PDA

View Full Version : The Ark of the Covenant, The Holy Grail & Excalibur - AC:V Theories



RinoTheBouncer
02-16-2015, 06:59 PM
The Ark of the Covenant, The Holy Grail and Excalibur - Assassin's Creed: Victory Speculations:

also known as the Ark of the Testimony, is a chest described in the Book of Exodus as containing the Tablets of Stone on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed. According to the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews, the Ark also contained Aaron's rod, a jar of manna, and the first Torah scroll as written by Moses; however, the first of the Books of Kings says that at the time of King Solomon, the Ark contained only the two Tablets of the Law.

According to the Book of Exodus, the Ark was built at the command of God, in accordance with the instructions given to Moses on Mount Sinai In the Deuteronomy 5:6, these events are described as having transpired at Mount Horeb. God was said to have communicated with Moses "from between the two cherubim" on the Ark's cover.

The biblical account relates that about a year after the Israelites' exodus from Egypt, the Ark was created according to the pattern given to Moses by God when Israel was encamped at the foot of Mount Sinai. Thereafter the gold-plated acacia chest was carried by the Levites some 2,000 cubits in advance of the people when on the march or before the Israelite army, the host of fighting men.

When the Ark was borne by Levites into the bed of the Jordan River, the waters parted as God had parted the waters of the Red Sea, opening a pathway for the entire host to pass through (Josh. 3:15–16; 4:7–18). The walls of the city of Jericho were shaken to the ground with no more than a shout from the army after the Ark of the Covenant was paraded round them for seven days by Levites accompanied by seven priests sounding seven trumpets of rams' horns (Josh. 6:4–20). When carried, the Ark was always hidden under a large veil made of skins and blue cloth, always carefully concealed, even from the eyes of the priests and the Levites who carried it. There are no contemporary extra-biblical references to the Ark.

Reference in Scripture:

The Ark is referenced in Tanakh, Second Book of Maccabees, New Testament and the Qur’an

Possible Locations:
Since its disappearance from the Biblical narrative, there have been a number of claims of having discovered or of having possession of the Ark, and several possible places have been suggested for its location.

Mount Nebo

Maccabees 2:4-10, written around 100 BC, says that the prophet Jeremiah, "being warned by God" before the Babylonian invasion, took the Ark, the Tabernacle, and the Altar of Incense, and buried them in a cave on Mount Nebo, informing those of his followers who wished to find the place that it should remain unknown "until the time that God should gather His people again together, and receive them unto mercy." Mount Nebo is also described in the Bible (Deuteronomy 34) as the site from which Moses views the Promised Land, and apparently also is his final burial place. Mount Nebo is approximately 29 miles (47 km) slightly south of due east from Jerusalem, near the east bank of the Jordan River.

Ethiopia

The Chapel of the Tablet at the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion in Axum allegedly houses the original Ark of the Covenant.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims to possess the Ark of the Covenant, or Tabot, in Axum. The object is currently kept under guard in a treasury near the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. Replicas of the Axum tabot are kept in every Ethiopian church, each with its own dedication to a particular saint; the most popular of these include Mary, George and Michael.

The Kebra Nagast, composed to legitimise the new dynasty ruling Ethiopia following its establishment in 1270, narrates how the real Ark of the Covenant was brought to Ethiopia by Menelik I with divine assistance, while a forgery was left in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Although the Kebra Nagast is the best-known account of this belief, the belief predates the document. Abu al-Makarim, writing in the last quarter of the twelfth century, makes one early reference to this belief that they possessed the Ark. "The Abyssinians possess also the Ark of the Covenant", he wrote, and, after a description of the object, describes how the liturgy is celebrated upon the Ark four times a year, "on the feast of the great nativity, on the feast of the glorious Baptism, on the feast of the holy Resurrection, and on the feast of the illuminating Cross.”

In the 1992 book The Sign and the Seal, controversial British writer Graham Hancock suggests, contrary to the Kebra Nagast, that the ark spent several years in Egypt before it came to Ethiopia via the Nile River, where it was kept in the islands of Lake Tana for about four hundred years and finally taken to Axum. Archaeologist John Holladay of the University of Toronto called Hancock's theory "garbage and hogwash," while Edward Ullendorff, a former Professor of Ethiopian Studies at the University of London, said he "wasted a lot of time reading it.”

On 25 June 2009, the patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia, Abune Paulos, said he would announce to the world the next day the unveiling of the Ark of the Covenant, which he said had been kept safe and secure in a church in Axum, Ethiopia.[30] The following day, on 26 June 2009, the patriarch announced that he would not unveil the Ark after all, but that instead he could attest to its current status.

Southern Africa

The Lemba people of South Africa and Zimbabwe have claimed that their ancestors carried the Ark south, calling it the ngoma lungundu or "voice of God", eventually hiding it in a deep cave in the Dumghe mountains, their spiritual home.

On 14 April 2008, in a UK Channel 4 documentary, Tudor Parfitt, taking a literalist approach to the Biblical story, described his research into this claim. He says that the object described by the Lemba has attributes similar to the Ark. It was of similar size, was carried on poles by priests, was not allowed to touch the ground, was revered as a voice of their God, and was used as a weapon of great power, sweeping enemies aside.

In his book The Lost Ark of the Covenant (2008), Parfitt also suggests that the Ark was taken to Arabia following the events depicted in the Second Book of Maccabees, and cites Arabic sources which maintain it was brought in distant times to Yemen. One Lemba clan, the Buba, which was supposed to have brought the Ark to Africa, have a genetic signature called the Cohen Modal Haplotype. This suggests a male Semitic link to the Levant. Lemba tradition maintains that the Ark spent some time in Sena in Yemen. Later, it was taken across the sea to East Africa and may have been taken inland at the time of the Great Zimbabwe civilization.

According to their oral traditions, some time after the arrival of the Lemba with the Ark, it self-destructed. Using a core from the original, the Lemba priests constructed a new one. This replica was discovered in a cave by a Swedish German missionary named Harald von Sicard in the 1940s and eventually found its way to the Museum of Human Science in Harare. Parfitt had this artifact radio-carbon dated to about 1350, which coincided with the sudden end of the Great Zimbabwe civilization.

Europe

Chartres Cathedral, France
French author Louis Charpentier claimed that the Ark was taken to Chartres Cathedral by the Knights Templar.

Rennes-le-Château, then to the United States

Several recent authors have theorised that the Ark was taken from Jerusalem to the village of Rennes-le-Château in Southern France. Karen Ralls has cited Freemason Patrick Byrne, who believes the Ark was moved from Rennes-le-Château at the outbreak of World War I to the United States.

