-1794 period.Yet,from the novel we know that he actually rejoins the Brotherhood many years afterwards and then he became a master Assassin.WHY SO MUCH CONFUSION UBI?WHY ARE THERE SO MAY INCONSISTENCIES?WHY NONE BOTHERED TO PUT A 5 SEC CUTSCENE TO EXPLAIN ALL THESE THINGS,EITHER IN THE MAIN GAME OR DK?!?!??!?!?
These things definitely could have used more explanation. As far as I know:
1. Dead Kings is a prequel to the ending monologue. The Machine Infernal CO-OP mission is after the monologue.
2. An Assassin is not just a title someone gives you, it’s what you are. It’s your philosophy and understanding of the Creed that matters. I don’t count Ezio as an Assassin in the end of AC2 because he’s not really an Assassin, he only had the title.


2)Arno and Napoleon are besties during the main game.Yet,in DK not only don't they exchange a word but also Arno behaves as if he doesn't know Napoleon.And as if this is not enough it seems thar eventually ARNO DOESN'T LIKE HIM,EVEN THOUGH HE SAVES HIM IN THE COOP MISSION AND THEY ENTER THE TEMPLE TOGETHER IN 1808!!!!WTH?!?!?
Bonus)The Eve reference in DK.Hope it is explained in the future.
Yeah, their relationship are confusing. Apparently the novel fleshes things out, but I haven’t read it yet. What I can take from it is Arno and Napoleon are in a professional relationship [insertfacegif]. They aren’t friends, nor are they enemies. He doesn’t engage Napoleon in Dead Kings because he’s not a foe, just in his way of getting what he needs to leave Paris. It was until he became an Assassin as the end of Dead Kings that he did something about it. I still don’t know what’s up with the later parts, though. Teaser for more, I guess.


This is not a rant.I really care for the series.And i was really amazed by ACU gameplay and setting.But they need to create a better story in Victory.This is a story driven series!ACU felt like many people randomly threw their ideas(Rumor has it that there wasn't a main proper writer,but Amancio did the job)
Amancio wasn’t the writer, but he helped fleshed out the story, plots, and characters. I don’t agree with Unity being the worse, definitely not, but it definitely could have been better presented, paced, and more consistent.

Xstantin
01-30-2015, 01:35 AM
All Characters in the game have terrible development, I don't even know the name's ot the templars I kill. The plot is so rushed and dull.

It's like seven names to remember :) I'd say they were not as bad as ACII's Templars. The story could do with a few more sequences but ACU Templars' intentions were clear since each of them had a function, just like Haytham's group imo.

arthur-peresb13
01-30-2015, 01:51 AM
It's like seven names to remember :) I'd say they were not as bad as ACII's Templars. The story could do with a few more sequences but ACU Templars' intentions were clear since each of them had a function, just like Haytham's group imo.



7 names that we almost no hear since they die in their first or second moment without time to make anything worth to remember. The exeption been the friend of Elise but he has a dificult name.
I remember La Touche, Robespierre(it counts?) and Germain...that's its

X_xWolverinEx_X
01-30-2015, 02:05 AM
i liked unitys story
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/thefw.com/files/2013/05/Nicholson.gif

DumbGamerTag94
01-30-2015, 02:08 AM
i liked unitys story
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/thefw.com/files/2013/05/Nicholson.gif

Yeah!!! I'm not alone?!

Fatal-Feit
01-30-2015, 02:10 AM
Yeah!!! I'm not alone?!

Dunno if my wall-of-text was clear, but I like Unity's story a lot.

http://media.giphy.com/media/Zo9ACzmJgoqRy/giphy.gif

Namikaze_17
01-30-2015, 02:16 AM
Figured I join in...

http://media3.giphy.com/media/MpwWbjz1KEYuc/giphy.gif

DumbGamerTag94
01-30-2015, 02:29 AM
Haha my faction is growing!! :cool:

arthur-peresb13
01-30-2015, 02:30 AM
Just curious

you guys that like the story in Unity, would said it was better thant othe game in the franchise excluing Liberation?

X_xWolverinEx_X
01-30-2015, 02:35 AM
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/thefw.com/files/2013/05/Oprah.gif

X_xWolverinEx_X
01-30-2015, 02:41 AM
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/thefw.com/files/2013/05/Riker.gif

X_xWolverinEx_X
01-30-2015, 02:45 AM
http://img.pandawhale.com/12467-Samuel-L-Jackson-DEAL-WITH-IT-mHjh.gif

DumbGamerTag94
01-30-2015, 02:54 AM
Just curious

you guys that like the story in Unity, would said it was better thant othe game in the franchise excluing Liberation?

I'm not sure what you're asking. But if you're asking where I would rank unity out of all the games(overall/story wise)

1: AC3
2: AC2+ACB(together as a unit as one big story. Separately I think the kind of suck)
3: AC4
4: AC Unity
5: AC Rogue
6: AC Freedom Cry
7: AC1
8: AC Revelations
9: AC Liberation(if this had been a main console game and hadn't been a PS Vita game first. Thus having better length production value and better story progression this would have been better than revelations. I hate revelations with a passion)

So slightly over the middle. Above average.

arthur-peresb13
01-30-2015, 03:07 AM
I'm not sure what you're asking. But if you're asking where I would rank unity out of all the games(overall/story wise)

1: AC3
2: AC2+ACB(together as a unit as one big story. Separately I think the kind of suck)
3: AC4
4: AC Unity
5: AC Rogue
6: AC Freedom Cry
7: AC1
8: AC Revelations
9: AC Liberation(if this had been a main console game and hadn't been a PS Vita game first. Thus having better length production value and better story progression this would have been better than revelations. I hate revelations with a passion)

So slightly over the middle. Above average.

yes that what i was asking, sorry my poor english. :)

My list would be like
AC3
AC Revelations
AC2+ACB
AC4
AC1
AC Rogue
AC Unity
AC Liberation

A don't played freedom cry, it's worth?

Fatal-Feit
01-30-2015, 03:09 AM
Just curious

you guys that like the story in Unity, would said it was better thant othe game in the franchise excluing Liberation?

Uh... My opinion of best to worse:

1. 3
2. IV / FC
3. 1 / Unity / DK
4. Rogue / Revelations
5. Brotherhood
6. 2
7. Liberation

I've only played about 30 hours of Rogue, but I feel comfortable having it next Revelations for now. I'm also currently playing Bloodlines and I think it's pretty good for a handheld (kind of enjoy it more than Liberation). I might add it to the list after.

JustPlainQuirky
01-30-2015, 03:16 AM
I would say Liberation is worst.

It didn't even try.

Unity's tried in terms of performance at least, even if the story is suuuuuuuuper generic and bare bones.

Liberations was poorly presented and disjointed.

arthur-peresb13
01-30-2015, 03:22 AM
Liberations was awful, Unity was meh...

I'm just angry because I really expected the best AC game. it was very disappointing.

X_xWolverinEx_X
01-30-2015, 03:24 AM
liberation was a pile of dog **** i threw into the fire

Journey93
01-30-2015, 12:55 PM
I would say Liberation is worst.

It didn't even try.

Unity's tried in terms of performance at least, even if the story is suuuuuuuuper generic and bare bones.

Liberations was poorly presented and disjointed.

I agree but comparing Liberation to Unity is not fair it was just a handheld title a ****ty one no doubt
but Unity was a major installment they had a lot more resources and still managed to screw it up

apart from performance issues the story and most characters were just abysmal

kenn4way
01-30-2015, 05:01 PM
i liked unitys story


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-q4lIOpaEIjE/VKl82Kzr_HI/AAAAAAAACdM/1jA55QDaHUE/w426-h237/tumblr_mdidwr9KgR1rvm2d5.gif
If you really think so, it is good.

but,
This site is a site speaking your opinion.
This site is not a site in support of UBI.
This site is not a site to become yesman for UBI.
You are minority.

emperior
01-30-2015, 08:46 PM
My personal list from best to worst:

1 - AC2
2 - ACB
3 - ACR
4 - AC3
5 - ACU/AC4
6 - AC1

Basically they are getting worse and worse for me. Except for AC1 that I didn't really like. It was no **** though, just the gameplay was too repetitive and I can't stand repetitive games (I also hated L.A Noire for it)

ziljn
01-30-2015, 09:03 PM
Unity is another title that suffers from misleading marketing. AC3 was not pro-patriotic and Black Flag still suffers from being called ''Pirate's Creed'', which upsets me because it's the 2nd game to honor the Assassin's Creed. Assassinís Creed Rogue never questioned the Creed.
After multiple titles with false advertisement, I think we all should learn to take every story teaser with a grain of salt.

Anyway, fantastic post and in-depth criticisms. I'm game today, so I'll dive in and debate with you since I know youíre an open-minded forumer.
No, I donít believe Unity has the worse story in the franchise, it sits right in the middle between the Ezio Trilogy (what I deem the worse) and 18th Century Saga (what I deem the best) for me.


Couldnít be worse than AC2.


It was never advertised as a revenge plot. It was always about redemption and it was present throughout the game.
Joining the Assassins to protect Elise was exactly why itís a tale of redemption. Both Charles and his adopted father left a hole in his heart, and protecting the only other person left who mattered was his means of redemption.

Actually, it does. The watch is a symbolism of Arnoís internal struggle and his development. When he glances at the watch, itís a reminder of Charlesí death. The loneliness. Arno is still traumatized by the loss of his father, so heís dependent on others to fill the void. Itís apparent throughout the game. After the prologue, you can see that Elise had filled his void. He was dependent on her throughout their childhood. In sequence 2, Arno did whatever he could to see her. Even in jail, she was the only person he mourned for. When she left him, he glances back at the broken watch, showing that heís back to square one. Then he searched for Bellec in hopes of restoring the loss. I donít want to stay too long in this subject, but basically, every time someone who meant a lot to Arno is lost (Bellec, Elise), he looks back on the broken watch. It symbolizes his broken heart. At the end of the game, when you see Arno holding up the watch, which was restored and working, it shows that he had moved on and developed past needing someone to fill his void.

Inb4thisbecomesthenewííwhy-didnít-Connor-kill-Washington-after-the-grand-reveal?íí
I donít recall the two murders being advertised as being tied together, but I could be wrong. As I said, itís best we take things with a grain of salt. Edward was never trained by Assassins either.
Anyway, the story doesnít need Shay to reappear, he already did his thing (not that I donít want a sequel for Shay). He was responsible for Arnoís first loss, the start of the void in his heart. Itís what lead to him joining the Assassins and finding a Templar conspiracy.
As for why he didnít search of Charlesí murderer, Arno isnít an avenger. Itís a story of redemption, not revenge. Like Connor (who didnít want to kill the Templars (or Washington) despite being what he thought was responsible for burning his village and killing his mother), Arno had moved on from that, and itís present during the Assassinsí trial. He joined the Assassins to redeem himself by protecting Elise. As soon as he heard Elise was in danger, he stopped everything to find and protect her. Even when he had the chance to eliminate Germain, he let him get away to help her. As Elise said it herself in her journal, she knew that, if given the chance, Arno would allow Germain(the man responsible for De La Serreís death) to rule France if it meant keeping her safe.


UBI didnít lie, the conspiracy always revolved around De La Serreís death. Germain didnít take anything away from it. He was the man who started the revolt and was responsible for his death.
IMO, he enhanced the journey. It added more weight and drama to Arnoís quest for revenge and his relationship with Elise.

The three targets Arno killed, even after knowing of Germain, was to support Eliseís endeavors and keep her safe. Why do you think he looked for her after killing the woman at the palace? To tell her the job was done and she was safe. Itís part of his redemption quest.


I agree that characters could have used more screen time to flesh out and everything.
But anyway, thatís exactly what was represented. Bellec was the only one of reason in the order. He was right, the Assassinís Order (like the Templars) were corrupted. He also showed how wrong Arno and Elise were.
Unityís characters are represented as more of a whole, than individuals. The point of the story was to show that dogma becomes fanaticism. Not just the people of France during the Revolution, the Assassins and Templars, as a whole, were also victims of said philosophy.


You didnít get in-depth enough for me to counter-argue, so Iíll just give my opinion. Their relationship didnít feel forced, it was natural and very relatable (Iíve gone through a similar loss). Iím a romantic teenager(late 17) so take that as you will, but Iíve had more than a few convo with friends who could also relate to their relationship. From the start of Eliseís influence on young Arno, it was clear a bond would happen, especially after the loss and being raised together. Growing up, Elise filled Arnoís void and made him happy. As soon as stuff hit the fan and she was gone, Arno became a desperate man. He needed her and he did all he could for her. Thatís something that hit me hard. Fighting for someone youíre so attached to whoís astray for her own duty and responsibility. And losing them, no less. I canít tell you how happy I was when Dead Kings showed up. Arnoís line ĎíI can hide hereíí was like Dťjŗ vu in AC form for me. I havenít read Unityís novel yet so I canít speak from her perspective.
Her death was inevitable, but I donít believe it was done so much for Ďífeelsíí, but for Arnoís development. Her death was something Arno needed to become an Assassin. As Arno had said, he once thought the Creed allowed him to do whatever he deemed correct, no matter the cost. He used it as his means to an end. Protecting Elise, regardless of her own feelings. Her death was the start of him opening his eyes and realizing the outcome of the French Revolution and understanding the Assassinís Creed.


The game needed more guillotines and beheadings, thatís for sure. Haha.




I actually didnít mind this. Iím happy they kept Arnoís personal story to himself (a promise UBI delivered) and allowed me to experience the French Revolution with friends.
It could have been done better, though, I agree. Playing the CO-OP mission with Mirabeauís tomb before even reaching the part in the main narrative was just bad inconsistency.




MD is a topic I donít like to talk about (especially since I donít like the Desmond Saga) but Iíve got to agree. Bishopís trolling was awful. They should never do it again. And donít tease us about a supposed MD narrative if itís not a thing. I actually forgot the game was about finding the sage until just recently.
That said, I like Unityís approach to MD and its lore. I donít like the whole Ďíyou-in-the-Animusíí thing (still better than Desmond, IMO), but keeping it at a minimum, throwing cinematic/visually pleasing rifts into our faces, and maintaining the lore in the game. It all could have been better, but I was okay with it (aside from Bishopís trololo). I never cared about MD nor did I ever feel like endorsing myself in MD First Civ shenanigans. Again, itís just me. I know many would beg to differ.




Besides reiterating on what I said in the other topics above, the Templars and Assassinsí conflict was about corruption, which was shown throughout the game (and in Arnoís ending speech).
Regarding the Creed, I may or may not have reiterated earlier, but Iíll just post what I had on ACHUB to save time.

Arno started off like Altair, Edward, and Desmond. They didn't care about the Brotherhood, the Creed, or its cause. It was their means to an end. While Arno used its grant of permission to protect Elise, Desmond used it to get wasted, --to throw away his future and life, Edward used it for piracy, --to obtain his goal of wealth, and Altair used it to hone his skills, --to murder as he please.

