PDA

View Full Version : Why Don't People Like Assassin's Creed 3?



playlisting
03-02-2015, 06:34 PM
#3 is widely regarded as the low point of the series and I just can't understand why. Yes it takes a bit longer to get into the open world portion than the other ACs - but the missions leading up to it were enjoyable enough that I didn't really mind. And when you do get into the open world - wow! It's massive. Granted the cities aren't set up for parkour all that well - but thankfully they made fast travel much simpler because all you have to do is open your map and press OK on where you want to go. The frontier is actually quite relaxing. Listening to the streams flowing, birds chirping and leaves blowing not to mention listening to the frontiersmen's stories. The forts in the frontier offer up a nice change of pace too. Hunting I find is enjoyable. Watching your target from above waiting for the time to strike. The bow is a great addition too. Completely silent and one hit kills low tier enemies not to mention it feels so cool when you use it. Silently strangling enemies from above with the rope dart is good fun as well - hanging them up even more so. Connor might not be as exciting or flamboyant as Ezio but it makes sense with regards to where he's from. He's certainly the most agile assassin in the series and with that the most deadly. The naval missions are another high point. The ship feels weighty and powerful. It's a nice change of pace from the usual on foot stuff. The graphics are beautiful too even on consoles. I bought all the last gen games for Xbox 360 recently and am on AC 3 and I can't believe how good it looks. Very impressive what Ubi managed to achieve with the hardware.

So why is it that it's regarded as the low point?

veovis77
03-02-2015, 07:00 PM
I think a large part of it is that Connor just wasn't as engaging as Ezio. You need to be able to remain interested in a main character, otherwise the game will feel like a chore more than a game. Also, some of the sub-games were annoying, like the lockpicking (not good on a mouse / keyboard) and the over-reliance on QTEs (which should, in general, be banished to hell for all eternity as far as I'm concerned) made some things more frustrating than they should have been.

Altair1789
03-02-2015, 09:12 PM
I think it comes down to:

1. It wasn't complete in the eyes of many
2. Connor had huge shoes to fill
3. The setting

Personally I loved AC3 and I thought Connor was awesome. I guess too many people were used to Ezio

bclarg
03-02-2015, 10:13 PM
AC3 was my first AC game so I can't compare it to either I or II but I can tell you I absolutely LOVED AC3. I compared it to the Ghost Recon series in terms of exploring and game play. I feel AC3 provided a fantastic environment to move around as I pleased. I could pick off enemies as I chose. And once the game was "over" I could continue to thump mug! :-) I am now playing AC4.

PointyEBT
03-03-2015, 12:14 AM
1) Connor had as much personality as a plank of wood. Had his game come after AC1, it wouldn't have felt as bad, but Ezio was so charismatic, and was a character that was engaging to play. The contrast of Connor after three games of Ezio was just far too pronounced. Connor's STORY was intersting and rather tragic, but he just had zero charisma. I still haven't finished AC3 because of Connor. I'd prefer to be playing as Achilles or Haytham.

2) It felt unfinished. Ezio had a full three games to flesh out his story from becoming the assassin to how his life progessed. Connor's was squeezed into a single game. Even Altair had some elaboration on his original story with Revelations.

3) QTEs. Annoying enough in ANY case, that they would randomly pop up while you were happily walking down a path somewhere was extremely annoying, and they weren't fun to do. So glad they removed those in later games.

4) Lock picking. Did anyone even test the practicality of this for PC players before they ported it? I really don't think they did. Damn near impossible with keyboard and mouse. Suffice to say that unless required for a mission - those chests remained locked. The Unity model works much better (although it's still annoying when you have a lockpick chest behind a lockpick door, and even more so with it's an unlocked chest behind a lockpicked door). Edward was the most fun though, just stomping on them.

5) Homestead trading quests. Never figured these out. The tutorial didn't explain it properly and there didn't seem to be a way to get back into it once you'd 'passed' that level.

None of that is to say there wasn't anything good about the game. It introduced the different types of dart which were entertaining. The rope dart was awesome (why is this not still in game?), and the bow was a nice weapon that was different to what had gone before. Whistling to attract enemies was enormous fun as they got all confused about the noise, and then their friends got all confused about where their buddy had gone ('Kevin? Hey where's Kevin gone? Has anyone seen Kev.....Oh'). Again, why was the whistling removed from Unity?? The environment was beautiful to move around in and explore, and having TREES to climb was just awesome.

It was a beautiful game with some really nice features and play, that was ruined by a boring main character that it was hard to care about, and what felt like an incomplete storyline.

playlisting
03-03-2015, 12:30 AM
I think a large part of it is that Connor just wasn't as engaging as Ezio. You need to be able to remain interested in a main character, otherwise the game will feel like a chore more than a game. Also, some of the sub-games were annoying, like the lockpicking (not good on a mouse / keyboard) and the over-reliance on QTEs made some things more frustrating than they should have been.

I am still interested in Connor so perhaps that's why I'm enjoying the story as much as I am. I suppose his character is more controversial because of how he is (quiet, kind and naive). Some will like him some will not. Ezio on the other hand is liked by the entirety of the Assassin's Creed community (or so I assume) due to how he is (a charismatic, womanising, Italian badass). I love doing missions in the frontier because it feels like Connor is on his home ground. He knows the place like the back of his hands whereas everyone else is really out of their depth just as he is in the cities.



1. It wasn't complete in the eyes of many

In what way do you mean?


2. Connor had huge shoes to fill

No argument there however I think expecting a new protagonist to surpass Ezio was a bit much to ask for. We got to see his story right through from birth until his passing. Players had formed a connection with him. I don't really know what the community was expecting.


3. The setting

I like the setting. Navigating the cities is quite a hassle (just running gets you detected sometimes which is just plain silly) but I love spending time on the homestead or in the frontier. It is so relaxing. Plus doing missions for and forming a connection with those on the homestead is enjoyable too - even if the missions do come to... an unfortunate ending.

PointyEBT
03-03-2015, 12:47 AM
2. Connor had huge shoes to fill

No argument there however I think expecting a new protagonist to surpass Ezio was a bit much to ask for. We got to see his story right through from birth until his passing. Players had formed a connection with him. I don't really know what the community was expecting.

If they'd gone with Black Flag, it woudln't have been so jarring. He would have been a down-step from Ezio but not such a big one as Connor was. It would have followed the chronology with regard to Haytham, and would have made Desmond's 'Wait... what??' moment stand out more because of that. I'm trying so hard not to put spoilers in this because youv'e not said if you've played any newer games or know the story

VoldR
03-03-2015, 03:50 AM
I liked Connor and thinks he's acting his character... A native entering the world of the "civilised" people...

Also he did well in speaking in a foreign language. Imo, he's not suppose to be as charismatic as Ezio and will look weird if he acts and speaks like Ezio...

Young and clueless to the outside world with no schooling like Ezio might have had when he's not running on roof tops. All he had is an old geezer with little patience and even lesser explanation of why he tells him not to do something.

He's more open and comfortable to the people in the frontier then the city.

My only problem with his story is one part... How the heck he knows his father?

I thought we'd had a "so ur my dad" moment.
I cant remember if haythem knew or not... Long time since I saw that scene.

shickapowow
03-03-2015, 04:11 AM
It was rushed and unfinished.
Many bits of recorded dialogue (Achilles telling Connor about his parents' history, Daniel Cross's final words) were found in the game data but never implemented.
The Modern Day textures were poorly made compared to the Animus stuff.
Some really bad mission design decisions and shoehorned historical events like the Paul Revere ride and the battle where Connor's on a horse running back and forth ordering " FIRE!". Just so lame.
The city side missions didn't have any dialogue or polished context and they were pretty repetitive. I would have liked some dialogue in the Brawler missions, the freeing citizens, the gathering items, the UFO type missions, etc etc
The Frontier could have used some fast traveling spots and some more life in general.
There were way too many and way too many aggressive guards all over the place. Parkour didn't even feel fun.
Stealth was pretty poor.
Completionist objectives were intrusive and too specific too complete. That boat mission comes to mind.
The combat music was really really really bad. IMO.
There wasn't any ambient music when roaming around.
There were many bugs in the game from what I recall.
The Frontier stuff was pretty boring and dull.

Lignjoslav
03-03-2015, 04:26 AM
This will, more or less, be a copy paste of my post from another thread:

One of the things that set Connor apart (and below) previous AC protagonists is how little he understood the world around him. And not only did he not understand, he didn't even try, he didn't seem to care, and possibly he even lacked the capacity to understand. He rubbed shoulders with the most prominent people of the time, did them favours, and he never capitalized on that. And it's not just the wider world which he didn't understand, it's even his own work. While he was on his quest, sometimes deliberately blind for the world around him, he was no more than a mindless drone of the First Civilization. Even when it was obvious that by doing their bidding he was not helping his village or his people, he carried on, unquestioningly.


And the only times that he was not acting like an automaton were the occasions when he argued with Achilles, with the game depicting him as a grown man and him acting like a 14 year old, trying to assert himself by defying his father for the first time.


There are other aspects in which AC3 is the low point of the series, including the overall lack of attention to details. For example, the game telling you that, in order to achieve full sync with your ancestor, you have to follow a convoy without hiding in a hay cart, and then, when you arrive to the destination, Connor magically emerges from the same hay cart in which he was not hiding. Or the assassination contracts. In every AC except AC3, each target is an individual with a back story. In AC3, all of the "contract" targets are simply "Templars", they have no names, no history, they use the same 3D model, they behave in the same way and all you need to do is walk up to them and stab them. Not to mention that even most of the higher ranked participants in the Templar conspiracy in AC3 are not true members of the Order, but somehow these rambling lunatics (that's how they behave, in case anyone has forgotten), somehow they are referred to as Templars by the game.


As for other aspects of that title, I found the frontier impressive in size, but traversing through it was often a very tedious task. Similar goes for the economy, it was supposed to add depth and realism compared to the previous games, but eventually it got boring and tedious as well. The cities themselves weren't actually so unfit for parkour as much as they looked uninviting and uninspiring.


Finally, the story didn't really live up to the potential. Connor's story really had a huge potential: it happened during a revolution in which true secret society members played large roles, but the main protagonist was blind and deaf for all that, so the participation of Freemasons in the whole affair came down to them leaving some weird scribbles in the tunnels, kind of like a weird afterthought. And the present day story? What does a typical uninspired writer do when he doesn't know how to finish a tale? He kills the main character. And in case of AC3, that was combined with what's quite literally a deus ex machina solution to the problem of Earths impending doom, bundled into one event, one "line" that solved all of the writer's problems.

byte_x
03-03-2015, 04:51 AM
Don't forget this too:

"I'm going to smash you, ya looby!"
"Time I set you straight! "

playlisting
03-03-2015, 05:56 AM
Snip

So in short:


Connor isn't a very interesting character apart from a few points in the story
The cities aren't very inviting nor are they good for parkour
Assassination missions weren't given much thought at all
It's difficult to earn a lot of money which in turn makes economical matters frustrating
Didn't take advantage of some things that happened during the period that would fit in well with the story
Unsatisfactory ending to the modern day story



Fair points. I suppose I like the game because


I find the rest of the cast and the story itself interesting enough to keep me invested
I have no qualms about using fast travel so if I can't be bothered with the hassle that comes with navigating the city I can just open the map and go straight to where I want to go
I don't really mind too much about these missions - of course I appreciate the detail that comes with the older and newer ACs but as long as I can kill a Templar I'm happy :D
I like to hunt so I'm never really too short on money - never mind the fact that I generally don't buy much in-game apart from consumables
I've never looked into this period of history much so I don't really know about the goings on of the time
No argument there.

strigoi1958
03-03-2015, 10:03 AM
I think that is probably the 6 main reasons people didn't like AC3.... I would say that I loved AC3

1. I cannot generalize especially because I've only met less than 20 native american indians but they were all softly spoken and seemed almost gentle natured and for me.... if Connor had been portrayed with a different voice or personality I think Ubi would have got as many complaints as they do about the French people having English accents in Unity. It fitted Connor perfectly and I liked the contrast in personalities from Ezio to Connor.
The game had other great people (Haytham being my favourite especially after the secret about him is divulged). It gave the plot a great twist and nobody saw it coming.

2. The cities were rather representative of the cities at the time so a huge metropolis wouldn't have looked right......and I admit running across the rooftops was not the best and neither was trying to get some of the pages up on the damaged buildings... (drove me insane 2 of them :D) but I loved hiding in wells and whistling guards to drag them down and the detail was incredible with flickering candles and wood grain and peeling paint on clock faces showing it had aged and been weathered. Plus the underground was great especially the puzzles at the end and as my hobby is single pin picking of locks... I really enjoyed that lockpicking to the arcade version in Unity.
We had the harbours and throwing soldiers from ships, more opportunities to ledge assassinate and we still had horses in the city (which I miss)

3. The assassination mission were still there... they definitely lacked the data. We still did the missions but before when we had Den Assassins we would send them on missions and I always wanted to do some of them myself :(.

4. I did the sailing routes as quick as I could and the homesteader missions plus I found the shops as well so I guess getting an income was a bit quicker for me.... I traded as often as I could and I thought the homestead missions and the community was so much better than just renovating shops as before.... although the combining of items to make other items was not great for me (even though I loved the bomb crafting in Ezio's time) Bring back the bombs especially the traps (sorry off topic ;) )

5. I loved the historical side of the story. I would have liked more links to the founding fathers and freemasonry and the link to the Knights Templar but it was a game and didn't need to be too specific in detail, but we did get a good amount of history.

