PDA

View Full Version : Is it only me, or does AC Rogue make you feel guilty? (SPOILERS)



Defalt221
03-05-2015, 07:15 PM
Killing Adewale broke my heart,esp with the treatment Shay gave him in the white room. And how Haytham said,"I didn't know my father had a sense of shame." and insulting Edward.And then what Shay did to Liam and the others. And I was brutally wiping all Assassins from colonies just because Achilles made a wrong decision (the Templars would have made that mistake too if they got to the vault at first). Couple that with the melancholic loading screen (dark moonlit night sea-like theme) and the music. Plus the menu color design all dark blue and it gives a sense of...sadness (at least that's what I think...)
Great thing though is that Achilles succeeds in the end...in AC3. Now I'm wishing I get to play as an Assassin who kills Shay in a sequel or sth...

wvstolzing
03-05-2015, 07:37 PM
I don't know about 'guilt', but the quality of the writing in Rogue makes me embarrassed for the writers. :rolleyes:

EmptyCrustacean
03-05-2015, 08:11 PM
I don't know about 'guilt', but the quality of the writing in Rogue makes me embarrassed for the writers. :rolleyes:

This.
Shay's character development is almost as botched as Arno's.

Namikaze_17
03-05-2015, 09:38 PM
Killing Adewale broke my heart

It saddened me the way his entire death and white room went, but he deserved what he got.

He pretty much supported Achilles and his obsession with getting to the precursor site after all that had happened.



treatment Shay gave him in the white room.

Shay asked for forgiveness after killing Adéwalé.

He didn't want to kill him, he knew how well-intentioned Adé was but there was no other way.

What does Adéwalé do? Just tells him hell awaits. :rolleyes:


And how Haytham said,"I didn't know my father had a sense of shame." and insulting Edward.

Yeah, that's why he pondered his whole life on if his father would proud of the choices he made or why he said his father to be the only person to not lie to him.

He really insulted him there. :rolleyes:

For the record, that was just Haytham fronting like he didn't care, he really did.



And then what Shay did to Liam and the others.

They deserved their deaths as well.

Liam brutally threw Monroe into a burning house.

Hope was poisoning citizens to get to the Templars.

Kesegowasse held a tribe hostage and started a huge battle to an innocent town.



(the Templars would have made that mistake too if they got to the vault at first)

Thus why they shouldn't be messing with these artifacts at all.

Only reason it's an issue is because the Assassin angels ****ed up for once.



Great thing though is that Achilles succeeds in the end...in AC3.

Yeah, thanks Connor. :rolleyes:


Now I'm wishing I get to play as an Assassin who kills Shay in a sequel or sth...

Please, god no.

micksith
03-05-2015, 09:55 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if Arno takes down Grandmaster Shay in AC Victory ... After the dullsville plot of unity , don't expect less than predictable vengeance in Arno's next outing.

Megas_Doux
03-05-2015, 10:00 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if Arno takes down Grandmaster Shay in AC Victory ... After the dullsville plot of unity , don't expect less than predictable vengeance in Arno's next outing.


Based on the "leaks", that game is set at least in 1860, therefore Arno and mostly Shay would be bare bones.......

Namikaze_17
03-05-2015, 10:10 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if Arno takes down Grandmaster Shay in AC Victory ... After the dullsville plot of unity , don't expect less than predictable vengeance in Arno's next outing.

Arno & Shay should be long gone by Victory.

And while the plot isn't my favorite, it isn't dull. It just takes time getting used to.

And god, no. How many times must we establish Arno is beyond this vengeance nonsense?

Damn, it's like revenge is the only thing that clicks with people these days. -__-

micksith
03-05-2015, 10:12 PM
not been on for ages , or read any info on victory ... lol just assumed HMS victory / Nelson / Napoleon/ London .

leaks are leaks - if we'd seen 'Paris Covert Rift' leaked last year WW2 may have been expected.

cawatrooper9
03-05-2015, 10:14 PM
I would've been fine killing Assassins in cold blood- Haytham was my favorite protagonist, after all. I'm just blown away by how sympathetic they made they made Shay. I think his actions were 100% justified.

Aphex_Tim
03-05-2015, 10:18 PM
Not really; mostly because a lot of design and storytelling choices kinda made the game feel fan-made to me, which almost makes me feel like it's non-canon.
With a lot of pivotal moments in the game, I feel like we'd been better off just knowing it happened instead of actually playing it. Most notably with Adewale's death in my case because of how ridiculously it played out in my first (and so far only) playthrough: Adewale running around in circles through the map, shouting the same nonsense over and over while Shay was clinging onto a scaffold that he wouldn't let go of because of annoying controls; eventually air-assassinating Ade from the scaffold as he happened to run by. Such a laughable end to such a great character is so ridiculous I couldn't possibly feel guilty about it.
Honestly, in a case like this, it would've been better if we had just learned through a book or film or even a cutscene that Adewale eventually met his end by Shay's hand.
I feel like a lot of moments in this game that should've been great or should've had an impact were kinda ruined by the gameplay.

Mr.Black24
03-05-2015, 10:28 PM
It saddened me the way his entire death and white room went, but he deserved what he got.

He pretty much supported Achilles and his obsession with getting to the precursor site after all that had happened. To be fair, its unknown if Adewale even knew about what happened in Lisbon. Like Achilles and the rest had it coming for not even considering Shay's argument, but for Adewale, I don't know.





