PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed 3: Plot question regarding protagonist Connor's internal drive.



avk111
02-26-2015, 07:28 AM
Good day community,


To reminisce on Connor's plight against the templars, I have been noticing that Conno's motives and internal drive shifted once he discovered Washington was the person behind the destruction of his village, however since he is the only official assassin member left its his duty to ensure justice and freedom to the nation, though it may have a downside effect on his main motive i.e. his native tribe.

Is that correct ?

pirate1802
02-26-2015, 09:56 AM
Yes, in this regards Connor is morbidly similar to my PC. Both have their internal drives shift around sometimes.

Farlander1991
02-26-2015, 10:32 AM
Good day community,


To reminisce on Connor's plight against the templars, I have been noticing that Conno's motives and internal drive shifted once he discovered Washington was the person behind the destruction of his village, however since he is the only official assassin member left its his duty to ensure justice and freedom to the nation, though it may have a downside effect on his main motive i.e. his native tribe.

Is that correct ?

Pretty much. Reveal about Washington and how Connor doesn't try to get his revenge is important cause it shows that Connor has become above revenge - he's about the greater good and his Assassin duties. And at the end he chased Charles Lee not because he wanted revenge, but because Charles was a Templar that threatened his goals and duties.

Hans684
02-26-2015, 11:50 AM
He also broke the truce and some time after that tried to have it again during his attack on the Templar stronghold with Haytham while looking for Charles.

Defalt221
02-26-2015, 12:39 PM
Pretty much. Reveal about Washington and how Connor doesn't try to get his revenge is important cause it shows that Connor has become above revenge - he's about the greater good and his Assassin duties. And at the end he chased Charles Lee not because he wanted revenge, but because Charles was a Templar that threatened his goals and duties.

Unlike Ezio who went through all those years and approached to Rodrigo and said: "I thought I was over this but I'm not."
Tries to kill him. Chokes him. Then says: "Killing you won't bring back muy family. Then moves on." Forgetting that Rodrigo is a Templar and must be killed. So,Ezio went along a bloody murder chain through all those years not for the brotherhood but for revenge? If so why spare Rodrigo? What? So he did all those things just to participate in a fist fight with the Pope? wow...

Also, WHERE IS CHARLES LEE?

VestigialLlama4
02-26-2015, 02:01 PM
To reminisce on Connor's plight against the templars, I have been noticing that Conno's motives and internal drive shifted once he discovered Washington was the person behind the destruction of his village, however since he is the only official assassin member left its his duty to ensure justice and freedom to the nation, though it may have a downside effect on his main motive i.e. his native tribe.

Is that correct ?

To be absolutely frank, the whole Washington-Connor rift always felt forced to me. Connor's own story right up to the Assassination of Pitcairn is coherent and makes a general sense, it parallels his gradual involvement in the Revolution and it works through the historical part. Once he goes to New York and meets Haytham the game pretty much takes a nosedive in terms of story and gameplay (the missions become far more linear after that) and it becomes this very forced late-act father-son story. The other thing is that they needed a dramatic break from Washington and the Revolution so they manufactured that moment by overdoing it, Washington attacking the village via the Sullivan Expedition is not enough, they have to make him the guy who ordered the first attack on the village for no reason as well.

Story-wise its fairly incoherent. I mean in real-life Washington was retired from commission around that time, and the game never really spells out that he did or did not order that attack, we have Haytham's word for it and Washington starts to protest but it doesn't come up after that. It also doesn't answer the question of what Charles Lee, Hickey and company were doing there in the village on the same day as the attack, and if they weren't involved in burning it, why they didn't save it especially since they know it was home to Haytham's ex-girlfriend. My feeling is that this twist came later in development and that originally Charles Lee was going to be a pure bad guy (and guilty of burning the village) with Haytham being misguided into trusting him (since the game's Charles Lee is essentially a crazy-eyed psycho with little personality) or really cynical about it.

For Connor, in terms of characterization and development, its essentially a moment of disillusionment. He realizes that his hope in the Revolution was misguided, his hope for reconciling with the Templars and his father is misguided; and that even his connection to the village is destroyed when he has to kill his childhood friend Kanento;kon. The only thing he has left is his purpose as an Assassin and the Homestead, which ends up becoming poor comfort for him. So despite the poor storytelling on the plot level, it works on the character level. It essentialy comes down to Connor choosing his daddies, ultimately he doesn't choose his biological father, or the father of the nation but the bitter old crusty and lonely Achilles.