6. I do not like the modern side of the story anyway... I think it is there so we can understand how the main character can die (desynchronize) and yet come back and carry on.... in black flag... we went from sea battles with spray in our faces and water swirling across the decks followed by a cloud of smoke from a broadside and a huge sea battle then a fight with cutlasses........ to an office where I had to play an 80's game called frogger in order to hack a computer..... I appreciate the tongue in cheek way it was done and I laughed thinking, not many people will know this is a really old game. So the modern day bits really broke my immersion and the alternatives (Farcry, watchdogs, Tomb Raider etc... are all superior)

What I didn't like was.... The credits cannot be skipped and were too boring.... I would have liked more interactive or entertaining credits... like a fight goes into slow motion and we zoom into a face and it lists the team responsible for the characters.... etc etc rather than 20 minutes of names scrolling past.

Another thing I did like and have always liked was the sound effects... I was so involved that it took my son to notice when I was running through some wheat field in the frontier, the sound. Then I started to listen more and it was very impressive. I liked the frontier , I liked defending the convoys, I loved the forts.... to be honest, I think if Ezio had sailed to America and had been the main character .... most people would be raving over ac3 but then... we would have lost Connor and the haytham twist...

VoldR
03-04-2015, 10:02 AM
Is there a way to see these cut scenes people mentioned about AC3?

strigoi1958
03-04-2015, 10:53 PM
http://youtu.be/iEVcf4r74-E all cut scenes :D

VoldR
03-04-2015, 11:34 PM
http://youtu.be/iEVcf4r74-E all cut scenes :D

I mean the deleted scenes...
If its in there I couldn't find it

strigoi1958
03-05-2015, 12:05 AM
there are no visual deleted scenes... but there is still the audio from them

http://youtu.be/H6d79JHh3cU

http://youtu.be/CyMoc-Lq_Og

http://youtu.be/LP1b2s4YsiE

there maybe a few more but no animations as far as I know

Anykeyer
03-05-2015, 10:13 AM
I like 3, its my favorite AC game.

shezzor
03-05-2015, 11:12 PM
AC3 is horrible, definitely the worse in the series. There is very little to praise in the game to be honest. The fact that it followed the fantastic AC2 series of games only made matters worse.

saschia_009
03-06-2015, 09:41 AM
I also loved AC3. Probably mostly for the settings (Frontier and horseback riding, yay!) and I also liked Connor. I mean he is not your typical hero, being introverted and quite naive, but that made him even more endearing to me. The mission design may have been better (the way the missions progressed was pushing you to continue main story rather than play the side mission and homestead quests - which were the ones bringing depth to the character), and people may have missed the dense cities of Europe (I didn't, cause I don't really like dense cities). As a PC gamer I had almost no bugs and those that remained were just minor annoyances here and there, nothing to fret about.

Lignjoslav
03-06-2015, 10:55 AM
I'm not sure when you got to play the game. I'm glad if they patched it at a later stage, but to me it was the buggiest AC until Unity came out. I remember one of the introductory missions where you had to climb a mast and I did it twice and was wondering what I was doing wrong. Finally, the 3rd or 4th time I got to the top, the action was registered and I was allowed to progress further. I also remember Boston disappearing from the map for a while, googling and finding that it was so prevalent and obviously not even mentioned by support that people thought it was a feature. I realized that it wasn't when I started a couple of homestead missions that required me to go there. These are just two examples I remember off the top of my head, not the only bugs I encountered (not by a long shot).

Also, it was coded in such a way that it stuttered in certain places even on Core i7 PCs (most of the calculations were put in a single thread, overloading one core). That certainly didn't improve my overall impression.

I wouldn't call Connor naive (maybe he was, but it's not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of him). Children are naive, but they are also curious. People that are introverted often have a lot brewing inside them. Connor feels like a flat line. Connor helps some very powerful people (George Washington, for instance) and is all like "Yeah, I helped you, but only because by coincidence it helped me; I only care about my people and my village, so I'll be off now." He doesn't realize that the fate of the whole land is being decided, when it can't be more obvious (hello, there's a war going on!). That's not being naive or introverted. He wants his village protected and he's counting on achieving that goal by obeying the forces he saw in his youth (First Civ). Then his village is destroyed and he realizes that it wasn't so, but he stays on the same course, even though he is none the wiser about who, what or why, and without ever showing any interest in finding out.

Native Americans faced aggressive, technologically superior enemies. When they had to, they fought bravely and fiercely to survive, adopted new skills... I don't see an incurious, immature simpleton who, at the end, no longer knows what he's doing or why he's doing it, as their typical representative.

saschia_009
03-06-2015, 03:24 PM
I'm not sure when you got to play the game. I'm glad if they patched it at a later stage, but to me it was the buggiest AC until Unity came out. I remember one of the introductory missions where you had to climb a mast and I did it twice and was wondering what I was doing wrong. Finally, the 3rd or 4th time I got to the top, the action was registered and I was allowed to progress further. I also remember Boston disappearing from the map for a while, googling and finding that it was so prevalent and obviously not even mentioned by support that people thought it was a feature. I realized that it wasn't when I started a couple of homestead missions that required me to go there. These are just two examples I remember off the top of my head, not the only bugs I encountered (not by a long shot).

I started as soon as it came out on PC. I had no problems except the not seeing Boston on Frontier map, but it's easy to go there by heart and you can go there by other means (and when the main mission was in Boston the main mission pointer was there). What happened to me a couple of times was that there were no place icons on the big map when zooming out from in-city map. But still, nothing that couldn't be solved by actually getting on the horse and going there physically instead of fast-travelling.



Also, it was coded in such a way that it stuttered in certain places even on Core i7 PCs (most of the calculations were put in a single thread, overloading one core). That certainly didn't improve my overall impression.

Had just a dual-core computer so can't comment here. But people complain about stutter in Unity too and I don't see it much so maybe it's different expectations and graphical setting.


I wouldn't call Connor naive (maybe he was, but it's not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of him). Children are naive, but they are also curious. People that are introverted often have a lot brewing inside them. Connor feels like a flat line. Connor helps some very powerful people (George Washington, for instance) and is all like "Yeah, I helped you, but only because by coincidence it helped me; I only care about my people and my village, so I'll be off now." He doesn't realize that the fate of the whole land is being decided, when it can't be more obvious (hello, there's a war going on!). That's not being naive or introverted. He wants his village protected and he's counting on achieving that goal by obeying the forces he saw in his youth (First Civ). Then his village is destroyed and he realizes that it wasn't so, but he stays on the same course, even though he is none the wiser about who, what or why, and without ever showing any interest in finding out.

Well here I can't agree. First, he is not flat, he talks in a calm voice but that is his way, it's not devoid of feelings or what but expressing them in a different way than maybe you are used to. He helps a lot in the war but if he went more into the war he would not be able to pursue his true goals, and I don't believe you would expect Washington et al. to help him with the Templar problem even if he asked. And of course the betrayal of the Colonists he learned in the end of main mission sequence and we don;t know what were his actions later, so you can't really judge if he did try to find out more. During the time of Revolution he thought that the goals of revolution and his goals are aligned and he helped a lot in bringing the victory to that side.


Native Americans faced aggressive, technologically superior enemies. When they had to, they fought bravely and fiercely to survive, adopted new skills... I don't see an incurious, immature simpleton who, at the end, no longer knows what he's doing or why he's doing it, as their typical representative.

I really don't think he was meant to be a typical representative either of Native Americans (didn't most of them side with British?). I am not sure if he event wanted to rebuild a brotherhood in a way that it was working before the AC:Rogue. It seems more to me he meant to get his people completely out of the conflict, which ultimately did not succeed but it did not make the game less interesting. After all, that's the same with Unity and Black Flag, the main protagonist does not so much pursue Assassin goals as fights against the individual Templars. From this actually Connor fought most against the Templay ways and not just Templar individuals.

CaptainKabuko
03-06-2015, 09:38 PM
I think it comes down to:

1. It wasn't complete in the eyes of many
2. Connor had huge shoes to fill
3. The setting

Personally I loved AC3 and I thought Connor was awesome. I guess too many people were used to Ezio

The best assassins so far was Arno\Connor.
AC3 Is the best game of the franchise so far. The best gameplay(Awesome Parkour,combat), exellent setting with connection to the "assassins thing", awesome frontier and cities.
Also, i hate ezio. He is just a stupid annoying playboy.

shickapowow
03-07-2015, 01:48 AM
The best assassins so far was Arno\Connor.
AC3 Is the best game of the franchise so far. The best gameplay(Awesome Parkour,combat), exellent setting with connection to the "assassins thing", awesome frontier and cities.
Also, i hate ezio. He is just a stupid annoying playboy.

Yeah, I don't get the love for Ezio either. As a character, he was the most shallow of them all; as a mentor, he never said anything profound. His games were good but the guy himself was dull and never said anything memorable which is insane cause he had THREE GAMES.

Lignjoslav
03-07-2015, 05:40 PM
What did Connor say that was profound?! Arno had that bit of lamentation upon the fact that his gf died during the game outro, but that was it. He was, in my opinion, never a true assassin, let alone a Mentor. He always put the creed and the goals of the brotherhood behind his own. That was dishonest, to say the least. Amidst all that was going on around him and obvious consequences for the entire France, it was pretty selfish and shallow as well.

Ezio... He was a jovial Italian in essence, which was a part of his charm. He also had a story of personal growth (kind of like Han Solo), from a brash and careless teen to the head of the family, a protective figure and a true assassin who dedicated his life, even as an old man, to serving the brotherhood across the continents. So, he both did very respectable work and was a guy with whom you'd have a good time at a bar. That's why people love Ezio.

shickapowow
03-07-2015, 07:35 PM
What did Connor say that was profound?! Arno had that bit of lamentation upon the fact that his gf died during the game outro, but that was it. He was, in my opinion, never a true assassin, let alone a Mentor. He always put the creed and the goals of the brotherhood behind his own. That was dishonest, to say the least. Amidst all that was going on around him and obvious consequences for the entire France, it was pretty selfish and shallow as well.

Ezio... He was a jovial Italian in essence, which was a part of his charm. He also had a story of personal growth (kind of like Han Solo), from a brash and careless teen to the head of the family, a protective figure and a true assassin who dedicated his life, even as an old man, to serving the brotherhood across the continents. So, he both did very respectable work and was a guy with whom you'd have a good time at a bar. That's why people love Ezio.

Well apparently I touched a nerve. That always happens with fanboys.
I never said that Connor said some profound stuff but he had one game and he had some cool debates with Haytham about the Order. I also liked the tension between himself and Achilles.It kept the story and the characters interesting and evolving. Connor's game also had 4 hours of cutscenes so maybe that's why the characters feel so much more complete and human than Ezio's trilogy; the writers actually gave it attention.

All you said about Ezio's social roles is true but that's all he was. The guy's life was a bunch of milestones and checkpoints. There wasn't any real depth to any of it. He never really talked or contemplated or showed any emotions or complexities about his roles. It was very video gamey. He had all those people around him but it's hard to tell who his best friend was (I'm sure you'd say Da Vinci but why? Just cause Da Vinci kept giving him tools to kill with? That's a bond?)

Sure in Revelations you see him writing to his sister and then at the end talking to Sofia and Desmond about the Order, I liked that but it was too little, too late. They should have shown more about his transformations as opposed to just changing his clothes from 'Brash Teen' to 'Young Assassin' to 'Old Assassin' to 'Old man'. As is, it just felt like he went through different titles and milestones with no real time spent developing his persona beyond a few pseudo intellectual one liners. Personally for me, as a character he's too shallow and in a way was wasted potential.

Lignjoslav
03-07-2015, 09:00 PM
I'm more of an Altair man, but I still put Ezio above the latter protagonists anyway.

Ezio is portrayed as a brash teen in more than just clothes. He is then shown going through a great personal tragedy and responding accordingly, with grief and anger, in both cutscenes and missions from the corresponding sequences. After the rush of anger subsides, his determination is to flee with his mother and sister, but he eventually realizes that those pursuing him would turn on the rest of his family in his absence and decides against simply leaving them behind, and from then on, he is gradually inducted into the order. All that clearly displays personal growth and it doesn't all have to be delivered through cutscenes (although some of it is, as a matter of fact).

Ezio's painstaking collecting of eagle feathers speaks volumes about his devotion to his mother and the memory of his little brother, even though the completion of that side objective is only followed by a very short animation. As in real life, actions speak louder than words. Also, the quality of storytelling and character development is not proportional to the amount of video material, just like a short film can have a greater artistic value than 2-3 hours of CGI and a bunch of cliches, which is what you often get when you go to the cinema. The Christina memories from Brotherhood show Ezio caring about someone outside his family as well and the warmth of some of the conversations between him and Leonardo show them to truly be friends (although I wouldn't necessarily say best friends).

With all of the cutscenes from AC3, on the other hand, what Connor boils down to is: "Gotta do the right thing; gotta protect my people and my village; I don't care about the revolution or anything, I'm just protecting my village; Achilles is an old fool, I'll do as I think best and keep doing the right thing and protecting my village; oops, my village is gone, still gotta keep doing what I was doing before that; oh, the war is over, people I talked to, but turned down when they wanted to connect more with me, have won; it looks like this new order is now going to be cra* for my people." I have little fondness and no respect for that guy.

shickapowow
03-07-2015, 09:40 PM
I'm more of an Altair man, but I still put Ezio above the latter protagonists anyway.