Shay asked for forgiveness after killing Adéwalé.

He didn't want to kill him, he knew how well-intentioned Adé was but there was no other way.

What does Adéwalé do? Just tells him hell awaits. :rolleyes: Lets be fair here, if someone stabbed you in the chest, I doubt you'd feel a forgiving mood.;)




Yeah, that's why he pondered his whole life on if his father would proud of the choices he made or why he said his father to be the only person to not lie to him.

He really insulted him there. :rolleyes:

For the record, that was just Haytham fronting like he didn't care, he really did. Was that phrase even an insult? I mean Edward could have been a drunk from time to time, could have embarrassed Haytham when he was young or something? Maybe even make terrible dad jokes lol! Yeah but I'm getting the game for PC soon so perhaps I'll understand it better, hopefully.





They deserved their deaths as well.

Liam brutally threw Monroe into a burning house.

Hope was poisoning citizens to get to the Templars.

Kesegowasse held a tribe hostage and started a huge battle to an innocent town.

Swift and merciful deaths for enemies is supposed to be the Assassins' way, so I guess you're good there.

I'm pretty sure that it was covered that the poison was for only corrupt officials and Templars.

Kesagowasse was being a **** there, so yeah.





Thus why they shouldn't be messing with these artifacts at all.

Only reason it's an issue is because the Assassin angels ****ed up for once. People slip on ice from time to time.





Yeah, thanks Connor. :rolleyes: Hehehehehehehe




Please, god no. Connor vs Shay, lets go!!!!

But really, it is an unknown if they will fight or not. Hence why I need a sequel for these nutters!:)

Hans684
03-05-2015, 10:35 PM
First Templar game: Oh my god I feel bad!!!!! How can this possible be good? I'm dying help meeee! It's breaking me a part to kill theses angels they're so pure and right and it makes me feel bad and guilty, ohhh my goood it's written like fanfic and it's ridiculous, even Fifty Shades Of Gray or Twilight is better then his pro-Templar Abstergo propaganda.......

Typical AC's: I feel like a badass hero killing there freaks, FREEEDDDDOOOMMM!!!!! No mercy and no regrets.

Edit: It's funny actually, Rogue. The game that gave people the feeling of guilt [but that's because we kill Assassins this time.] And apparently by fan logic killing your enemies isn't bad unless their Assassins. A Templar kill someone they interrogate(Haytham) and his suddenly cold and bad but if an Assassin(Altaïr) does it it's ignored, showed under the carped and good.

Megas_Doux
03-05-2015, 10:36 PM
Not really; mostly because a lot of design and storytelling choices kinda made the game feel fan-made to me, which almost makes me feel like it's non-canon.
With a lot of pivotal moments in the game, I feel like we'd been better off just knowing it happened instead of actually playing it. Most notably with Adewale's death in my case because of how ridiculously it played out in my first (and so far only) playthrough: Adewale running around in circles through the map, shouting the same nonsense over and over while Shay was clinging onto a scaffold that he wouldn't let go of because of annoying controls; eventually air-assassinating Ade from the scaffold as he happened to run by. Such a laughable end to such a great character is so ridiculous I couldn't possibly feel guilty about it.
Honestly, in a case like this, it would've been better if we had just learned through a book or film or even a cutscene that Adewale eventually met his end by Shay's hand.
I feel like a lot of moments in this game that should've been great or should've had an impact were kinda ruined by the gameplay.

This!

Namikaze_17
03-05-2015, 11:29 PM
To be fair, its unknown if Adewale even knew about what happened in Lisbon. Like Achilles and the rest had it coming for not even considering Shay's argument, but for Adewale, I don't know.

He must've known something with Lisbon if he knew about Shay's siege and where Achilles was heading next.

But overall, it is unknown.



Lets be fair here, if someone stabbed you in the chest, I doubt you'd feel a forgiving mood.;)


Let's not being real life into this. ;)


Was that phrase even an insult? I mean Edward could have been a drunk from time to time, could have embarrassed Haytham when he was young or something? Maybe even make terrible dad jokes lol! Yeah but I'm getting the game for PC soon so perhaps I'll understand it better, hopefully.



Yeah, that line was really nothing.

But we can discuss once you have played...



Swift and merciful deaths for enemies is supposed to be the Assassins' way, so I guess you're good there.

I'm pretty sure that it was covered that the poison was for only corrupt officials and Templars.

Kesagowasse was being a **** there, so yeah.

But why not just stab Monro? Doing that was just cold.

Well I guess some citizens came across it by accident then. :rolleyes:

Yeah, he was. Kinda bothers me he was the native american Assassin before Connor. -__-



People slip on ice from time to time.

Indeed, no one is perfect.



Connor vs Shay, lets go!!!!

But really, it is an unknown if they will fight or not. Hence why I need a sequel for these nutters!:)


Yeah, but hopefully in some way shape or form other than a game.

Even I'm bummed out of Colonial America at this point.



First Templar game: Oh my god I feel bad!!!!! How can this possible be good? I'm dying help meeee! It's breaking me a part to kill theses angels they're so pure and right and it makes me feel bad and guilty, ohhh my goood it's written like fanfic and it's ridiculous, even Fifty Shades Of Gray or Twilight is better then his pro-Templar Abstergo propaganda.......