As the game progresses, (like Desmond as he's influenced while viewing Altair's life, Edward as his family and friends deceased/departed, and, well, Altair as he regained his honor), Arno's view of the world and the Assassin's Creed progressed. The French Revolution, the results of Elise, Bellec, the corrupted Templars and Assassins alike, and even himself (blinding pursuing his dream of protecting Elise), they all paved a reality for Arno. As he said in his ending speech:

''Ideals too easily give way to Dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism.''

''I understand now. Not a grant of permission. The Creed is a warning.''



http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CNrEQHdPqM


I'm posting the speech because it's so damn awesome and shed plenty of light on his story and development.

The results of everything that had happened during the French Revolution had changed him for the better. Like Desmond, like Altair, and like Edward, he neglected the Creed, and it had bit him in the back. And now in the end, he's become someone who's worthy of the Brotherhood, of the Creed, a proper Assassin. It's poetic for AC.

Now, as for Ezio in AC2/B, the Creed and Brotherhood are not of importance to him. Nobody, except _M and a few others on the other forum, ever give him **** for that. The Creed didn't affect his life, purpose, or development. The Brotherhood were his means to an end. We never get much more than an appreciation from Ezio until Revelations (thank you, Darby McDevitt). Prior to Revelations, it had always been about himself. His own revenge and closure. In AC2, he used the Brotherhood as a means of getting his revenge. And at the end, when the Brotherhood recruited him and he reiterated the Creed (the only time it was ever mentioned! --but no lesson or philosophy, whatsoever), he let Rodrigo Borgia live. Yes, he neglected the Brotherhood and Creed, and let their worse enemy live. Why? Because he's ''too good for revenge.'' He had ''overcome'' it. People give Edward **** for being a pirate, but when he became an Assassin at the end (like AC2 Ezio), he didn't throw the development right down the drain. No, Edward actually did as he was suppose to for the next 3 contracts. --Kill his contracts in the name of the Assassin's Creed. The problem here for Ezio is that it neglects his development. So does he become an Assassin or what? When they announced Brotherhood, I was hoping that would change him. That would give him his closure, but it didn't. The Creed is still a background in the story. --Only reiterated for recruitment. The Brotherhood continues to be his means to an end. And his development got worse. As soon as AC2 ended, he RETIRED! Yes, retired because his OWN BATTLES were done. Some ''Assassin of the Creed'' he was. And the Borgias appeared at his doorsteps and things went back to where it started. Another revenge flick. AC2/B's Ezio's development was non. It's rhetorical. And his motives? Revenge, however, unlike the others, he doesn't change. It stuck to revenge until Revelations. With Arno, sure, we only got some speech at the end, but at least that was something. --We got a valid development. It was no Black Flag where Edward got his revelation in sequence 11 and some awesome contracts, but we got something. AND most importantly, some philosophical touch on the Creed. <--Something many of the games lack.


Thatís the point. I already tackled this point in the subjects above, so Iíll leave it as that.


These things definitely could have used more explanation. As far as I know:
1. Dead Kings is a prequel to the ending monologue. The Machine Infernal CO-OP mission is after the monologue.
2. An Assassin is not just a title someone gives you, itís what you are. Itís your philosophy and understanding of the Creed that matters. I donít count Ezio as an Assassin in the end of AC2 because heís not really an Assassin, he only had the title.

Yeah, their relationship are confusing. Apparently the novel fleshes things out, but I havenít read it yet. What I can take from it is Arno and Napoleon are in a professional relationship [insertfacegif]. They arenít friends, nor are they enemies. He doesnít engage Napoleon in Dead Kings because heís not a foe, just in his way of getting what he needs to leave Paris. It was until he became an Assassin as the end of Dead Kings that he did something about it. I still donít know whatís up with the later parts, though. Teaser for more, I guess.


Amancio wasnít the writer, but he helped fleshed out the story, plots, and characters. I donít agree with Unity being the worse, definitely not, but it definitely could have been better presented, paced, and more consistent.

There's usually so few things actually worth reading in the forums, but this was one of them. That was a great breakdown of the story and Arno's motivations and relationships. That actually helped me see things a little differently. Thanks.

dimbismp
01-30-2015, 09:59 PM
...Great post with interesting arguments.
Even though i still disagree at some points,you made me see he story in a different perspective.I will have to replay it though.
Anyway,as i said the inconsistencies are my major gripe.If it weren't for them,i would just like the story:neither my favourite nor my least favourite.It just drives me crazy knowing that Arno's story is done and i have to accept all these plot holes.Another thing i have to say is that many times you said that:"I haven't read the book,but...".Well,that's the point.
The novels should be optional to get a more complets feeling of the stoey etc.But,in ACU's case,the book is essential for the story to make some sense.AC is a narrative drivsn series.Nowadays that each game is self contained,each story should have a beggining and an end WITHIN THE GAME.We shouldn't search for books,read wikis and ask he writers what they meant to understand the ancestor's story.All these should be optional.
So,in conclusion,i believe that ACU failed because it tried to fit many subplots in one story:love story,redemption,revolution,corrupt assassins,sages etc.My only wish for Victory is to have a focused,character and Creed driven story.Without many things running around.Pretty much like ACIV.Honestly,i would prefer no gameplay innovation and a great story,rather than improvement in every gameplay aspect and a crappy story.Seriously,another crappy story and i will consider leaving the brand.

SixKeys
01-30-2015, 10:14 PM
Great post with interesting arguments.
Even though i still disagree at some points,you made me see he story in a different perspective.I will have to replay it though.
Anyway,as i said the inconsistencies are my major gripe.If it weren't for them,i would just like the story:neither my favourite nor my least favourite.It just drives me crazy knowing that Arno's story is done and i have to accept all these plot holes.Another thing i have to say is that many times you said that:"I haven't read the book,but...".Well,that's the point.
The novels should be optional to get a more complets feeling of the stoey etc.But,in ACU's case,the book is essential for the story to make some sense.AC is a narrative drivsn series.Nowadays that each game is self contained,each story should have a beggining and an end WITHIN THE GAME.We shouldn't search for books,read wikis and ask he writers what they meant to understand the ancestor's story.All these should be optional.
So,in conclusion,i believe that ACU failed because it tried to fit many subplots in one story:love story,redemption,revolution,corrupt assassins,sages etc.My only wish for Victory is to have a focused,character and Creed driven story.Without many things running around.Pretty much like ACIV.Honestly,i would prefer no gameplay innovation and a great story,rather than improvement in every gameplay aspect and a crappy story.Seriously,another crappy story and i will consider leaving the brand.

^ This. I've never touched the novels and don't intend to. And ACU's problem was precisely what you said: too many subplots. There's a way to make them all work together, but they just didn't in this case. I'm a fan of keeping things simple. That doesn't have to mean dumbed down. The Last of Us was a pretty basic, simple story, but the characters and writing were strong.

arthur-peresb13
01-30-2015, 11:15 PM
I kind disagree.

The subplot wasn't the problem. The problem was the lack of the rhythm or pacing.
Everything is so rushed and artificial , nothing make you care for what is happening, so many plot-holes that we can't even understand what's happening.

When I finished Unity, a swear that I think Arno kill himself in the future. Not this "he now moved on and overcame the trauma", put a rope and a black screen and we have Arno's closure.

Megas_Doux
01-31-2015, 12:03 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul8j9I90ueM

-.-

Megas_Doux
01-31-2015, 12:12 AM
Go away -.-

Back on topic, Unityīs writers tried so bad to move away from the ACIIIīs "letīs shove Connor into every historic event of the Revolution no matter the linearity of the mission" syndrome, that aside from Paris itself, Unity did not feel like the French Revolution at times. That is why I like some side missions better than the main ones.

I know that fans are ALWAYS next to impossible to please, but from my point of view, the love story was not good either.

Fatal-Feit
01-31-2015, 12:34 AM
Great post with interesting arguments.
Even though i still disagree at some points,you made me see he story in a different perspective.I will have to replay it though.

The post was for you so if you'd like to counter-argue later, feel free.


Anyway,as i said the inconsistencies are my major gripe.If it weren't for them,i would just like the story:neither my favourite nor my least favourite.It just drives me crazy knowing that Arno's story is done and i have to accept all these plot holes.

There's an ending teaser so I'm pretty sure there will be more to come. It doesn't matter if the next game takes place in a new period with a different protagonist, that never stopped AC from filling the gaps.


Another thing i have to say is that many times you said that:"I haven't read the book,but...".Well,that's the point.
The novels should be optional to get a more complets feeling of the stoey etc.But,in ACU's case,the book is essential for the story to make some sense.AC is a narrative drivsn series.Nowadays that each game is self contained,each story should have a beggining and an end WITHIN THE GAME.We shouldn't search for books,read wikis and ask he writers what they meant to understand the ancestor's story.All these should be optional.

The book isn't a necessity, though. I only mentioned it because I know there could have been more to tell (like Black Flag). Elise's side of things, the remainder of Arno's life, and more of Napoleon only added to story.

The story of Unity is from Arno's perspective and it was, well, done. We don't need to know what happened with Elise to understand his development. We had Dead Kings and the monologue.

The remainder of Arno's life in the novel are closure for fans. His main story and its message was completed in Unity.

Arno and Napoleon's relationship was handled fine in the game. Unity is about Arno and his quest for redemption foremost, not Napoleon's reign. They weren't friends or foes, just acquaintances with objectives that coincided during their missions. The CO-OP mission doesn't really affect or matter in the story, it's more of an Easter Egg for those who read the novel. And ending was a teaser for more to come. And I am certain there are more to come.


So,in conclusion,i believe that ACU failed because it tried to fit many subplots in one story:love story,redemption,revolution,corrupt assassins,sages etc.My only wish for Victory is to have a focused,character and Creed driven story.Without many things running around.Pretty much like ACIV.Honestly,i would prefer no gameplay innovation and a great story,rather than improvement in every gameplay aspect and a crappy story.Seriously,another crappy story and i will consider leaving the brand.

Besides the MD shenanigans with the sage and stuff, I don't believe Unity failed at fitting too many subplots in its main narrative. Honestly, I felt like Unity's subplots were less and was handled much better than AC3's, which was tackling way too many subjects for its own good.

I agree with Sixkeys regarding simple stories. There's a pattern I notice with ACs and it's that its stories are best executed and positively received when it's basic. While playing through ACU, I had a deja vu of AC3, and I just knew it was going to be heavily criticized.


There's usually so few things actually worth reading in the forums, but this was one of them. That was a great breakdown of the story and Arno's motivations and relationships. That actually helped me see things a little differently. Thanks.

You are welcome.

I wish I could say the opposite, but I've got agree about the forums. Oh how I miss the old days when I was new to the forums and AC3 was the main topic of controversy. Despite it being my favorite of the franchise, the constructive forumers were very active and the debates and discussions were always worth the read. It has only been about 2 years and I'm already sounding entitled. Lololol

dimbismp
01-31-2015, 11:34 AM
The post was for you so if you'd like to counter-argue later, feel free.
Ok then:

Unity is another title that suffers from misleading marketing. AC3 was not pro-patriotic and Black Flag still suffers from being called ''Pirate's Creed'', which upsets me because it's the 2nd game to honor the Assassin's Creed. Assassin’s Creed Rogue never questioned the Creed.
After multiple titles with false advertisement, I think we all should learn to take every story teaser with a grain of salt.
Yeah,i agree with you.It feels like every time Ubi wants to attract everyone:both the AC fans and others,like Americans in AC3,pirate fans in ACIV,French in ACU etc.So,they promise many things regarding the narrative,leading to confusion.Anyway...

It was never advertised as a revenge plot. It was always about redemption and it was present throughout the game.
Joining the Assassins to protect Elise was exactly why it’s a tale of redemption. Both Charles and his adopted father left a hole in his heart, and protecting the only other person left who mattered was his means of redemption.
Well,i kinda agree with you,but in my eyes redemption also means to find the true killers,so that you can prevent more unfair killings.


Actually, it does. The watch is a symbolism of Arno’s internal struggle and his development. When he glances at the watch, it’s a reminder of Charles’ death. The loneliness. Arno is still traumatized by the loss of his father, so he’s dependent on others to fill the void. It’s apparent throughout the game. After the prologue, you can see that Elise had filled his void. He was dependent on her throughout their childhood. In sequence 2, Arno did whatever he could to see her. Even in jail, she was the only person he mourned for. When she left him, he glances back at the broken watch, showing that he’s back to square one. Then he searched for Bellec in hopes of restoring the loss. I don’t want to stay too long in this subject, but basically, every time someone who meant a lot to Arno is lost (Bellec, Elise), he looks back on the broken watch. It symbolizes his broken heart. At the end of the game, when you see Arno holding up the watch, which was restored and working, it shows that he had moved on and developed past needing someone to fill his void.
Interesting theory,but i will have to replay the game to see if it makes sense.Either way,it doesn't make sense to me that the watch is finally working in the end.As you said,Elise is the only reason Arno lives.So,according to you,he has a broken hurt throughout the game because of his father's death,but instead of becoming more melancholic because of her death,he actually moves on?This would only make sense in the end of DK,or if the ending monologue/scene takes place after many years,as it is suspected.But,again,this is Ubi's fault,because it is only implied that the ending monologue takes place after many years.


Inb4thisbecomesthenew’’why-didn’t-Connor-kill-Washington-after-the-grand-reveal?’’
I don’t recall the two murders being advertised as being tied together, but I could be wrong. As I said, it’s best we take things with a grain of salt. Edward was never trained by Assassins either.
Anyway, the story doesn’t need Shay to reappear, he already did his thing (not that I don’t want a sequel for Shay). He was responsible for Arno’s first loss, the start of the void in his heart. It’s what lead to him joining the Assassins and finding a Templar conspiracy.
As for why he didn’t search of Charles’ murderer, Arno isn’t an avenger. It’s a story of redemption, not revenge. Like Connor (who didn’t want to kill the Templars (or Washington) despite being what he thought was responsible for burning his village and killing his mother), Arno had moved on from that, and it’s present during the Assassins’ trial. He joined the Assassins to redeem himself by protecting Elise. As soon as he heard Elise was in danger, he stopped everything to find and protect her. Even when he had the chance to eliminate Germain, he let him get away to help her. As Elise said it herself in her journal, she knew that, if given the chance, Arno would allow Germain(the man responsible for De La Serre’s death) to rule France if it meant keeping her safe.
But it doesn't make sense to me to have such an important character kill Charles...And consequently,it does not make any sense that Shay specifically travels to France to kill Charles(anyone could have had the box).What i mean is why Shay and not any other Templar?


UBI didn’t lie, the conspiracy always revolved around De La Serre’s death. Germain didn’t take anything away from it. He was the man who started the revolt and was responsible for his death.
IMO, he enhanced the journey. It added more weight and drama to Arno’s quest for revenge and his relationship with Elise.
Well,this just wan't an interesting conspiracy.It only took a few sequences and it was quite laughable how Arno and Elise found out that Germain was the mastermind.I was expecting a twist or something


The three targets Arno killed, even after knowing of Germain, was to support Elise’s endeavors and keep her safe. Why do you think he looked for her after killing the woman at the palace? To tell her the job was done and she was safe. It’s part of his redemption quest.

Well,he could have just gone after Germain.He was the main threat to Elise's life.And with Germain dead,the templar revolt faction would collapse and Elise or an ally of hers would become the Grand Master.She would be safe then.
And he obviously went to find Elise after the female templar assassination,because they were together right before.