Ezio is portrayed as a brash teen in more than just clothes. He is then shown going through a great personal tragedy and responding accordingly, with grief and anger, in both cutscenes and missions from the corresponding sequences. After the rush of anger subsides, his determination is to flee with his mother and sister, but he eventually realizes that those pursuing him would turn on the rest of his family in his absence and decides against simply leaving them behind, and from then on, he is gradually inducted into the order. All that clearly displays personal growth and it doesn't all have to be delivered through cutscenes (although some of it is, as a matter of fact).

Ezio's painstaking collecting of eagle feathers speaks volumes about his devotion to his mother and the memory of his little brother, even though the completion of that side objective is only followed by a very short animation. As in real life, actions speak louder than words. Also, the quality of storytelling and character development is not proportional to the amount of video material, just like a short film can have a greater artistic value than 2-3 hours of CGI and a bunch of cliches, which is what you often get when you go to the cinema. The Christina memories from Brotherhood show Ezio caring about someone outside his family as well and the warmth of some of the conversations between him and Leonardo show them to truly be friends (although I wouldn't necessarily say best friends).

With all of the cutscenes from AC3, on the other hand, what Connor boils down to is: "Gotta do the right thing; gotta protect my people and my village; I don't care about the revolution or anything, I'm just protecting my village; Achilles is an old fool, I'll do as I think best and keep doing the right thing and protecting my village; oops, my village is gone, still gotta keep doing what I was doing before that; oh, the war is over, people I talked to, but turned down when they wanted to connect more with me, have won; it looks like this new order is now going to be cra* for my people." I have little fondness and no respect for that guy.

Edit: Spoilers for all

For me, Ezio was just too much, handled too poorly, and too quickly. I like the idea that he collected those feathers for his brother but, like you said, it was a small animation and if I remember correctly, they never even tell you that it'll help your mother until AFTER you've collected all of them and brought them to her. The Christina missions were cool but it would have helped if they followed coherently in AC 2 as opposed to being relived memories of a relived memory in Brotherhood.

I guess I prefer Connor and Edward over Ezio because those two had a clear defineable character arc. They had specific things they were concerned about and they grew based on those things. Connor started out as a naive idealistic angry man, lashing out at Haytham and Achilles but after Achilles dies, the burial scene has some good closure as Achilles's letter is read over it. By the end, Connor also realizes that just cause the Revolutionaries won, does not mean that the fight is over. It's a sad ending but at least there was some definite closure (the war ended, the tomahawk is removed), some clear resolution to the character's arc (he becomes less naive, he grows up, he starts to understand things about the Templar/Assassin conflict and decides where he stands based on actual reason as opposed "I want to kill all Templars and Charles Lee).

Edward had a great transformation too. He starts out as a selfish greedy insolent mess of a person but by the end, he's lost everything and when he finally understands and joins the Assassins, he's grown as a person and as a character. Also, the side characters in 4 were brilliant. I cared about characters like Blackbeard, Mary, Adewale, Bonnett, Torres, Hornigold and the rest.

They felt complete. The way they interacted with Edward made them all and the world feel complete. I can't say the same for la Volpe, or Catherina or that brute dude you have to help in Brotherhood. I also didn't care about Mario's death but I thought that Blackbeard's and the others ends were very moving.

AC II is a game packed with things to do and it's fun but the story left a lot to be desired IMO. It's like the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none' routine.

Lignjoslav
03-07-2015, 10:19 PM
Edit: Spoilers for all

For me, Ezio was just too much, handled too poorly, and too quickly. I like the idea that he collected those feathers for his brother but, like you said, it was a small animation and if I remember correctly, they never even tell you that it'll help your mother until AFTER you've collected all of them and brought them to her. ...Well, you can't say in advance if something like that is going to help a person psychologically, but there is a cutscene after you settle in Monteriggioni when Ezio's sister tells him: "Ezio, look at her. I still can't get her to talk! She spends all day and night in front of those feathers Petruccio used to collect. She can't let them go. I don't know what to do." So, Ezio can't be certain that it's going to help her, but it's quite clear why he's collecting them and leaving them in that chest in her room. I found that emotional and powerful enough that I still remembered it and it only took me a minute to find it (the clip should start at 9:35):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M0A34tAO5U&t=575

shickapowow
03-08-2015, 01:38 AM
Well, you can't say in advance if something like that is going to help a person psychologically, but there is a cutscene after you settle in Monteriggioni when Ezio's sister tells him: "Ezio, look at her. I still can't get her to talk! She spends all day and night in front of those feathers Petruccio used to collect. She can't let them go. I don't know what to do." So, Ezio can't be certain that it's going to help her, but it's quite clear why he's collecting them and leaving them in that chest in her room. I found that emotional and powerful enough that I still remembered it and it only took me a minute to find it (the clip should start at 9:35):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M0A34tAO5U&t=575

Okay, so you got me on that one point, which I had already admitted that I wasn't 100% on. Good job. Anything else you want to dispute?

Lignjoslav
03-08-2015, 02:30 AM
I'm not keeping score. You say that Ezio's games are "a string of milestones" and that AC3 has a lot more cinematics. Probably true about the cinematics. I say that that doesn't automatically mean good storytelling, let alone a good story and that Connor doesn't do much for me. Not to repeat myself, I've already written (here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1018977-Why-Don-t-People-Like-Assassin-s-Creed-3?p=10613807&viewfull=1#post10613807), last passage) how I see him and how I see Ezio, whom I find to be a more complete, more respectable and more pleasant personality. You disagree. We see things differently and we've both made our points. In the end, it is a fairly subjective matter.

shickapowow
03-08-2015, 02:38 AM
Oh well if you want to let it be then that's fine too. I thought we were having a debate.

Lignjoslav
03-08-2015, 02:59 AM
We've both made our points, to each other and anyone reading this, so I see no use in going over the same things over and over again. Neither of us has convinced the other guy, but it's a matter where the "truth" is highly personal ("which one of two guys is cooler", in essence).

Further on, dude, why are you being so confrontational about this? You're writing things like "Well apparently I touched a nerve. That always happens with fanboys.", or "Okay, so you got me on that one point, which I had already admitted that I wasn't 100% on. Good job.". You're asking questions, inventing my answers and then making your comments about my imaginary answers: "He had all those people around him but it's hard to tell who his best friend was (I'm sure you'd say Da Vinci but why? Just cause Da Vinci kept giving him tools to kill with? That's a bond?)", now it's this passive aggressive c*ap. You do't want to debate, you want to argue.

shickapowow
03-08-2015, 04:36 AM
Well since you're getting aggressive, I guess now I have to defend myself.

First of all, that nerve thing was like 5 posts ago. If you wanted to address it, you should have brought it up when it was relevant.
I'm just mentioning it again cause it's such an annoying thing people do when arguing or debating something online (bringing up old things later on to make the whole topic convoluted)

Anyway I was just giving an example of Ezio's relationships with others like Da Vinci , it wasn't meant as a personal attack on your tastes or anything. I guess I shouldn't have said "I'm sure you'd say" , rather something like 'some would say Da Vinci".

Also, a debate is a method of interactive and representational argument, at least according to Wikipedia.

Anykeyer
03-08-2015, 06:43 AM
Ezio has different personality in every game (differen writers?).
He has a bit of development in the beginnng of AC2 but then he starts doing one stupid thing after another. In ACB he mostly acts on instinct and doesnt give much thought tp his actions. And in ACR he was supposed to be wise, but in fact he was still too quick to act and became very cruel, openly disregarding the safety of the people he was apparently fighting for in ACB, multiple times.
No way Im calling this pile of crap a good writing.

strigoi1958
03-09-2015, 10:53 AM
Someone called me a fanboi or fanboy once... personally... I think of it as a compliment... I think most people who can debate details in 2 different games as a comparison are very knowledgeable people and others may say fanboy... I prefer mentor.;)

The topic is... why do people NOT like ac3 ... not why people prefer other titles.

I think it is down to how open people are... lots of people do not like change and AC3 was a jump away from previous AC games... for me it refreshed the series, as much as I enjoyed Ezio immensely... Connor was completely different and that is the basis of why a lot of people didn't like AC3 IMHO

Incantari
03-11-2015, 09:14 PM
Emo Teen Native American Trope Guy was dull, flat and boring along with him being somewhat of an apologist about the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of the colonists (the way Vivianne in DAI is pro mage slavery making it ok cuz obvious reasons), his combat moves were superb but that could not overcome the majority of the issues with the character and his motivations plus his emo whining through out the game, coupled with the fact that the plot was uninspired and meandering, is more or less why a lot of people disliked it. The Tyranny DLC was much better imo

strigoi1958
03-12-2015, 12:27 AM
Emo Teen Native American Trope Guy was dull, flat and boring along with him being somewhat of an apologist about the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of the colonists (the way Vivianne in DAI is pro mage slavery making it ok cuz obvious reasons), his combat moves were superb but that could not overcome the majority of the issues with the character and his motivations plus his emo whining through out the game, coupled with the fact that the plot was uninspired and meandering, is more or less why a lot of people disliked it. The Tyranny DLC was much better imo

I think that's what I said :D People didn't like AC3 because they didn't like Connor. Gameplay was excellent and people overlook that because they do not like Connor... The Plot was great for me especially the twist with Haytham being a templar and connors father and the historical side was great... people overlook the sailing which had such great feedback... and the missions, trading and frontier quests and forts.

The Paul Revere bit was a minor thing that was not up to standard and the ruined buildings were awkward but AC3 is still the game by which I judge all others.... it is found on ebay for ú7 / $10 and I do not know where I can get 80 hours entertainment for so little. Apart from the dislike of Connor there must have been something good because people often ask for things from AC3 to be implemented in new games... like the whistle, homestead missions, human shield.... :)

Anykeyer
03-12-2015, 08:10 AM
If you play AC games for their deep story and character development you're obviously playing wrong games.

SirSionis
03-16-2015, 10:02 PM
If you play AC games for their deep story and character development you're obviously playing wrong games.

Really?I do like a lot the story of AC.Specially the Assassins-Templars conflict being so morally gray.And I don't think I'm playing the wrong games.

Anykeyer
03-17-2015, 09:58 AM
AC2 and ACB werent even remotely gray. Its funny how even Ubisoft tries to excuse this in almost every game released later. Starting with ACR MP database saying that Borgia forgot the true templar cause.

SirSionis
03-24-2015, 02:29 PM
AC2 and ACB werent even remotely gray. Its funny how even Ubisoft tries to excuse this in almost every game released later. Starting with ACR MP database saying that Borgia forgot the true templar cause.

They weren't...and the reason is what the ACR MP database said.They did forgot the templar cause...and most of the Templars in AC2 were in for personal reasons:Vieri,who only seeked attention,Francesco,who only seeked revenge,the same reason that all the Pazzi conspirators in fact...they weren't ''true templars''.They weren't for the templar cause.

jeffies04
03-25-2015, 12:28 AM
Ezio has different personality in every game (differen writers?).
He has a bit of development in the beginnng of AC2 but then he starts doing one stupid thing after another. In ACB he mostly acts on instinct and doesnt give much thought tp his actions. And in ACR he was supposed to be wise, but in fact he was still too quick to act and became very cruel, openly disregarding the safety of the people he was apparently fighting for in ACB, multiple times.
No way Im calling this pile of crap a good writing.

I know I'm a little late to the party... sorry about that....

But (and this is coming from someone who likes Ezio) but I totally agree about his actions in ACR. It really bothered me after he left Cappadocia in ruins... all of those innocent people trapped inside that probably died and he didn't seem to give a flip about that or try and get anyone out but himself. All over a confrontation in taking down a Templar.

His personality does change, you're right, which is probably due to different writers, but I don't think it was too over the top. Personal growth and change? I dunno.

Lucrezia brought this up to him when he took her hostage in the castello... "Rushing around with no regard for the consequences of your actions!" or something close. Very true.

Frag_Maniac
03-25-2015, 07:16 AM
I didn't like...

*Den Defense was horrible
*Long on-foot trudges through snow
*Ridiculous segments calling out battle orders
*Connor waffling between being independent and gullible
*Crafting was so poorly explained I only did the tutorial segment
*Very inconsistent performance, great FPS at times, but laggy in Boston
*Historic, and closer to home for us Americans, but not as epic as Renaissance Italy


That said, it's far from being the worst title IMO. That dishonor I feel should definitely go to AC Revelations. The setting was boring. What's worse than lots of snow and frontier? A city setting with very plain, repetitious buildings. Ezio's sidekick Yusuf is a royal obnoxious pain in the arse. The grappling hook being used as a stabbing weapon is the most ridiculous thing in AC weaponry ever. Den Defense didn't really fit AC type gameplay, and was annoying as hell, yet if you failed, you could easily waltz right in after and kill the enemy captain. Worst implementation of Eagle Vision in any AC game because it was too dark and many areas you had to use it in were also very dark. The ending was a strange, chaotic mess, with the strangest looking attire in any AC game.


By comparison, AC3 had a lot of strong points. It introduced the western hemisphere, hunting, and naval battles, the latter of which became very popular and more fleshed out in later installments with trade route missions. In a way, AC3 was a very pivotal game in the franchise that kept it afloat by breathing new and refreshing life into the series.

lostboy233
03-25-2015, 11:39 AM
I have to confess I simply do not get the love for AC3, it has a beautiful world but IMO they totally forgot that anyone would actually want to play in it.