The game's real story problems comes from Haytham since they sold themselves on the idea of Templars as maybe-sorta-but-not-quite good guys for AC3 without redefining the metaphorical conflict in any meaningful way.

VestigialLlama4
02-26-2015, 02:04 PM
So,Ezio went along a bloody murder chain through all those years not for the brotherhood but for revenge? If so why spare Rodrigo? What? So he did all those things just to participate in a fist fight with the Pope? wow...

Well, yeah, the whole point was that there was something more important than Assassins or Templars, the First Civilization message which Ezio recieves but doesn't understand. Rodrigo Borgia was no threat to the Assassins after that (it wasn't him who ordered the Monteriggioni attack, that was Cesare who would have attacked anyway).

Assassin_M
02-26-2015, 03:17 PM
It also doesn't answer the question of what Charles Lee, Hickey and company were doing there in the village on the same day as the attack
They werent in the village. Just close to it. They were looking for the precursor site.


and if they weren't involved in burning it, why they didn't save it especially since they know it was home to Haytham's ex-girlfriend.
Because they left after they knocked out Connor. They didnt linger. They didnt witness the actual burning.


Rodrigo Borgia was no threat to the Assassins after that.
Oh yes he was. Cesare had an army because Rodrigo was pope, his funds were directly from the pope, he had a french ally because Rodrigo was the pope. Everything Cesare had was because of Rodrigo. Ezio kept cutting and cutting in Rome and it set Cesare back, sure but Cesare went directly to Rodrigo asking for money. Had Rodrigo said yes, he would have had his funds, troops and command in no time but he refused. Rodrigo was the center of Papal power and no one can argue otherwise. Once he died, Cesare's power died.

Llama, no

ze_topazio
02-26-2015, 03:30 PM
Ezio didn't knew about Cesare though.

Assassin_M
02-26-2015, 03:33 PM
Ezio didn't knew about Cesare though.
No excuse. It's not exactly secret what Cesare was doing or who he was.

"imma *** in and take-a your home-aaa"

EDIT: ahhh drats, that's censored.

ze_topazio
02-26-2015, 03:47 PM
Ezio was being purposely kept ignorant by Mario and his allies, even before becoming the Pope, Rodrigo was already a super famous cardinal in Italy, he was even famous outside of Italy, there's no way the well informed Assassins didn't knew he lived in Rome, specially when Machiavelli lived there and was actually friends with the Borgia family, there's no way they took 20 years to discover his whereabouts, Mario was clearly keeping that information from Ezio, if Ezio by himself never heard any gossip whatsoever about the famous Rodrigo Borgia, chances of him hearing about the much less famous Cesare were even smaller.

Assassin_M
02-26-2015, 03:52 PM
Ezio was being purposely kept ignorant by Mario and his allies, even before becoming the Pope, Rodrigo was already a super famous cardinal in Italy, he was even famous outside of Italy, there's no way the well informed Assassins didn't knew he lived in Rome, specially when Machiavelli lived there and was actually friends with the Borgia family, there's no way they took 20 years to discover his whereabouts, Mario was clearly keeping that information from Ezio, if Ezio by himself never heard any gossip whatsoever about the famous Rodrigo Borgia, chances of him hearing about the much less famous Cesare were even smaller.
That's justifying game logic, though. It's so convenient that Ezio didn't know about Rodrigo. Is there anything that suggests Machiavelli purposely hiding that information?

Farlander1991
02-26-2015, 04:04 PM
Ezio knew he lived in Rome. He heard that from Rodrigo himself.

Assassin_M
02-26-2015, 04:05 PM
Ezio knew he lived in Rome. He heard that from Rodrigo himself.
There's that too.

ze_topazio
02-26-2015, 04:15 PM
The Assassins spent all those years training Ezio, however after a few months of training with Mario, Ezio already had all the necessary skills to infiltrate the Vatican if he wanted, but the Assassins kept secretly training him, not skills, but actually about what meant to be a member of the Assassin brotherhood, it's just a theory but I think Mario understood that making Ezio forget his revenge and embrace the Brotherhood ideals would have to be made gradually, and that's why they only gave him information gradually trough the years, culminating with the permission to finally go kill Rodrigo in 1499, those 10 or so years between Ezio ascension to master Assassin and Mario informing him of Rodrigo being elected the Pope seemed unnecessary and kind of a plot hole if I dare say.