Typical AC's: I feel like a badass hero killing there freaks, FREEEDDDDOOOMMM!!!!! No mercy and no regrets.

Edit: It's funny actually, Rogue. The game that gave people the feeling of guilt [but that's because we kill Assassins this time.] And apparently by fan logic killing your enemies isn't bad unless their Assassins. A Templar kill someone they interrogate(Haytham) and his suddenly cold and bad but if an Assassin(Altaïr) does it it's ignored, showed under the carped and good.

This.

Fatal-Feit
03-06-2015, 12:27 AM
I'm on the same boat as everyone else. The writing is just... poor. There's a lack of substance to it. I would describe Rogue as the reverse Brotherhood in the franchise. It's a one-sided battle with a whole lack of conflicting philosophy, especially during the later white rooms, which is a bad thing for Assassin's Creed. So no, I don't feel guilty. Admittedly, I believe AC3 is the better Templar sympathizer game.

LoyalACFan
03-06-2015, 12:44 AM
I disagree completely, I think Rogue worked far too hard to make you NOT feel guilty. They turned the Assassins (barring Adewale) into monsters, which was totally unnecessary as the Assassins already have enough skeletons in their closet to make someone morally opposed to their methods. Shay should have become a Templar because he had a problem with the Brotherhood murdering their political opponents in cold blood, not because the Colonial Assassins just happened to be complete bastards who didn't give a f*** about cruelty and civilian deaths. I was hoping Rogue would be the game that really flipped the "Assassin = good, Templar = bad" paradigm on its head by showing us how brutal the Assassins have been throughout the whole franchise, but IMO it really didn't do that, it just made the Assassins every bit as undeniably evil as the Templars in AC2, which is boring. I actually did kinda like Shay though, and wouldn't mind seeing him again. Preferably not as Arno's target, but let's be honest, if Shay and Arno come back that's probably what's going to happen.

cawatrooper9
03-06-2015, 01:20 AM
I disagree completely, I think Rogue worked far too hard to make you NOT feel guilty. They turned the Assassins (barring Adewale) into monsters, which was totally unnecessary as the Assassins already have enough skeletons in their closet to make someone morally opposed to their methods. Shay should have become a Templar because he had a problem with the Brotherhood murdering their political opponents in cold blood, not because the Colonial Assassins just happened to be complete bastards who didn't give a f*** about cruelty and civilian deaths. I was hoping Rogue would be the game that really flipped the "Assassin = good, Templar = bad" paradigm on its head by showing us how brutal the Assassins have been throughout the whole franchise, but IMO it really didn't do that, it just made the Assassins every bit as undeniably evil as the Templars in AC2, which is boring. I actually did kinda like Shay though, and wouldn't mind seeing him again. Preferably not as Arno's target, but let's be honest, if Shay and Arno come back that's probably what's going to happen.

I agree with you to an extent. The Assassins were probably vilified a bit more than necessary, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they were "every bit as undeniably evil as the Templars in AC2". I think it's pretty clear that they at least thought that what they were doing was right, and even in the end I think Achilles regrets what he has done.

Xstantin
03-06-2015, 01:26 AM
Sorry if I too sound negative but forced on elements in writing make any kill (no matter how gut-wrenching it is intended to be) look ridiculous.
And I'll probably go back to edit this post out. But yeah

historagamer24
03-06-2015, 01:43 AM
I don't know about 'guilt', but the quality of the writing in Rogue makes me embarrassed for the writers. :rolleyes:

Agreed the whole thing felt super rushed narrative wise with no character development

historagamer24
03-06-2015, 01:57 AM
I disagree completely, I think Rogue worked far too hard to make you NOT feel guilty. They turned the Assassins (barring Adewale) into monsters, which was totally unnecessary as the Assassins already have enough skeletons in their closet to make someone morally opposed to their methods. Shay should have become a Templar because he had a problem with the Brotherhood murdering their political opponents in cold blood, not because the Colonial Assassins just happened to be complete bastards who didn't give a f*** about cruelty and civilian deaths. I was hoping Rogue would be the game that really flipped the "Assassin = good, Templar = bad" paradigm on its head by showing us how brutal the Assassins have been throughout the whole franchise, but IMO it really didn't do that, it just made the Assassins every bit as undeniably evil as the Templars in AC2, which is boring. I actually did kinda like Shay though, and wouldn't mind seeing him again. Preferably not as Arno's target, but let's be honest, if Shay and Arno come back that's probably what's going to happen.


I didn't feel that the Assassin's were show to be monsters, but rather reckless and irresponsible. I really hope they bring him back, cause I really wanna see more with Shay as a Master Templar.

I also wanna see more "Templar Creed" games, maybe playing a Japanese Templar during the Meiji Restoration hunting down the last of the Samurai backed by the Assassin's.

VestigialLlama4
03-06-2015, 04:21 AM
Not really; mostly because a lot of design and storytelling choices kinda made the game feel fan-made to me, which almost makes me feel like it's non-canon.