It does have some shining highlights for me:

The look of the frontier and variation in height, environment and scenery (plus some of the lighting in the Frontier is downright awesome)
Snow, rain and weather - looks great and applies atmosphere that make even the dullest missions awesome
Combat - really really easy, but.... for a quick blast of free-roam and random anarchy causing AC3 is still my favourite AC. Its just fun to kill lots of lots of guards in numerous ways.
Running around as the preposterous Marshall Bravestar (google it as I'm sure that where the idea came from) in ToKW (fun though).
Pegleg missions
Forts!

Trouble is by this point I am seriously runing out of reasons I like the thing, and I can't ignore the really really obvious flaws:

1. In game mini-games. I have no idea why this became a good idea but AC3 is stuffed with QTE and other pointless interactions that take the place of actual gameplay. On some occasisons it seems designed to stop you actually playing the open-world free-roaming game you bought, almost as if the designers thought it would be better to play a mobile phone style game rather than AC. Some are stupidly repetitive and break the flow of enjoyment and plenty of them force you through a set path at key points of the story. ugh!

2. The cities were quite possibly the dullest places I have played in any AC title, yes there were some nice textures and the artwork was lovely but they were just dull, difficult to parkour effectively and lacked the interest to encourage you to really explore them.

3. Naval - I hated naval in AC3 it felt clunky, unecessery to the story and really wasn't any fun. I am honestly suprised how much I loved it in Blackflag, but even going back to AC3 afterwards I still couldn't get on with it. I do wish they hadn't bothered with Naval in AC3 and actually focussed more on the SP experience.

4. I got very bored of the parade of historical fgires that were thrown at you so you could be a spectator to their great moments. I wasn't well versed in the American Revolution but feel like i came away from reading a textbook rather than being part of the period in history. I do have issues with how much Unity ignores the revolution (I would have loved to properly meet Camille Desmoulins for instance or had some mission that actual took us inside the national assembly just prior to the Terror), but I equally don't want a historical coach tour of the period which AC3 feels like (and on your left is Paull Revere...be sure to stop by the tea party before exiting through the giftshop...).

5. Missing details on the pointless side missions. Why am I assasinating these people? Whats the point of collecting all the stuff?

6. Linked to number 1. above certain elements felt forced and bit pointless - the underground for example was a set of extremely simple puzzles repeated over and over again for at the end pretty much no gain at all. The recuit mechanics whilst interesting were almost entirely unnecessery (actually aprt from recruiting the oens you are forced to I actually forgot to do the rest until well after I'd finished the game). Trading didn't really achieve much beyonmd stocking up ammo and I didn't even bother crafting anything as it seemed too complicated for no reward. Overall too many of these features felt rushed and unfinished. I get what they were trying to do, but it feels like they need more thinking and development time to really do them justice.

7. I just did not get on with the characters, Haytham excepted (although Edward was much more fun to play/watch/interact with). I found Connor whiny and I really got sick of his tantrums and petulence. I don't care what his motivation was as he simply came across as a bland, dull, unlikable character that I just couldn't get on with. Other peoples mileage may vary but for me he was not interesting or storng enough to be the lead protagonist and that then coloured the gaming experience every time a cutscene showed up (a lot) or you had to intereact with anyone (am I really playing as this guy?).

Enough ranting. Its still an AC game and therefore one of my favourites regardless, but it just wasn't up to scratch in so many ways to those that came before and really is shown up as lackign compared to those that came after.

saschia_009
07-23-2015, 10:59 PM
I like having modern day stuff, it keeps everything together. And actually after the splendour of ac4 and rogue seas and unity cities i even more like ac3 for the frontier and homestead and the horseback riding... I wish they made a sequel that would give closure to RatonhnhakÚ:ton's story. He lost everything in the end and actually it seemed as in vain, as his most important goal - protection of his tribe - was not fulfilled.

VoldR
07-23-2015, 11:45 PM
I actually really liked ACIII when I finished it and I thought it left a cliffhanger for the next AC game.

However after Black Flag hardly addressed the end of ACIII. It made me really dislike ACIII as a game because it just seemed like a badly thought out ending which wasn't carried through.

Do u mean the modern day or the past ending? Either way to me like a TV series, Blackflag is just to show what happened after the finale which does have lots of mentions of part 3 in both eras.

Later followed with a few fillers before the next actual story comes along... But unlike TV fillers, all AC fillers are canon to the story. Exploring what ifs and new skills like descending from Unity

VoldR
07-23-2015, 11:59 PM
Just started playing AC3 again and mixing different game's videos together to match the timeline and see that in 1760 while Haytham is away in the Arctic with Shay, he's son's village is being burned down...

AC3 have lots of timeline clashes with other games due to the time period. Rogue (Haytham) & Liberation (Aveline)

Also nice to fit together Shay's France experience with Unity's prologue side by side between old and new gen graphics and what is going on while the kids play.

Looking forward to finishing the game again:)

Anykeyer
07-28-2015, 08:41 AM
I like having modern day stuff, it keeps everything together. And actually after the splendour of ac4 and rogue seas and unity cities i even more like ac3 for the frontier and homestead and the horseback riding... I wish they made a sequel that would give closure to RatonhnhakÚ:ton's story. He lost everything in the end and actually it seemed as in vain, as his most important goal - protection of his tribe - was not fulfilled.
"Life is not a fairy tale and there are no happy endings."
AC3 has a lot of points open for interpretation, ending is just one of them. IMO trying to fill all gaps with clear answers and giving Connor's story the "proper closure" would only diminish the original effort.

saschia_009
07-28-2015, 11:42 AM
"Life is not a fairy tale and there are no happy endings."
AC3 has a lot of points open for interpretation, ending is just one of them. IMO trying to fill all gaps with clear answers and giving Connor's story the "proper closure" would only diminish the original effort.

That's true, to some part. On the other hand, this is a game, life is what happens outside and what we sometimes need to escape. We know Connor had to have children, we know what was his approach to family life, so see what would happen had he got a chance would be quite interesting. His fight is not over at all - there are other Templars (Shay, for example, but Templars are global so more will come), there is still slavery. This way, I can fantasize my own endings for Connor, but the problem with fanfiction, whether written or only imagined, is that sooner or later it will clash with cannon. And as the AC writers are more talneted than JKR and have more information about the story background than any fan, it is quite probable that the canon will always be better.

Anykeyer
07-28-2015, 02:57 PM
Its a quote from the game. AC3 isnt much of an escapist game, if you want to be a super hero winning against all odds. Connor and Desmond lines run in parallel. They both won actually, in a way. But the point is - they couldnt get what they trully wanted, it was impossible from the very beginning. Connor probably knew this, also he was shown or told so many times by different people. But he felt obligated to at least try. Im not sure how you can contunue his story without undermining its meaning.

saschia_009
07-28-2015, 03:24 PM
Its a quote from the game.

I know. That doesn't make my statement invalid. The quote is true, but we are not speaking about life, we are speaking about game. And I do not think that giving any "reward" to Connor would undermine the message of the AC3 game.


AC3 isnt much of an escapist game, if you want to be a super hero winning against all odds. Connor and Desmond lines run in parallel. They both won actually, in a way. But the point is - they couldnt get what they trully wanted, it was impossible from the very beginning. Connor probably knew this, also he was shown or told so many times by different people. But he felt obligated to at least try. Im not sure how you can contunue his story without undermining its meaning.

Yeah, Desmond won. It was a sad ending, but it did satsfy me, because there was some sort of fairness. Desmond knew he had to make a choice and he chose what he believed was the right thing. And he was "rewarded", as his action did what was his aim - save the world. His action was not in vain, it is up to next generations of people what they will make of it. Unlike that, Connor made a decision based on deceit, and none of his work seemed to have any meaning, except that Juno got what she wanted. His people were driven off their land, his loved ones were dead, including his best friend and his father, those he helped did nothing better than those they opposed in the first place, and we know from history that it did not go any better afterwards. So no, his story is deeply dissatisfying, it is like having a great appetizer and then being sent home even more hungry than before. I know life is not fair, but this is game and game can be, if the writers choose so.

saschia_009
07-28-2015, 04:30 PM
well lot of people want Desmond alive, but however much I enjoyed playing as him in the modern portion, his death actually does make sense story-wise. Not that I couldn't imagine it going elsewhere.

But you see - people want Desmond alive even though his death makes sense and he accomplished at least something, but Ratonhnhake:ton's fans are denied even simple story that would have him achieve something for all his efforts that would work canon-wise. All we got is "his wife leaves him and he dies alone", which gives me the alcoholic Native-American cliche that just does not go with Connor's personality if life does not really break him in the end - but where is the "not undermining his story's meaning" in that?

saschia_009
07-28-2015, 07:23 PM
I'm one of those people ;)




I wouldn't say that it made sense :confused:

Considering the way games have handled modern day since ACIII.


IDK, it does make sense to me, but of course that is just an opinion. And I must say I prefer the thrid person view that was used until and including AC3, in comparison to first person view, especially the one in Revelations. Even in AC4 and beyond I would prefer having a thord person doing all the stuff, just because that suits me better.

But the story arc of Desmond does make sense plot-wise. The thing is, to have the story interesting you need an arch, and Desmond does have it. He starts as a passive hostage, works through passive resistance in AC1, some action in AC2 mostly running away and some freerunning, a lot of action in AC:B (but again, mostly just running and jumping), coma and getting to know himself in AC:R and finally active resistance and reconciliation with his father in AC3. So from there he can go two ways - super-hero or a normal person with hard choices, it can either go kinda down (death) or it can plummet, but it cannot stay the same for long time. Actually super-hero would be the easy way out, again would result in some action like running, looking for supplies and whatnot, maybe some fights, but remember, civilization is destroyed, Templars actually don't know enough to protect themselves, there would be no real transportation to bring enemy groups closer together, so no really epic fights. What would his powers give him? This way he saved humanity, had a heroic moment of self-sacrifice and basically this enabled the game to stay realistic in real time. If they went according to plan, that means having the AC3 as a final game, we would miss the last 3 great games and those to come still. I really am glad they decided to continue. Maybe different ending of the modern time would be good, but maybe it would result in the same way as so many popular TV series suffer - the main character does not have anywhere to move on, but they keep him as vital for the show. Like Bones - I actually stopped watching as there is no more development, and I am afraid same fate would meet Castle. Desmond was important for the AC franchise, but fortunately not vital, and when there was nowhere to develop him, getting rid of him was the best way to go IMO.

VoldR
07-30-2015, 10:42 PM
I don't know if its just me but since the end of ACIII the whole modern day story of AC has just disappeared.
I mean all the AC titles used to link together but AC4 and Unity could just disappear and the modern day plot would even be different!:mad: <---- They contribute nothing to the MD story!:mad:

I agree with you about third person ;) I ;)
MD Fillers
IMO, games after AC3 are like fillers in a TV series... Especially the modern day parts...

AC:4 wraps up what happens to the casts after the incident.
AC: Unity makes a big issue about something but later say "eh, turns out not a big deal" because for a TV show its not "canon" story, just what if till the real story comes back.

Also they show new skills like descending down a building like showing ur fav anime character moves like never seen before in the canon story...

AC: Rogue, more what ifs on Templars point of view...

Most of them telling what is going on on the sidelines and testing out new gameplay features.

AC: Unity no MD?
for people saying Unity is the first with no MD parts, just listening to people talk and movement, well they probably didn't played AC: liberation... Or forgot about it.

That u can't even see the person talking to u, just listen and follow his instructions in the Helix.

Timeline
The past stories are great even for fillers, I had fun piecing them together. Especially parts where liberation, 3 and rogue clashes in the same year to see as a whole. U can see a visual timeline I posted in the forum link in my signature.

Reaching where Aveline and Connor going to meet each other and Shay's final past story. Lots of daddy issues in the year 1776 with these three people.

Third person view
IMHO, my fav style of shooter. I like to see the character doing the action rather then just their hands. Especially games with parkour features...

But we know FPS games also got parkour moves like Thief, Dishonored, etc. they could do the same... Isn't Thief one of Ubisoft's? Why not just grab from there. :)

saschia_009
07-31-2015, 08:44 AM
Third person view
IMHO, my fav style of shooter. I like to see the character doing the action rather then just their hands. Especially games with parkour features...

But we know FPS games also got parkour moves like Thief, Dishonored, etc. they could do the same... Isn't Thief one of Ubisoft's? Why not just grab from there. :)

what I don't like about first person view - if your hands/weapons are there, they obscure quite a lot of what's going on. But even if they aren't like in AC4 and Rogue, it is the limited vision. You don;t have enough space covered. You see just what is in front of you (don't know how it is with two monitors, I only have one). In real life, you see much wider angle. And in real life you can look under your feet. You can see where you are going. Walking in FPS is like trying to do surgery in Surgeon simulator - it's clumsy, limited and overly dissatisfying. Especially so if you can do the same thing in real life. Also, using environment for hiding - AC3 started with the killing from bwhind the corner, which is what is really missing in FP. In FP either your whole body is out of cover, or you are whole covered and cannot see or shoot. Which is absoluely opposite to what you would do in real life. Also, there can be a guy stabbing you with a knife from behind and all you know is that you are suddenly losing health and have to look where the enemy is. In third person this only happens if you are shot, which of course is quite normal, but similar to reality you have some idea of the direction which it comes from.

So, i really really do not like first person view.