You didn’t get in-depth enough for me to counter-argue, so I’ll just give my opinion. Their relationship didn’t feel forced, it was natural and very relatable (I’ve gone through a similar loss). I’m a romantic teenager(late 17) so take that as you will, but I’ve had more than a few convo with friends who could also relate to their relationship. From the start of Elise’s influence on young Arno, it was clear a bond would happen, especially after the loss and being raised together. Growing up, Elise filled Arno’s void and made him happy. As soon as stuff hit the fan and she was gone, Arno became a desperate man. He needed her and he did all he could for her. That’s something that hit me hard. Fighting for someone you’re so attached to who’s astray for her own duty and responsibility. And losing them, no less. I can’t tell you how happy I was when Dead Kings showed up. Arno’s line ‘’I can hide here’’ was like Dťjŗ vu in AC form for me. I haven’t read Unity’s novel yet so I can’t speak from her perspective.
Her death was inevitable, but I don’t believe it was done so much for ‘’feels’’, but for Arno’s development. Her death was something Arno needed to become an Assassin. As Arno had said, he once thought the Creed allowed him to do whatever he deemed correct, no matter the cost. He used it as his means to an end. Protecting Elise, regardless of her own feelings. Her death was the start of him opening his eyes and realizing the outcome of the French Revolution and understanding the Assassin’s Creed.
Well,it felt forced to me.We don't get to see why they like each other,except from Elise writing to Arno about the funny moments they had as children.Obviously,as i said Ubi emphasized about how much Arno needed Elise,but on the other hand it felt to me that Elise only cared for revenge and not for Arno.She is mad at him because he tried to save her instead of killing Germain,she goes to find him in Versailles because she actually needed his help.At this particular point,she says that Atno should help her because the people of France are starving etc.Yeah,sure...
And the ending doesn't help Arno to develop as a character,because we see nothing of him in the main game.I liked his attitude in the beggining of DK,though.


I actually didn’t mind this. I’m happy they kept Arno’s personal story to himself (a promise UBI delivered) and allowed me to experience the French Revolution with friends.
It could have been done better, though, I agree. Playing the CO-OP mission with Mirabeau’s tomb before even reaching the part in the main narrative was just bad inconsistency.
Well i was spoiled by this specific example.And generally,i wanted a focused experience.COOP missions should have been unlocked chronologically


Besides reiterating on what I said in the other topics above, the Templars and Assassins’ conflict was about corruption, which was shown throughout the game (and in Arno’s ending speech).
Regarding the Creed, I may or may not have reiterated earlier, but I’ll just post what I had on ACHUB to save time.

Arno started off like Altair, Edward, and Desmond. They didn't care about the Brotherhood, the Creed, or its cause. It was their means to an end. While Arno used its grant of permission to protect Elise, Desmond used it to get wasted, --to throw away his future and life, Edward used it for piracy, --to obtain his goal of wealth, and Altair used it to hone his skills, --to murder as he please.

As the game progresses, (like Desmond as he's influenced while viewing Altair's life, Edward as his family and friends deceased/departed, and, well, Altair as he regained his honor), Arno's view of the world and the Assassin's Creed progressed. The French Revolution, the results of Elise, Bellec, the corrupted Templars and Assassins alike, and even himself (blinding pursuing his dream of protecting Elise), they all paved a reality for Arno. As he said in his ending speech:

''Ideals too easily give way to Dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism.''

''I understand now. Not a grant of permission. The Creed is a warning.''



http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CNrEQHdPqM


I'm posting the speech because it's so damn awesome and shed plenty of light on his story and development.

The results of everything that had happened during the French Revolution had changed him for the better. Like Desmond, like Altair, and like Edward, he neglected the Creed, and it had bit him in the back. And now in the end, he's become someone who's worthy of the Brotherhood, of the Creed, a proper Assassin. It's poetic for AC.

Now, as for Ezio in AC2/B, the Creed and Brotherhood are not of importance to him. Nobody, except _M and a few others on the other forum, ever give him **** for that. The Creed didn't affect his life, purpose, or development. The Brotherhood were his means to an end. We never get much more than an appreciation from Ezio until Revelations (thank you, Darby McDevitt). Prior to Revelations, it had always been about himself. His own revenge and closure. In AC2, he used the Brotherhood as a means of getting his revenge. And at the end, when the Brotherhood recruited him and he reiterated the Creed (the only time it was ever mentioned! --but no lesson or philosophy, whatsoever), he let Rodrigo Borgia live. Yes, he neglected the Brotherhood and Creed, and let their worse enemy live. Why? Because he's ''too good for revenge.'' He had ''overcome'' it. People give Edward **** for being a pirate, but when he became an Assassin at the end (like AC2 Ezio), he didn't throw the development right down the drain. No, Edward actually did as he was suppose to for the next 3 contracts. --Kill his contracts in the name of the Assassin's Creed. The problem here for Ezio is that it neglects his development. So does he become an Assassin or what? When they announced Brotherhood, I was hoping that would change him. That would give him his closure, but it didn't. The Creed is still a background in the story. --Only reiterated for recruitment. The Brotherhood continues to be his means to an end. And his development got worse. As soon as AC2 ended, he RETIRED! Yes, retired because his OWN BATTLES were done. Some ''Assassin of the Creed'' he was. And the Borgias appeared at his doorsteps and things went back to where it started. Another revenge flick. AC2/B's Ezio's development was non. It's rhetorical. And his motives? Revenge, however, unlike the others, he doesn't change. It stuck to revenge until Revelations. With Arno, sure, we only got some speech at the end, but at least that was something. --We got a valid development. It was no Black Flag where Edward got his revelation in sequence 11 and some awesome contracts, but we got something. AND most importantly, some philosophical touch on the Creed. <--Something many of the games lack.
Well,they never spoke or questioned the Creed at any point in the game.And i don't care if Arno accepted the Creed in the end.What bothers me is that he became an Assassin to fullfill his goals and not for the Creed.This applies for Ezio too.
There's an ending teaser so I'm pretty sure there will be more to come. It doesn't matter if the next game takes place in a new period with a different protagonist, that never stopped AC from filling the gaps.






There's an ending teaser so I'm pretty sure there will be more to come. It doesn't matter if the next game takes place in a new period with a different protagonist, that never stopped AC from filling the gaps.
We are speaking about Arno's story here.I really doubt the gaps will be filled,unless we get an actual sequel.Hell,instead of filling the gaps,DK created another.


We had Dead Kings and the monologue.

The remainder of Arno's life in the novel are closure for fans. His main story and its message was completed in Unity.
Well that's my point.The reintroduction in the Brotherhood is a main issue of Arno's life and it only implied in the monologue.Also,his relationship with Napoleon is really important,but without the novel,it ends up being very confusing.


Arno and Napoleon's relationship was handled fine in the game. Unity is about Arno and his quest for redemption foremost, not Napoleon's reign. They weren't friends or foes, just acquaintances with objectives that coincided during their missions. The CO-OP mission doesn't really affect or matter in the story, it's more of an Easter Egg for those who read the novel.
I agree that their relationship was handled fine in the MAIN GAME.But DK screwed everything up.
According to the main game1790something-1794:friends/acquaintances
early 1800s:Arno saves Napoleon
1808:They enter the Temple together
All this is logical
According to ACU+DK1790something-1794:friends/acquaintances
Two weeks after the ending:They behave like they don't know each other and it is heavily implied that Arno is mad at him wanting to gain more power
early 1800s:Arno saves Napoleon
1808:They enter the Temple together

Yeah,F*** logic!

dimbismp
01-31-2015, 03:10 PM
[post removed due to being a Ban Evasion Account]
I actually thought it was a new guy this time...I am naive

Fatal-Feit
01-31-2015, 09:40 PM
Ok then:

Yeah,i agree with you.It feels like every time Ubi wants to attract everyone:both the AC fans and others,like Americans in AC3,pirate fans in ACIV,French in ACU etc.So,they promise many things regarding the narrative,leading to confusion.Anyway...

Well,i kinda agree with you,but in my eyes redemption also means to find the true killers,so that you can prevent more unfair killings.

Interesting theory,but i will have to replay the game to see if it makes sense.Either way,it doesn't make sense to me that the watch is finally working in the end.As you said,Elise is the only reason Arno lives.So,according to you,he has a broken hurt throughout the game because of his father's death,but instead of becoming more melancholic because of her death,he actually moves on?This would only make sense in the end of DK,or if the ending monologue/scene takes place after many years,as it is suspected.But,again,this is Ubi's fault,because it is only implied that the ending monologue takes place after many years.

But it doesn't make sense to me to have such an important character kill Charles...And consequently,it does not make any sense that Shay specifically travels to France to kill Charles(anyone could have had the box).What i mean is why Shay and not any other Templar?

Well,this just wan't an interesting conspiracy.It only took a few sequences and it was quite laughable how Arno and Elise found out that Germain was the mastermind.I was expecting a twist or something

Well,he could have just gone after Germain.He was the main threat to Elise's life.And with Germain dead,the templar revolt faction would collapse and Elise or an ally of hers would become the Grand Master.She would be safe then.
And he obviously went to find Elise after the female templar assassination,because they were together right before.

Well,it felt forced to me.We don't get to see why they like each other,except from Elise writing to Arno about the funny moments they had as children.Obviously,as i said Ubi emphasized about how much Arno needed Elise,but on the other hand it felt to me that Elise only cared for revenge and not for Arno.She is mad at him because he tried to save her instead of killing Germain,she goes to find him in Versailles because she actually needed his help.At this particular point,she says that Atno should help her because the people of France are starving etc.Yeah,sure...
And the ending doesn't help Arno to develop as a character,because we see nothing of him in the main game.I liked his attitude in the beggining of DK,though.

Well i was spoiled by this specific example.And generally,i wanted a focused experience.COOP missions should have been unlocked chronologically

Well,they never spoke or questioned the Creed at any point in the game.And i don't care if Arno accepted the Creed in the end.What bothers me is that he became an Assassin to fullfill his goals and not for the Creed.This applies for Ezio too.
There's an ending teaser so I'm pretty sure there will be more to come. It doesn't matter if the next game takes place in a new period with a different protagonist, that never stopped AC from filling the gaps.





We are speaking about Arno's story here.I really doubt the gaps will be filled,unless we get an actual sequel.Hell,instead of filling the gaps,DK created another.

Well that's my point.The reintroduction in the Brotherhood is a main issue of Arno's life and it only implied in the monologue.Also,his relationship with Napoleon is really important,but without the novel,it ends up being very confusing.

I agree that their relationship was handled fine in the MAIN GAME.But DK screwed everything up.
According to the main game1790something-1794:friends/acquaintances
early 1800s:Arno saves Napoleon
1808:They enter the Temple together
All this is logical
According to ACU+DK1790something-1794:friends/acquaintances
Two weeks after the ending:They behave like they don't know each other and it is heavily implied that Arno is mad at him wanting to gain more power
early 1800s:Arno saves Napoleon
1808:They enter the Temple together

Yeah,F*** logic!


Well,i kinda agree with you,but in my eyes redemption also means to find the true killers,so that you can prevent more unfair killings.

Wait, what. That's not exactly Arno's means of redemption, but that's exactly what he did. He discovered the conspiracy on De La Serre and put them all to justice. Wait, why this is not an issue now, but was one when he took down the other 3 contracts for Elise.
Trying to protect Elise and getting justice for her was, well, present in the game. He did all that.


Interesting theory,but i will have to replay the game to see if it makes sense.Either way,it doesn't make sense to me that the watch is finally working in the end.As you said,Elise is the only reason Arno lives.So,according to you,he has a broken hurt throughout the game because of his father's death,but instead of becoming more melancholic because of her death,he actually moves on?This would only make sense in the end of DK,or if the ending monologue/scene takes place after many years,as it is suspected.But,again,this is Ubi's fault,because it is only implied that the ending monologue takes place after many years.

The ending monologue DOES take place many years after her death. There’s a date in the beginning of the pre-rendered cut-scene. DK is the prequel to the monologue. In the beginning, there’s also a date that shows its a few years before the ending monologue. It’s not UBI’s fault, it’s (no offense!) lack of attention to the dates. It’s like AC2’s DLCs. They chronologically took place right before the ending.
Elise’s death -> DK -> Ending
Regarding the watch, it’s as I said. It’s working because Arno had overcome his grief. His change was present in DK.


But it doesn't make sense to me to have such an important character kill Charles...And consequently,it does not make any sense that Shay specifically travels to France to kill Charles(anyone could have had the box).What i mean is why Shay and not any other Templar?
The question can also be, why not Shay? They had to connect Rogue with Unity somehow.
Other than being the start of Arno’s story, it gives closure to Shay, showing that he was still out there fighting for the Templar cause instead of ending his story on the ship and leaving fans desperate like with Connor. Fans would be smashing their keyboards thinking that Shay perhaps died before Haytham or something.


Well,this just wan't an interesting conspiracy.It only took a few sequences and it was quite laughable how Arno and Elise found out that Germain was the mastermind.I was expecting a twist or something
Hey, it was at least better than the conspiracy in AC2. There was ACTUAL conspiracy going on.
Anyway, that was the twist. The blacksmith Arno helped and was given condolences in the early game was the main villain. Clichť, but that’s been AC’s standard since the 2nd game.


Well,he could have just gone after Germain.He was the main threat to Elise's life.And with Germain dead,the templar revolt faction would collapse and Elise or an ally of hers would become the Grand Master.She would be safe then.
And he obviously went to find Elise after the female templar assassination,because they were together right before.
You say that like finding and putting Germain down was simple. They don’t have a location and his allies are a start. Germain was always one step ahead of them.
And yeah, but that still doesn’t take away from my point.


Well,it felt forced to me.We don't get to see why they like each other,except from Elise writing to Arno about the funny moments they had as children.
Obviously,as i said Ubi emphasized about how much Arno needed Elise,but on the other hand it felt to me that Elise only cared for revenge and not for Arno.She is mad at him because he tried to save her instead of killing Germain,she goes to find him in Versailles because she actually needed his help.At this particular point,she says that Atno should help her because the people of France are starving etc.Yeah,sure...
They had all the time and chemistry in the world for them to fall in love. She was first person Arno met and bonded with during his father’s death. Never mind their charming looks, they were raised and grew up together, influencing one another’s bad behavior, since they were children. Ŗ That’s actually all they needed to fall in love. It’s natural, not forced. You don’t need to see them fall in love, the context is all there. What’s important is how it strengthens. And as I explained before, she was the one who filled Arno’s void. After De La Serre’s death, the love was still present. Besides the letters, Arno remained dependent and care for her throughout everything. He stopped his Templar hunt to protect her. When he learned she was a Templar, he never hesitated to let his guard down and vice versa. Elise trusted Arno when he offered to protect her using the Assassins (her sworn enemies). At Mirabeau’s death, Arno, not even for a second, doubted Elise. During the fight with Bellec, Elise stuck around attentively for Arno’s safety. Before every mission or so, you’d hear them unconsciously pleading the other to keep safe and stay out of trouble.
Their loves for each other are present, but it doesn’t mean it can’t be flawed. Elise is purposely set on a course of revenge. That’s the point. The drama between the two present and thank god for that. Elise was a victim of Arno’s ending monologue. Her lust for revenge and inevitable demise was what paved the way for Arno’s development past needing others to give him life. And what’s wrong with Elise being concerned for the people of France? She had always been concerned. The Templars eliminated after Germain’s reveal was for the well-being of France. One was stealing grains and causing a hunger strike, another was harming the people at the Bastille, etc, etc. Elise is an 18th century Templar. She was set on revenge, okay, but so was Ezio. That never stopped either of them from being concerned for the well-being of others.