Rome

The Ark of the Covenant was said to have been kept in the Basilica of St. John Lateran, surviving the pillages of Rome by Genseric and Alaric I but lost when the basilica burned.

United Kingdom

In 2003, author Graham Phillips hypothetically concluded that the Ark was taken to Mount Sinai in the Valley of Edom by the Maccabees. Phillips claims it remained there until the 1180s, when Ralph de Sudeley, the leader of the Templars found the Maccabean treasure at Jebel al-Madhbah, and returned home to his estate at Herdewyke in Warwickshire, England taking the treasure with him.

Ireland

During the turn of the 20th century British Israelites carried out some excavations of the Hill of Tara in Ireland looking for the Ark of the Covenant—the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland campaigned successfully to have them stopped before they destroyed the hill.[42]

Egypt

Tutankhamun's tomb

1922 photograph of the tomb of Tutankhamun. Photograph by Harry Burton (1879-1940)
In 1922 in the Egyptian Valley of the Kings the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62) was opened by Howard Carter and Lord Carnarvon. Among the artifacts was a processional ark, listed as Shrine 261, the Anubis Shrine. Almost immediately after publication of the photographs[43] of this sensational archaeological find some claimed that the Anubis Shrine could be the Ark of the Covenant. John M. Lundquist, author of The Temple of Jerusalem: past, present, and future (2008), discounts this idea. The Anubis Shrine measures 95 centimetres (37 in) long, 37 centimetres (15 in) wide, and 54.3 centimetres (21.4 in) high in the shape of a pylon.

The Biblical Ark of the Covenant is approximately 133 centimetres (52 in) long, 80 centimetres (31 in) wide, and 80 centimetres (31 in) high in the shape of a rectangular chest.

He points out that Shrine 261 is not strictly analogous to the Ark of the Covenant: it can only be said that the Anubis Shrine is "ark-like", constructed of wood, gessoed and gilded, stored within a sacred tomb, "guarding" the treasury of the tomb (and not the primary focus of that environment), that it contains compartments within it that store and hold sacred objects, that it has a figure of Anubis on its lid, and that it was carried by two staves permanently inserted into rings at its base and borne by eight priests in the funerary procession to Tutankhamun's tomb. Its value is the insight it provides to the ancient culture of Egypt.

Theory:

In Assassin’s Creed, the mythology of the First Civilization is heavily inspired by Ancient Astronauts/Aliens theories, except for the fact that the First Civilization evolved on Earth and did not come from space.
Religious figures and miracles in the Assassin’s Creed lore are often explained by the fact that said prophet used a Piece of Eden to simulate the miracle itself or to lure the people into thinking that it actually happened.
Moses used a Piece of Eden to simulate the Splitting of the Red Sea, and to turn staves into snakes, Jesus Christ use a Piece of Eden to turn water to wine..etc.

The Ark of the Covenant was first witnessed in the Solomon Temple, by Altair, who claimed that it’s just a story, and there’s no such thing. And that was before Altair found the Apple and used it to learn more about the First Civilization.

That’s the first and only time we’ve seen this object and according to various scriptures, was moved to various locations.

The Ark of the Covenant, in the biblical story and the Zohar, is a mysterious object that defies logical explanation, and it could very well be science that we cannot yet comprehend, and of course, for a primitive civilization at that time, of course seeing the effects and the powers of such a mysterious device will certainly be translated as magic and miracles.

Now, when you read the stories about the Ark, written above, you’ll certainly notice a lot of familiar names, locations and monuments that you’ve heard of before in the Assassin’s Creed franchise, and specifically the Templars, or the Knights Templar, the main antagonizing group to the Assassins. And those were the ones who took place and carrying the Ark and transporting it from and to one of it’s possible locations.

One of the known locations is Ethiopia, which, long ago, was the First Civilization city “Eden” (possibly their capital or the center of power and government). If the Ark had such boundless powers like the ability to create life with the Manna or destroy through seemingly Nuclear-like devastating explosions and radiation, so there must have been some sort of place that they wanted to store such device with immense power. Perhaps there’s some sort of First Civ. “Temple” where the Ark is stored in, in Ethiopia.

One of the other possible locations is the United Kingdom, where the upcoming Assassin’s Creed: Victory will take place.

So I can’t help but wonder whether this is the Piece of Eden that we’ll be searching for in AC:V. Abstergo said they’ll focus their resources on finding other artifacts than the Holy Grail, because they weren’t certain about it’s whereabouts and existence. So if we can exclude the Holy Grail from our possibilities, this could be what we’re looking for.

Another potential P.O.E. for AC Victory could be Excalibur, the Sword in the Stone, also known as The Sword of Eden, which we encountered in AC:Unity. In AC:U, we did not know much about where it came from or even if it will remain forever in Arno’s hands, and for all we know, there could be more than just one or perhaps the same Sword was somehow taken away from Arno and somehow found its way back to England. And it’s not new in Assassin’s Creed where we encounter a Piece of Eden more than once.

Could King Arthur possibly have been a Sage, hence he could be the only one to wield the sword, and we might somehow see him at the start of AC:Victory like how we saw Jacques De Molay in AC:U and centuries later, we encountered his reincarnation, Germain with Arno. Another possibility would be that King Arthur was perhaps someone like Desmond with high First Civ. DNA.

https://scontent-cdg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/l/t31.0-8/10974539_1556164874634954_5669680202951977016_o.jp g

Fatal-Feit
02-16-2015, 07:54 PM
Wow.

The Sword of Eden Saga. I dig it.

RA503
02-16-2015, 08:14 PM
Oh, finally a interesting tread,I have a theory about the holy grail, read this :http://www.computerandvideogames.com/175552/blog/assassins-creed-ending-explained/

read all the pages of this interview

They said that Subject 16 found the grail, and the grail was to be a main thing in Assassins Creed 2,but the plot is changed.

you know about that old history of the Holy Grail being a metaphor for a woman,dan brown says that was jesus possible wife.

unite the points and you see that in AC universe the Holy Grail is Eve.

Eve will be in AC victory like is hinted in dead kings...

My theory is that in AC 1 time the Holy Grail is mary magdalene, but thre plot is changed and become Eve...

RinoTheBouncer
02-16-2015, 08:29 PM
Wow.

The Sword of Eden Saga. I dig it.

Yeah. I mean since we knew next to nothing about the SOE in AC:U, so why not expand further, especially that the UK is Excalibur was.