And btw, AC3 brought the killing from bhind the corner and is absolutely unappreciated for it which I consider quite rude from the player community. It really seems to me like peole decided to hate AC3 just because Connor is not like Ezio, similarly as tehy decided to hate Unity for the bugs and they just ditch the game as a whole instead of looking at what really bothers them and what deserves praise.

Oh, and I really love the way MD is brought together in AC4, Unity and Rogue, The style does not suit me, but the story is there and I love it. If only AC:Initiates went back to what it was before AC4 - a database with backgound info and lot of challenges for the fans of the game, not for the achievment hoarders like it is now.

saschia_009
07-31-2015, 07:50 PM
I agree I liked the MD part not due to the first person mute, But with the information you could get from hacking computers in AC4 and Rogue like the voice memos from ACIII:( *weep

Yep, those photos and messages... Sad but beautiful.


However Unity no :mad:. Story wise it added nothing and just told us what we already knew. :mad:

Well, i liked that you were using the hack that was the problem in Rogue MD. I played them both at once so it was really hilarious for me.




Initiates - I AGREE WITH THIS SOOOO MUCH. Mostly because I cant even access Initiates now because it wont sync ANY AC GAME I OWN!.:mad:
Does Initiates even have a database now, I cant see it?:confused:

I think they have issues on and off, I had problems logging in some month ago, then I had no synchronization, then I had synchronized everything except for Unity and last time I also had that synced. So it probably depends on when you try... but since Unity I am not really interested in the site enough to check often, I do not care about the "training accomplishments", I want to have the information on what's happening in "real world".

saschia_009
07-31-2015, 10:34 PM
yeah I really hope they'll listen and give us back the original concept.

But hoarders did not appreciate having to unlock the golden treasures, so hopefully they will not have reason to try to keep it part of the particular game but rather bring it back to be part of the global AC universe.

And the forum there! It was much better than the Ubisoft forum - here it is mostly about *****ing about bugs and such, there it was about what it going on in the AC universe, how we see the individualc characters, what are the grey areas between Templars and Assassins, Creed diskcussions, crazy theories... fanfiction...

I really miss the true AC:Initiates. I was very proud to be one.It made me feel as part of community that is more interested in uncovering the story, than people who just want to kill everybody in the game in all possible ways and for whom the game is only good to be "beaten".

saschia_009
07-31-2015, 11:04 PM
ah, well it does make som kind of sense, because first, we have the knowledge but not the main protagonist (I more missed the things from Leonardo in Brotherhood).

and microtransactions are stupid, but fortunately you don't really need them. I prefer getting everything through the gameplay. And as i prefer digital deluxe/gold editions, which already contain all the side stuff, i actually could have used the timesaver packs if i wanted. i didn't, not my style, if i pay 60 euros for game i want to spend lots of time playing my money worth.

only thing i missed were the items locked behind the team challenges and competitions, but mostly because it took too much time to have all unlocked and I also have other things in life than playing videogames (and btw i only play AC, no other games). it would have been better if we received some kind of "unlock your favourite hood" token instead of unlocking my preferred one as the last one. and making point farming impossible would also have helped...

saschia_009
08-01-2015, 05:59 PM
hear, hear :)

Anykeyer
08-03-2015, 02:03 PM
Yeah, Desmond won. It was a sad ending, but it did satsfy me, because there was some sort of fairness. Desmond knew he had to make a choice and he chose what he believed was the right thing. And he was "rewarded", as his action did what was his aim - save the world. His action was not in vain, it is up to next generations of people what they will make of it. Unlike that, Connor made a decision based on deceit, and none of his work seemed to have any meaning, except that Juno got what she wanted. His people were driven off their land, his loved ones were dead, including his best friend and his father, those he helped did nothing better than those they opposed in the first place, and we know from history that it did not go any better afterwards. So no, his story is deeply dissatisfying, it is like having a great appetizer and then being sent home even more hungry than before. I know life is not fair, but this is game and game can be, if the writers choose so.
"Connor made a decision based on deceit:"
Its not true. You forget why Connor met Juno. He was already convinced he have to act or colonists will swallow his village along with other natives. Just rewatch/replay the scenes where he teaches his friend to climb and hunt. Juno showed him assassins symbol giving him general direction. But decision was already made.
"those he helped did nothing better than those they opposed in the first place"
You think he didnt saw this coming? I doubt so. Initially he was disgusted with revolutionary leaders and didnt hesitate to openly show this. At first he helped them because it seemed like it would help his village. Then he helped them because he wanted to protect people (in this case colonists). His ultimate goal was freedom, not just his village survival.
Freedom is the main theme of AC3. But the game doesnt favor it at all, showing again and again how naive it is. The concept of freedom is based on misinterpetation of the creed which comes from Ezio games. As Haytham said initially assassins had different and more practical goal, peace. And as an added piece AC3 makes fun of Ezio games themself, their naive and fairy tale approach. Just see what they did with Leonardo flying machine.
Different characters deal differently with the issue. Connor made a compromise, but didnt stop to pursue it. Desmond traded freedom for survival.
Also if you put it all together you'll see that AC4 deals with exacty the same issue, misunderstanding the creed and its dangers. You just cant put a happy end in such story.

Jessigirl2013
08-03-2015, 03:22 PM
"Connor made a decision based on deceit:"
Its not true. You forget why Connor met Juno. He was already convinced he have to act or colonists will swallow his village along with other natives. Just rewatch/replay the scenes where he teaches his friend to climb and hunt. Juno showed him assassins symbol giving him general direction. But decision was already made.
"those he helped did nothing better than those they opposed in the first place"
You think he didnt saw this coming? I doubt so. Initially he was disgusted with revolutionary leaders and didnt hesitate to openly show this. At first he helped them because it seemed like it would help his village. Then he helped them because he wanted to protect people (in this case colonists). His ultimate goal was freedom, not just his village survival.
Freedom is the main theme of AC3. But the game doesnt favor it at all, showing again and again how naive it is. The concept of freedom is based on misinterpetation of the creed which comes from Ezio games. As Haytham said initially assassins had different and more practical goal, peace. And as an added piece AC3 makes fun of Ezio games themself, their naive and fairy tale approach. Just see what they did with Leonardo flying machine.
Different characters deal differently with the issue. Connor made a compromise, but didnt stop to pursue it. Desmond traded freedom for survival.
Also if you put it all together you'll see that AC4 deals with exacty the same issue, misunderstanding the creed and its dangers. You just cant put a happy end in such story.

I agree,
ACIII showed that the concept of freedom was na´ve and not the Assassins true goal to start with ,as they before sought peace to all things.
ACIII as a whole I really enjoyed;),Connor was definitely different from Ezio, Buts that what I wanted after Ezio's trilogy, something different ;)

The end of ACIII however I wish was different as since then the MD has been awful IMO and lacking a decent protagonist!.:mad:

I agree AC4 also had a different take on the creed, However I never really saw Edward as an assassin, Just as someone helping them out after screwing them over.
As for happy endings I thought AC4 ending was actually oddly happy ;) -----> But I didn't think it fitted AC and it ended on a bit of a low... I mean there was no signature AC WTF moment.;)
Doesn't anyone miss those?;) I thought they were really good at creating suspense for the next entry ;)

VoldR
08-03-2015, 05:39 PM
what I don't like about first person view - if your hands/weapons are there, they obscure quite a lot of what's going on. But even if they aren't like in AC4 and Rogue, it is the limited vision.



FPS
I'm using single monitor myself and so far the widescreen view is quite good in most games I've played.

Is ur screen square or widescreen?
Because it sounds like ur describing square views. I'm satisfied with 1280/720
Never bothered with any bigger.

Awareness
When I play FPS, without using eagle vision like skills (I don't use it unless I really can't find something or forced to) I'm able to figure out who's near me by sound and aware of what kind of environment I'm in where the entrances are, unless its a game where they spawn randomly like AC's open world.

Damage indicator
Most FPS have the same signal as AC: Unity as to where the dmg is coming from, be it melee or range dmg.

Holster
I like games that can holster weapons. My first game exp. that does it is Deus Ex, then others followed
Which allows more of the world view then the hands or guns.

Corner
Deus Ex: Human Revolution & Mankind Divided are introducing FPS cornering feature that switched to TPS view when u lean on a wall. Personally I like it and the new moves with it they plan for the next game for the FPS genre.

Assassin Creed 3
Yes I love whatever they introduced in AC3, when I replayed it I realised almost 90% of the moves from Black Flag & Rogue are introduced by AC3 and they only add a tiny bit of animation difference but still the majority are Haytham & Connor's

Cornering
Whistle
Bush cover
Rope dart & gun counter [can't with bow :( ]
Double counter
Diverse weapon air assassinate

Nothing original, grenade launcher hardly counts, well except for tackling assassins for a change.

Jessigirl2013
08-03-2015, 10:16 PM
FPS
I'm using single monitor myself and so far the widescreen view is quite good in most games I've played.

Is ur screen square or widescreen?
Because it sounds like ur describing square views. I'm satisfied with 1280/720
Never bothered with any bigger.

Awareness
When I play FPS, without using eagle vision like skills (I don't use it unless I really can't find something or forced to) I'm able to figure out who's near me by sound and aware of what kind of environment I'm in where the entrances are, unless its a game where they spawn randomly like AC's open world.

Damage indicator
Most FPS have the same signal as AC: Unity as to where the dmg is coming from, be it melee or range dmg.

Holster
I like games that can holster weapons. My first game exp. that does it is Deus Ex, then others followed
Which allows more of the world view then the hands or guns.

Corner
Deus Ex: Human Revolution & Mankind Divided are introducing FPS cornering feature that switched to TPS view when u lean on a wall. Personally I like it and the new moves with it they plan for the next game for the FPS genre.

Assassin Creed 3
Yes I love whatever they introduced in AC3, when I replayed it I realised almost 90% of the moves from Black Flag & Rogue are introduced by AC3 and they only add a tiny bit of animation difference but still the majority are Haytham & Connor's

Cornering
Whistle
Bush cover
Rope dart & gun counter [can't with bow :( ]
Double counter
Diverse weapon air assassinate

Nothing original, grenade launcher hardly counts, well except for tackling assassins for a change.

bow? (cant do what?)

saschia_009
08-03-2015, 11:40 PM
Its not true. You forget why Connor met Juno. He was already convinced he have to act or colonists will swallow his village along with other natives. Just rewatch/replay the scenes where he teaches his friend to climb and hunt. Juno showed him assassins symbol giving him general direction. But decision was already made.

He knew an action was needed. Juno told him the world will burn if he lets the t5hings proceed. Then she has shown him the assassin symbol. So he went to Achiles, persuaded him to train him, learned about templsrs and their goals. He learned one sided point of view. He met people who felt oppressed by british and in he decided to help them, especially as they had common goals.
He might have realized the whiote men will never care for his people when he learned of Washington's actions, but until then I think he was persuaded that his actions will help people achieve freedom and protect his tribe. He was arguing with Juno about it when he saw her the second time. But remember, Juno did not care about anything other than herself.




You think he didnt saw this coming? I doubt so. Initially he was disgusted with revolutionary leaders and didnt hesitate to openly show this. At first he helped them because it seemed like it would help his village. Then he helped them because he wanted to protect people (in this case colonists). His ultimate goal was freedom, not just his village survival.
Freedom is the main theme of AC3. But the game doesnt favor it at all, showing again and again how naive it is. The concept of freedom is based on misinterpetation of the creed which comes from Ezio games.

Are you sure it is misinterpretation? I honestloy do not think you can have true peace if people are under influence of few that have the power to control. If nothing else, there are always people that want to ususrp the control for themselves. Even within templars there were factions. There will always be struggle for power and that struggle always leads to war. So saying Tempkars can provide peace is as much naive as saying the assassins can bring peace. Only people can bring peace by deciding to solve things by an intelligent way, not fighting. And yes, that's also naive that people can do it, but there is always hope of better future.



FPS
I'm using single monitor myself and so far the widescreen view is quite good in most games I've played.

Is ur screen square or widescreen?

I use widescreen, but of course it is only 23'' size monitor. If I sit three feet from it, that's up to 45░ viewing angle. Normal life is mre like 150 - 160░ viewing angle, the difference is even more in the vertical. Plus, normally your eyes are not a meter in front of you, contrary to the screen. WHn I play in FP mode, I have feeling exactly of really shuttered eyes floating at least a foot in front of me. And, if I decide to turn, I can do a 180 degree turn in less than a second, and make it quite precisely, with the screen I am much slower and much less precise. That's why FP view does not suit me at all.



I agree,
ACIII showed that the concept of freedom was na´ve and not the Assassins true goal to start with ,as they before sought peace to all things.


Goals can change if you find that the first one is unatteinable without the new one. And people apparently do not value freedom enough if they did not experience lack of it. Or so it seems to me, hearing all the talk of "freedom is not a worthy goal"

Sorry, I cannot agree with you. If someone has right to choose his destiny, then everybody does. If someone has a right to become a leader, then everybody does. You cannot give absolute freedom or you end up like Edward in AC4, but Edward realized it too, and no true Assassin is saying absolute freedom is the goal. But, enslaving people never worked. What works best is giving people education and then letting them choose their destiny. If they prefer being led, it's OK, it is their choice. What they need is knowing how to choose, and having things to choose from.

Or would any of you prefer living in an absolutist monarchy? Jessigirl, would you like to be a part of society where you cannot chose for yourself? Saudi Arabia, perhaps? Well thanks but no thanks.