It's pretty absurd that this took almost 20 years, that's my main problem with AC2 story, it was unnecessary to make this take so long, I do think that Ezio is a bit dense at times, but 20 years to learn was a bit too much.

Farlander1991
02-26-2015, 04:40 PM
Let's not forget that Ezio didn't want to kill just Rodrigo (heck, initially he thought his revenge ended with Uberto and that's it), he wanted to kill EVERYBODY responsible. Ezio knew where to find Rodrigo all along, after all he was repeating 'I'm going back to Roma, I'm going back to Roma, I'm going back to Roma', like, every time Ezio saw him, so if it were just about Rodrigo Ezio would be, 'ok, going to Roma'. But there was also the fact that there were the Pazzi Templars in Florence and their friends in Venice, Ezio wanted to kill them too :p Though by the time he learned about Templars from Venice his motivation was already more of a mix of the revenge and assassin duty motivation, I think.

ze_topazio
02-26-2015, 04:44 PM
In that case he should have killed Rodrigo first, with the grandmaster dead the others would have drop like flies.

JustPlainQuirky
02-26-2015, 04:46 PM
Connor had no real reason to prioritize the brotherhood ideals over his tribe

it's like the one thing that bugs me about his character

im glad he got screwed over because of it at least

Farlander1991
02-26-2015, 05:03 PM
In that case he should have killed Rodrigo first, with the grandmaster dead the others would have drop like flies.

Would they, though? They might become more hard to find and kill and achieve revenge (as they might become less active) or if they're organized then they'd continue doing what they were doing or somebody from the more ambitious members of the Order would take the mantle of the leader and they'd continue their schemes.

ze_topazio
02-26-2015, 05:12 PM
We can only guess, this is just my theory but I got the impression that most of the Templars were just corrupt individuals that Rodrigo handpicked exactly because of how easy they were to control, more than proper members they seemed more like pawns being used by Rodrigo.

VestigialLlama4
02-26-2015, 07:15 PM
They werent in the village. Just close to it. They were looking for the precursor site.

That makes even less sense. As Haytham tells Connor in "The Foam and the Flames" mission (AC3)

Connor: Must be strange for you, discovering my existence as you have.
Haytham: I'm actually curious to know what your mother might have said about me. I always wondered what life might have been like had she and I stayed together. How is she, by the way?
Connor: Dead. Murdered.
Haytham: What? I am sorry to hear that.
Connor: Oh, you're sorry? I found my mother burning alive. I'll never forget her face as she sent me away. Charles Lee is responsible for her death by your order. And you're sorry?
Haytham: That's impossible. I gave no such order. I spoke the opposite, in fact – I told them to give up the search for the Precursor Site. We were to focus on more practical pursuits...
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/The_Foam_and_the_Flames


So again, Haytham either lies or acts surprised but he tells Connor he told Charles Lee and others to leave looking for Precursor Sites. So that still doesn't explain what Charles Lee and others did there. It's a huge plot hole and fake twist they introduced very poorly. And you know where is the Templar logic in interrogating and punching a 5 year old kid for information on Precursor sites? That never made any sense at all. The game is incoherent on the issue probably because the writers got tired of the revenge plot and tried to get out of it far too late but the game is still very much a revenge story only a confused and guilty one.


Because they left after they knocked out Connor. They didnt linger. They didnt witness the actual burning.

How do we know that they left? I mean there's not a great deal of time that passes and if they travelled normally, then they would have seen the flames. I mean how else did Haytham get the notion that George Washington ordered the attack, he had obviously been sitting on that information for a while.


Oh yes he was. Cesare had an army because Rodrigo was pope, his funds were directly from the pope, he had a french ally because Rodrigo was the pope. Everything Cesare had was because of Rodrigo. Ezio kept cutting and cutting in Rome and it set Cesare back, sure but Cesare went directly to Rodrigo asking for money. Had Rodrigo said yes, he would have had his funds, troops and command in no time but he refused. Rodrigo was the center of Papal power and no one can argue otherwise. Once he died, Cesare's power died.


BROTHERHOOD shows otherwise, Cesare had created an independent network within the Vatican, he had his own Banker and the French Ally was loyal to him. It was Ezio taking down that network that made Cesare cry to daddy and daddy decided that he's had enough of dealing with his son and decides to whack him far too

VestigialLlama4
02-26-2015, 07:27 PM
It's pretty absurd that this took almost 20 years, that's my main problem with AC2 story, it was unnecessary to make this take so long, I do think that Ezio is a bit dense at times, but 20 years to learn was a bit too much.