And the ending doesn't help Arno to develop as a character,because we see nothing of him in the main game.I liked his attitude in the beggining of DK,though.
The ending is before DK. And the ending monologue is all we needed to see of him to prove his development. Besides the speech, the watch was fixed, he’s wearing the Master Assassin robe, he visited Elise’s grave, and was keeping an eye out for Paris on top of Notre Dame Cathedral. Anyway, it’s not about Arno becoming the ultimate Assassin and killing all the Templars who oppose the Creed (a clichť for franchise now), but about corruption and how it influences everyone, even the Templars and Assassins themselves.


Well i was spoiled by this specific example.And generally,i wanted a focused experience.COOP missions should have been unlocked chronologically
Agreed.


Well,they never spoke or questioned the Creed at any point in the game.And i don't care if Arno accepted the Creed in the end.

Uh, actually they do plenty of times throughout the story. Arno was booted from the Brotherhood because he neglected the Creed. Becoming an Assassin at the end was his realization of it.


What bothers me is that he became an Assassin to fullfill his goals and not for the Creed.This applies for Ezio too.


That shouldn’t bother you. It’s the part of the story they’re trying to tell. It should bother you if they never tread upon it. If Arno was never lectured for neglecting the Creed, the Brotherhood, and wasn’t booted like Ezio, then you should have a problem. For me, it’s why I like the 18th century saga so much. Connor, Edward, Shay, Aveline, Arno, etc, they’re flawed people who joins the Brotherhood/fight for what they deem justice. The world isn’t black and white, and they aren’t always in the right, and that’s what keeps the stories compelling. These characters can grow and develop from it.


We are speaking about Arno's story here.I really doubt the gaps will be filled,unless we get an actual sequel.Hell,instead of filling the gaps,DK created another.
Arno’s personal story and life lesson was finished in Unity and DK. The fight against Napoleon and PoE stuff can always be expanded upon through AC logic. I mean, come on, Altair and Ezio.
DK is before he became an Assassin. It filled the gap between Arno’s grief after Elise’s death and his development in the ending monologue.


Well that's my point.The reintroduction in the Brotherhood is a main issue of Arno's life and it only implied in the monologue.Also,his relationship with Napoleon is really important,but without the novel,it ends up being very confusing.
The reintroduction into the Brotherhood isn’t a main issue for Arno’s story, though. It doesn’t need to be part of it. The story is message was told, that’s all it needed. Think of Black Flag. Edward didn’t rejoin the Brotherhood until years later after the game, but was fine because it shows that he wanted to make amend for his mistakes, and his conviction for the order was clear during the following contracts.
Regarding Napoleon, it’s BECAUSE of the novel that it becomes confusing for you.


I agree that their relationship was handled fine in the MAIN GAME.But DK screwed everything up.
According to the main game1790something-1794:friends/acquaintances
early 1800s:Arno saves Napoleon
1808:They enter the Temple together
All this is logical
According to ACU+DK1790something-1794:friends/acquaintances
Two weeks after the ending:They behave like they don't know each other and it is heavily implied that Arno is mad at him wanting to gain more power
early 1800s:Arno saves Napoleon
1808:They enter the Temple together

Yeah,F*** logic!
DK didn’t screw anything up. They remained acquaintances/friends, even by the end of DK. It wasn’t Arno who put Napoleon in jail, it was Marquis De Sade. Arno honored the arrangement, but it was shown that he wasn't proud of it. Hence why he stormed off as quick as he could.

The_Kiwi_
01-31-2015, 10:49 PM
The only problems I had with the story was that it had poorly underdeveloped characters, weak antagonists and it tried too hard to be a love story when the characters didn't make it believable, especially since Elise was absent most of the time

Oh, and the fact that the story adds absolutely nothing to the narrative, and the fact that the game itself admits that it was a complete waste of time, were also low points.

dimbismp
01-31-2015, 11:00 PM
...Well first of all it is nice that at least two people are trying to have a debate here.Secondly,because you often mention it,maybe i did not stretch this enough but i am aware that the ending monologue takes place after DK.So:




The question can also be, why not Shay? They had to connect Rogue with Unity somehow.
Other than being the start of Arnoís story, it gives closure to Shay, showing that he was still out there fighting for the Templar cause instead of ending his story on the ship and leaving fans desperate like with Connor. Fans would be smashing their keyboards thinking that Shay perhaps died before Haytham or something.
So,Shay killing Charles was forced,just for fan service.Either way,it is confusing that Arno doesn't want to know who killed his father,even out of curiosity.It may have been the Assassins themselves or even delaSerre.How could he trust them if he is not sure about the truth.


Hey, it was at least better than the conspiracy in AC2. There was ACTUAL conspiracy going on.
Anyway, that was the twist. The blacksmith Arno helped and was given condolences in the early game was the main villain. Clichť, but thatís been ACís standard since the 2nd game.

Well,iirc correctly this wasn't exactly "early game".He actually found the truth 1-2 sequences afterwards.That was my initial argument.That there was a conspiracy,it was intriguing,but didn't last long.And as i said,the truth emerged completely randomly,without any thinking.


You say that like finding and putting Germain down was simple. They donít have a location and his allies are a start. Germain was always one step ahead of them.
And yeah, but that still doesnít take away from my point.
I jsu rewatched the 3 death flashback scenes.The first and second assassinations are fairly useless because they are used to find the third target.In the final flashback it is revealed that the king will be executed.
The thing is that Arno would most likely go to the king's execution,and consequently he would find Germain.And,as i said,the 3 assassinations are useless because thsy serve to find out the next target.There is not a sense that Germain is one step ahead.There is a sense that Germain is trying to control France,not that he tries to hide,or kill Elise or something.



They had all the time and chemistry in the world for them to fall in love. She was first person Arno met and bonded with during his fatherís death. Never mind their charming looks, they were raised and grew up together, influencing one anotherís bad behavior, since they were children. Ŗ Thatís actually all they needed to fall in love. Itís natural, not forced. You donít need to see them fall in love, the context is all there. Whatís important is how it strengthens. And as I explained before, she was the one who filled Arnoís void. After De La Serreís death, the love was still present. Besides the letters, Arno remained dependent and care for her throughout everything. He stopped his Templar hunt to protect her. When he learned she was a Templar, he never hesitated to let his guard down and vice versa. Elise trusted Arno when he offered to protect her using the Assassins (her sworn enemies). At Mirabeauís death, Arno, not even for a second, doubted Elise. During the fight with Bellec, Elise stuck around attentively for Arnoís safety. Before every mission or so, youíd hear them unconsciously pleading the other to keep safe and stay out of trouble.
Their loves for each other are present, but it doesnít mean it canít be flawed. Elise is purposely set on a course of revenge. Thatís the point. The drama between the two present and thank god for that. Elise was a victim of Arnoís ending monologue. Her lust for revenge and inevitable demise was what paved the way for Arnoís development past needing others to give him life. And whatís wrong with Elise being concerned for the people of France? She had always been concerned. The Templars eliminated after Germainís reveal was for the well-being of France. One was stealing grains and causing a hunger strike, another was harming the people at the Bastille, etc, etc. Elise is an 18th century Templar. She was set on revenge, okay, but so was Ezio. That never stopped either of them from being concerned for the well-being of others.

We just see things differently here



The ending is before DK. And the ending monologue is all we needed to see of him to prove his development. Besides the speech, the watch was fixed, heís wearing the Master Assassin robe, he visited Eliseís grave, and was keeping an eye out for Paris on top of Notre Dame Cathedral. Anyway, itís not about Arno becoming the ultimate Assassin and killing all the Templars who oppose the Creed (a clichť for franchise now), but about corruption and how it influences everyone, even the Templars and Assassins themselves.
Well,it doesn't vother you that we don'tget to see how Arno becomes a master Assassin?Obviously we shouldn't see every bit of the Assassin's life,but i am sure that Amancio said like 100 times that the games focuses on the journey to become a master Assassin.
Ingame,though,Arno is expelled from the brotherhood.Many years pass and POOF:Master Assassin!!!Yeah!!!!I don't to have another 5 sequences about his reintroduction and development.I was only asking for a 5 sec cutscene within the ending monologue to explain all these things.Because,again,we got the info that Arno is reintroduced in the Brotherhood and eventually becomes a Master Assassin from the novel.But,according to the game,Arno becomes a master assassin,while being expelled.We have to guess that he became a part of the brotherhood again.



Uh, actually they do plenty of times throughout the story. Arno was booted from the Brotherhood because he neglected the Creed. Becoming an Assassin at the end was his realization of it.

They just repeat the tenets again and again.AC1 and ACIV were light years ahead of ACU in that department.



The reintroduction into the Brotherhood isnít a main issue for Arnoís story, though. It doesnít need to be part of it. The story is message was told, thatís all it needed. Think of Black Flag. Edward didnít rejoin the Brotherhood until years later after the game, but was fine because it shows that he wanted to make amend for his mistakes, and his conviction for the order was clear during the following contracts.
I agree with you that the story was not ofc about the reintoduction.But why give him the damn Master Assassin robes if they weren't going to explain that?If the ending monologue had Arno still exiled,there wouldn't be so much confusion.And it isn't just me.Many people were left confused with the exile-master assassin thing.

Regarding Napoleon, itís BECAUSE of the novel that it becomes confusing for you.

No i think i made myself pretty clear.The underlined parts were events that happened in game.

DK didnít screw anything up. They remained acquaintances/friends, even by the end of DK. It wasnít Arno who put Napoleon in jail, it was Marquis De Sade. Arno honored the arrangement, but it was shown that he wasn't proud of it. Hence why he stormed off as quick as he could.[/QUOTE]

Well,there is a scene when Napoleon is in a carriage and they see each other.Guess what?Their look each other as if they do not know each other.Especially Napoleon should have been shocked to see Arno in Franciade.
And there is no evidence they are still friends,because they don't even exchange a single word.(Also,i never said that Arno was responsible for Napoleon's arrest).So,Arno,as an Assassin,should have been mad at Napoleon trying to control all France with a PoE.He says:"I cannot let that artifact fall to that commondore!"(notice he doesn't even refers to him with his name,which is really weird).So,i think it is really logical to think thag Arno doesn't like Napoleon anymore/wouldn't want to work with him any more.So,that doesn't explain the later events.

Again,thank you for participating at this debate!You have some interesting arguments.

arthur-peresb13
02-01-2015, 12:34 AM
They had all the time and chemistry in the world for them to fall in love. She was first person Arno met and bonded with during his fatherís death. Never mind their charming looks, they were raised and grew up together, influencing one anotherís bad behavior, since they were children. Ŗ Thatís actually all they needed to fall in love. Itís natural, not forced. You donít need to see them fall in love, the context is all there. Whatís important is how it strengthens. And as I explained before, she was the one who filled Arnoís void. After De La Serreís death, the love was still present. Besides the letters, Arno remained dependent and care for her throughout everything. He stopped his Templar hunt to protect her. When he learned she was a Templar, he never hesitated to let his guard down and vice versa. Elise trusted Arno when he offered to protect her using the Assassins (her sworn enemies). At Mirabeauís death, Arno, not even for a second, doubted Elise. During the fight with Bellec, Elise stuck around attentively for Arnoís safety. Before every mission or so, youíd hear them unconsciously pleading the other to keep safe and stay out of trouble.
Their loves for each other are present, but it doesnít mean it canít be flawed. Elise is purposely set on a course of revenge. Thatís the point. The drama between the two present and thank god for that. Elise was a victim of Arnoís ending monologue. Her lust for revenge and inevitable demise was what paved the way for Arnoís development past needing others to give him life. And whatís wrong with Elise being concerned for the people of France? She had always been concerned. The Templars eliminated after Germainís reveal was for the well-being of France. One was stealing grains and causing a hunger strike, another was harming the people at the Bastille, etc, etc. Elise is an 18th century Templar. She was set on revenge, okay, but so was Ezio. That never stopped either of them from being concerned for the well-being of others.




I desagree with it.

We don't see they fall in love, we don't see a good relationship beteween then, or a kind of development. It's just throw it on us " Look they are lovers, period"
It's clear that Arno loves her but we don't see why. He look her when was 8 and fall in love? this is worse then Twilight.

She also don't show the same feelings. She's too cold with him, all that she care is for her revenge, the Elise from the letters and the one we seen in screen look like completely different persons. He's more like her stooge or puppy than lover. Arno be soo dependent of her is more sickness than love.

Fatal-Feit
02-01-2015, 12:46 AM
Well first of all it is nice that at least two people are trying to have a debate here.Secondly,because you often mention it,maybe i did not stretch this enough but i am aware that the ending monologue takes place after DK.So:
1) Yes, yes it is. But weíre kind of going in circles now.
2) Just making sure. Lololol!

So,Shay killing Charles was forced,just for fan service.Either way,it is confusing that Arno doesn't want to know who killed his father,even out of curiosity.It may have been the Assassins themselves or even delaSerre.How could he trust them if he is not sure about the truth.
I wouldnít say itís forced, especially since Shay isnít present in Unity, but for Rogue fans, I guess. Anyway, how is it confusing? Thatís not the narrative. Itís not a revenge story. Arno doesnít need to find out who killed his father to move on from it. Why didnít Connor kill George Washington for the murder of his mother? Because heís above revenge and know it would do no good. Arno seeking out the murderer of his father would do nothing to fill the hole. However, protecting Eliseís well-being would.

Well,iirc correctly this wasn't exactly "early game".He actually found the truth 1-2 sequences afterwards.That was my initial argument.That there was a conspiracy,it was intriguing,but didn't last long.And as i said,the truth emerged completely randomly,without any thinking.
The conspiracy was always there. Every target you kill, every memory you view, it all just brings up more and more targets and questions than answers. Even after Germainís reveal, you would still find out more about the Templars. Their goals, allies, reason, etc. i.e - Discovering Robespierre after eliminating La Touche.


I jsu rewatched the 3 death flashback scenes.The first and second assassinations are fairly useless because they are used to find the third target.In the final flashback it is revealed that the king will be executed.
The thing is that Arno would most likely go to the king's execution,and consequently he would find Germain.And,as i said,the 3 assassinations are useless because thsy serve to find out the next target.There is not a sense that Germain is one step ahead.There is a sense that Germain is trying to control France,not that he tries to hide,or kill Elise or something.