Doesn't anyone miss those?;) I thought they were really good at creating suspense for the next entry ;)

Well if Desmond's death is not a signature WTF moment, what would be? If you mean in AC4, for me it was Mary Read's death, and John from IT showing his face.
In Unity, identifying Germain and having Elise die.
In Rogue killing of Charles Dorian.

VoldR
08-04-2015, 12:06 AM
bow? (cant do what?)

Counter...

U can counter with crossbow (Ezio)
Rope dart & guns (Haytham, Connor, Edward & Shay)
Throwing knives (Edward)

Crossbow (14:25)
https://youtu.be/xSfq542kZug

Throwing knives (9:13)
Poison, smoke (10:20) haven't test on Connor
Rope dart & Gun counters (10:49)
https://youtu.be/X_R1clmr30Q

uri71c
08-04-2015, 09:22 AM
i play a game by two standard i like the first is the plot,it took me two weeks to finish the game !! ac4 and acunity and ac rouge took me less then a week. and the second standard is the Quality, this is why i couldn't play all beneath ac 3 i mean it was really the worse.

Anykeyer
08-04-2015, 02:42 PM
He knew an action was needed. Juno told him the world will burn if he lets the t5hings proceed. Then she has shown him the assassin symbol. So he went to Achiles, persuaded him to train him, learned about templsrs and their goals. He learned one sided point of view. He met people who felt oppressed by british and in he decided to help them, especially as they had common goals.
He might have realized the whiote men will never care for his people when he learned of Washington's actions, but until then I think he was persuaded that his actions will help people achieve freedom and protect his tribe. He was arguing with Juno about it when he saw her the second time. But remember, Juno did not care about anything other than herself.

Thats why I said AC3 is open for interpretation. IMO Juno had little impact on Connor's life. Remember what clanmother said, Achilles already helped her mother before. And probably was the reason why she left Haytham when she learned he's a templar.
Connor didnt like revolution leaders always pointing at their dishonesty and manipulative nature, always pushing them away. Washington was about the only revolution leader he didnt dislike, at first. He simply chose the lesser of 2 evils.

He was arguing with Juno
He never said "but you promised me my people will be safe" or anything close to it. That proves he wasnt really surprised, but ofc he was unhappy. Actually he is never surprised about those things and shows a few times he isnt really as naive as some antagonists say.

Are you sure it is misinterpretation?
Peace through freedom is naive, its utopia. It requires every person to be perfect.
"To recognize nothing is true and everything is permitted. That laws arise not from divinity, but reason. I understand now that our creed does not command us to be free. It commands us to be wise."

saying Tempkars can provide peace is as much naive as saying the assassins can bring peace.
Many (but not all) templars goal appears to be total control, which is another extreme and will inevitably lead to rebellions. So yes, its also naive.

Rope dart & gun counter [can't with bow http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/frown.png ]
AC3? You can counter kill with your bow. Most tools work actually. My favorite (and probably the most brutal) is snare counter kill.

saschia_009
08-04-2015, 03:14 PM
Thats why I said AC3 is open for interpretation. IMO Juno had little impact on Connor's life. Remember what clanmother said, Achilles already helped her mother before. And probably was the reason why she left Haytham when she learned he's a templar.

I do not agree with you. First, for Connor Juno was Iottsitison, the mogther goddess. Why wouldn't the vision of her have a strong impact on him? Second, KaniehtÝ:io left Haytham because he lied to her about Braddock. I am not sure she knew he ws a Templar.



Peace through freedom is naive, its utopia. It requires every person to be perfect.
"To recognize nothing is true and everything is permitted. That laws arise not from divinity, but reason. I understand now that our creed does not command us to be free. It commands us to be wise."

Many (but not all) templars goal appears to be total control, which is another extreme and will inevitably lead to rebellions. So yes, its also naive.

Yes, peace can only be if everybody is perfect. Or at lest if everybody recognizes its value and according to that. As you say, neither total freedom nor total control are the way.

I can agree that to be wise is the way to achieve peace. But in my opinion, wisdom can be only acquired by free and educated people.

Anykeyer
08-04-2015, 04:48 PM
"for Connor Juno was Iottsitison, the mogther goddess. Why wouldn't the vision of her have a strong impact on him?"
Because she told him what he already knew/suspected (clanmother probably expected completely different outcome). Maybe Juno sped up things but certainly didnt set them in motion. It was the burning of the village and the death of Connors mother.
"KaniehtÝ:io left Haytham because he lied to her about Braddock. I am not sure she knew he ws a Templar."
Nope. The templar part is in sequence recap (which appears on pause menu). While Braddock version appears only in non-canon novel.

saschia_009
08-04-2015, 06:27 PM
"for Connor Juno was Iottsitison, the mogther goddess. Why wouldn't the vision of her have a strong impact on him?"
Because she told him what he already knew/suspected (clanmother probably expected completely different outcome). Maybe Juno sped up things but certainly didnt set them in motion. It was the burning of the village and the death of Connors mother.

what he knew/suspected was that there was a war around, that staying neutral was not an option long-term and that somethng needs to happen. If he was not sent to Achilles, he would not know about Templars and that Johnson and Lee were Templars too. What Juno needed was to get hold of the artifact and hide it untill Desmond's arrival. That's all she needed. She was in the place where probabilities were calculated, so she knew what she needs to do to make things go her way. So yes, she was the major force behind what has driven Connor in his life.
I have now rewatched the first meeting of Juno and Connor and what she said is that if the forces that are gathering (she does not say Templar) gain power, the sanctuary will be breached and it will destabilize the region and destroy his village. In fact, the region was destabilized although sanctuary was not breached, and the village was almost burned by Washington who was not a Templar. So where was the truth? And when he asked her the second time what now, she said it's fine, all she needed was done and good day to you sir, go have a life.
Then Connor decided to pursue his assassin carreer and to work on freedom for all (getting PAtience Gibbs and Eseosa was probablu part of that plan). He was also in contact with Aveline, so actually I would be very interested in what their next actions were. And given his approach to family life and the fact that he did have children, I guess there finally was some success in his life, and I would very much like to see it. Why could I see it for Ezio, Haytham and Edward but not for Connor?


"KaniehtÝ:io left Haytham because he lied to her about Braddock. I am not sure she knew he ws a Templar."
Nope. The templar part is in sequence recap (which appears on pause menu). While Braddock version appears only in non-canon novel.
1) Novel is cannon, 2) Braddock died several days after his wounds were inflicted. 3) Although she does mention Haytham is a templar, it was after Connor was born, so she may have found out later. She was not an assassin, that's sure, otherwise she would have been Shay's target. Apparently she was in contact with Achilles, but it seem only before Haytham even entered America, and it also seems Haytham met Achilles first time when he shot him in the leg, that means after Connor was born and around the time the village was burned. Also, she mentiones she missed Haytham and that he loved her in his way but was too concerned by the future and control. But she never saw him as a threat to her people, and especially not to the sanctuary.That's also a reason I suspect Juno was not telling the truth to Connor (at least not the whole truth).

Jessigirl2013
08-04-2015, 06:54 PM
Well if Desmond's death is not a signature WTF moment, what would be? If you mean in AC4, for me it was Mary Read's death, and John from IT showing his face.
In Unity, identifying Germain and having Elise die.
In Rogue killing of Charles Dorian.

I don't think you understand. ;)
By a signature AC WTF moment I mean how AC games used to end suddenly and dramatically as this used to create suspense for the next entry.
Your right though, The end of ACIII was one ;) *weep.


Counter...

I've got it ;)

saschia_009
08-04-2015, 07:58 PM
By a signature AC WTF moment I mean how AC games used to end suddenly and dramatically as this used to create suspense for the next entry.


Hmmm... well not in MD, that's correct. But in past... Rogue ending was definitely WTF

Anykeyer
08-04-2015, 08:47 PM
what he knew/suspected was that there was a war around, that staying neutral was not an option long-term and that somethng needs to happen. If he was not sent to Achilles, he would not know about Templars and that Johnson and Lee were Templars too.

Its not Juno who sent Connor to Achilles. It was clanmother and apparently the village had relations with assassins before. So again, Juno just sped up things. And also Connor doesnt looke like a type mindlessly obeying anyone, even "spirits".


What Juno needed was to get hold of the artifact and hide it untill Desmond's arrival. That's all she needed.

This also isnt true. Her goal was to delay Desmond, creating an artificial and time consuming obstacle. Like reliving someone's life again. So he wouldn have time to think or search for alternatives when presented the final choice. Or do you think Juno couldnt simply tell Desmond where the key right away?
Haytham already ruled out this cave, the site was safe. And the actual location of the amulet/key didnt really matter, after all Desmond travelled around the world for temple "batteries"


have now rewatched the first meeting of Juno and Connor and what she said

You need to rewach the entire seq 4, else you simply take a single scene out of context


the region was destabilized
By english-french 7 years war, not Juno or Connor's actions


So where was the truth?
I never said she was telling the truth.


And when he asked her the second time what now, she said it's fine, all she needed was done and good day to you sir, go have a life
And again, there are no surprises here. She simply told him what he already knew and what he was told by many before. "It will never be enough".


Novel is cannon
LOL no.


She was not an assassin
I never said Ziio was an assassin. But apparently her village supports assassins. Her in-game bio clearly states she could never become a clanmother because she helped templars. Why would a neutral or completely oblivious village even care about things like this?

saschia_009
08-04-2015, 09:52 PM
Its not Juno who sent Connor to Achilles. It was clanmother and apparently the village had relations with assassins before. So again, Juno just sped up things. And also Connor doesnt looke like a type mindlessly obeying anyone, even "spirits".

Juno showed Connor the assassin symbol, and that incited clanmother to send him to see achilles. She would have known Assassins were destroyed if the village was really in contact with them. And Connor would not obey mindlessly, but that was Juno's betrayal, she showed him what would happen if he did not ct, and he was a 14 years old several times traumatized boy. Yeah, he has learned some important life lessons, but not following the advice of spirits was not one of them. After all, he argued with the Clanmother about what the tribe should do, and because he was adamant and because clearly he was supported by mother goddess (remember, the clan saw itself as the supervisor of the site, it was very important to them), she decided that he should be allowed to leave and do something.



This also isnt true. Her goal was to delay Desmond, creating an artificial and time consuming obstacle. Like reliving someone's life again. So he wouldn have time to think or search for alternatives when presented the final choice. Or do you think Juno couldnt simply tell Desmond where the key right away?

Yeah, by taking it from Templars and hiding it. She knew that whoever, be it Templars or Assassins would hide it, they would make a note, and Desmond could have found it sooner in that case. So no, her purpose for Connor was to get the amulet and hide it and do it alone.


Haytham already ruled out this cave, the site was safe. And the actual location of the amulet/key didnt really matter, after all Desmond travelled around the world for temple "batteries"

Yes, but still she showed Connor the village will be destroyed if he did not go and fight against it. So she lied. Especially if Johnson was telling the truth and was buying the land only to protect it (which I don't buy btw).


You need to rewach the entire seq 4, else you simply take a single scene out of context

Maybe you should rewatch it taking my opinion as hypothesis that has some merit?



By english-french 7 years war, not Juno or Connor's actions

No, English-french war was already close to it's end. The destabilization Juno might have been talking about was the revolution. That's why the region was dragged again into the war and why Wasington wanted to have the village destroyed.



I never said she was telling the truth.


So you are accepting that Connor was misled. If god is lying, you either believe god completely or disregart god completely. If you believe the creature is god, then you believe the god is telling the truth, not making machinations.



And again, there are no surprises here. She simply told him what he already knew and what he was told by many before. "It will never be enough".


She confessed she was lying to him. He did not know until the end.



LOL no.

Sorry, but yes. Small details may be wrong (li ethe haitr color of Edward), but books (unlike some comics) are canon. Look up Darby intereviews.



I never said Ziio was an assassin. But apparently her village supports assassins. Her in-game bio clearly states she could never become a clanmother because she helped templars. Why would a neutral or completely oblivious village even care about things like this?

She would never become a clanmother because she actively participated in the events of the outside world. Look it up. If they had problems with her helping the enemy they would kick her out. Anyway, she did not help much, she showed him the sanctuary, after he helped the tribes get rid of Braddock. After he released a number of Braddock's prisoners.

Anykeyer
08-05-2015, 09:42 AM
After all, he argued with the Clanmother about what the tribe should do, and because he was adamant and because clearly he was supported by mother goddess (remember, the clan saw itself as the supervisor of the site, it was very important to them), she decided that he should be allowed to leave and do something.
I dont see how this contradicts my statement about Juno speeding up things but not actually setting them in motion.

Yeah, by taking it from Templars and hiding it. She knew that whoever, be it Templars or Assassins would hide it, they would make a note, and Desmond could have found it sooner in that case. So no, her purpose for Connor was to get the amulet and hide it and do it alone.

I dont understand whats your point here. It didnt really matter who and where would hid the amulet. The amulet itself could be an artificial obstacle, maybe Juno could switch off force field at will. I would definitely create such failsafe in case Desmond is too slow or stupid, or key gets destroyed or lost.

Yes, but still she showed Connor the village will be destroyed if he did not go and fight against it. So she lied. Especially if Johnson was telling the truth and was buying the land only to protect it (which I don't buy btw).
We are going in circles. I never said Juno told the truth.

Maybe you should rewatch it taking my opinion as hypothesis that has some merit?
As I said AC3 is open for interpretation. There is enough material to support both views. So we can continue agruing forever.

No, English-french war was already close to it's end. The destabilization Juno might have been talking about was the revolution.
7 years war was one of the main reasons for revolution.