Oh, finally a interesting tread,I have a theory about the holy grail, read this :http://www.computerandvideogames.com/175552/blog/assassins-creed-ending-explained/

read all the pages of this interview

They said that Subject 16 found the grail, and the grail was to be a main thing in Assassins Creed 2,but the plot is changed.

you know about that old history of the Holy Grail being a metaphor for a woman,dan brown says that was jesus possible wife.

unite the points and you see that in AC universe the Holy Grail is Eve.

Eve will be in AC victory like is hinted in dead kings...

My theory is that in AC 1 time the Holy Grail is mary magdalene, but thre plot is changed and become Eve...

Oh... my... God.. I just had an Assassin-gasm reading this!
Now wouldn't that be epic if the Holy Grail turned out to be a person, perhaps something similar to The DaVinci Code story, where we eventually discover that somebody is the last surviving member of the Jesus Christ lineage..etc? that would be just WOW

wvstolzing
02-16-2015, 08:37 PM
My theory is that in AC 1 time the Holy Grail is mary magdalene, but thre plot is changed and become Eve...

I really doubt that that was the case. Granted, the 'Mary Magdalene as the Grail' crackpot-theory is older than Dan Brown (though apparently a 20th-century concoction altogether); but they wouldn't borrow that obvious an element from the bestselling thingy of the day. It would be like releasing a sorcery-themed game about a kid wizard named Harvey Pitter that takes place in Hogwash Academy.



Chartres Cathedral, France
French author Louis Charpentier claimed that the Ark was taken to Chartres Cathedral by the Knights Templar.

Rennes-le-Château, then to the United States

Several recent authors have theorised that the Ark was taken from Jerusalem to the village of Rennes-le-Château in Southern France. Karen Ralls has cited Freemason Patrick Byrne, who believes the Ark was moved from Rennes-le-Château at the outbreak of World War I to the United States.

It's interesting that they've never used those aspects of the real-life Knights Templar mythos & the collection of crackpot theories. One such theory is that the original 'Poor Knights of Christ' on a mission ostensibly fo protect Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, actually had the hidden agenda of making excavations at the site of Solomon's Temple, and actually found the Ark there. The 'Ark', in turn, was supposedly a high-tech power source of some sort, nicked from the Great Pyramid by none other than Moses himself. So when they returned to France, they became rich and influential thanks to the device (doing what, I wonder? Setting up charging stations for people's mobile phones?), etc., etc. Though maybe the 'power sources' that we collect in AC3 is a nod to that crackpot theory.

... Speaking of crackpot theories, it's interesting that you bring up Graham Hancock, a self-confessed pothead who was in the 'alternative history' business until recently. Nowadays he campaigns for the 'loving and responsible use of psychedelics', and the 'spiritual' dimensions of drug use. He's been a proponent of an Atlantis/Mother Civilization 'theory', and in vehement opposition to 'ancient aliens' people. I think AC borrows a lot more from *his* work, compared to the 'ancient aliens' people. From the latter they adopt the idea of humanity as 'genetically engineered workforce', but that's about it. The rest comes from the Atlantis crack-heads. In one of AC4's Abstergo documents (those on the floating tablet), there was a reference to 'the Fingerprints of Those Who Came Before' -- I think that's an obvious nod to Graham Hancock's bestseller, 'Fingerprints of the Gods'.

king-hailz
02-16-2015, 08:37 PM
Eve will be in AC victory like is hinted in dead kings.

When was This?

Also as much as it would be cool if this happened... They are trying to get rid of this kinda stuff so I doubt it will happen... or it could happen and we get a sentence every game and it carried on for about 10 years...

GunnerGalactico
02-16-2015, 09:05 PM
Another potential P.O.E. for AC Victory could be Excalibur, the Sword in the Stone, also known as The Sword of Eden, which we encountered in AC:Unity. In AC:U, we did not know much about where it came from or even if it will remain forever in Arno’s hands, and for all we know, there could be more than just one or perhaps the same Sword was somehow taken away from Arno and somehow found its way back to England. And it’s not new in Assassin’s Creed where we encounter a Piece of Eden more than once

I've been wanting to suggest this for a really long time. :D

We might at least see a reference of this in ACV.

Namikaze_17
02-16-2015, 09:17 PM
Don't forget the Koh-i-Noor guys.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor

"Dalhousie arranged that the diamond be presented by Maharaja Ranjīt Singh's young successor, Dulīp Singh, to Queen Victoria in 1850."

"Dulīp Singh was the youngest son of Ranjīt Singh and his fifth wife Maharani Jind Kaur. Dulīp, aged 13, travelled to the United Kingdom to present the jewel. The presentation of the Koh-i-Noor and the Timur ruby to Queen Victoria."

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Koh-i-Noor



Like what Rino theorized, it also has a strong possibility of being in Victory.

But I do like the sound of a "Sword of Eden" saga along with a possible connection between Arno & Sam.

But atlas, nice theory mate. ;)

GunnerGalactico
02-16-2015, 09:26 PM
Don't forget the Koh-i-Noor guys.

Haven't forgotten about Kohi-i-Noor. Golden did talk about it in detail in his thread.

Namikaze_17
02-16-2015, 09:50 PM
Haven't forgotten about Kohi-i-Noor. Golden did talk about it in detail in his thread.

Really?

I gotta look back I guess. :confused:

The Victory speculation one right?


EDIT: Oh, in ACHUB.

Hate that place. :rolleyes:

VestigialLlama4
02-16-2015, 10:00 PM
Don't forget the Koh-i-Noor guys.

Nobody here has read ASSASSIN'S CREED: BRAHMAN, where the Koh-I-Noor plays a major part. According to that book, which Rogue confirms is canon, the diamond in the Crown Jewels is a fake, and the real one is a powerful peace-of-eden that's currently missing.

However, there is one diamond that can play a role. The Hope Diamond, currently in the Smithsonian Museum. The real-life Hope Diamond was part of the French Royal Jewels which went missing during the Revolution and ended up in 19th Century London in the possession of a businessman called Henry Philip Hope and his family. So it has a connection to UNITY they can take forward, alread foreshadowed diamonds via BRAHMAN (and the Hope Diamond was cut from the same mine from which the Koh-I-Noor was cut).

Namikaze_17
02-16-2015, 10:18 PM
Nobody here has read ASSASSIN'S CREED: BRAHMAN, where the Koh-I-Noor plays a major part. According to that book, which Rogue confirms is canon, the diamond in the Crown Jewels is a fake, and the real one is a powerful peace-of-eden that's currently missing.

Joan of Arc had the Sword of Eden that most people thought would never be seen. Then Unity happened.

Who says the same can't happen for the Koh-i-Noor? Its pieces were shattered, yes, but they still had enough power inside them.