This is pretty much what I feel too. ROGUE is essentially well-produced fan-fiction. The fact is it cannibalizes the superior games (AC3 and Black Flag) for all its assets and resources, and furthermore it doesn't really add anything meaningful to the historical element and is essentially a fill-in-the-gaps for the background lore between the games (but leaving out the characters people actually like, Edward and Connor). It's a game made for people who liked Haytham in the prologue of AC3, whiteboys essentially. The real problem with ROGUE is that it doesn't make you feel like you are playing like a Templar, rather you are playing an ex-Assassin, and the gameplay is essentially the final level of AC1 where Altair fights Al Mualim, or Revelations where Altair fights Abbas, with a scoop of Edward Kenway fighting the Assassins in the first part of Black Flag...i.e. using Assassin abilities to fight Assassins.

There's nothing really Templar-like in playing the game, I mean aside from the fact that killing NPCs doesn't de-synch you (which doesn't come into the story at all-how convenient). In any case, the whole game has this air of unreality and false equivalency, Shay sinks to a place beneath the earth that is at best a low sewer and somehow triggers an earthquake by magic (which really overpowers the Pieces of Eden to more ridiculous levels than Apples). When the Assassins opposed the Templars it was actually for political reasons, (corruption, murder, treating poor people badly, threatening and bullying people) and using objects to control and force people to do their bidding. Messing about with magic is essentially something that works better in fantasy novels and it only works in the game as a great shock moment and clear breaking point for Shay, like a well-written fan-fiction.

The main thing about Rogue is that it white-washes the Templars completely. We never see Shay do anything that the Templars in the main games are shown to do. Haytham arranged the Boston Massacre, William Johnson forced Natives to sell land at gunpoint, Thomas Hickey was going to assassinate Washington, to cite the "chummy Templars" (well Jonathan Pitcairn was the only really nice guy) rather than the Borgia. Gameplay wise, we never have say, force an Assassin to come out of cover, by pulling a knife on a civilian or the like. And you know Shay supports the English in the Seven Years War, during which the likes of Rogers Rangers burnt whole villages so why doesn't Haytham or others send Shay to massacre Indians for the "sake of Order". The point is you can't make a truly satisfying Templar game if you don't subscribe to their ethos of ends-justifying-the-means and that killing innocents for larger goals is A-okay.

VoldR
03-06-2015, 04:32 AM
it would've been better if we had just learned through a book or film or even a cutscene that Adewale eventually met his end by Shay's hand.

Cutscene: Shay trips and falls into a bush, stabbing Ade...
Shay: "I'm sorry, sorry, sorry... Pls forgive me, I didn't want it to happen this way..."

Anyway, had I played it, It wouldn't bother me much as I just want to see how things turn out and the options we have...
And choose the most appropriate way to deal with the situation... I saw someone just shot Ade from the distance on a roof and not face him up close for as far as he knows there's no way to stealthily approach without being detected in his first playthrough.

Hans684
03-06-2015, 05:52 AM
Not really; mostly because a lot of design and storytelling choices kinda made the game feel fan-made to me, which almost makes me feel like it's non-canon.

2, Brotherhood and Unity is far worse.

VestigialLlama4
03-06-2015, 06:26 AM
It's as much of "fan-made" and "non-canon" as the fan fictions. AC2, Brotherhood and Unity. Their no better than Rogue in the writing.

Well, leaving aside preferences (and I hate UNITY), the fact is that AC2 and UNITY did not cannibalize most of its story material, setting and gameplay material from previous titles. They also created new casts, locations and settings, and introduced new elements and ideas. Even BROTHERHOOD which is an expansion pack of AC2 introduced new villains and a new setting as well as new gameplay elements (Brotherhood Recruits, Parachutes). So calling them fanfiction is disingenuous and not fair.

ROGUE is close to fanfiction because it only really works for people who have played Black Flag and III. No fanfiction can operate outside the confines of its source material. ROGUE doesn't go all that deeply into the Seven Years War (an interesting conflict in its own right), doesn't introduce any new elements at all, and ultimately presents a much more simplistic look at Assassins-Templars than AC1 and AC3 did. Assassins causing earthquakes with magical artifacts is pretty much a stupid fanfiction plot compared to standing by the Creed and supporting Washington to oppose Templar-backed dictator even if Washington screwed over my people.

Hans684
03-06-2015, 04:57 PM
Well, leaving aside preferences (and I hate UNITY).

Unity is filler and returns to the ridiculous black and white story. Might as well start hiring writers from Disney or sell it to them. If they gonna Disneyfy the story they might as well do it right.


The fact is that AC2 and UNITY did not cannibalize most of its story material

That might be true historically but it simplified the entire war and messed up the story. Introducing things like the end of the world plot instead of continuing the satellite one.


Setting and gameplay material from previous titles.

Unity has improved the gameplay far more than any game.


They also created new casts, locations and settings, and introduced new elements and ideas.

All games, there is no little jimmy special in the collection.


Even BROTHERHOOD which is an expansion pack of AC2 introduced new villains and a new setting as well as new gameplay elements (Brotherhood Recruits, Parachutes).

As innovative as Rogue then, got it.


So calling them fanfiction is disingenuous and not fair.

It's as fair as your take, you simply disagree.


ROGUE is close to fanfiction because it only really works for people who have played Black Flag and III.

How and why?


No fanfiction can operate outside the confines of its source material.

How and why?


ROGUE doesn't go all that deeply into the Seven Years War (an interesting conflict in its own right).