So you are accepting that Connor was misled. If god is lying, you either believe god completely or disregart god completely. If you believe the creature is god, then you believe the god is telling the truth, not making machinations.
Really? What about Greek gods then? Or other religions having trickster gods?

He did not know until the end
I really doubt it. He believed her when he was 14, after all she just said what he "wanted" (or expected) to hear. But over time he saw and heard a lot of things contradicting Juno. And Connor showed multiple times he is good at reading others. I remember only one scene when he looked surprised after learning someone is an *******, when Haytham showed him the order to attack his village. And in the very same scene he parted with Haytham because he immediately recognised whats he doing. And so in Juno 2nd scene he doesnt look or act surprised. Which he should be if he was so naive as you try to say.

Sorry, but yes
No

She would never become a clanmother because she actively participated in the events of the outside world. Look it up. If they had problems with her helping the enemy they would kick her out.
She probably wasnt kicked out because she wasnt aware who he is. And because it didnt do much damage. But you missed my point. The village clearly wasnt totally isolated and ignorant, and its leaders knew about assassins-templars conflict and at least to some extent were on the side of assassins.

VoldR
08-05-2015, 11:11 AM
AC3? You can counter kill with your bow. Most tools work actually. My favorite (and probably the most brutal) is snare counter kill.

Need to double check on that. :)

Not sure why it wasn't working, if true

saschia_009
08-05-2015, 11:47 AM
I dont see how this contradicts my statement about Juno speeding up things but not actually setting them in motion.

She did set in motion the particular events that happened. She acted as the mother goddess, she set the role f the tribe to protect the sanctuary. And if she did not tell Connor what she told him, part of which was a lie, the events would have unfolded differently. Connor did act as he acted for his value of equality and freedom, but he acted on certain information and "prophecy". As he thought that the tribe is needed to protect the sanctuary, he did not anticipate that the goddess would be so uncaring about the tribe being destroyed/moved pout of the land. According to their beliefs the goddess brought them to the place and cared for them. So if he knew that the goddess did not give a damn about the tribe, he would maybe expect more danger to the tribe and act accordingly.


I dont understand whats your point here. It didnt really matter who and where would hid the amulet. The amulet itself could be an artificial obstacle, maybe Juno could switch off force field at will. I would definitely create such failsafe in case Desmond is too slow or stupid, or key gets destroyed or lost.

If she could do anything physical she wouldn't need desmond in the first place. She needed the two keys not to come together until the very end. As there were several apples of eden, she needed the amulet hidden in a way that would prevent it falling into anybody's hands before the right time. Yu said yourself she needed Desmond to find the amulet at gthe last possible moment, That's also why she started the synchronization with Haytham, so that it would take long enough to get there.



We are going in circles. I never said Juno told the truth.
As I said AC3 is open for interpretation. There is enough material to support both views. So we can continue agruing forever.

Yes I agree. But the original point of argument was that Connor made decisions based on false information. Any job that requires important decisions required also enough correct and precise information to base the decisions on. If you think Nazis are not tryng to make atomic bomb, you may not onvest in your own. If you think Iraq has atomic bombs, you can decide to attack preventively. If you think vaccination is more harmful than beneficial, you can stop vaccinating children. You know from experience of other people if not your own that making decisions on false information may lead to disasters. All our later arguments go about if he was deceited, if he acted on this and if he would have acted differently if he was not deceited. My ipinion is he would act in similar manner (fighting for freedom and equality) but at completely different occasions, possibly with different people, and it is quite possible that he would target not only Lee, but also Washington.



7 years war was one of the main reasons for revolution.

I am not good at history and the 7 year war sure let to the revolution, but had Connor not acted all the events could have happened differently. In the game, Connor is the catalyst of many events (Battle of Bunker Hill), and prevention of other events (assassiation of Washington). So Juno's words that if the forces that are gathering gain power, the sanctuary will be breached and it will destabilize the region and destroy his village were clearly deceiving, not only false but she was leading Connor to conclusions that were not true and to actions that would actually cause her benefit and not prevent things she said they would prevent.



Really? What about Greek gods then? Or other religions having trickster gods?

The greek gods did not act like mother goddess. Greek mythology and Iroquois mythology were completely different. The Iroquois was more similar to catholic Virgin Mary approach. And if Clanmother thought the god would be a trickster she would not send a child to an interview with the god, sould she?


And so in Juno 2nd scene he doesnt look or act surprised. Which he should be if he was so naive as you try to say.

Oh I am not saying he is very naive. He was quite naive in the beginning. Later, he was naive only in the way I am, thinking that the world could be a better place. Unlike me, he was willing to fight for it. Anyway, He came to the realization about the revolutionaries slowly, when most of his decisions were made. After all,as I said previously, he decided fighting for freedom and equality is worth it even if his tribe was lost. He did continue his quest after the events of the game. You said seeing his story close would negate the message of the first one, I disagree with you.


No

Yes. see here: http://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/2e1qx3/are_the_novels_canon/cjve5v5


She probably wasnt kicked out because she wasnt aware who he is. And because it didnt do much damage. But you missed my point. The village clearly wasnt totally isolated and ignorant, and its leaders knew about assassins-templars conflict and at least to some extent were on the side of assassins.

first you say she knew he was a templar, then you say she was not aware who he was. THe tribe was aware of the conflict but it did not take part of it and did not chose sides. Their sole purpose was to protect the sanctuary from everybody and part of that was to stay unnoticed, that's why they were not supposed to leave the valley.

Anykeyer
08-05-2015, 01:20 PM
Connor did act as he acted for his value of equality and freedom, but he acted on certain information and "prophecy". As he thought that the tribe is needed to protect the sanctuary, he did not anticipate that the goddess would be so uncaring about the tribe being destroyed/moved pout of the land. According to their beliefs the goddess brought them to the place and cared for them.
You discard a very likely possibility that Achilles actually told Connor more about the "spirits" aside from Ezio "uncorking the bottle". AC3 cutscenes skip a lot of the information including where and how Connor said to Achilles that Haytham is his father. They probably skipped this important piece as well.

If she could do anything physical she wouldn't need desmond in the first place
If she can project herself why she cant manipulate other energy forms within the temple? Its not like she required to move a rock to do this.

And if Clanmother thought the god would be a trickster she would not send a child to an interview with the god, sould she?
Clanmother intentions were more or less clear. She expected Juno to discourage Connor. What Im trying to say is that Connor is non-believer like all other assassins.

After all,as I said previously, he decided fighting for freedom and equality is worth it even if his tribe was lost. He did continue his quest after the events of the game. You said seeing his story close would negate the message of the first one, I disagree with you.
I didnt say so. I said happy ending in AC3 or any Connor's sequel will negate the meaning of original story.

Yes. see here
Still no.

first you say she knew he was a templar, then you say she was not aware who he was
He left Haytham when she learned who he is. But she still didnt knew during seq 2-3.

THe tribe was aware of the conflict but it did not take part of it and did not chose sides
If you help templars you get punished and excluded from possible clanmothers for this. how is this not choosing sides?

saschia_009
08-05-2015, 02:07 PM
Still no.


Look if you are not willing to accept arguments no matter what are the facts then debating you is pointless and I have better things to do. Good day.

Anykeyer
08-05-2015, 02:14 PM
Its games series, all other media can only be "expanded universe" no matter what. Which means you can personally consider it as a part of the story if you want so, but if it contradicts with a game (and it does) it should be discarded.
Also Reddit is not an official source. And neither is twitter or any other 3rd party sites.

saschia_009
08-05-2015, 04:18 PM
Well I consider Darby McDevitt a 1st party source and he said this on the topic: https://twitter.com/DarbyMcDevitt/status/628918336898863104

So yeah, unless it contradicts the game. As the gameplay is the only real truth in the game, because all background info is only info found by Shaun or somebody else, if book facts written in first person do not directly contradict what you experience in the game, the book must logically have precedence over facts from other sources. Nowhere does KaniehtÝ:io say she left Haytham because he was Templar, while Haytham mentions in his diary that she was angered by finding he lied about Braddock to make her show him the site.

If you do not like it that is your problem, but not mine. And you still did not show any reason why happy ending in AC3 or any Connor's sequel will negate the meaning of original story. The original quote you provided is only quote. So is Connor's "Because noone else will" which in my opinion proves he has something to say although he is not completely right as there were assassins after him who fought as well.

Jessigirl2013
08-05-2015, 08:54 PM
Hmmm... well not in MD, that's correct. But in past... Rogue ending was definitely WTF
I agree.;) But as soon as I knew he was in Paris I just assumed he was there for that reason ;)
Even the MD ending I thought was good, as I didn't expect any MD ending. ;)


This also isnt true. Her goal was to delay Desmond, creating an artificial and time consuming obstacle. Like reliving someone's life again. So he wouldn have time to think or search for alternatives when presented the final choice. Or do you think Juno couldnt simply tell Desmond where the key right away?
Haytham already ruled out this cave, the site was safe. And the actual location of the amulet/key didnt really matter, after all Desmond travelled around the world for temple "batteries"

I don't think it was to delay him, Just ensure that he was the only one who would be able to access the temple.
If the first civ couldn't find an alternative with all their technology, I doubt she worried about him finding one. ;)

The key didn't matter because the apple POE was used to open the door to the temple. Like another layer of security to ensure it was only him that could access the temple. As she knew he would get it from the vault.;)
I don't understand your point about the batteries though? They were needed to power the temple.


first you say she knew he was a templar, then you say she was not aware who he was. THe tribe was aware of the conflict but it did not take part of it and did not chose sides. Their sole purpose was to protect the sanctuary from everybody and part of that was to stay unnoticed, that's why they were not supposed to leave the valley.

Ziio didn't know he was a Templar, as soon as she found out he was she left him.;)
The tribe were aware of As and Ts hence, when Ziio found out he was a Templar she left him.
I agree the tribe were neutral, They believed the gods (TWCB) wanted them to protect the sanctuary. <---- for the MD story.
Therefore they wouldn't leave the valley for that reason. ;)

Anykeyer
08-06-2015, 11:18 AM
Well I consider Darby McDevitt a 1st party source and he said this on the topic: https://twitter.com/DarbyMcDevitt/status/628918336898863104

So yeah, unless it contradicts the game. As the gameplay is the only real truth in the game, because all background info is only info found by Shaun or somebody else, if book facts written in first person do not directly contradict what you experience in the game, the book must logically have precedence over facts from other sources. Nowhere does KaniehtÝ:io say she left Haytham because he was Templar, while Haytham mentions in his diary that she was angered by finding he lied about Braddock to make her show him the site.


Any in-game text is part of the game, be it cutscene or database entry.
Even by your logic if the side source (novel) is found to have contradictions with any of the game it should lose its canon status. A a whole. You cant trust page 2 and 4 while disregarding pages 1, 3 and 5. This is stupid. Just like you shouldnt automatically trust any information coming from a person who was already caugh lying. Its like what you said about god, you either trust it or not, there can be no middle ground for the same source.


If you do not like it that is your problem, but not mine. And you still did not show any reason why happy ending in AC3 or any Connor's sequel will negate the meaning of original story. The original quote you provided is only quote. So is Connor's "Because noone else will" which in my opinion proves he has something to say although he is not completely right as there were assassins after him who fought as well.
"No one else will" is about the same thing. Connor feels obligated to try no matter what. And no one else will because everyone else see his quest as futile. And Connor clearly knows this.
If it ends with a happy ending than everyone was wrong, including Connor. Sure he can have small vicrories here and there, but his hands will always be empty because he wants so much more than a beer in one hand and a titty in the other, there can be no end to his path other than death.


Iensure that he was the only one who would be able to access the temple.

And this too. But they already had enough barriers, only humans with a certain ammount of precursor DNA can properly use POEe, and only someone with Desmons levels could activate the eye.


I don't understand your point about the batteries though? They were needed to power the temple.
Battaries were in different parts of the world and no ammount of reliving Connors life would give their locations. And they were just as important (if not more important, Im still not sure Juno couldnt turn off force field even w/o amulet, I would certainly not rely on such a small and easy to lose thing when designing my evil masterplan). Juno could order someone else to hide batteries and leave amulet lying on display in a museum or something. It didnt really matter.

saschia_009
08-06-2015, 03:56 PM
I don't think it was to delay him, Just ensure that he was the only one who would be able to access the temple.
If the first civ couldn't find an alternative with all their technology, I doubt she worried about him finding one. ;)

The key didn't matter because the apple POE was used to open the door to the temple. Like another layer of security to ensure it was only him that could access the temple. As she knew he would get it from the vault.;)

To activate the machinery, Desmond had to find the key and get through the final "glass" wall. Everything else was existing in the world in several pieces, even the batteries were more than four,, so the easiest way to atop getting all the keys is to hide the one that has no duplicate, as long as that one is safe, everything is safe.
Juno needed Desmond to come to the eye as late as possible. If anybody came sooner, Minerva could have persuaded them. Remember, Desmond had two choices only becsuse he had no time - if he did, he could have found a way to stop Juno from getting free before activating the device. He could have done it with Minerva's help.


Any in-game text is part of the game, be it cutscene or database entry.
Even by your logic if the side source (novel) is found to have contradictions with any of the game it should lose its canon status. A a whole. You cant trust page 2 and 4 while disregarding pages 1, 3 and 5. This is stupid. Just like you shouldnt automatically trust any information coming from a person who was already caugh lying. Its like what you said about god, you either trust it or not, there can be no middle ground for the same source.