Again, eliminating all the conspirators are for Arnoís redemption. It also adds to the conspiracy and give closure to Templars.
Regarding the death of the king, that doesnít make sense. Arno wouldnít just happen to pass by the execution and find Germain there without being aware. Time is precious and confirming Germainís whereabouts is at the forefront.
About Germain, what do you mean? He really was one step ahead. He planned the revolt on De La Serre, masqueraded the revolution, had backup plans for allies whoíre eliminated, had good hideouts and escape routes against Assassins, and was usually aware of when Arno would strike. One at the Luisí beheading and the other at the grand temple.


We just see things differently here
Oke.


Well,it doesn't vother you that we don'tget to see how Arno becomes a master Assassin?Obviously we shouldn't see every bit of the Assassin's life,but i am sure that Amancio said like 100 times that the games focuses on the journey to become a master Assassin.Ingame,though,Arno is expelled from the brotherhood.Many years pass and POOF:Master Assassin!!!Yeah!!!!I don't to have another 5 sequences about his reintroduction and development.I was only asking for a 5 sec cutscene within the ending monologue to explain all these things.Because,again,we got the info that Arno is reintroduced in the Brotherhood and eventually becomes a Master Assassin from the novel.But,according to the game,Arno becomes a master assassin,while being expelled.We have to guess that he became a part of the brotherhood again.


No, it really doesnít. I donít want to perv on every aspects of the Assassinís life, just the moments that matters most for the story. Seeing Arno became a Master Assassin doesnít add to the storyís moral. Knowing that he has, and what he has learned, is exactly what I want.
The monologue takes place years after the events of the revolution. Long after his expulsion. He spoke about the Creed and was wearing the Assassinís robe (which also has inscriptions). Itís clear he became an Assassin and understood what it meant to be one. I really donít understand the fascination with seeing him reinstated in the order. Being expelled from the Brotherhood was a big moment, but it was to show how corrupted the Assassins were and how lost he was in his quest for redemption. His speech is the realization of it all and thatís all that the game needed.


They just repeat the tenets again and again.AC1 and ACIV were light years ahead of ACU in that department.
AC1, perhaps. ACIV, not really.
Black Flag was about valuing the Creed. Itís the beginning of a revelation. Edward was aware but hadnít understood its full value whereas Arno was on point in the ending speech. He described what Edward were victim of and more. Not a grant of permission. The Creed is a warning. YadayadaÖ


I agree with you that the story was not ofc about the reintoduction.But why give him the damn Master Assassin robes if they weren't going to explain that?If the ending monologue had Arno still exiled,there wouldn't be so much confusion.And it isn't just me.Many people were left confused with the exile-master assassin thing.
If he wasnít an Assassin, the ending speech would be meaningless. You donít talk the talk if you canít walk the walk. He became an Assassin, we donít need to see it happen. The exile was to represent Arnoís lost in his quest for redemption. He abused the Creed and neglected the Brotherhoodís wishes. He got what was coming to him. The ending speech wasnít just to be like Ďheís an Assassin again, lookieíí, itís Ďíheís an Assassin now and he understands the value of itíí.


Did we need to see Edward take the initiation years later when he reaches London? No, we know that he had matured and is not the same man he was when he first set sail. Heís an Assassin at heart, and thatís all the matters. People were happy with that.

Well,there is a scene when Napoleon is in a carriage and they see each other.Guess what?Their look each other as if they do not know each other.Especially Napoleon should have been shocked to see Arno in Franciade.
And there is no evidence they are still friends,because they don't even exchange a single word.(Also,i never said that Arno was responsible for Napoleon's arrest).So,Arno,as an Assassin,should have been mad at Napoleon trying to control all France with a PoE.He says:"I cannot let that artifact fall to that commondore!"(notice he doesn't even refers to him with his name,which is really weird).So,i think it is really logical to think thag Arno doesn't like Napoleon anymore/wouldn't want to work with him any more.So,that doesn't explain the later events.


They didnít see each other. Arno glanced at Napoleon in the carriage, but Napoleon wasnít aware. Throughout Dead Kings, Napoleon had no quarrel with Arno. He didnít know Arno was there, only the guys he had hired.
Yeah, theyíre acquaintances. Thatís precisely why Arno didnít get in contact with Napoleon. Not because they didnít know each other, but because Arno wasnít concerned until the end. Keeping his distance kept them on good terms.
As for the PoE, thatís jumping to conclusion. Think of Connor and Washington. Theyíre both different men with their own responsibilities. Like Connor, Arno as an Assassin does not want Napoleon to use the PoE to rule France, but that doesnít mean he victimized Napoleon. He didnít kill him. As far as heís concerned, Napoleon is a keen ruler whoís capable of many things. Devious at times, sure, but thatís a sacrifice people like him and Washington make.
The CO-OP mission is something no one would concern themselves with unless they read the novel. And if they read the novel, they would understand his decision. Something we should both do is read the novel first before discussing events that took place in it. As for the ending, thatís a teaser. A cliff-hanger. There is more to come. Why, what, where, we have to tune in for the next game.


Again,thank you for participating at this debate!You have some interesting arguments.
Ditto! You are very welcome. I might not be able to discuss further in the coming days, so we may have to agree to disagree after this.

dimbismp
02-20-2015, 12:52 PM
Another thing i did not understand is this:
Why did Arno kill Bellec?I mean,Bellec was defeated and he was not a threat anymore...Arno should have taken him to the Council for judgment.Obviously he would most probably be sentenced to death,but that's the point:it was not up to Arno to decide.

The_Kiwi_
02-20-2015, 12:56 PM
Another thing i did not understand is this:
Why did Arno kill Bellec?I mean,Bellec was defeated and he was not a threat anymore...Arno should have taken him to the Council for judgment.Obviously he would most probably be sentenced to death,but that's the point:it was not up to Arno to decide.

Arno killed Bellec?!?!

Namikaze_17
02-20-2015, 01:32 PM
Arno killed Bellec?!?!

Well...Arno did stab him in the chest. :rolleyes:

But there's a chance you're being sarcastic so...

Shahkulu101
02-20-2015, 02:39 PM
Another thing i did not understand is this:
Why did Arno kill Bellec?I mean,Bellec was defeated and he was not a threat anymore...Arno should have taken him to the Council for judgment.Obviously he would most probably be sentenced to death,but that's the point:it was not up to Arno to decide.

It was kill or be killed that's why. Bellec would be too strong for Arno to simply apprehend him and drag him to the Assassin's council.

Namikaze_17
02-20-2015, 03:16 PM
It was kill or be killed that's why. Bellec would be too strong for Arno to simply apprehend him and drag him to the Assassin's council.

This reminds me of when people were like: "Why did Connor kill his best friend?!"

Both were basically kill or be killed situations.

Both Connor & Arno tried to reason with their comrades, but only ended up killing them as reason was no longer an option.

Simple as that.

dimbismp
02-20-2015, 03:28 PM
It was kill or be killed that's why. Bellec would be too strong for Arno to simply apprehend him and drag him to the Assassin's council.


This reminds me of when people were like: "Why did Connor kill his best friend?!"

Both were basically kill or be killed situations.

Both Connor & Arno tried to reason with their comrades, but only ended up killing them as reason was no longer an option.

Simple as that.
Well,it wasn't exactly "kill or be killed" situation...Bellec was severely wounded.He was at the ground waiting to get the final stab.In other words,i believe that Arno could have carried him to the assassin's HQ.After all,he could have easily knocked him out instead of stabbing him at the end.

On he other hand,Connor's situation was quite different.That was indeed a "kill or be killed" situation

Namikaze_17
02-20-2015, 03:39 PM
Well,it wasn't exactly "kill or be killed" situation...Bellec was severely wounded.He was at the ground waiting to get the final stab.In other words,i believe that Arno could have carried him to the assassin's HQ.After all,he could have easily knocked him out instead of stabbing him at the end.

For some reason, I call BS that Arno was hardly injured in that fight.

Connor & Haytham was pretty much evenly matched so they basically killed one another in their fight.

For a veteran like Bellec to killed by Arno without the latter getting a scratch is just ridiculous.

And sure he was wounded, but he wasn't gonna give up. He rather died than be taken away.

Besides, knocking him out wasn't gonna work because Bellec suspected Arno coming after him like how Kani suspected Connor coming after him.

Fatal-Feit
02-20-2015, 03:41 PM
It's not a ''kill or be killed'' situation (which it would have been), but a dying wish. Bellec failed in both convincing Arno to join his revolt and apprehending him afterwards, so as close colleagues, he wanted Arno finish him off. It was either Arno who does the job or himself.

Namikaze_17
02-20-2015, 03:44 PM
It's not a ''kill or be killed'' situation, but a dying wish. Bellec failed in both convincing Arno to join his revolt and apprehending him afterwards, so as close colleagues, he wanted Arno finish him off. It was either Arno who does the job or himself.

I guess you could say that.

But who knows how it would've been if the shoe was on the other foot.

dimbismp
02-20-2015, 03:45 PM
For some reason, I call BS that Arno was hardly injured in that fight.

Connor & Haytham was pretty much evenly matched so they basically killed one another in their fight.

For a veteran like Bellec to killed by Arno without the latter getting a scratch is just ridiculous.

And sure he was wounded, but he wasn't gonna give up. He rather died than be taken away.

Besides, knocking him out wasn't gonna work because Bellec suspected Arno coming after him like how Kani suspected Connor coming after him.
I meant knocking him out at end,instead of stabbing him.Not knocking him out before the fight started.

You are right about Arno b3ing injured.But this is the devs' "problem".When he kills Bellec,Arno gets out of St.Chapelle completely fine,instead of heavily injured.

dimbismp
02-20-2015, 03:47 PM
It's not a ''kill or be killed'' situation (which it would have been), but a dying wish. Bellec failed in both convincing Arno to join his revolt and apprehending him afterwards, so as close colleagues, he wanted Arno finish him off. It was either Arno who does the job or himself.

Well,that's what i am saying.Despite what Arno felt and what Bellec wished,i believe that Arno should have taken him to the Council.He shouldn't have decided for his fate alone.

Namikaze_17
02-20-2015, 04:01 PM
I meant knocking him out at end,instead of stabbing him.Not knocking him out before the fight started.

That's the thing about AC...

They don't do the logical thing you would do. :rolleyes:

Instead of chasing Germain, why didn't Elise just shoot him in the leg? He wasn't going anywhere.



You are right about Arno b3ing injured.But this is the devs' "problem".When he kills Bellec,Arno gets out of St.Chapelle completely fine,instead of heavily injured.

Perhaps. I just found it horribly unrealistic given how the fight itself went.

Even a wound on the arm would've sufficed.

Fatal-Feit
02-20-2015, 04:22 PM
Well,that's what i am saying.Despite what Arno felt and what Bellec wished,i believe that Arno should have taken him to the Council.He shouldn't have decided for his fate alone.

If you were in Arno's shoes, the Assassin Council would be the last thing on your mind. And even if they were, Arno wouldn't dare to do that. Here is a fomer colleague on his knees ready and to accept what's coming to him.

I would have hated Arno if he did knocked out Bellec and brought him to the council.

dimbismp
02-23-2015, 09:45 PM
So,i just finished replaying Unity.It was not that bad.There were some pretty nice moments,but also many bad ones still remained.
The story was great until the Jacobin Club mission.Mirabeau and Bellec shouldn't have died.But Bellec being the killer instead of a random Templar was a nice twist.I stand by my initial statement:the story is really boring between the bellec betrayal and the final sequence,with a few glimpses of quality,like the Napoleon mission,Louis' execution and the excellent exile cutscene.Other than that,everything feels rushed and unfocused during that period IMO.The final sequence is decent.
The Templars were mostly forgettable with little screen time.The only who stood out were La Touche and ofc Germain,who is really undermined by the fans.
Finally,there are some story-wise excellent coop missions,like the "Jacobin Raid","Moving Mirabeau" and "Heads will roll",that should have been merged with the main story.Other than that,the coop missions were really immersion breaking.

Regarding the story,here's how i rank the AC games(that i have played) :

ACB<AC<ACU<=AC2<AC3<ACR<AC4

Assassin_M
02-23-2015, 09:48 PM
I would say AC II takes the cake as worst story in the franchise.

DemonLord4lf
02-23-2015, 09:49 PM
Yep, for all the reasons stated.

dimbismp
02-23-2015, 09:54 PM
I would say AC II takes the cake as worst story in the franchise.
So,which game has the worst story other than ac2 ? ;)

Assassin_M
02-23-2015, 09:55 PM
So,which game has the worst story other than ac2 ? ;)
I wouldn't say "other than", just the one right above it. ACB.

The_Kiwi_
02-24-2015, 05:39 AM
I wouldn't say "other than", just the one right above it. ACB.

Agreed.

Torvaldesq
02-27-2015, 01:29 AM
I posted this in another thread once after finishing Unity. I think in assessing the "worst" stories, we should consider modern day segments separately from non-modern segments (the core of each game). I'd say that in terms of worst non-modern (historical) segments, it's a toss-up between AC 3 and Unity. AC 3 is probably the worse story, but AC Unity squandered more potential (the French Revolution really had more potential than the American Revolution). The series has a real long-term problem with its historical segments these days.

The Assassins feel directionless in the main historical story segments. Now, in one sense of course, they've always been directionless. They started out as nothing more than a reaction against the Templars, by which I mean the Templars had proactive plots, and the Assassins derived their only goal from a desire to stop the Templars. That worked well at first, because initially the pieces of Eden were front and center in the Templar plots, and the Assassins were the counter organization aware of the technology and opposed to the efforts of the Templars to use those objects in a way that would remove free will. It's a very cool core concept, that a secret war is being fought over the use of ancient technology, and that this war has directed the currents of history.

But with Assassin's Creed 3, the impetus starts to unravel. The Templars start to lose focus on the pieces of eden, and the Assassins in reaction lose focus too. Templar plots start to sound like little more than common political ideology oriented towards more authoritarianism. Assassin political ideology starts to become oriented to very vague notions of liberty and freedom. The notion that this is a fight to prevent outright loss of free will starts to recede. Sure, the Templars Altair fought wanted to use the Apple of Eden to take away free will, and the modern Templars Desmond dealt with initially had a plan to use the Apple of Eden in a satellite, but it's certainly not a driving force during Haytham's time or during the French Revolution.

To my mind, then, this highlights the problem: As the Assassins start to identify with vague notions of liberty and freedom, their actions and goals start to feel very arbitrary. Arbitrary is a bad thing for your protagonist organization to feel like. Unity, the newest game, may be the starkest example of it. What does the French Assassin Brotherhood want? Revolution, but not radical revolution. Revolt, but not overly violent revolt. Why? They're into notions of equality and democracy but... so are the Templars, in their sneaky Templar way. The Templars actually seem to think that it's easier and more reliable to control a population through democracy than to control it through a king (given that their organization met with disaster when one king betrayed them, that view makes sense). Naturally, you'd think this would make the Assassins consider whether the Revolution is a bad idea. But it doesn't. They aid it in conventional ways, barely considering the Templar angle. A similar thing happens in the American Revolution with Haytham and Connor. The Templars under Haytham both push for the American Revolution (Charles Lee causing the Boston Massacre) and against it (Pitcairne wanting to push for a diplomatic resolution with the Patriots to bring them back into the British fold). Haytham's goals do not seem well thought through, other than the notion that the Templars might view it easier to control America if it's independent of Britain. Connor, meanwhile, aids the war for independence, in a kind of thoughtless, naive manner.