And hypocritically enough you accept the right wing propaganda named Unity that ignores and lies about the French Revolution, how's that fair? How's that operating inside the source material? How's that not a fan fiction? Why isn't that disingenuous and not fair?


Doesn't introduce any new elements at all

Your overreacting, oversimplifying and overcritical. It's as new as Brotherhood and Revelations.


And ultimately presents a much more simplistic look at Assassins-Templars than AC1 and AC3 did.

At least it's not as simple as 2, Brotherhood and Unity.


Assassins causing earthquakes with First Civ. artifacts is pretty much a stupid fanfiction plot compared to standing by the Creed and supporting Washington to oppose Templar-backed dictator even if Washington screwed over my people.

But Templars accidentally doing it is fine? Don't lie, you'd accept that, even going as far as saying it wasn't accidents and of course treat the game like 2 & brotherhood. It would still be the same fan fic, the tables would just be turned and because of that none bats an eye. It's fan fics if Assassins are bad in any way possible.

So you'd let your people die over a Creed and let Washington do it? Have to say I'm surprised consider you have said the Templars where evil if they let that happen. How is it being evil? Do twirl your mustache and laugh? Sounds stupid right? That is Disney stories in a nutshell. Disney don't belong in AC, fan fics is all about perspective.

As for your people being butchered by Washington [in the name of freedom]. That could have been avoided if Connor hadn't stopped Johnson's peaceful attempt of becoming landowner of their land so he could protect them but Connor ["peacefully" while showing "mercy"] killed his workers and destroyed his source of income. So Washington at some point was about to burn it down again [in the name of freedom] and Connor found out about it because of Haytham who wanted to show how much of a good guy Washington was. All that "freedom fighting" don't free anything. It was a change of government trough war and it gave the new leaders of the country power. Connor was used and his people lost their land because of that "freedom". They moving caused another war years latter. But I'm not gonna judge if your prefer this, it's your sacrifice and you have to stand by it no matter the cost.

SteelCity999
03-06-2015, 06:03 PM
I'm most guilty about spending $60 on this game. Production quality as a whole (story, gameplay and presentation) was a complete B team effort. The fact that they were so lazy as to create a nonexistent river valley that makes no sense geographically is a prime example...

The biggest issue with the whole assassin/Templar conflict is that the more current in time the franchise gets, the more purely political it gets. Both sides are nothing more than political assassination and control machines. Once the series exited religious dominated times, the stories lost some of the greyness. You can see morality has left.....does anyone question anything in the games such as Altair and Ezio?

Defalt221
03-06-2015, 06:56 PM
To be fair, its unknown if Adewale even knew about what happened in Lisbon.

I'm sure if Ade knew,the writers would intentionally twist his mentality so that when Shay tells him about Lisbon Ade will coldly reply,"A small sacrifice for a far greater good." or some nonsense like that. I'm shocked to see the writers portray Assassins so evil instead of being morally grey. After all that's what they did to Templars in AC3 or AC1.




Lets be fair here, if someone stabbed you in the chest, I doubt you'd feel a forgiving mood.;)

True. And moreover Ade was still keeping his cool. He didn't go on crying that everything he worked for is coming to an end. Or sell away his brotherhood like other Templars (In previous games in their deathbed Templars reveal all of their secrets as if they didn't care about their Templar brotherhood. For example,Woods tells Edward during death where the sage in located knowing full well that now that Edward has the location he would deem the Templar's efforts useless BECAUSE OF WOODES giving away his intel. At least Ade in his deathbed tried to discourage Shay saying that Achilles has what he needs,thus signalling that Shay's efforts are useless now-thus Ade is fighting back even during death.)


Was that phrase even an insult? I mean Edward could have been a drunk from time to time, could have embarrassed Haytham when he was young or something? Maybe even make terrible dad jokes lol! Yeah but I'm getting the game for PC soon so perhaps I'll understand it better, hopefully.

No Edward became a fully focused conservative well mannered noble Assassin after returning to England.

VestigialLlama4
03-06-2015, 07:23 PM
Unity has improved the gameplay far more than any game.

Improved to the extent that you can't side-jump, you can't use your hidden blade even in smoke cover, can't hide bodies and the like. I am sick of people bringing this dead horse as if its some unchallenged axiom. Unity's gameplay is very limited and boring stealth gameplay.


And hypocritically enough you accept the right wing propaganda named Unity that ignores and lies about the French Revolution, how's that fair? How's that operating inside the source material? How's that not a fan fiction? Why isn't that disingenuous and not fair?

Because at the very least it creates a new situation and presents a new take to the story, the execution and writing is a separate thing from its form.


Your overreacting, oversimplifying and overcritical. It's as new as Brotherhood and Revelations.

Brotherhood introduced a totally new recruit system and additional features, Revelations introduced the bomb.crowd manipulation mechanic. Name one thing that's absolutely unique to ROGUE, it has nothing. Playable Templar = AC3, Stalker = Multiplayer, Revelations, Ship combat = AC3, Black Flag, Hunting = AC3 and so on and so forth. It's even less original than LIBERATION where at least you had the costume change and archetypal shifts between personas of lady/slave/assassin.


But Templars accidentally doing it is fine? Don't lie, you'd accept that, even going as far as saying it wasn't accidents and of course treat the game like 2 & brotherhood. It would still be the same fan fic, the tables would just be turned and because of that none bats an eye.