But like others, I haven't read much of Brahman myself. Maybe Rino is more informative to this.



However, there is one diamond that can play a role. The Hope Diamond, currently in the Smithsonian Museum. The real-life Hope Diamond was part of the French Royal Jewels which went missing during the Revolution and ended up in 19th Century London in the possession of a businessman called Henry Philip Hope and his family. So it has a connection to UNITY they can take forward, alread foreshadowed diamonds via BRAHMAN (and the Hope Diamond was cut from the same mine from which the Koh-I-Noor was cut).

I like the sound of that.

Maybe that'll be the "Koh-I-Noor" instead?

We'll see. ;)

Bleem7
02-16-2015, 11:09 PM
Another potential P.O.E. for AC Victory could be Excalibur, the Sword in the Stone, also known as The Sword of Eden, which we encountered in AC:Unity. In AC:U, we did not know much about where it came from or even if it will remain forever in Arno’s hands, and for all we know, there could be more than just one or perhaps the same Sword was somehow taken away from Arno and somehow found its way back to England. And it’s not new in Assassin’s Creed where we encounter a Piece of Eden more than once.
I've really been waiting for this kind of thing to happen. But if I recall correctly, isn't the Excalibur a whole different sword, not the one in the stone? I think Arthur got it from some woman in the lake.

...umm that sounded weird

wvstolzing
02-16-2015, 11:35 PM
Joan of Arc had the Sword of Eden that most people thought would never be seen. Then Unity happened.

aaand, the sword was nothing more than a cameo, if not an easter-egg for the 'initiated' (ugh!)

Sure, other artifacts may show up, and figures from the canon may be name-dropped -- but from this point onwards, their purpose is nothing more than 'dressing'. Brand identity requires that there be a few stable elements, and those elements will be 'sprinkled' in the game as necessary: But neither the player character, nor any of the NPCs will have thoughts, beliefs, desires, etc., etc., related to any of them.

So as much as I'd like to speculate about what mystery/conspiracy elements might show up in the next game, I *really* have no expectations this time around. I can only hope Victory will prove me wrong, of course; and I really do.

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 01:09 AM
aaand, the sword was nothing more than a cameo, if not an easter-egg for the 'initiated' (ugh!)

Sure, other artifacts may show up, and figures from the canon may be name-dropped -- but from this point onwards, their purpose is nothing more than 'dressing'. Brand identity requires that there be a few stable elements, and those elements will be 'sprinkled' in the game as necessary: But neither the player character, nor any of the NPCs will have thoughts, beliefs, desires, etc., etc., related to any of them.

So as much as I'd like to speculate about what mystery/conspiracy elements might show up in the next game, I *really* have no expectations this time around. I can only hope Victory will prove me wrong, of course; and I really do.

I understand friend...

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 01:28 AM
Ah, so much thought to this theory but my sucky english comprehension prevents me from understanding it.

Can someone give me a brief summary?

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 01:33 AM
Ah, so much thought to this theory but my sucky english comprehension prevents me from understanding it.

Can someone give me a brief summary?

Basically another sword of Eden could be in Victory which could be Arno's or a different sword altogether.

Thus making it a "Sword of Eden" saga in a way.


Another potential P.O.E. for AC Victory could be Excalibur, the Sword in the Stone, also known as The Sword of Eden, which we encountered in AC:Unity. In AC:U, we did not know much about where it came from or even if it will remain forever in Arno’s hands, and for all we know, there could be more than just one or perhaps the same Sword was somehow taken away from Arno and somehow found its way back to England. And it’s not new in Assassin’s Creed where we encounter a Piece of Eden more than once.

Could King Arthur possibly have been a Sage, hence he could be the only one to wield the sword, and we might somehow see him at the start of AC:Victory like how we saw Jacques De Molay in AC:U and centuries later, we encountered his reincarnation, Germain with Arno. Another possibility would be that King Arthur was perhaps someone like Desmond with high First Civ. DNA.

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 01:36 AM
Basically another sword of Eden could be in Victory which could be Arno's or a different sword altogether.

Thus making it a "Sword of Eden" saga in a way.

Ah, thank you.

I don't really care about the swords though. All they seem to do is shoot lightning. Slow down there, Thor.

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 01:41 AM
Ah, thank you.

I don't really care about the swords though. All they seem to do is shoot lightning. Slow down there, Thor.

lol

But yeah, it does seem pretty basic for a POE.

I prefer the Koh-I-Noor for its power is very destructive and can destroy other POE's as well.
( A new first civ member was also said to come from it. ;))

Plus it's new and sounds interesting.

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 01:53 AM
I want to see those PoE that bring back the dead temporarily or fully heals the near-dead.

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 02:03 AM
I want to see those PoE that bring back the dead temporarily or fully heals the near-dead.


The Ankh right?

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 02:04 AM
Yeah. That one will likely be in the Egypt game.

wvstolzing
02-17-2015, 02:17 AM
Wasn't the Ankh simply a hologram recording device?

The 'resurrection' device was the Shroud, used by Brutus's allies at Philippi, and Jesus; later winding up in Monteriggioni.

Jexx21
02-17-2015, 02:20 AM
no the resurrection device was the coffee cup of JK Simmons

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 02:21 AM
Yeah. That one will likely be in the Egypt game.

Yeah, it probably would make sense.

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 02:23 AM
Wasn't the Ankh simply a hologram recording device?

The 'resurrection' device was the Shroud, used by Brutus's allies at Philippi, and Jesus; later winding up in Monteriggioni.

IIRC the shroud heals the near dead and the ankh brings back the dead for a day. too lazy to wiki tho

Jexx21
02-17-2015, 02:23 AM
egypt is actually on the moon and the assassins have a base in the water

Altair1789
02-17-2015, 06:33 AM
Very nice research, Rino. I hope we get stuff related this in Victory, but who knows

The_Kiwi_
02-17-2015, 08:45 AM
This sounds amazing

I wonder if it was a smart move to put Biblical accounts in the same field as Saxon legend though

In any case, I hope this proves true

killzab
02-17-2015, 10:33 AM
Stop speculating guys... you'll just end up disappointed....

I've learned this the hard way...

Megas_Doux
02-17-2015, 03:47 PM
The holy grail has been debunked by Abstergo...


Stop speculating guys... you'll just end up disappointed....

I've learned this the hard way...

And this!

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 04:15 PM
Stop speculating guys... you'll just end up disappointed....

I've learned this the hard way...

Wise words never been so true.

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 04:57 PM
Such pessimism only makes it worse. :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 04:59 PM
Such pessimism only makes it worse. :rolleyes:

Not when your pessimism has been proven justified via poor release, thus saving yourself from disappointment.