I don't want this to be taken as an indictment of the whole story for these historical periods. But after playing Unity, the Assassin story (in the historical period portion of the games) feels like a mess. Take the execution of Loius XVI in Unity. Where were the Assassins? Twiddling their thumbs, apparently. It's the center-piece violent turn of the revolution, the culmination of a massive Templar plot, and the Assassins are absent except for Arno, who's not really concerned with the fate of the king. Meanwhile, the Assassins' numerous agents (seen through the Co-Op missions, a major feature of Unity) go to missions like: "Feed hungry peasants" or "keep the Women's March peaceful" (by slaughtering tons of agitators and royal military... guess we'll just let the logic of that one slide). One mission has you intercepting intelligence being sent to the Austrian army coming towards Paris (to aid the royalists). Another mission has you defending Napoloen from royalist forces (fairly far in the future).

And where's the logic exactly? Why are the Assassins, an international organization, intervening to stop Austria and help the revolution, especially when the revolution has Templars running the show? And why do the Assassins seek to stop the royalist forces from start to end? The royalists are the side most direclty opposed to the Templar aims. The answer why, of course, is that the writing falls prey to wanting the Assassins to be on the general, vague side of people fighting for "liberty" and "equality." It feels like the writers are satisfied with the image of the Assassin as a random freedom fighter. And they should not be satisfied with that. It should not be enough. How much better could the plot be if the setting were handled with greater care, and if the Brotherhood (as an organization) felt methodical, nuanced and practical in its actions? While the Templar writing feels sometimes nuanced and interesting, the Assassins seem like naive morons who are just really good at killing.

The historical-period is the primary gaming area of each AC game. We spend relatively little time in the modern-day portions. I don't think the modern day portions have the same plot mess the historical portions do. Rather than being arbitrary and illogical, the modern day plot just suffers from being underwhelming. (Post-Desmond, the Assassins feel pathetic, and the lack of a modern-day protagonist really minimizes any sense of "identifying" with the "modern" struggle for the player). My proscription for the modern plot would be simple: Get a modern protagonist, and start building a story with an end in sight for them. I can't imagine many people think the whole "Bishop sending internet messages to my internet" is remotely compelling. My proscription for the historical periods is more complicated: Make the Assassin Brotherhood feel like an organization that approaches the world smartly instead of just constantly hoping to stumble upon short-term Templar goals, and do not let them devolve into just being random "freedom-fighters" anytime they see a people they deem "oppressed." It's just less interesting, and ultimately means less thought is put into the real potential of the plot to tell a story about how a secret war over insane ancient technology influenced key events in history.

Assassin_M
02-27-2015, 01:35 AM
I posted this in another thread once after finishing Unity. I think in assessing the "worst" stories, we should consider modern day segments separately from non-modern segments (the core of each game). I'd say that in terms of worst non-modern (historical) segments, it's a toss-up between AC 3 and Unity. AC 3 is probably the worse story, but AC Unity squandered more potential (the French Revolution really had more potential than the American Revolution). The series has a real long-term problem with its historical segments these days.

The Assassins feel directionless in the main historical story segments. Now, in one sense of course, they've always been directionless. They started out as nothing more than a reaction against the Templars, by which I mean the Templars had proactive plots, and the Assassins derived their only goal from a desire to stop the Templars. That worked well at first, because initially the pieces of Eden were front and center in the Templar plots, and the Assassins were the counter organization aware of the technology and opposed to the efforts of the Templars to use those objects in a way that would remove free will. It's a very cool core concept, that a secret war is being fought over the use of ancient technology, and that this war has directed the currents of history.

But with Assassin's Creed 3, the impetus starts to unravel. The Templars start to lose focus on the pieces of eden, and the Assassins in reaction lose focus too. Templar plots start to sound like little more than common political ideology oriented towards more authoritarianism. Assassin political ideology starts to become oriented to very vague notions of liberty and freedom. The notion that this is a fight to prevent outright loss of free will starts to recede. Sure, the Templars Altair fought wanted to use the Apple of Eden to take away free will, and the modern Templars Desmond dealt with initially had a plan to use the Apple of Eden in a satellite, but it's certainly not a driving force during Haytham's time or during the French Revolution.

To my mind, then, this highlights the problem: As the Assassins start to identify with vague notions of liberty and freedom, their actions and goals start to feel very arbitrary. Arbitrary is a bad thing for your protagonist organization to feel like. Unity, the newest game, may be the starkest example of it. What does the French Assassin Brotherhood want? Revolution, but not radical revolution. Revolt, but not overly violent revolt. Why? They're into notions of equality and democracy but... so are the Templars, in their sneaky Templar way. The Templars actually seem to think that it's easier and more reliable to control a population through democracy than to control it through a king (given that their organization met with disaster when one king betrayed them, that view makes sense). Naturally, you'd think this would make the Assassins consider whether the Revolution is a bad idea. But it doesn't. They aid it in conventional ways, barely considering the Templar angle. A similar thing happens in the American Revolution with Haytham and Connor. The Templars under Haytham both push for the American Revolution (Charles Lee causing the Boston Massacre) and against it (Pitcairne wanting to push for a diplomatic resolution with the Patriots to bring them back into the British fold). Haytham's goals do not seem well thought through, other than the notion that the Templars might view it easier to control America if it's independent of Britain. Connor, meanwhile, aids the war for independence, in a kind of thoughtless, naive manner.

I don't want this to be taken as an indictment of the whole story for these historical periods. But after playing Unity, the Assassin story (in the historical period portion of the games) feels like a mess. Take the execution of Loius XVI in Unity. Where were the Assassins? Twiddling their thumbs, apparently. It's the center-piece violent turn of the revolution, the culmination of a massive Templar plot, and the Assassins are absent except for Arno, who's not really concerned with the fate of the king. Meanwhile, the Assassins' numerous agents (seen through the Co-Op missions, a major feature of Unity) go to missions like: "Feed hungry peasants" or "keep the Women's March peaceful" (by slaughtering tons of agitators and royal military... guess we'll just let the logic of that one slide). One mission has you intercepting intelligence being sent to the Austrian army coming towards Paris (to aid the royalists). Another mission has you defending Napoloen from royalist forces (fairly far in the future).

And where's the logic exactly? Why are the Assassins, an international organization, intervening to stop Austria and help the revolution, especially when the revolution has Templars running the show? And why do the Assassins seek to stop the royalist forces from start to end? The royalists are the side most direclty opposed to the Templar aims. The answer why, of course, is that the writing falls prey to wanting the Assassins to be on the general, vague side of people fighting for "liberty" and "equality." It feels like the writers are satisfied with the image of the Assassin as a random freedom fighter. And they should not be satisfied with that. It should not be enough. How much better could the plot be if the setting were handled with greater care, and if the Brotherhood (as an organization) felt methodical, nuanced and practical in its actions? While the Templar writing feels sometimes nuanced and interesting, the Assassins seem like naive morons who are just really good at killing.

The historical-period is the primary gaming area of each AC game. We spend relatively little time in the modern-day portions. I don't think the modern day portions have the same plot mess the historical portions do. Rather than being arbitrary and illogical, the modern day plot just suffers from being underwhelming. (Post-Desmond, the Assassins feel pathetic, and the lack of a modern-day protagonist really minimizes any sense of "identifying" with the "modern" struggle for the player). My proscription for the modern plot would be simple: Get a modern protagonist, and start building a story with an end in sight for them. I can't imagine many people think the whole "Bishop sending internet messages to my internet" is remotely compelling. My proscription for the historical periods is more complicated: Make the Assassin Brotherhood feel like an organization that approaches the world smartly instead of just constantly hoping to stumble upon short-term Templar goals, and do not let them devolve into just being random "freedom-fighters" anytime they see a people they deem "oppressed." It's just less interesting, and ultimately means less thought is put into the real potential of the plot to tell a story about how a secret war over insane ancient technology influenced key events in history.
You know what, I disagree with a lot of what's in this post, but i'll be danged if I didn't say I enjoyed reading that. Great post. Well thought out.

Namikaze_17
02-27-2015, 01:43 AM
the Assassins seem like naive morons who are just really good at killing.

Maybe that's the point... :rolleyes:

But good post and welcome to the forums! ;)

Farlander1991
02-27-2015, 01:52 AM
The Templars under Haytham both push for the American Revolution (Charles Lee causing the Boston Massacre) and against it (Pitcairne wanting to push for a diplomatic resolution with the Patriots to bring them back into the British fold).

Just want to point out that there's no contradiction there. Boston Massacre was manufactured to create discontent that would make people less willing to follow the crown, wanting to get rid of it and ergo more willing to follow the order that would be set by Templars as they'd make the diplomatic secession possible with as little casualties as possible (in other words, the deaths at Massacre were 'necessary for the greater good' from Templar perspective). But then Connor rolled in and escalated the event into a war, and the Templars started rolling with the Revolution in order to take advantage of it.

STDlyMcStudpants
02-27-2015, 02:09 AM
Yes. Still liked it though

TGPomy9795
02-27-2015, 03:14 AM
I definitely thought Unity's was the worst. Never before have I played an AC game and had absolutely no idea why I was killing some of the "villains." Also, Arno himself was annoying is that he was too obsessed with Elise. In the fight with Bellec, I wish I could've chosen to side with him, because I agreed with him entirely. When he referenced Altair, Ezio, and Connor; it tugged at my heart strings.

But the worst part was Arno's complete lack of motivation to avenge his father. He was just like, "yea my dad got assassinated across the hall, but I don't really care. I'd rather find the killers of Elise's father so I can get in her pants." At least, that is how I interpreted it. What would've been cool to see is a desire from Arno to find his father's killer and have a confrontation with him. (you know, the "assassin" that did it)

I may be the odd one out, but I still think AC Revelations and AC3 had the best stories. Especially AC3, loved how they set up Connor and made it so he was trained by Achilles to learn his abilities.

Farlander1991
02-27-2015, 07:48 AM
But the worst part was Arno's complete lack of motivation to avenge his father. He was just like, "yea my dad got assassinated across the hall, but I don't really care. I'd rather find the killers of Elise's father so I can get in her pants." At least, that is how I interpreted it. What would've been cool to see is a desire from Arno to find his father's killer and have a confrontation with him. (you know, the "assassin" that did it)

So you really think that a 7-8 year old kid would think about revenge rather than 'holy **** what am I gonna do?!' with the whole world getting upside down for him? Not to mention, by the time Arno became old enough to do something, the trail would be long, long cold, how would he be supposed to find him? (And if we take Rogue's tie-in into consideration, even the French Templars didn't know Shay was there). Also, by the time he gets older, his father's death is something that he can't do anything about anymore (long time ago, no trail, nowhere to start), but with Elise's father he knows that he can make a difference.

TGPomy9795
02-27-2015, 04:38 PM
So you really think that a 7-8 year old kid would think about revenge rather than 'holy **** what am I gonna do?!' with the whole world getting upside down for him? Not to mention, by the time Arno became old enough to do something, the trail would be long, long cold, how would he be supposed to find him? (And if we take Rogue's tie-in into consideration, even the French Templars didn't know Shay was there). Also, by the time he gets older, his father's death is something that he can't do anything about anymore (long time ago, no trail, nowhere to start), but with Elise's father he knows that he can make a difference.

Good points, but I still think something better could've been done. Even if he knew he couldn't find him, at least try.....or show some level of emotion for what happened to him as a kid. If my dad got killed, I wouldn't just let it slide because I was young. I guess what I'm saying is, in the the grand scheme of things there should've been a choice to side with Elise or Bellec, because Bellec had the better perspective in my opinion.

Assassin_M
02-27-2015, 04:44 PM
Good points, but I still think something better could've been done. Even if he knew he couldn't find him, at least try.....or show some level of emotion for what happened to him as a kid. If my dad got killed, I wouldn't just let it slide because I was young. I guess what I'm saying is, in the the grand scheme of things there should've been a choice to side with Elise or Bellec, because Bellec had the better perspective in my opinion.
The pocket watch serves as a reminder of Charles for Arno. it's a central piece of the plot and Arno's personality. He didn't "not care". This happened as a child, he was 8. Things that happen at that age are more about trauma, than drive. He spent much more time with De la Serre than he did with his father, so it's natural for him to want to know who killed him than wanting to know who killed his father, this also plays into what I said about age. When De la Serre dies, Arno is a grown man. He has a better idea of life, death and murder. That's drive.

As for choice, The AC narrative set up doesn't allow this.

TGPomy9795
02-27-2015, 04:52 PM
The pocket watch serves as a reminder of Charles for Arno. it's a central piece of the plot and Arno's personality. He didn't "not care". This happened as a child, he was 8. Things that happen at that age are more about trauma, than drive. He spent much more time with De la Serre than he did with his father, so it's natural for him to want to know who killed him than wanting to know who killed his father, this also plays into what I said about age. When De la Serre dies, Arno is a grown man. He has a better idea of life, death and murder. That's drive.

As for choice, The AC narrative set up doesn't allow this.

Either way, I'm tired of the whole revenge plot in the past few AC games (other than AC:IV). I wish we could get an assassin that is truly dedicated to the cause and shows no mercy a la Altair. No exceptions to the Creed. I think having some controversial actions due to this could be interesting to see unfold.

Assassin_M
02-27-2015, 04:55 PM
Either way, I'm tired of the whole revenge plot in the past few AC games (other than AC:IV). I wish we could get an assassin that is truly dedicated to the cause and shows no mercy a la Altair. No exceptions to the Creed.
Didn't you want Arno to kill his father's murderer?

ACU also wasn't really about revenge....neither was ACR. AC III arguably isn't either.

Namikaze_17
02-27-2015, 05:29 PM
What Shay did was business. Nothing personal like the Borgias ( and their conspirators) to Ezio.

Take that into consideration before you say: "OMGZ WHY DIDN'T ARNO KILL HIS FATHER'S MURDERER!?"

What Haytham did to Mako ( the old guy he killed in the opera) was also business as well.

Did anyone care about young Duncan Little or Duncan at all? The loss and trauma he too suffered like Arno?

No, of course not. Though give the said character the leading role, only then does it matter suddenly.

I sometimes wonder if these people would care about Arno getting his revenge if he was just another random character?

TGPomy9795
02-27-2015, 06:13 PM
What Shay did was business. Nothing personal like the Borgias ( and their conspirators) to Ezio.

Take that into consideration before you say: "OMGZ WHY DIDN'T ARNO KILL HIS FATHER'S MURDERER!?"

What Haytham did to Mako ( the old guy he killed in the opera) was also business as well.

Did anyone care about young Duncan Little or Duncan at all? The loss and trauma he too suffered like Arno?

No, of course not. Though give the said character the leading role, only then does it matter suddenly.

I sometimes wonder if these people would care about Arno getting his revenge if he was just another random character?

I'm not saying that Arno getting his revenge would've saved the whole story. I would've liked to see it happen, but that would still be only one cool moment for me. The problem lies in Arno himself; I never felt a connection to him unlike the other assassins. Even side characters in previous games (like Yusuf) were more enjoyable than him.