I would dislike the Templars causing earthquakes too simply because it makes Pieces of Eden way too powerful (the Pieces of Eden cause psychic illusions or at worst physical light energy, which is localized and small scale). If Shay was told by Achilles or the Assassins to kill a target but as a result of that Shay was forced to let survivors die in the earthquake, that would be believable enough for him to leave and I'd respect that, since it's the same theme of prioritizing killing Templars over saving people's lives.


As for your people being butchered by Washington [in the name of freedom]. That could have been avoided if Connor hadn't stopped Johnson's peaceful attempt of becoming landowner of their land so he could protect them

You are taking Johnson at face value. The people at the meeting pointed out that he screwed them over at an earlier treaty (Stanwix) and refuses to give them weapons or treat them as equals. His idea of negotiations is then pointing a gun at them, to call that peaceful is pretty much white-man colonialist perspective. Johnson believed, like many colonialists that he was saving the natives from themselves, he was also simply deluded and racist. The Templars are sympathetic in AC3 but they aren't right by any means, none of them had sane ideas for the colonies. Haytham's grand plan was that Charles Lee would be dictator of America when that guy has no political skills and dresses shabbily all the time.


But I'm not gonna judge if your prefer this, it's your sacrifice and you have to stand by it no matter the cost.

That is the message of AC3, Connor was right to oppose the Templars but that doesn't change anything politically or socially, he still loses. He ultimately accepts that and lives with that choice.

Namikaze_17
03-06-2015, 09:13 PM
I'm sure if Ade knew,the writers would intentionally twist his mentality so that when Shay tells him about Lisbon Ade will coldly reply,"A small sacrifice for a far greater good."

Whenever someone says that line that doesn't mean they're evil. It's all based on your perception of the character and the order they serve.

But wait! since ONLY the Templars say it, it's automatically evil right? :rolleyes:


Assassins so evil instead of being morally grey

One game. ONE game in which the Assassins aren't portrayed as perfect saints and are capable of committing questionable acts are they suddenly evil to you? Okay.


After all that's what they did to Templars in AC3 or AC1.

Thankfully.




He didn't go on crying that everything he worked for is coming to an end. Or sell away his brotherhood like other Templars (In previous games in their deathbed Templars reveal all of their secrets as if they didn't care about their Templar brotherhood.

Now I want more Templars like Vieri...

Hans684
03-07-2015, 01:11 PM
Improved to the extent that you can't side-jump.

True.


You can't use your hidden blade even in smoke cover.

Timing. You have to time it right, throw a smoke bomb, run in and you can kill at least 5 people stealthy before the smoke clears.


Can't hide bodies and the like.

That depends on play style, if your a clean player it will bother you but if you play semi-stealth you'd take advantage of that.


I am sick of people bringing this dead horse as if its some unchallenged axiom.

It's a dead horse but it's a true dead horse non the less.


Unity's gameplay is very limited and boring stealth gameplay.

Stealth is now what combat used to be, it's overpowered so that gives us less of reasons to use it(not my words, just twisting an age old argument against itself).


Because at the very least it creates a new situation and presents a new take to the story.

Ever game. Anyway, Rogue has the newest take on the story since unlike the rest it's Templar focused, it's more original in that sense. Unity is another noble white boy Assassin with family trouble and is no more original with that then 2 & brotherhood.


The execution and writing is a separate thing from its form.

And yet they go hand in hand, how it executes also depends on writing. Unity is a filler story with the importance of a handheld game, Arno's life is a waste of time to relive since it does nothing. In Rogue we used Shay's memories to start of another purge against the Assassins and sending them a message, Shay's life did something beyond his time. The same can not be said for Arno, he ar nobody


Brotherhood introduced a totally new recruit system and additional features.

Story wise recruits made sense but it make something easy a cakewalk, you can literally walk in to restricted places.


Revelations introduced the bomb.crowd manipulation mechanic.

Actually it introduced bomb crafting, AC2 introduced smoke bombs. So AC2 we have had bombs since AC2.


Name one thing that's absolutely unique to ROGUE, it has nothing. Playable Templar = AC3, Stalker = Multiplayer, Revelations, Ship combat = AC3, Black Flag, Hunting = AC3 and so on and so forth. It's even less original than LIBERATION where at least you had the costume change and archetypal shifts between personas of lady/slave/assassin.

If I by additional features it's things like gas masks(only Rogue has that), whatever new stuff the Morrigan has. It's as new as additional features that improve what we already have like Brotherhood and Revelations.


I would dislike the Templars causing earthquakes too simply because it makes Pieces of Eden way too powerful (the Pieces of Eden cause psychic illusions or at worst physical light energy, which is localized and small scale).

The POE's is made by an advanced civilization that lived here before us, expect a to powerful stuff. There is this POE from AC: Brahman that can do everything the other POE's can, only a "god"(First Civ member) can use it or a woman. I'm betting that POE is the most overpowered thing in this series.


If Shay was told by Achilles or the Assassins to kill a target but as a result of that Shay was forced to let survivors die in the earthquake, that would be believable enough for him to leave and I'd respect that, since it's the same theme of prioritizing killing Templars over saving people's lives.

Same sh!t, different day. The result would be the same.