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 05:12 PM
Not when your pessimism has been proven justified via poor release, thus saving yourself from disappointment.

I guess. But you may never know when something may surprise you.

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 05:14 PM
I guess. But you may never know when something may surprise you.

Doesn't mean I'm not open to surprises.

I found the black box gameplay of Unity surprisingly delightful.

But I refuse to vocalize it until Ubi gets their heads out of the clouds and drop anti-consumer nonsense and also put some heart into their overarching story

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 05:22 PM
Doesn't mean I'm not open to surprises.

I found the black box gameplay of Unity surprisingly delightful.

But I refuse to vocalize it until Ubi gets their heads out of the clouds and drop anti-consumer nonsense and also put some heart into their overarching story

I never said you weren't and that's good.

I just hate people expecting the worse in something when you may never know what might happen.

It's this mentality that keeps people unhappy and me not chatting here as much because of the pessimism.

But I agree with you ofc.

GunnerGalactico
02-17-2015, 05:22 PM
Well... a little speculation never killed anybody. Just saying :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 05:24 PM
I just hate people expecting the worse in something when you may never know what may happen.

It's this mentality that keeps people unhappy and me not chatting here as much because of the pessimism.


Eh, opposite for me.

When I have high hopes and things turn out bad, I'm crushed.

So I rather just expect the worse to save my suffering in exchange for little to look forward to.

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 05:27 PM
Eh, opposite for me.

When I have high hopes and things turn out bad, I'm crushed.

So I rather just expect the worse to save my suffering in exchange for little to look forward to.


Yeah, I really wasn't talking about you entirely, just the community as a whole at the moment.

But I rather not delve into that here.

GunnerGalactico
02-17-2015, 05:33 PM
When I have high hopes and things turn out bad, I'm crushed.

I don't really blame you for feeling that way. A bit after AC3 and Unity, I now know better than to have high expectations before a game release.

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 05:36 PM
I never had/have hype or high expectations for any game.

Not because I'm cynical or anything, I just don't.

How this happens to a lot of people is foreign to me...

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 05:38 PM
Yeah I ignore the hype.

I'm never hyped for a game unless I happen to see something gameplay or story wise that personally interests me greatly.

If a game tries to be like "omigod look at this, thisll be the best thing since sliced bread" i tend to raise suspicion.

GunnerGalactico
02-17-2015, 05:49 PM
I never had/have hype or high expectations for any game.

Not because I'm cynical or anything, I just don't.

How this happens to a lot of people is foreign to me...

Me neither. I don't get over-hyped or too excited, I just try to be enthusiastic and hopefully I might be pleasantly surprised.

Megas_Doux
02-17-2015, 05:56 PM
God of War III raised my hype out of the charts and even though it ended up being a good game, it disappointed me. I had pretty high expectations of AC III despite I thought the setting was the dullest thing ever. However the quality of the trailers and the overall marketing made up for it and I dont have to repeat myself after having only TWO or three at best, open assassinations, an entire linear sequence and the most cringe worthy "infiltration" mission EVER in the likes of the abstergo one...

I will follow any news closely as I did with Unity but I just wont give up to the hype. I might get like that once the annual releases are done, but that WONT happen.

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 06:00 PM
Me neither. I don't get over-hyped or too excited, I just try to be enthusiastic and hopefully I might be pleasantly surprised.

This is me as well. :)


@Mega

Yeah, I can understand.

Can't deny how tempting AC marketing can be.

Overall I think Unity is decent, but its E3 trailer is phenomenal!

Shahkulu101
02-17-2015, 06:05 PM
I follow all the news but just keep my expectations in check. I'm neither cynical nor totally optimistic, so whether or not the title delivers or is disappointing I'm really not that bothered.

The way I see it, it IS just a game after all - I don't want to waste my energy. What annoys me is advertising things in the game that may or may not be in the final game. Sure, development is subject to change, which is exactly why you should never hype up features you aren't totally sure will be included in the final release. I'm looking at you, AC3. Frozen lakes my arse.

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 06:08 PM
Glad I wasnt around during AC3 ads.

Would be pissed if frozen lakes and canoes werent there.

If they do a remastered version 100,000 years from now, they should add those in.

aL_____eX
02-17-2015, 06:09 PM
I'm always the first one to hop on the hype train. I got used to the disappointment and negativity all over the forums short after release. :rolleyes:

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 06:10 PM
I'm neither cynical nor totally optimistic, so whether or not the title delivers or is disappointing I'm really not that bothered.

This is me also.

GunnerGalactico
02-17-2015, 06:12 PM
Glad I wasnt around during AC3 ads.

Would be pissed if frozen lakes and canoes werent there.

If they do a remastered version 100,000 years from now, they should add those in.

That's precisely why I'm pissed. It had so much potential but....

*SMH*

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 06:13 PM
Don't forget the camps. :rolleyes:



http://youtu.be/gZrklEy9ohQ


2:32

GunnerGalactico
02-17-2015, 06:15 PM
^ And the health bar on the Frontier gameplay footage looked so much better. :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 06:16 PM
I'm always the first one to hop on the hype train. I got used to the disappointment and negativity all over the forums short after release. :rolleyes:

AC's hype train

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4NUsZkyngJE/UfFzcA150pI/AAAAAAAAN7k/VPQfrI8fDYQ/s1600/Spain-train-crash.gif

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 06:19 PM
^ And the health bar on the Frontier gameplay footage looked so much better. :rolleyes:

Hmm...I guess.

Its hard to tell it's a health bar to me. :rolleyes:

Shahkulu101
02-17-2015, 06:21 PM
AC's hype train

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4NUsZkyngJE/UfFzcA150pI/AAAAAAAAN7k/VPQfrI8fDYQ/s1600/Spain-train-crash.gif

Also representative of this thread.

GunnerGalactico
02-17-2015, 06:23 PM
http://youtu.be/gZrklEy9ohQ


2:32

That video always makes me think what could've been....

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 06:29 PM
Also representative of this thread.

I was gonna say that. :rolleyes:

But yeah, it's most likely the Sword or the Koh-I-Noor guys.


@Gunner

I don't cry and wonder what might've been.

Neither should you. :rolleyes:

GunnerGalactico
02-17-2015, 06:53 PM
@Gunner

I don't cry and wonder what might've been.

Neither should you. :rolleyes:

Don't worry, I'm kinda over that :rolleyes:

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 06:57 PM
Don't worry, I'm kinda over that :rolleyes:

Well...good. :rolleyes:

RinoTheBouncer
02-17-2015, 09:04 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I don't see what's wrong with ACIII.