So would it have been cool to see a deeper connection with Rogue? Yes, absolutely. But the story would still be fairly bad regardless.

Namikaze_17
02-27-2015, 06:25 PM
I would've liked to see it happen, but that would still be only one cool moment for me.

Wait, so you would've liked to see it happen, but you're also tired of revenge stories right?

Which is it here?


The problem lies in Arno himself; I never felt a connection to him unlike the other assassins.

Care to explain further?


So would it have been cool to see a deeper connection with Rogue? Yes, absolutely.

I think their connection was deep enough.

Arno was literally outside when Shay killed Charles.




But the story would still be fairly bad regardless.


Well to each its own.

For the record, I thought the story was decent at best.

Not my favorite, but certainly not as bad as people make it out to be.

Not implying you are of course.

VestigialLlama4
02-27-2015, 07:32 PM
ACU also wasn't really about revenge

UNITY was very much about revenge. That's what Elise wants and Elise is the real main character of the game only you know she's a woman, when a woman wants to avenge her father it's wrong because she should be a doting girlfriend to the Hero. Likewise at the end after Elise dies, Arno killes Germain very very slowly because he's really angry at him. So he ends up getting revenge too.


AC III arguably isn't either.

What is "Where is Charles Lee?" about if not getting back at the dude who beat him up as a kid and called him a savage, and who he has credible reasons for believing burned his village.

Revenge in and of itself is not a bad concept. The problem is doing a revenge story than going at it half-assed for no reason, and that's where AC3 faltered.

TexasCaesar
02-27-2015, 08:50 PM
I've been working on a sort of "alternate" script for Unity for some time, both for my personal enjoyment and as a way to critique what I thought were the weak points of the story. So, if it interests any of you, here's my idea of what would have been a better story. I basically just took the actual Unity plot and made changes where I thought it would have benefited from them.



The general idea for the plot wasnít that bad, and it could have survived if only it had been longer. After doing some research, I was shocked to find that the campaign is literally half the size of the previous two gamesí, and that factor alone completely buggers the pacing. Because thereís only two to three missions per sequence (instead of the four to five in other installments), events and plot points practically whiz by the player; the Revolution seems to go by in the blink of an eye, and you never get an opportunity to really invest in Arnoís story.

By contrast, look at IIIís storytelling. You basically spend one third of the game being introduced to the major characters before you become an Assassin, and you are a witness to the very beginnings of the Revolution. Assassinís Creed III basically achieved what almost no video games do: it was a historical epic, and every aspect of itís design confirmed that. Unity, on the other hand, seems to resemble a thriller more than anything, but not even a good one.

The plot also undoubtedly suffered because of the gameís focus on co-op. I canít complain too much about the co-op angle, as it wasnít meant for players with a single-player focus like me, but I do feel like they should have included a lot of the co-opís historical inspiration in the main plot. To be frank, I donít think that the people most interested in co-op would have been the ones most interested in historical intrigue, yet all of the coolest stuff (like the persecution of the Girondists or the Austrian infiltrators) was outside of Arnoís personal story, and barely integrated into the story as a whole.

In fact, the promise of a co-op campaign was somewhat of a lie, as the co-op missions had no bearing on one another. I wonder if, maybe, they should have just had certain big missions in the campaign be co-op, giving it some measure of narrative meaning. That may have been unfeasible, though.

Of course, itís much easier to just say that the plot should have been longer than to write an outlineÖ but Iíll try anyways! To begin, I would have split the mission ďMemories of VersaillesĒ into two different ones. The first would focus on Arno meeting Elise and playing with her (introducing the movement and parkour mechanics) much as the actual gameís mission does. Instead of ending with the death of Charles, though, it would end by allowing the player to explore Versailles palace, engaging in a few token side activities before continuing onto the second mission. The second mission, then, would see Arno tailing his dad (introducing the stealth mechanics) to find out what heís up to. It would end with Charlesí assassination, tying it all together.

The third mission of the sequence would flash forward to Arno as a teenager, probably a few years before the Estates General convened. It would teach combat mechanics and would focus on the beginnings of Arno and Eliseís love. The main problem I had with Unity as a love story was that it neglected why they loved each other, which is essential if the audience is to empathize with their romance. The mission also could have served to characterize them and introduce their philosophies. It seemed to me that Arno had literally no reason for being in the Assassins or following their creed, other than that it was what his father did. As a courtier of Versailles, he should have definitely been opposed to the revolutionary upheaval! So, the mission would have revealed some of their character traits, differences in their thoughtsÖ I would also have set it in Paris, and revealed some of the social tensions. Maybe angry Third Estaters try to rob them?

The fourth mission would flash-forward to the Estates General, and that would be where the plot returns to the one which Alexandre Amancio actually wrote. However, Iíd shift the focus more to the Estates itself. It was lame how it was just a background event (although, upon my second playthrough, I did appreciate the scene with Mirabeau and Francoise). Finally, the fifth mission would be essentially the same as it actually is, except Iíd have Arno only then reveal his love to Elise. Again, romances have to develop over the course of the story; it would have been more meaningful to me if Arno had to ďpursueĒ Elise, rather than her just being bitter towards him because of the de la Serre incident. Oh, and it would have been nice to see Louis XVI at some point in Sequence 1; it felt a little odd that he only made it into a single cutscene in the entire game.

Moving on to Sequence 2Ö the entire Bastille section was perfect. I just would have had more missions leading up to the Sivert assassination. Thereíd be a mission in which Bellec (or Mirabeau) basically gives Arno a crash course on the Assassin philosophy, possibly by showing him the (perceived) suffering of the Third Estate, and then one or two missions in which Arno is trained by Bellec by tagging along (like the ďGraduationĒ mission, but with better writing). Then youíd have the iconic Assassin ceremony and the Sivert assassination. Perhaps the Cafe Theatre could have been integrated into this too, like Arno helps Bellec claim it from a previous owner.

From that point on, the specifics donít matter to me. Itís really just about building a good, strong introduction, after which most of the run time can consist of preparations for the next assassination. There is one major change that I wouldíve made, though. Napoleon, not Germain, should have been the main enemy.

Iíve got many reasons for making that claim, but in the interest of brevity (as this post is already very long), letís just say that a silversmith does not make for an interesting enemy, while the Emperor of France does. However, the twist would still be preserved. Basically, instead of having a sequence about rescuing Germain, youíd have a sequence about assisting Napoleon, perhaps because he was working with (tricking) the Assassins. Later on, though, youíd learn that he was secretly conspiring with Robespierre. But, thereís a double twist.

Napoleon, when you get down to it, is really just a monarchist Templar. However, he (as a sage) was receiving visions telling him of his need to replace the Bourbons; the monarchist Templars, just like the Assassins, had become lazy, decadent, unwilling to pursue their goals. So, he joined the revolutionary Templars (Robespierreís faction), but with the intention of sabotaging them. Like Germain in the actual game, he hoped to use Robespierre as a weapon to turn the masses against revolutions in general. Then, he would step in as Consul.

Of course, that brings up a major question. Since Napoleon didnít die until 1821, how does the story end? Well, after confronting Napoleon at the Temple, a battle takes place that is similar to the one between Arno and Germain. Arno does still end up being trapped beneath some rocks, while Elise rushes at Napoleon and is promptly killed. This time, however, Arno doesnít get free. Napoleon delivers a speech explaining the need for a strong authority figure like himself (if Arno were to kill him, the ensuing power vacuum would cause far more suffering than for Napoleon to live), and explains that itís radicals - both Assassins and Templars - who have been the cause of most of the worldís strife. His goal is to combine the tactics of a Templar with the general goals of an Assassin, unifying the two orders into one new Empire. Before leaving, though, he crushes Arnoís hands (so that he cannot effectively fight), choosing to spare him only because of their previous partnership.

So, the story ends with Arnoís monologue, possibly with some words and imagery changed around to suit the new plot. Arno is crippled and may or may not recover, but he has come to forgive (for the time being) Napoleon, wanting only to get away from the conflict. And there you go: a sequel hook for a Napoleonic AC (which I hope they make some day), and a rather unique conclusion.

ElisedelaSerre_
02-27-2015, 11:36 PM
I loved the story. Arno is really funny (when he had to fight against bellec and met him in a dark room:"how long have you been waiting for me in the dark?" Other main characters of a game just accept it, Arno doesn't.) I didn't like …lise that much at first, but after i read the novel i totally understood the decicions she made. She's my favorite character now.
What i love about the story is that it's all about bringing the assassin's and templars together, that's what Arno and …lise both wanted most, (according to the novel) but …lise wanted revenge and Arno wanted redemption. The whole story is based on those two words. I also like that it's all about "pursuing our ideals, no matter the cost" and you can see if as a reference to all the other wars and revolutions that came. (Mussolini, Hitler.. They all wanted what they thought was best)The game teaches us a lesson, and i love that.
I didn't expect the ending at all and i love the fact that ubisoft let …lise appear in the DLC. (Well, not …lise exactly... You'll know what i mean if you played the DLC) it makes the DLC a little bit a part of the main game.
It's probably really difficult to tell the story about Arno, …lise and the french revolution all at once. I think ubisoft did an amazing job.

Xstantin
02-27-2015, 11:42 PM
I didn't like …lise that much at first, but after i read the novel i totally understood the decicions she made. She's my favorite character now.


That's the problem right there.

Fatal-Feit
02-27-2015, 11:49 PM
You don't need to read the novel to like or sympathize with her character. The explanations and understanding are in the letters she sends to Arno.

TexasCaesar
02-27-2015, 11:49 PM
Mph. One of these days I'll start reading the tie-ins (I didn't even know they existed until recently), but if a game needs a book for the story to make sense, then it's not a good story. Contrast with BioShock, whose in-game story was excellent and whose tie-in book was also excellent.

JustPlainQuirky
02-27-2015, 11:50 PM
Elise's characterization was kept at a minimum in the main campaign.
But she's not the only one who needed more time for fleshing out IMO.

That being said I still say Liberation had the worst story.


but if a game needs a book for the story to make sense, then it's not a good story. Contrast with BioShock, whose in-game story was excellent and whose tie-in book was also excellent.

Agreed.

Also a reminder I need to buy the bioshock novels.

Xstantin
02-27-2015, 11:58 PM
You don't need to read the novel to like or sympathize with her character. The explanations and understanding are in the letters she sends to Arno.

I get that. I'm just not a fan of the whole tie-in thing like "wait, there's more and the novel will explain it further."
I do enjoy reading in game materials such as letters, journals etc. when they flesh out the characters/world on the same spot where I'm playing.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:03 AM
Care to spar with me in a debate, May?

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140128175601/dragonball/images/5/57/Majin_Vegeta.gif

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:08 AM
Sure.

Try to keep it on-topic tho.

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=1029786&d=1406628144

Fatal-Feit
02-28-2015, 12:09 AM
I get that. I'm just not a fan of the whole tie-in thing like "wait, there's more and the novel will explain it further."
I do enjoy reading in game materials such as letters, journals etc. when they flesh out the characters/world on the same spot where I'm playing.

Oh no, I'm just like you. It was especially bad in AC3. The first sequence you played as Haytham, you killed a random man who apparently had some importance, but had no idea who he is. Or like how the Templars' personalities completely shifted as soon as you played through Connor's memories.

It's definitely something to be wary of, but I don't agree with it being a problem in Unity. The story needs Elise, but it doesn't need her life story.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:14 AM
Sure.

Try to keep it on-topic tho.

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=1029786&d=1406628144

Okay, to start...I like Elise.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:18 AM
Okay, to start...I like Elise.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc

SixKeys
02-28-2015, 12:22 AM
I like that Elise was a bit of a mystery in ACU. It made her seem aloof and focused, which is exactly why her relationship with Arno was doomed. The story in Unity isn't actually a love story, it's a break-up story. The entire time I never got the feeling Elise was as into Arno as he was into her. He was desperate to do anything for her but she was ready to toss him aside in a heartbeat to achieve what she felt were mroe important goals. It's about Arno coming to terms with the fact that Elise isn't who he thought she was and that they could never have a happy ending.

From what little bits I've heard from the novel, the writing is embarrassingly bad and makes Elise sound too sappy. It doesn't fit her character.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:24 AM
From what little bits I've heard from the novel, the writing is embarrassingly bad and makes Elise sound too sappy. It doesn't fit her character.

From what I've heard, Elise is a "female dog" to everyone but Arno and is rude to the point of annoyingness

No plan on buying the novel because IDC about Unity.

Shay should have gotten a novel.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:27 AM
I like her hair... :p










........and her hair.


Shay should have gotten a novel.

This.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:29 AM
her character design is amazing.

except in-game she has like chipmunk lips or something

SixKeys
02-28-2015, 12:30 AM
From what I've heard, Elise is a "female dog" to everyone but Arno and is rude to the point of annoyingness

No plan on buying the novel because IDC about Unity.

Shay should have gotten a novel.

I heard Dan Jeannotte reading bits from the novel in Loomer's podcast and I was just cringing the whole time. It was so foxxing bad. I'd say "fan fic bad", but that would be insulting to the myriad of good fan fic authors out there.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:31 AM
I heard Dan Jeannotte reading bits from the novel in Loomer's podcast and I was just cringing the whole time. It was so foxxing bad. I'd say "fan fic bad", but that would be insulting to the myriad of good fan fic authors out there.

oh my god

thank god I'm not alone in thinking that

the whole time i was thinking "is this really the novel? it sounds terrible"

which is sad considering forsaken wasnt that bad

maybe bowden was at a rush to release it too?

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:33 AM
Yeah, Bowden is a terrible writer. :rolleyes:

SixKeys
02-28-2015, 12:35 AM
oh my god

thank god I'm not alone in thinking that

the whole time i was thinking "is this really the novel? it sounds terrible"

which is sad considering forsaken wasnt that bad

maybe bowden was at a rush to release it too?

All of the novels have been bad, so I can't blame it on rush, lol. But this one sounded even worse than usual. Something like "diamonds glistening in my eyes" and oh my god.

Fatal-Feit
02-28-2015, 12:35 AM
which is sad considering forsaken wasnt that bad

Nah, the forsaken speech was just as bad.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:35 AM
^ Double post. :rolleyes:


Nah, the forsaken speech was just as bad.

For Connor?

Fatal-Feit
02-28-2015, 12:37 AM
We still don't know how Connor got hold of his journal.

Xstantin
02-28-2015, 12:37 AM
Something like "diamonds glistening in my eyes" and oh my god.

Criiiinge

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:38 AM
We still don't know how Connor got hold of his journal.

I always assumed Connor found it at the Green Dragon tavern...

Or maybe the Aquila? Who knows.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:38 AM
@fatal

I dislike Connor's speech due to its content not its prose or whatever its called

and we still dont know how Connor got Haytham's hidden blade either


All of the novels have been bad, so I can't blame it on rush, lol. But this one sounded even worse than usual. Something like "diamonds glistening in my eyes" and oh my god.

yeah i was genuinely embarassed

SixKeys
02-28-2015, 12:42 AM
When Dan was reading it out loud, I was amazed at how he managed to be so professional about it and not burst out laughing. Then at the end he went "wow, that was great, I really want to read the whole book now" and I was just like ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:43 AM
@fatal

I dislike Connor's speech due to its content not its prose or whatever its called

and we still dont know how Connor got Haytham's hidden blade either

I don't believe those items though...