Ah for God's sake, the game is so much more simpler and clearer than you people are making it. Ezio's story in the game is pretty much about an outsider, a non-Assassin becoming an insider. He doesn't just want to avenge his father's deaths, he wants to find and understand why his father died, what his father's interest in the Codex pages was. The Assassin Brotherhood's main interest is the Piece of Eden and the Codex that's scattered across Italy, avenging Giovanni Auditore is second priority to Mario. Finding the Apple and getting into the Vault and keeping those relics away from Rodrigo and finding out what Altair's message is about, that's what they want.

As Ezio tells Rosa: " It's been over ten years since I watched my father and brothers die. Ten years hunting the men responsible. I'm so close to the end now, but....no closer to understand what any of it was for."

ze_topazio
02-26-2015, 07:34 PM
Don't get me wrong, because AC2 is my favorite and I agree that AC2 story is more deep than many people here make it sound.

Assassin_M
02-26-2015, 07:36 PM
That makes even less sense. As Haytham tells Connor in "The Foam and the Flames" mission (AC3)


So again, Haytham either lies or acts surprised but he tells Connor he told Charles Lee and others to leave looking for Precursor Sites. So that still doesn't explain what Charles Lee and others did there. It's a huge plot hole and fake twist they introduced very poorly. And you know where is the Templar logic in interrogating and punching a 5 year old kid for information on Precursor sites? That never made any sense at all. The game is incoherent on the issue probably because the writers got tired of the revenge plot and tried to get out of it far too late but the game is still very much a revenge story only a confused and guilty one.
He simply said that he didn't give an order to look for precursor sites. Not to mention that Rogue pretty much strongly implies that Haytham may have been lying, since the Templars WERE indeed working towards finding sites. That said, this could simply be a case of different views on the story. Haytham doesn't know exactly WHEN Ziio died.

And no, the game is not a revenge tale. Llama, no.


How do we know that they left? I mean there's not a great deal of time that passes and if they travelled normally, then they would have seen the flames. I mean how else did Haytham get the notion that George Washington ordered the attack, he had obviously been sitting on that information for a while.
Forsaken. The Templars gave up their search and left shortly after knocking Connor out. They found out about the burning because 3 of Haytham's men (Church, Lee and Hickey) were in the British army situated in the colonies.


BROTHERHOOD shows otherwise, Cesare had created an independent network within the Vatican, he had his own Banker and the French Ally was loyal to him. It was Ezio taking down that network that made Cesare cry to daddy and daddy decided that he's had enough of dealing with his son and decides to whack him far too
The banker's money was from Rodrigo, the french ally was an ally to the VATICAN, Cesare just happened to be the face there and he promised the Baron to have him take over Italy. Rodrigo was always the source for Cesare's everything. Since BEFORE Ezio took down his network, Cesare was gaining his funds straight from Rodrigo, as evident in the scene where he asks his sister to seduce Rodrigo and convince him to give Juan the funds required.

Assassin_M
02-26-2015, 07:38 PM
Ah for God's sake, the game is so much more simpler and clearer than you people are making it.
Ah for god's sake, AC III is so much simpler and clearer than you're making it.

VestigialLlama4
02-26-2015, 08:08 PM
He simply said that he didn't give an order to look for precursor sites. Not to mention that Rogue pretty much strongly implies that Haytham may have been lying, since the Templars WERE indeed working towards finding sites. That said, this could simply be a case of different views on the story. Haytham doesn't know exactly WHEN Ziio died.

There's the "A Few Good Men" logic here: If Haytham ordered the Templars not to look for the Precursor sites and Haytham is a Super-Templar, than why did Charles Lee ignore his orders? Or alternatively who ordered Charles Lee to look for something Haytham (as we see at the end of the final flashback tell them is a dead end)? What was Charles Lee doing there?

The whole issue of Charles Lee being present at the village but not responsible for burning it is a poorly handled plot resolution in the main game, its incoherent and lacks proper closure. And to me, that comes from either A) Poor Writing B) Last Minute Story/Lore change. Since Corey May wrote AC3 and hasn't written any title after that, I will assume that it's B and its a reason why he stopped.


And no, the game is not a revenge tale.