You are taking Johnson at face value. The people at the meeting pointed out that he screwed them over at an earlier treaty (Stanwix) and refuses to give them weapons or treat them as equals.

By giving them weapons things would escalate far worse when the colonies become "free", natives would be an even bigger treat against their new "free" land. So the same war would happen with the natives, only much faster.


His idea of negotiations is then pointing a gun at them, to call that peaceful is pretty much white-man colonialist perspective.

Never said that was peaceful or good but that was his last resort.
And he was forced to negotiate because of Connor, Connor killed his workers and destroyed his source of income when he tried to buy the land without having to harm anyone. He first attempts was peaceful unlike Connor who went on a killing spree.


Johnson believed, like many colonialists that he was saving the natives from themselves, he was also simply deluded and racist.

Maybe, maybe not but the war with the natives and increases in slavery years latter proved his points.


The Templars are sympathetic in AC3 but they aren't right by any means, none of them had sane ideas for the colonies.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Missing_Supplies

Connor: "Johnson. Pitcairn. Hickey. They sought to steal land. To sack towns. To murder George Washington."

Haytham: "Johnson sought to own the land that we might keep it safe. Pitcairn aimed to encourage diplomacy - which you cocked up thoroughly enough to start a god-damned war! And Hickey? George Washington is a wretched leader. He's lost nearly every battle in which he's taken part. The man's wracked with uncertainty and insecurity. Only look at Valley Forge to know my words are true. We're all be better off without him. Look, much as I'd love to spar with you, Benjamin Church's mouth is as big as his ego. You clearly want the supplies he's stolen, I want him punished. Our interests are aligned."

Sounds better than the land becoming "free" so that the new random leaders can fill their pockets. At least the Templars aim for something(peace) unlike the political circus that ruled(whatever they want). The new land become far more corrupt after fighting for "freedom"(change of government trough war).


Haytham's grand plan was that Charles Lee would be dictator of America when that guy has no political skills and dresses shabbily all the time.

Lee was Haytham's last resort after Connor killed everyone else, he wasn't mentioned as part of the grand plan in Missing Supplies. But I agree with you, Lee would be a ****ty leader and it's one of the moments that doesn't fit Haytham's tactics. He's far more clever than that.


That is the message of AC3, Connor was right to oppose the Templars but that doesn't change anything politically or socially, he still loses. He ultimately accepts that and lives with that choice.

Connor: "I ask again: where are the supplies?"

Benjamin: "On the island yonder, awaiting pickup. But you've no right to it. It isn't yours."

Connor: "No, not mine. Those supplies are meant for men and women who believe in something bigger than themselves. Who fight and die that one day they might be free from tyranny such as you."

Church informing Connor about the supplies

Benjamin: "Are these the same men and women who fight with muskets forged from British steel? Who bind their wounds with bandages sewn by British hands. How convenient for them. We do the work. They reap the rewards."

Connor: "You spin a story to excuse your crimes. As though you're the innocent one and they the thieves."

Benjamin: "It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm. Do you truly think the Crown has no cause? No right to feel betrayed? You should know better than this, dedicated as you are to fighting Templars – who themselves see their work as just. Think on that the next time you insist your work alone befits the greater good. Your enemy would beg to differ – and would not be without cause."

A Bitter End, it's all about perspective. Nothing is true, there is no book or teacher to give you the awnsers. What you think is true is your perspective.

VestigialLlama4
03-07-2015, 02:09 PM
Benjamin: "It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm. Do you truly think the Crown has no cause? No right to feel betrayed? You should know better than this, dedicated as you are to fighting Templars – who themselves see their work as just. Think on that the next time you insist your work alone befits the greater good. Your enemy would beg to differ – and would not be without cause."

A Bitter End, it's all about perspective. Nothing is true, there is no book or teacher to give you the awnsers. What you think is true is your perspective.

I wish you quoted that dialogue in full, rather than edit out what you thought was inconvenient. Connor on hearing all this says, "Connor: Your words may have been sincere, but that does not make them true."

The Templars in AC3 are still bad guys, they are better motivated and better written than the Borgia Templars, and some of them (Pitcairn, Haytham) are tragic figures but they don't represent any real possibilities or options for Connor. As a story, AC3 is not about the hero being naive for wanting a revolution or equality, its about being naive for expecting that stopping a bunch of Templars will solve bigger, historical problems. It's a deconstruction of the earlier Assassin-Templar narrative nothing more.



Actually it introduced bomb crafting, AC2 introduced smoke bombs. So AC2 we have had bombs since AC2.

I said, specifically, "Revelations introduced the bomb.crowd manipulation mechanic", that is using bomb materials to manipulate Crowd NPC behaviour, that was actually quite innovative(and impressive given how quickly that game was made). Mixing materials to direct guards in different directions, and having some 300+ combinations of responses and triggers. http://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-unity-is-bringing-back-the-series-great-1596479794


There is this POE from AC: Brahman that can do everything the other POE's can, only a "god"(First Civ member) can use it or a woman.

That's exactly my point, all the PoEs have to be handled by individuals and have a small radius of immediate impact, they have some kind of toll and unpredictability, it's kind of these Lovecraftian objects that usually terrify and corrupt people. Using PoE's to cause earthquakes does serious damage to that metaphor, and makes things ridiculous.