Everyone's complaining about the gameplay and the lack of ambient music or the stuff that didn't make it to the final cut, but the game on its own was pure perfection. Even the lack of ambient music made the frontiers feel so alive, and the cities too. I love the ambient music in ACR and the others, but there was a different and new taste in ACIII.

People also complained about the naivete or the coldness of Connor, while in reality, that was one of the original aspects of the game. It's a story about a new type of character. He doesn't always have to be the cool, funny and likable guy. Different kinds of people can be fighters, make a difference and can be worth having their stories told.

The game was part of the overarching story, it had a lore, it had modern day and first civ. elements. To me, give me a game with all those stuff, and even if it doesn't have any new gameplay mechanics, hell even if it was an interactive movie/adventure game like Heavy Rain or Beyond: Two Souls and I'll warmly welcome it.

The ONLY thing that ruined ACIII for me was the ending. That's all. Change the ending and I'll give it 12/10 not 10/10. With all honesty and all respect to the makers of all AC games, I prefer ACIII over the games that followed. Yes, The Ezio Trilogy for me is No.1 and always will be, but ACIII is never as bad as people make it sound like. I know it had the potential to be a lot better, but it was still good enough. Maybe it's just because I love the lore so much and it was the last game that dives that deep into it.

Namikaze_17
02-17-2015, 09:15 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I don't see what's wrong with ACIII.

Everyone's complaining about the gameplay and the lack of ambient music or the stuff that didn't make it to the final cut, but the game on its own was pure perfection. Even the lack of ambient music made the frontiers feel so alive, and the cities too. I love the ambient music in ACR and the others, but there was a different and new taste in ACIII.

People also complained about the naivete or the coldness of Connor, while in reality, that was one of the original aspects of the game. It's a story about a new type of character. He doesn't always have to be the cool, funny and likable guy. Different kinds of people can be fighters, make a difference and can be worth having their stories told.

The game was part of the overarching story, it had a lore, it had modern day and first civ. elements. To me, give me a game with all those stuff, and even if it doesn't have any new gameplay mechanics, hell even if it was an interactive movie/adventure game like Heavy Rain or Beyond: Two Souls and I'll warmly welcome it.

The ONLY thing that ruined ACIII for me was the ending. That's all. Change the ending and I'll give it 12/10 not 10/10. With all honesty and all respect to the makers of all AC games, I prefer ACIII over the games that followed. Yes, The Ezio Trilogy for me is No.1 and always will be, but ACIII is never as bad as people make it sound like. I know it had the potential to be a lot better, but it was still good enough. Maybe it's just because I love the lore so much and it was the last game that dives that deep into it.

Oh, I agree.

I just think everyone was saying how those "promises" would've enhanced the experience.

But like you, I enjoyed it regardless.

SpiritOfNevaeh
02-17-2015, 09:28 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I don't see what's wrong with ACIII.

Everyone's complaining about the gameplay and the lack of ambient music or the stuff that didn't make it to the final cut, but the game on its own was pure perfection. Even the lack of ambient music made the frontiers feel so alive, and the cities too. I love the ambient music in ACR and the others, but there was a different and new taste in ACIII.

People also complained about the naivete or the coldness of Connor, while in reality, that was one of the original aspects of the game. It's a story about a new type of character. He doesn't always have to be the cool, funny and likable guy. Different kinds of people can be fighters, make a difference and can be worth having their stories told.

The game was part of the overarching story, it had a lore, it had modern day and first civ. elements. To me, give me a game with all those stuff, and even if it doesn't have any new gameplay mechanics, hell even if it was an interactive movie/adventure game like Heavy Rain or Beyond: Two Souls and I'll warmly welcome it.

The ONLY thing that ruined ACIII for me was the ending. That's all. Change the ending and I'll give it 12/10 not 10/10. With all honesty and all respect to the makers of all AC games, I prefer ACIII over the games that followed. Yes, The Ezio Trilogy for me is No.1 and always will be, but ACIII is never as bad as people make it sound like. I know it had the potential to be a lot better, but it was still good enough. Maybe it's just because I love the lore so much and it was the last game that dives that deep into it.

Yet again, taking the words out of my mouth :)

GunnerGalactico
02-17-2015, 09:41 PM
^ I still like AC3 nonetheless. If it did contain what was promised and was less linear, I would've simply loved the game even more.

RinoTheBouncer
02-17-2015, 11:05 PM
Oh, I agree.

I just think everyone was saying how those "promises" would've enhanced the experience.

But like you, I enjoyed it regardless.

Yeah. I agree. I just think that the lore in the Desmond Saga could justify almost every gameplay or graphical flaw in it.


Yet again, taking the words out of my mouth :)

Great minds think like :cool:


^ I still like AC3 nonetheless. If it did contain what was promised and was less linear, I would've simply loved the game even more.

To be quite honest, I loved the linearity because ACUnity felt way too open for its own good, especially with side missions which are all open from the get-go, it's like there's no regard to which happened before which. I do admit that stuff that like that happened in ACIII as well with stuff that happened before Achilles' death showing up even after his death. But I guess I prefer when the world is open but the story still feels cohesive enough to keep you engaged, going from one "!" to another.

Perhaps it's because I'm so into AC BECAUSE OF the story rather than anything else.

Hans684
02-17-2015, 11:07 PM
I didn't expect a thing from Unity and got nothing and worse. So I'll Exocet nothing and worse from Victory. The only thing Unity deserves something for is gameplay.

RinoTheBouncer
02-17-2015, 11:09 PM
I didn't expect a thing from Unity and got nothing and worse. So I'll Exocet nothing and worse from Victory. The only thing Unity deserves something for is gameplay.

To be quite honest, I loved Arno, I loved Elise, I loved the premise and I loved the two together as a couple in addition to the gameplay. But her fate was SO UNNECESSARY AND CLICHÉ and the fact that Bishop said what she said in the end was the most unrewarding thing ever.

Hans684
02-17-2015, 11:24 PM
Perhaps it's because I'm so into AC BECAUSE OF the story rather than anything else.

Agree, people say that games is for fun and gameplay. My usual response is that the stories is fun, gameplay is vessel to me. A track meant to guide to the story. You can't have a train without tracks, just like you can't have tracks without trains. Gameplay is build upon the lore, the lore says what a franchise can and can't do but ignoring the lore would make the gameplay empty vessel. I'm not a fan of empty vessels.


To be quite honest, I loved Arno, I loved Elise, I loved the premise and I loved the two together as a couple in addition to the gameplay. But her fate was SO UNNECESSARY AND CLICHÉ and the fact that Bishop said what she said in the end was the most unrewarding thing ever.