Lee's was the precursor key. Connor been dropped that. :rolleyes:

And who knows, perhaps he had time to grab them real time?

Though that doesn't explain Lee. :confused:

But like I said, I don't believe those items are canon anyway...

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:43 AM
When Dan was reading it out loud, I was amazed at how he managed to be so professional about it and not burst out laughing. Then at the end he went "wow, that was great, I really want to read the whole book now" and I was just like ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

He probably just said that because it's Unity's novel.

From the podcast itself it didn't seem he was super invested in the AC franchise

Nothing wrong with that tho


I don't believe those items though...

Lee's was the precursor key. Connor been dropped that.

And who knows, perhaps he had time to grab them real time?

Though that doesn't explain lee.

But like I said, I don't believe those items are canon anyway...

connor dropped that in the end cutscene. so technically it can be on the desk.

and he couldnt grab it because in the white room connor leaves as soon as haytham falls

and someone could ask i guess

Shahkulu101
02-28-2015, 12:46 AM
I read the Revelations novel. The writer loves the word unmolested and it's hilarious.

"Ezio escaped the guards, unmolested."

"Ezio managed to sneak into Tarik's compound, unmolested."

"Unmolested, Ezio found his way onto the boat and grabbed the package for Sofia."

There are many more instances. I'm almost certain the writer was molested.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:47 AM
I skipped the Ezio novels because they were retellings.

Only bothered with Forsaken, The Secret Crusade, and I tried Black Flag novel but couldnt bring myself to so I dropped it.

The Secret Crusade had some bad writing I think but my english isnt great so it might be just me

SixKeys
02-28-2015, 12:48 AM
He probably just said that because it's Unity's novel.

From the podcast itself it didn't seem he was super invested in the AC franchise

Nothing wrong with that tho

Maybe not hardcore invested, but more invested than some of the other guests have been. Like Adrian Hough was just like "WTF is Assassin's Creed?" when they told him he got the part. Which, like you said, nothing wrong with that, but Dan sounded quite enthusiastic to be part of the franchise.


connor dropped that in the end cutscene. so technically it can be on the desk.

and he couldnt grab it because in the white room connor leaves as soon as haytham falls

and someone could ask i guess

White rooms don't necessarily represent how things happen in reality, just saying.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:49 AM
connor dropped that in the end cutscene. so technically it can be on the desk.

and he couldnt grab it because in the white room connor leaves as soon as haytham falls

and someone could ask i guess


So we're in that endless loop gap before he dropped it? I guess that makes sense?

Maybe he came back? Anything could've happened.

Yeah, I guess.


White rooms don't necessarily represent how things happen in reality, just saying.

This.

Fatal-Feit
02-28-2015, 12:50 AM
Black Flag is up there with The Secret Crusade.

Xstantin
02-28-2015, 12:50 AM
"Ezio managed to sneak into Tarik's compound, unmolested."


Lawd. Bad ff material

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:50 AM
So we're in that endless loop gap before he dropped it? I guess that makes sense?

Maybe he came back? Anything could've happened.

Yeah, I guess.

Connor "Goodbye father"

*walks away*

Connor "Oh wait I forgot something"

*walks back and yanks hidden blade off father's dead corpse

Connor "Neato"

*walks away*

Shahkulu101
02-28-2015, 12:52 AM
I have Revelations and Black Flag. I only finished Revelations because I lacked internet for a month (genuinely a very dark period in my life) and I read a few chapters of Black Flag when my electricity cut out for a few hours.

Revelations is awful, but I did get quite emotional when it recounted the events of Embers. Ezio's last letter to Sofia is just wonderful, the work of Ser Darby.

Black Flag - all I can say is 'meh' really.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:53 AM
Connor "Goodbye father"

*walks away*

Connor "Oh wait I forgot something"

*walks back and yanks hidden blade off father's dead corpse

Connor "Neato"

*walks away*

The Animus/Helix is known to skip unnecessary stuff... ( Hence timeskips)

Maybe Connor taking it was one of them?

Only logical conclusion I have.

Then again, we can't always trust white room and all that.

The_Kiwi_
02-28-2015, 12:54 AM
Revelations is awful, but I did get quite emotional when it recounted the events of Embers. Ezio's last letter to Sofia is just wonderful, the work of Ser Darby.

The da Vinci scenes were amazing, you must admit

SixKeys
02-28-2015, 12:54 AM
Connor "Goodbye father"

*walks away*

Connor "Oh wait I forgot something"

*walks back and yanks hidden blade off father's dead corpse

Connor "Neato"

*walks away*

Lmao

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 12:56 AM
I'm not invested in Black Flag's characters enough to read the novel. I just dont care to read about historical figures. Especially pirates. I had enough trouble caring about Al Mualim in The Secret Crusade


Maybe not hardcore invested, but more invested than some of the other guests have been. Like Adrian Hough was just like "WTF is Assassin's Creed?" when they told him he got the part. Which, like you said, nothing wrong with that, but Dan sounded quite enthusiastic to be part of the franchise.


Adrian has a sexy accent. He is excused.


White rooms don't necessarily represent how things happen in reality, just saying.

How they work is still confusing. Something to do with The Father of Understanding's power or something.

Shahkulu101
02-28-2015, 12:57 AM
The da Vinci scenes were amazing, you must admit

Oh yeah I remember those, it was harrowing hearing an old friend in his last moments.

Forever the best side character. I wish we got a proper goodbye for him in the games.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 12:59 AM
Something to do with The Father of Understanding's power or something.

Oh yeah, that myth. :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:00 AM
hey it was confirmed the father of understanding is an actual entity so who knows at this point *shrug*

Fatal-Feit
02-28-2015, 01:03 AM
Esco, Gabe, and Darby sort of proved that in the stream. They who or what it is and are teasing us. GDI.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:04 AM
inb4 the father is a woman

i still theorize its the specific TOWCB who invented the apple.

Since the apple fills people with knowledge comprehension

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 01:05 AM
hey it was confirmed the father of understanding is an actual entity so who knows at this point *shrug*

Not confirmed, just theorized at this point.

Who knows what Germain or any of the other sages were saying anyway.

It's either some cryptic stuff no one understands or a reference to Juno.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:06 AM
Not confirmed, just theorized.

No, Darby confirmed it on twitter a while back.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 01:11 AM
No, Darby confirmed it on twitter a while back.

Oh, well I hardly read his stuff.

Thanks for informing me, but I don't like "this ancient being that's behind the Templars" crap.

I respect(ed) the Templars for they actually seemed driven by their cause and nothing else.

Now if this "entity" comes to fruition, I don't know how I'll feel about it...

Last thing we need is another useless god-like akin to Juno.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:12 AM
i dont think there's an ancient being aiding the templars.

the templars just recognize the concept of him and/or the symbolism behind him.

him = father of understanding

and oh god juno

still waiting to defeat her with our Assassin Exclusive McAfee Anti-Virus software

Shahkulu101
02-28-2015, 01:14 AM
Maybe the Father of Understanding is the first Templar Grand Master, who is a Sage or connected to the TWCB in some way - maybe even a full blown member of the TWCB race which would explain the powers he can grant (assuming it IS he who allows white rooms to happen).

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 01:15 AM
i dont think there's an ancient being aiding the templars.

the templars just recognize the concept of him and/or the symbolism behind him.

him = father of understanding

and oh god juno

still waiting to defeat her with our Assassin Exclusive McAfee Anti-Virus software

I liked Cain better...

Haha. XD


Maybe the Father of Understanding is the first Templar Grand Master, who is a Sage or connected to the TWCB in some way - maybe even a full blown member of the TWCB race which would explain the powers he can grant (assuming it IS he who allows white rooms to happen).


That explains Molay & Germain as they were both grandmasters & sages.

But wouldn't the first be Cain or someone else from that time?

IIRC, their ideology and things came from him.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:16 AM
@shahk

the father of understanding provides white rooms to assassins and templars

so no guarantee he supports templars specifically

Shahkulu101
02-28-2015, 01:19 AM
Then perhaps it is God himself, and he created the world in six days using an apple.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:20 AM
why not

Ubi has pissed a ton of religious folk already by retconning jesus

might as well go all out

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 01:23 AM
Then perhaps it is God himself, and he created the world in six days using an apple.

There is no god in the AC universe.

Unless you mean a first civ member proclaiming themself as such?

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:24 AM
there could be a God in AC verse technically.

Just not God as described in the Bible.

I mean who created TOWCB? :rolleyes:

Shahkulu101
02-28-2015, 01:26 AM
There is no god in the AC universe.

Unless you mean a first civ member proclaiming themself as such?

Yeah that's what I meant, but I was just making a joke there haha

And good point Quirky

But if there is a God who created TWCB, then who or what created that God. And who created God's God's God.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 01:26 AM
there could be a God in AC verse technically.

Just not God as described in the Bible.

I mean who created TOWCB? :rolleyes:

In their world, that's basically saying who made God? :rolleyes:


But if there is a God who created TWCB, then who or what created that God. And who created God God's God.

So many questions, so little time. :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:27 AM
But if there is a God who created people, then who or what created that God. And who created God God's God.

And thus we get to the debates surrounding religion IRL :rolleyes:

Shahkulu101
02-28-2015, 01:28 AM
And thus we get to the debates surrounding religion IRL :rolleyes:

I've started the fire.

Now, I lean back.


The gods and other worldly beings in AC are the First Civ.

Yes and we're asking what entity created the First Civ.

Fatal-Feit
02-28-2015, 01:28 AM
The gods and other worldly beings in AC are the First Civ. May it never change.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:30 AM
Obviously TOWCB is the work of the ManOfComets http://i.imgur.com/EuJ9WYg.png

Fatal-Feit
02-28-2015, 01:31 AM
Yes and were asking what entity created the First Civ.

I kno and I was going to add ''let's please leave it at that'', but I didn't want to appear anti-religious.

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:32 AM
ubisoft outright retconned the Bible

hard to appear as anti-religious here

Im not saying we need an explanation for first civ

just that idea of God existing in AC verse isnt impossible

Shahkulu101
02-28-2015, 01:32 AM
Obviously TOWCB is the work of the ManOfComets http://i.imgur.com/EuJ9WYg.png

And ManOfComets is the work of Darby.

And Darby is the work of Lord Patrice.

And Lord Patrice is the work of the true Lord and Saviour, Yves Guillemot.

Namikaze_17
02-28-2015, 01:33 AM
Maybe they're aliens... :rolleyes:

All in all, I really preferred the ideology of Cain ( a human) becoming the Templar Order later on.

But what's done is done.

We'll see how this goes...

JustPlainQuirky
02-28-2015, 01:34 AM
And ManOfComets is the work of Darby.

And Darby is the work of Lord Patrice.

And Lord Patrice is the work of the true Lord and Saviour, Yves. Guilemott.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Omg-Dramatic-sunglasses-Removal.gif

By God I think we've solved it.

Sorrosyss
02-28-2015, 02:35 AM
Unity is the worse for me too, story wise. I think it suffers a similar fate to AC3, where a supporting character outshines the main character. (Haytham & Elise)

There were a series of plot holes that bugged me, but Arno did feel like a repeat of Ezio's revenge tale. On a side note, I was really starting to enjoy the 'other side' playing as Shay in Rogue, but that game was over far too quickly. I do feel we should explore more Templar characters in future games, as there is a wealth of back story and intrigue in the Templar agenda. It felt fresh to me, whereas Unity just felt stale. The lack of modern day and First Civilisation really made it far worse for me too, as I enjoy those elements of the overarching story very much.

Going forwards, I'd like to see Galina, perhaps a descendant of Eve (or Eve herself), to try and tie together all those hints throughout the saga, and loop us back round to the beloved early titles.

dimbismp
04-11-2015, 01:48 PM
I found another coop inconsistency.It is really bad.

1)So Arno is expelled from the Brotherhood and we know,from the novel,that he rejoins many years after.
2)A year or so after that event,Arno finds Robespierre and learns about Germain's location.The next day Robespierre is executed which signals the end of the Terror(while Arno assassinates Germain).The day after that the Jacobin raid coop mission occurs.

Point (1) and point (2) make no sense.Arno needed to be part of the Brotherhood to take part in the coop missions.And clearly he wasn't during that mission,as he told Robespierre that he is not an assassin the day before.

Hans684
04-11-2015, 06:26 PM
Yes and we're asking what entity created the First Civ.

Another more advanced civilization than the First Civ. could have created them. As said there is no gods in AC, only advanced civilizations. Currently we only have one civilization and that's the First Civ.

RA503
04-12-2015, 08:54 AM
The father of understanding is baphomet, some historians speculate that baphomet(the real baphomet,not that fake goat image that everyone knows)is the shroud.

The father of understanding being jesus is something that ubsoft don't do,but I think is Consus.

who read the project legacy stuff in AC wiki(since the game is dead)knows who he is, and his connection with the shroud.

But, as I already post here, exist the possibility of the ''father'' being juno.

Defalt221
04-12-2015, 11:35 AM
banned????
What are you talking about?

Maybe a 2 second temporary ban?

pacmanate
04-12-2015, 11:54 AM
I thought the story sucked too, like, seriously sucked.

However this Easter Break i played AC Unity again, but this time only going from main mission to main mission. It actually increased my gaming experience and I actually dont think the story sucks as much as I thought.

But why was this a problem? The sheer quantity of side stuff being shoved at us.

I always try and do side quests parallel to the story to lengthen the story out but this comes at a price.

Pros of doing side quests parallel to story:

1. Earn equipment/weapons
2. Earn Money

Cons of doing side quests parallel to story:

1. Disjoints the story

But then another issue arises. Going mission to mission also has its downfalls.

Pros of going Mission to Mission:

1. Possibility of understanding the story better due to no disjointed gameplay gaps inbetween

Cons of going Mission to Mission:

1. Lack of money from not doing side quests
2. Side content overwhelming at the end.
3. (Biggest one of all) If you do side quests at the end of the game, you have all this cool equipment that is useless as you have finished the game.

Shahkulu101
04-12-2015, 01:06 PM
I too played Unity without doing as much side missions, I only did 1 or 2 side quests in between missions as opposed to my usual way of playing which is doing hours upon hours of side-quests before starting the next mission.

And I have to agree with Pac, the story seemed a little better because I wasn't spending so long distracted from it and thus wasn't forgetting details or simply not following the plot. I think in future games they should cut down the number of side missions to a reasonable amount and add interesting story context which enhances the main narrative instead of feeling disjointed and detracting from it - Brotherhood is a good example of doing this well.

Also, to curb the fact there are side missions that literally spoil the main narrative, don't have everything available at once. This would also help to ease players into the side content instead of being overwhelmed with icons. Brotherhood, again (best game EVARR), does this well in that there's a ton of side content but not everything is unlocked and displayed on the map at once (unless you do no side missions throughout the whole story and have completed it) but instead unlocked as you progress through the sequences or certain missions - so presumably you will have done a few side activities prior and cleared off some icons so they don't keep piling up.