Oh it can. Remember, according to cacnon thsese are memories, If the diary is a part of canon, it is accepted as written by a wittness. But witnesses have short memories So anything written in diary has higher value than anything being researched couple of hundreds of years later. What happens ingame is what the person experienced at that time and you are looking at it as it is (although it can also be changed by the person's attitude). So if we take the game as a universe, the ingame is more precise than diaries, which is more precise than database entries.



"No one else will" is about the same thing. Connor feels obligated to try no matter what. And no one else will because everyone else see his quest as futile. And Connor clearlly knows this.
If it ends with a happy ending than everyone was wrong, including Connor. Sure he can have small vicrories here and there, but his hands will always be empty because he wants so much more than a beer in one hand and a titty in the other, there can be no end to his path other than death.

Well IMO he knows he cannot get the best possible world but he can try to make it better and that's why he fights. Your idea of the message seems to me like if you fight for lost causes you are stupid and everybody will consider you so, and even though you fight you don't fulfill your goals, on the other hand a continuation with at least some happiness would say if you fight hard enough against all odds, you can accomplish something. And that's the idea of the creed - fight for the right thing, because if no one else will, all is lost.

Same with Desmond - he said it's better to unleash Juno on the world when there is a chance that people will find a way to fight her, than to start all the circle again with all the lives lost in the previous one.


And this too. But they already had enough barriers, only humans with a certain ammount of precursor DNA can properly use POEe, and only someone with Desmons levels could activate the eye.

Anybody with proper heritage could have gotten into the vault, like Ezio got to Rome's vault. And they could have had destroyed the vault if Minerva persuaded them to.


Battaries were in different parts of the world and no ammount of reliving Connors life would give their locations. And they were just as important (if not more important, Im still not sure Juno couldnt turn off force field even w/o amulet, I would certainly not rely on such a small and easy to lose thing when designing my evil masterplan). Juno could order someone else to hide batteries and leave amulet lying on display in a museum or something. It didnt really matter.

If i remember correctly there were more batteries. MD assassins were mentioning that the Templars were trying to get to them sooner than assassins and were succeeding due to higher manpower.

Jessigirl2013
08-06-2015, 08:40 PM
To activate the machinery, Desmond had to find the key and get through the final "glass" wall. Everything else was existing in the world in several pieces, even the batteries were more than four,, so the easiest way to atop getting all the keys is to hide the one that has no duplicate, as long as that one is safe, everything is safe.
Juno needed Desmond to come to the eye as late as possible. If anybody came sooner, Minerva could have persuaded them. Remember, Desmond had two choices only becsuse he had no time - if he did, he could have found a way to stop Juno from getting free before activating the device. He could have done it with Minerva's help.


I don't think it made any different whether he got to the eye earlier, as the time would be negligible anyway. <---- Minerva already said there would be no other way.
I doubt Minerva could of persuaded them, as she didn't do a good job anyway and allowed him to choose as she couldn't stop him.
I also doubt he could of found another way, I mean the first civ had years of time and unlimited amounts of advanced technology and they couldn't so how could he.;)
As for them preventing her getting free I also doubt this as there's no way its possible ;) at least that we know of.
He couldn't of had Minerva's help as she is already dead ;) They left the earth long ago, It was just projections of Juno and Minerva that were seen.
Also Minerva and co had already tried this, As said above^ they had more advanced technology and time, and still they couldn't, so how could he ;)

saschia_009
08-06-2015, 09:57 PM
I doubt Minerva could of persuaded them, as she didn't do a good job anyway and allowed him to choose as she couldn't stop him.
I also doubt he could of found another way, I mean the first civ had years of time and unlimited amounts of advanced technology and they couldn't so how could he.;)

She could have persuaded him to not save the world, but instead try to make sure to prevent mistakes made in the first cycle. She might have had time to show him different outcomes. Like the one when he saves the world and Juno is freed and enslaves humanity...

We do not know, but Juno made sure Desmond got to the amulet at the last minute, so it is quite possible it was important. Anyway, my point is not what exactly happened and why, but that Juno was manipulating Connor so that her goals were fulfilled and she did not give a damn about what happens otherwise. She literally told him she does not need him anymore.

Anykeyer
08-07-2015, 09:20 AM
the easiest way to atop getting all the keys is to hide the one that has no duplicate, as long as that one is safe, everything is safe.
We cant be sure it had no duplicates. Imiagine youself an ancient manupulative "goddess". Your plan is in motion for at least 75000 years. Would you rely on a single easy to lose thing?
Maybe "the key" was not a key at all.


Oh it can. Remember, according to cacnon thsese are memories, If the diary is a part of canon, it is accepted as written by a wittness. But witnesses have short memories So anything written in diary has higher value than anything being researched couple of hundreds of years later. What happens ingame is what the person experienced at that time and you are looking at it as it is (although it can also be changed by the person's attitude). So if we take the game as a universe, the ingame is more precise than diaries, which is more precise than database entries.
This hierarchy would be true for the same source - game itself. If your "diary" had been in game I would agree with you. But its not. And all informtation from the game is always more precise than any other media, especially written by other authors.

Anybody with proper heritage could have gotten into the vault, like Ezio got to Rome's vault. And they could have had destroyed the vault if Minerva persuaded them to.
"Proper heritage" is relative. Desmond had higher precursor DNA level than any other human before him. Maybe it was also the lowest allowed level to access the temple. We dont know and no source clarifies this.


I don't think it made any different whether he got to the eye earlier, as the time would be negligible anyway. <---- Minerva already said there would be no other way.
I doubt Minerva could of persuaded them, as she didn't do a good job anyway and allowed him to choose as she couldn't stop him.
I also doubt he could of found another way, I mean the first civ had years of time and unlimited amounts of advanced technology and they couldn't so how could he.http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/wink.png
As for them preventing her getting free I also doubt this as there's no way its possible http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/wink.png at least that we know of.
He couldn't of had Minerva's help as she is already dead http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/wink.png They left the earth long ago, It was just projections of Juno and Minerva that were seen.
Also Minerva and co had already tried this, As said above^ they had more advanced technology and time, and still they couldn't, so how could he http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/wink.png

Through history Juno intervened multiple times to slow down humanity making it lose much more than a few months. Centuries were wasted on fighting one another.

saschia_009
08-07-2015, 10:03 AM
Yes, exactly. She manipulated for centuries. You are supposing one things and refuse to suppose other things.

Still it does not really matter what were her needs exactly, but that she used and deceived people to accomplish those needs. She deceived Connor by showing him false information and that was what mattered in Connor's life and his first choices most. We are returning to the first point of argument, that Connor's goals were not accomplished because they could not have been, but that he has decided on different goals and those might have been at least partially accomplished if he fought on and found people who would fight along (and he quite probably did, according to Aveline missions in AC4 and Eseosa's letters and some war letters in Rogue).

brianlm3
08-07-2015, 06:51 PM
#3 is widely regarded as the low point of the series and I just can't understand why. Yes it takes a bit longer to get into the open world portion than the other ACs - but the missions leading up to it were enjoyable enough that I didn't really mind. And when you do get into the open world - wow! It's massive. Granted the cities aren't set up for parkour all that well - but thankfully they made fast travel much simpler because all you have to do is open your map and press OK on where you want to go. The frontier is actually quite relaxing. Listening to the streams flowing, birds chirping and leaves blowing not to mention listening to the frontiersmen's stories. The forts in the frontier offer up a nice change of pace too. Hunting I find is enjoyable. Watching your target from above waiting for the time to strike. The bow is a great addition too. Completely silent and one hit kills low tier enemies not to mention it feels so cool when you use it. Silently strangling enemies from above with the rope dart is good fun as well - hanging them up even more so. Connor might not be as exciting or flamboyant as Ezio but it makes sense with regards to where he's from. He's certainly the most agile assassin in the series and with that the most deadly. The naval missions are another high point. The ship feels weighty and powerful. It's a nice change of pace from the usual on foot stuff. The graphics are beautiful too even on consoles. I bought all the last gen games for Xbox 360 recently and am on AC 3 and I can't believe how good it looks. Very impressive what Ubi managed to achieve with the hardware.

So why is it that it's regarded as the low point?

I've had this discussion with people before, and I've always boiled it down to Connor's voice acting as the problem.

The game play was fantastic and the best in the series at the time.

Colonial America setting was interesting for me as an American. Also great expansive environment with cool new features like tree climbing.

Everything about the game was 5 stars, and then there was Connor's voice acting... 1 star. I cringed every time he had any dialogue throughout the game. Not only was the voice acting flat and terrible, as if read aloud directly from script, but the character was a bit too whiny for a bad a$$ assassin.

Every other character in AC3 had great emotive voice actors, which singled out even more how terrible Connor's was. I don't know who or why Connor's actor got the job, but for me, bad choice.

saschia_009
08-07-2015, 08:02 PM
I've had this discussion with people before, and I've always boiled it down to Connor's voice acting as the problem.
...
Everything about the game was 5 stars, and then there was Connor's voice acting... 1 star. I cringed every time he had any dialogue throughout the game. Not only was the voice acting flat and terrible, as if read aloud directly from script, but the character was a bit too whiny for a bad a$$ assassin.

This is a common complaint and I don't really understand it. Yes the voice is kinda flat, but it is a purpose. Connor is a different culture, his mother also has much flatter voice than other women in the series. Actually there is a great interview with the voica actor Noah Watts about his choises for playing Connor as he did.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1KeUWEVa4

From his improv there and at Sacanime:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKuK8qQURvE

you can see that it is not inability to act, but acting that makes the voice so flat. Actually I love his voice quality, it is smooth and soft, I can feel the inner strength and self-confidence of Connor, his calm and reserved approach to life. Yes he is emotional sometimes, but if you play the whole game, the are more interactions where he is clm than where he is whiney or angry.

My feelings, but lot of people share them.

Jessigirl2013
08-07-2015, 08:38 PM
She could have persuaded him to not save the world, but instead try to make sure to prevent mistakes made in the first cycle. She might have had time to show him different outcomes. Like the one when he saves the world and Juno is freed and enslaves humanity...

We do not know, but Juno made sure Desmond got to the amulet at the last minute, so it is quite possible it was important. Anyway, my point is not what exactly happened and why, but that Juno was manipulating Connor so that her goals were fulfilled and she did not give a damn about what happens otherwise. She literally told him she does not need him anymore.
I doubt she would of been able to persuade him, as they had no other options. ;)
Like I said, if the first civ couldn't find a way how the hell could he.

Like I said we don't know if she was intentionally delaying him, as she needed Connor to hide the amulet for the MD so only they could access the temple with the apple.
She didn't have a use for Connor as he did his job of hiding the amulet for MD.;)


Through history Juno intervened multiple times to slow down humanity making it lose much more than a few months. Centuries were wasted on fighting one another.

I agree, even Minerva pointed this out. ;)
But I don't think Juno was involved in the A vs T conflict. I mean when did she intervene?

saschia_009
08-07-2015, 11:16 PM
I doubt she would of been able to persuade him, as they had no other options. ;)
Like I said, if the first civ couldn't find a way how the hell could he.

She could have persuaded him that not saving the humanity was the better option. Ther world survived it the first time, it would have survived the second time. Like in the previous cycle the civilization would have been disrupted. After all she did show him what would be the result - survival of humans and another cycle of development, including the religions and their misuse. But she didn't have time to show what will happen if humanity is saved. It can be worse you know :) or it may not, We won;t find out now.

But that's still not the real point. The real point is there is a material for continuing Connor's story and there is interest of players to have a continuation of Connor's story. So we can still hope for it and we definitely should continue asking for it.

Jessigirl2013
08-08-2015, 06:36 PM
She could have persuaded him that not saving the humanity was the better option. Ther world survived it the first time, it would have survived the second time. Like in the previous cycle the civilization would have been disrupted. After all she did show him what would be the result - survival of humans and another cycle of development, including the religions and their misuse. But she didn't have time to show what will happen if humanity is saved. It can be worse you know :) or it may not, We won;t find out now.

But that's still not the real point. The real point is there is a material for continuing Connor's story and there is interest of players to have a continuation of Connor's story. So we can still hope for it and we definitely should continue asking for it.


She could have persuaded him that not saving the humanity was the better option.
This is just speculation. ;)
But she didn't exactly do a good job in the end, So I doubt it.

I don't expect Connors story to be continued unless its included vaguely in DLC of some sort in another entry.
In UBIs view Connor was probably the least popular protagonist in opinion polls, and therefore its not cost effective to do a DLC with him in it.

brianlm3
08-11-2015, 09:41 PM
...there is a great interview with the voica actor Noah Watts about his choises for playing Connor as he did...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1KeUWEVa4

After listening to that interview I kind of feel bad for such harsh criticism.

His reasoning for the character makes sense when he explains his development. I actually feel relieved that there wasn't a slack on ubisofts end for what I thought was "bad acting"

Still, what matters to me most is game play. Despite me thinking that the acting was bad for the main character—wasn't enough to stop me from playing and enjoying AC3.

aaronx5000
06-04-2017, 10:53 AM
This is just speculation. ;)
But she didn't exactly do a good job in the end, So I doubt it.

I don't expect Connors story to be continued unless its included vaguely in DLC of some sort in another entry.
In UBIs view Connor was probably the least popular protagonist in opinion polls, and therefore its not cost effective to do a DLC with him in it.



Its not speculation , its fact and you know it.



Connor is the best Assassins Creed character hands down !!!