I had a general idea of Arno's story alone but I never expected a reward. It was obvious after the confirmation of cutscene MD with "me", The premises was good as an idea but it got no reason to be. It's an empty vessel, Unity is a train without tracks. As for her death, the story was inspired by the movie with the lovers who kill themselves(don't remember the name), she's a Templar, it's a love story and it's AC standard to kill a few close to the protagonist. I loved Elise more than Arno. We also know that Abstergo relived Arno's memories so they know his life it's a waste of time.

Megas_Doux
02-17-2015, 11:27 PM
Liked Arno, dislike Unity´s story.
Dislike Connor and liked AC III´s story.

RinoTheBouncer
02-17-2015, 11:30 PM
Agree, people say that games is for fun and gameplay. My usual response is that the stories is fun, gameplay is vessel to me. A track meant to guide to the story. You can't have a train without tracks, just like you can't have tracks without trains. Gameplay is build upon the lore, the lore says what a franchise can and can't do but ignoring the lore would make the gameplay empty vessel. I'm not a fan of empty vessels.

Well for me, I can trade all these gameplay mechanics, side missions, multiplayer, co-op, many outfits and weapons and customizations, for a story that is as good as the Desmond Saga. For me, I don't need 100 weapons to enjoy game, nor do I need 300 collectibles on the map to enjoy a game nor do I need to change clothes and their colors a thousand times to call it good. I just need a proper lore and some decent gameplay like the classics were.

It's true that in video games, story and gameplay go hand in hand, but from what I can see, what's happening is more focus on side missions (which are a lot longer than the main missions in total) and multiplayer and online contents than the story itself, and to me that's an overkill because I loved the franchise for its lore, otherwise, I'd go play Call of Duty or Battlefield or Destiny or even GTA, where the story is the least of anyone's concerns.


I had a general idea of Arno's story alone but I never expected a reward. It was obvious after the confirmation of cutscene MD with "me", The premises was good as an idea but it got no reason to be. It's an empty vessel, Unity is a train without tracks. As for her death, the story was inspired by the movie with the lovers who kill themselves(don't remember the name), she's a Templar, it's a love story and it's AC standard to kill a few close to the protagonist. I loved Elise more than Arno. We also know that Abstergo relived Arno's memories so they know his life it's a waste of time.

Romeo and Juliet? I think had they died together, it would've been a lot better than the ending we got. I don't understand why anyone thinks that the only way to get a "deep" ending is by killing someone or making it sad. I mean Uncharted games are very successful and they always end with them smiling and walking towards the sunset. And forget all that, the fact that there's unity between an Assassin and a Templar gives a lot more interesting possibilities to go for than this typical cliché kind of conclusion.

Megas_Doux
02-17-2015, 11:32 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I don't see what's wrong with ACIII.
.

Being a gameplay oriented guy, quick thoughts about that game:

1 Boring setting for an AC game! I know that can be said about AC IV´s, but the latter did a MUCH BETTER job at it. The frontier although gorgeous, lacks that gritty atmosphere you could expect from an ongoing WAR, instead it looks and feels like my backyard. The cities are better in that regard, but even the developers admitted how poorly designed for parkour those were.

2 Super linear and not in a good way! Bare to none freedom at all to a point in which a huge percentage of the missions consists of going straight from point A to point B. Horrendous stuff in the likes of being Paul Revere´s personal chauffeur, giving orders from a horse and having an ENTIRE linear sequence and let alone assassinations, two or three open ones at best. The rest???? Quick time events and mediocre action oriented ones.

3 Combat and naval were really fun, though.

4 On the other hand I like the story, although Connor´s VA bores me, which prevents me from liking him, quite the opposite scenario of Arno and Unity, for instance. Then the modern part begins strong, but then fails apart thanks to the developers inexperience of including AC gameplay into the modern times, which leads into one of the most cringe worthy moments of the franchise: Infiltrating abstergo. Extra points for turning Daniel Cross, that super boss character of the comics, into a wuss. And let´s not mention Minerva´s sudden appearance out of NOWHERE to cause the climax of the story.

From my point of view, one game has what the other lacks and vice versa. Unity´s main story doesn´t feel like AC, the side stuff on the other hand, along the gameplay, do. AC III´s story is everything I would like for this franchise, but the gameplay screams "Warrior´s Creed" to me.

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 11:33 PM
Ac3 was relatively lackluster in terms of gameplay, I agree. AC3 was my first AC game and the automatic parkour was a disappointment and auto-win combat was a bore.

RinoTheBouncer
02-17-2015, 11:40 PM
Being a gameplay oriented guy, quick thoughts about that game:

1 Boring setting for an AC game! I know that can be said about AC IV´s, but the latter did a MUCH BETTER job at it. The frontier although gorgeous, lacks that gritty atmosphere you could expect from an ongoing WAR, instead it looks and feels like my backyard. The cities are better in that regard, but even the developers admitted how poorly designed for parkour those were.

I felt the same at first, but then I got so immersed into the world. I loved the contrast between the beautiful nature and the seemingly troubled cities. I do think they needed bit more work, but I totally disagree about the cities being "bad for parkour". I mean if the city looks like that, do you want them to create a fictional city just so you can jump from one building to another? I wouldn't want that.

I'd like the games to go where the story wants not where it has more buildings to climb and roofs to run above. To me, it's all about the story and where it needs to go, and I think the "new world" was being hinted since ACII (the codex map) which is why I think going to NA was necessary, even if it didn't offer the same gameplay opportunities. It was just different.


2 Super linear and not in a good way! Bare to none freedom at all to a point in which a huge percentage of the missions consists of going straight from point A to point B. Horrendous stuff in the likes of being Paul Revere´s personal chauffeur, giving orders from a horse and having an ENTIRE linear sequence and let alone assassinations, two or three open ones at best. The rest???? Quick time events and mediocre action oriented ones.

I have to agree about these stuff being, boring, but then again, beating up civilians in ACII wasn't my idea of fun either, even though it's my No.1 AC game.


3 Combat and naval were really fun, though.

Not a big fan of naval, but it was fun while it lasted. I hated the demanding optional objectives, though.


4 On the other hand I like the story, although Connor´s VA bores me, which prevents me from liking him, quite the opposite scenario of Arno and Unity, for instance. Then the modern part begins strong, but then fails apart thanks to the developers inexperience of including AC gameplay into the modern times, which leads into one of the most cringe worthy moments of the franchise: Infiltrating abstergo. Extra points for turning Daniel Cross, that super boss character of the comics, into a wuss. And let´s not mention Minerva´s sudden appearance out of NOWHERE to cause the climax of the story.