Well the Ezio games aren't entirely revenge tales either, but you won't accept that and revenge is definitely part of the plot. Connor is motivated by more things than revenge but revenge is certainly there. And it's not even for assuming he killed his mother, it's more because Charles Lee picked on him when he was big and he was small, called him a savage and he wanted to show him. That's very much part of AC3. Revenge is a theme of all the AC games except for AC1, Revelations and Black Flag.

In AC3, the game is very overwritten with a lot of contradictory elements. First they give Connor a revenge motive to find Lee, than a Crystal Ball message from Juno sends him to find Achilles because if the Templars find the Temple bad things will happen, then Connor gets involved in the American Revolution and becomes a Patriot. The motive on why Connor would be an Assassin is super-complicated. To add that they put in a late-act Father-Son story that makes the game super-linear. Darby McDevitt himself said that the AC3 writers made a huge mistake by removing the final Connor speech out of the game and removing the resolutions of the story in the game. I mean it's really hasty there.


Forsaken. The Templars gave up their search and left shortly after knocking Connor out. They found out about the burning because 3 of Haytham's men (Church, Lee and Hickey) were in the British army situated in the colonies.

So did they know of an impending attack and try to warn the village or did they decide to punch a five year old and go "Screw 'Em" because that makes them culpable anyway. For an attack on the village like that by an Army, as soldiers they should have known of formations or battalions of positions on the hillside, either they knew and didn't help and they're evil, or they didn't know and are really stupid and don't deserve to be in the army or the Templars. Again makes no sense.


The banker's money was from Rodrigo, the french ally was an ally to the VATICAN, Cesare just happened to be the face there and he promised the Baron to have him take over Italy. Rodrigo was always the source for Cesare's everything.

Again as Cesare states here:


Cesare: Forget the Pope, you answer only to me. Roma is the pillar that holds our entire enterprise aloft. She cannot waver. Which means neither can you.
Octavian: What of il Vaticano (The Vatican)?
Cesare: That tired old men's club? Play along for now, but soon we will have no need of them.
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Castello_Crasher


Octavien de Valois is clearly Cesare's man and not the Vatican's.

If Ezio had killed Rodrigo in the Vatican, than Cesare would have become the Next Pope since Borgia's influence and nepotism was pretty well established, and indeed that's what he tries to get other cardinals to do. I am talking of the Game's Borgia (not the real one). Ultimately it was Ezio taking down his support base in BROTHERHOOD, the Borgia Towers, the corrupted underbosses and so on that destroyed Cesare. Rodrigo Borgia was pretty much only interested in doing nothing at that point and he was against all of Cesare's plans of conquest. It was only when Cesare's resources and support got destroyed by Ezio, that Cesare had to come back to Rome to Rodrigo (this is actually the plot of the game).


Since BEFORE Ezio took down his network, Cesare was gaining his funds straight from Rodrigo, as evident in the scene where he asks his sister to seduce Rodrigo and convince him to give Juan the funds required

Did you actually take that seriously? Cesare was clearly telling Lucrezia BS to make her feel she's important. He doesn't take her seriously at all.

Fatal-Feit
02-26-2015, 08:13 PM
AC3 is Star Wars w/o the Luke-I-am-your-father scene.

SixKeys
02-26-2015, 08:15 PM
AC3 is Star Wars w/o the Luke-I-am-your-father scene.

Overrated and a worn-out joke?

Fatal-Feit
02-26-2015, 08:17 PM
I just want to say that once. My life is now complete.

Assassin_M
02-26-2015, 08:28 PM
There's the "A Few Good Men" logic here: If Haytham ordered the Templars not to look for the Precursor sites and Haytham is a Super-Templar, than why did Charles Lee ignore his orders? Or alternatively who ordered Charles Lee to look for something Haytham (as we see at the end of the final flashback tell them is a dead end)? What was Charles Lee doing there?

The whole issue of Charles Lee being present at the village but not responsible for burning it is a poorly handled plot resolution in the main game, its incoherent and lacks proper closure. And to me, that comes from either A) Poor Writing B) Last Minute Story/Lore change. Since Corey May wrote AC3 and hasn't written any title after that, I will assume that it's B and its a reason why he stopped.
Llama, no. Lee and co were not in the village when they found Connor. Secondly, Charles was an earnest man, he was simply trying to find what his leader failed to find. (there's still the possibility of lying. In Forsaken, Haytham does not chastise Lee for searching for precursor sites AND Rogue implies that Haytham was still in the business of searching for sites) As I said, the answers are RIGHT there for you, even if we ignore both forsaken and rogue. Lee was there looking for the Precursor site. That's done.