I really don't understand what was there to hate about modern times. Infiltrating Abstergo was pretty cool, especially when Desmond hugged his dad. Though that's when the signs of rushing, evident in the ending began to show up. I hated Daniel Cross' death, but I loved how the modern day missions were a bit more diverse than before.


From my point of view, one game has what the other lacks and vice versa. Unity´s main story doesn´t feel like AC, the side stuff on the other hand, along the gameplay do. AC III´s story is everything I would like for this franchise, but the gameplay screams "Warrior´s Creed" to me.

Yeah. I think that's the part where our differences begin. I'm here for the lore, you're here for gameplay. If you make a non-open world, linear AC game like say The Last of Us, with a deep story I'd favor it over a game like Unity where the whole world is open and full of black box missions, and customization but no interconnected story and lore.

JustPlainQuirky
02-17-2015, 11:54 PM
Not a big fan of naval, but it was fun while it lasted. I hated the demanding optional objectives, though.

Naval is the one time I will concede regarding optional objectives.

They're outrageously hard as hell sometimes in black flag

Fatal-Feit
02-18-2015, 12:12 AM
Was expecting 8 pages of a thoughtful discussion regarding the SoE. Should have expected this, honestly.

JustPlainQuirky
02-18-2015, 12:14 AM
Was expecting 8 pages of a thoughtful discussion regarding the SoE. Should have expected this, honestly.

Sword of Eden itself isn't very compelling.

It just shoots lightning.

Unless Ubisoft pulls an apple of eden and makes it do 234923049230498 additional convenient things

RinoTheBouncer
02-18-2015, 12:16 AM
Naval is the one time I will concede regarding optional objectives.

They're outrageously hard as hell sometimes in black flag

I finished ACIV:BF 100%, some objectives were ridiculous and did not make sense. But I managed, eventually. And I'm not the kinda guy who goes for 100% in every game. I only happened to finish ACII and ACIV 100% but I just hated how some of them were totally illogical like skinning an alligator while tailing a boat like it's the highest priority and the least time consuming for him in real life.

But in ACIII, I ignored most side missions and optional objectives. ACIII is a flawed game, but to me, it's still a lot better than Rogue and Unity in terms of historical and overarching story, characters, and lore, and also better than ACIV in terms of modern day and first civ contents. I love Edward so damn much and had the game had Desmond or new 3rd person protagonist and MD gameplay on the same level as that of the Desmond Saga, it would've been my 2nd favorite after Ezio's trilogy, but sadly, that did not happen.

Fatal-Feit
02-18-2015, 12:36 AM
I finished ACIV:BF 100%, some objectives were ridiculous and did not make sense. But I managed, eventually. And I'm not the kinda guy who goes for 100% in every game. I only happened to finish ACII and ACIV 100% but I just hated how some of them were totally illogical like skinning an alligator while tailing a boat like it's the highest priority and the least time consuming for him in real life.

Would you take the challenge of completing every AC 100%? That includes Liberation.

RinoTheBouncer
02-18-2015, 03:58 PM
Would you take the challenge of completing every AC 100%? That includes Liberation.

I can do it, yes. However, to be quite honest, I really don't feel motivated at the moment. I mean I finished all the games (again) before the launch of Rogue and Unity, so I don't know if I wanna do them all over again, now. But maybe close to ACVictory?

Fatal-Feit
02-18-2015, 04:33 PM
I can do it, yes. However, to be quite honest, I really don't feel motivated at the moment. I mean I finished all the games (again) before the launch of Rogue and Unity, so I don't know if I wanna do them all over again, now. But maybe close to ACVictory?

You're always upset once you complete all of the games. If you put in the extra hours to enjoy the side content, that's more AC for you. You should skip the collectibles and do the ones that have story like warning the Assassins in Black Flag and the homestead missions in AC3.

Hans684
02-19-2015, 10:15 PM
Well for me, I can trade all these gameplay mechanics, side missions, multiplayer, co-op, many outfits and weapons and customizations, for a story that is as good as the Desmond Saga.

The Desmond Saga does have the most relevant stories, so I understand. The Kenway Saga may not have accomplished much but compared to Unity they're not that much filler as they used to. I expect a couple of years with useless and pointless games before we get the entire story back. Now we just have half of it and that half does nothing alone. I'd do the same for the story, it's what I play for.


For me, I don't need 100 weapons to enjoy game, nor do I need 300 collectibles on the map to enjoy a game nor do I need to change clothes and their colors a thousand times to call it good. I just need a proper lore and some decent gameplay like the classics were.

Agree.


It's true that in video games, story and gameplay go hand in hand, but from what I can see, what's happening is more focus on side missions (which are a lot longer than the main missions in total) and multiplayer and online contents than the story itself, and to me that's an overkill because I loved the franchise for its lore.

In terms of lore AC isn't limited to a specific design or gameplay. AC has everything since it's based on present day, history and myths/legends, AC has unlimited potential but Ubisoft don't have the guts to it and fans are to nostalgic to accept change. I'd take a Uncharted style AC, Splinter Cell style AC, Red Dead Redemption style AC, TellTale style AC and more. It could talk for days how much AC can be. It's just sad seeing the story Irrelevant, broken and potential thrown away.


Otherwise, I'd go play Call of Duty or Battlefield or Destiny or even GTA, where the story is the least of anyone's concerns.

I play all games for story, it's rear fir me to play for gameplay only. Never had interest in GTA, Destiny has no story and is online MP only with the entire game itself missing, BF: Healine us interesting but don't care for the rest and COD has some excellent stories(MW series and AW), decent stories(BO1 and WW) then the rest but COD fir me is also a relaxing game. Their easy.


Romeo and Juliet? I think had they died together, it would've been a lot better than the ending we got. I don't understand why anyone thinks that the only way to get a "deep" ending is by killing someone or making it sad.

Yes. I would have liked it better if she survived the blast but Dead Kings would be a bit different and a build up for a sequel with Napoleon as antagonist. She dies in the sequel fighting Napoleon instead because the blast from the SOE that made her less of a good fighter than she was(trivia: She's better than Arno, confirmed during marketing). And of course both stories would actually do something is tread of being pointless. Both Templars and Assassins could work together to fight Napoleon. So that game would be Unity, the French Revolution AC would have a different name.


I mean Uncharted games are very successful and they always end with them smiling and walking towards the sunset. And forget all that, the fact that there's unity between an Assassin and a Templar gives a lot more interesting possibilities to go for than this typical cliché kind of conclusion.

Agree. AC is having the Game Of Thrones effect, we know some or who that will die. We knew Elise would die after the first trailer she was in.