As for Corey, he "didnt stop writing", lol. He became the main overseer of the narrative of AC. pretty much every writer for the series goes to him with their stories. Your point is moot.



Well the Ezio games aren't entirely revenge tales either, but you won't accept that and revenge is definitely part of the plot. Connor is motivated by more things than revenge but revenge is certainly there. And it's not even for assuming he killed his mother, it's more because Charles Lee picked on him when he was big and he was small, called him a savage and he wanted to show him. That's very much part of AC3. Revenge is a theme of all the AC games except for AC1, Revelations and Black Flag.
It's not that i wont accept that, it's entirely subjective. The difference between you and I is that I don't put my opinion forth as a fact. That's what you fail to see. That's my WHOLE problem with you. i THINK that AC II is entirely about a botched revenge tale with a botched moral in the end. See the difference? Even in this very post, you're saying my opinion is wrong "you wont accept that".

As I said, nothing implies revenge with Connor. Revenge is payback. What Connor wanted was not payback. He was against a monster who threatened his people and viewed them as no more than animals.


In AC3, the game is very overwritten with a lot of contradictory elements. First they give Connor a revenge motive to find Lee, than a Crystal Ball message from Juno sends him to find Achilles because if the Templars find the Temple bad things will happen, then Connor gets involved in the American Revolution and becomes a Patriot. The motive on why Connor would be an Assassin is super-complicated. To add that they put in a late-act Father-Son story that makes the game super-linear. Darby McDevitt himself said that the AC3 writers made a huge mistake by removing the final Connor speech out of the game and removing the resolutions of the story in the game. I mean it's really hasty there.
Ah for god's sake, AC III is so much simpler and clearer than you're making it.




So did they know of an impending attack and try to warn the village or did they decide to punch a five year old and go "Screw 'Em" because that makes them culpable anyway. For an attack on the village like that by an Army, as soldiers they should have known of formations or battalions of positions on the hillside, either they knew and didn't help and they're evil, or they didn't know and are really stupid and don't deserve to be in the army or the Templars. Again makes no sense.
*sigh*, the found about it LATER. Why are you insisting on over-complicating it? Llama, no. They weren't part of George's unit. Apparently, the attack did not come from "higher command", so to speak. It's really simple.



If Ezio had killed Rodrigo in the Vatican, than Cesare would have become the Next Pope since Borgia's influence and nepotism was pretty well established, and indeed that's what he tries to get other cardinals to do. I am talking of the Game's Borgia (not the real one). Ultimately it was Ezio taking down his support base in BROTHERHOOD, the Borgia Towers, the corrupted underbosses and so on that destroyed Cesare. Rodrigo Borgia was pretty much only interested in doing nothing at that point and he was against all of Cesare's plans of conquest. It was only when Cesare's resources and support got destroyed by Ezio, that Cesare had to come back to Rome to Rodrigo (this is actually the plot of the game).
As I said, he's Cesare's man because of what he promised him. He first came to the Vatican AND THEN met Cesare, not the other way around, you miss that point. There's no indication that Cesare would have become Pope after Rodrigo's death.


Did you actually take that seriously? Cesare was clearly telling Lucrezia BS to make her feel she's important. He doesn't take her seriously at all.
BS? Did you play the game, Llama, or are you just wasting my time? Cesare came back to Rome at that time specifically to get more money and he DOES get it in the pagan party. So i don't know what "BS" you're talking about. Cesare is manipulating her, of course, he's using her to squeeze money out of Rodrigo.

"Oh hey, sis, can you get dad to give me money?"
"Okay..."

"Wow, Ces, you sure are the man"
"Shush, moron, i'm telling her BS"

Llama, no.

VestigialLlama4
02-27-2015, 07:58 PM
Llama, no. Lee and co were not in the village when they found Connor.

They were on a hill overlooking that village, where Connor was hiding from his little friends. They were on their way to the village for some unexplained purpose.


Secondly, Charles was an earnest man, he was simply trying to find what his leader failed to find.

An earnest man who disobyes a direct order from his leader and conducts independent research without any oversight, that's a curious definition of "earnest", I'd even consider that usurping and semi-treasonous.


(there's still the possibility of lying. In Forsaken, Haytham does not chastise Lee for searching for precursor sites AND Rogue implies that Haytham was still in the business of searching for sites) As I said, the answers are RIGHT there for you, even if we ignore both forsaken and rogue.

If the answers are there then why are you speculating on Charles Lee's motives? Why come up and cite subsidiary sequels to what is after all Connor's story. Obviously these are theories that come up because the game's plot and story is incoherent.


As for Corey, he "didnt stop writing", lol. He became the main overseer of the narrative of AC. pretty much every writer for the series goes to him with their stories. Your point is moot.

No it isn't, he hasn't written a single main title since III. He didn't write Black Flag nor did he write Unity (the writer is an outsider from the Fallout games), he's just an overseer or consultant and he has no input on the general titles.


As I said, nothing implies revenge with Connor. Revenge is payback. What Connor wanted was not payback. He was against a monster who threatened his people and viewed them as no more than animals.

That's pretty much revenge.


As I said, he's Cesare's man because of what he promised him. He first came to the Vatican AND THEN met Cesare, not the other way around, you miss that point. There's no indication that Cesare would have become Pope after Rodrigo's death.

Did you not see Cesare go and meet all the different Cardinals around Rome asking him to back him. He couldn't do so because Ezio had destroyed his network and influence completely in Rome. One of the Cardinals tells Cesare, "Borgia money has become tainted". So who tainted that, Ezio did. If Ezio had killed Rodrigo at the Vatican WITHOUT destroying the network than Cesare could have continued as before. That's what Brotherhood and all the discussions between Ezio and Machiavelli are about.


BS? Did you play the game, Llama, or are you just wasting my time?

Okay between us, who is the one citing transcripts of actual dialogues from in-game cutscene missions and who is the one disregarding that content to create odd tangents?

Assassin_M
02-27-2015, 08:41 PM
They were on a hill overlooking that village, where Connor was hiding from his little friends. They were on their way to the village for some unexplained purpose.

Distances are not to scale in the Frontier. Lexington andConcord are a few apart in the game. The frontier encompasses New Jersey, Massachusetts,and New York, so keep that in mind. Over the hill in the game could actually bea fair distance away.




An earnest man who disobyes a direct order from his leader and conducts independent research without any oversight, that's a curious definition of "earnest", I'd even consider that usurping and semi-treasonous.
Myleader was very driven to find a certain place or treasure. Letís say Iím ajunior programmer working under a senior programmer. My senior was attemptingto create an algorithm that allows for a certain cycle of weather in a game. Hewas certain that his theory could work, in that the cycle would not impededperformance. He tested it and found out that he was wrong, it doesnít work. Icontinue his research to try and find an algorithm that actually works. He toldme to focus on something else, I donít disregard that order, but on the side, Itry to find the algorithm. Am I committing treason, if this was on a largerscale? Am I disobeying orders? Do you see the fallacy in your logic?





If the answers are there then why are you speculating on Charles Lee's motives? Why come up and cite subsidiary sequels to what is after all Connor's story. Obviously these are theories that come up because the game's plot and story is incoherent.
Iímnot speculating his motive, Iím speculating Leeís character. Iím speculatingwhy he could have continued looking for precursor sites. He was there at thattime because he was looking for the grand temple. His motive was the grandtemple.





he has no input on the general titles.
Yes he does. ifyou follow Darby on twitter, youíd know.






That's pretty much revenge.
I disagree, it's not.




Did you not see Cesare go and meet all the different Cardinals around Rome asking him to back him. He couldn't do so because Ezio had destroyed his network and influence completely in Rome. One of the Cardinals tells Cesare, "Borgia money has become tainted". So who tainted that, Ezio did. If Ezio had killed Rodrigo at the Vatican WITHOUT destroying the network than Cesare could have continued as before. That's what Brotherhood and all the discussions between Ezio and Machiavelli are about.
OR,by a whim, the cardinals could be referring that because Rodrigo died, Borgiamoney became tainted because, you knowÖ.thereís not really an alternate takethat shows if Rodrigo died before Ezio destroyed the network what the Cardinalswould have said.





Okay between us, who is the one citing transcripts of actual dialogues from in-game cutscene missions and who is the one disregarding that content to create odd tangents?

Oh I can quote and I did bring up examples from the sourcematerial.
Itís funny you talk about disregard, when youíre the one who said my examplewith Cesare asking for money BEFORE Ezio ruined everything to be ďBSĒ