But I agree with you, Lee would be a ****ty leader and it's one of the moments that doesn't fit Haytham's tactics. He's far more clever than that.

No he isn't. He keeps telling Connor that Lee would bring a bright dawn and so on and so forth. Haytham's master plan is entirely about Lee becoming Dictator of America. Haytham didn't want an actual revolution against England, he wanted a compromise that somehow brought Charles Lee and his lackeys to power in the colonies. Connor gave power to the people, for better and worse.

Hans684
03-07-2015, 02:51 PM
I wish you quoted that dialogue in full, rather than edit out what you thought was inconvenient.

Didn't edit out anything, just copy pasted a part of it. My commented started with A Bitter End to give it all a double meaning, the mission and that there isn't a ultimate truth since it's all about perspective. No secret agenda.


Connor on hearing all this says, "Connor: Your words may have been sincere, but that does not make them true."

As an example we have the quote you took, that's Connor perspective on the matter.


The Templars in AC3 are still bad guys.

Yet everyone(obviously not everyone but the majority, it's a figure of speech) says the game is morally gray, witch is it?
But we have to agree to disagree here.


They are better motivated and better written than the Borgia Templars.

The Borgia is corrupt and selfish useing the order for personal matters unlike the Colonial Rite.


And some of them (Pitcairn, Haytham) are tragic figures but they don't represent any real possibilities or options for Connor.

It's not about Connor, it's about the future. The greater good that both orders fight for.


As a story, AC3 is not about the hero being naive for wanting a revolution or equality.

He still supported it and want equality.


Its about being naive for expecting that stopping a bunch of Templars will solve bigger, historical problems.

Maybe that is the problem, Connor hunting the Templars just made things worse.


It's a deconstruction of the earlier Assassin-Templar narrative nothing more.

It's a good story non the less.


I said, specifically, "Revelations introduced the bomb.crowd manipulation mechanic", that is using bomb materials to manipulate Crowd NPC behaviour, that was actually quite innovative(and impressive given how quickly that game was made). Mixing materials to direct guards in different directions, and having some 300+ combinations of responses and triggers. http://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-unity-is-bringing-back-the-series-great-1596479794

Technically that's all part of the bomb crafting, so I'm not wrong either.


That's exactly my point, all the PoEs have to be handled by individuals and have a small radius of immediate impact, they have some kind of toll and unpredictability, it's kind of these Lovecraftian objects that usually terrify and corrupt people. Using PoE's to cause earthquakes does serious damage to that metaphor, and makes things ridiculous.

The First Civ simply is advanced and history repeats itself, expect a some ridiculous creations. I'm curtain that humans have created a lot of ridiculous stuff that's less advanced.


No he isn't. He keeps telling Connor that Lee would bring a bright dawn and so on and so forth.

He must be blinded by his charm then since Charles is not the same guy he was when we first met him.


Haytham's master plan is entirely about Lee becoming Dictator of America.

Their plan is it get control, Charles would simply be a leader(a rather poor one but still). So unless having a leader makes things a dictatorship then every rule is the same.


Haytham didn't want an actual revolution against England, he wanted a compromise that somehow brought Charles Lee and his lackeys to power in the colonies.

Nothing bad with that, power is control. It's all about how you use it, saying control is bad is anarchistic. Regardless of how many Templar the Assassins kill there will still be control and governments because that's how the society works. It had leaders, someone to overlook everything. Connor killing the Templars simply gave the power to aimless leaders with personal aims with a country for themselves.


Connor gave power to the people, for better and worse.

No, he gave power to a new government without England.

Perk89
03-07-2015, 03:30 PM
Putting Shay down would be awesome.

Shahkulu101
03-07-2015, 03:45 PM
Achilles' Assassin Brotherhood were basically the Borgia's flipped. That's not moral ambiguity.

Hans684
03-07-2015, 05:57 PM
Killing Adewale broke my heart,esp with the treatment Shay gave him in the white room.

Adéwalé had become blinded by his own creed. So in this case Élise is right, their creed is like wine. Good in small doses. Young Adéwalé wouldn't have supported Achilles Brotherhood, before Freedom Cry we know his views on the Templars and Assassins is natural, he only likes the Assassins better than but he had not been introduced to the creed itself.

Shay: Forgive me, Adéwalé.
Adéwalé: You dare beg forgiveness, child? Hell welcomes traitors like you.
Shay: Then I go there proudly, knowing I have done right.
Adéwalé: It does not matter... Achilles already has what he needs.
Shay: I will kill every last man who defends him, if I must. I cannot let him succeed.
Adéwalé grabbed Shay's arm.

Adéwalé: You... have become... a monster, Shay.
Shay wrestled off Adéwalé, who succumbed to his wounds.

Shay: Perhaps I have.
Haytham: Come.

Shay didn't want to kill him. He considered him a good man, Shay even asked for forgiveness for killing him. If you want an example of bad treatment of a target you have Adéwalé killing the slaver from Freedom Cry, he killed him with a brander and during the white room he had his machete in his stomach and said he wanted him to suffer like the slaves did. Shay = clean kill, Adéwalé = torturing his target.

Shay: Master Kenway seems determined to destroy Adéwalé.
Gist: Aren't you? He's a powerful man in his own right, and a symbol of hope for the Assassins. Eliminating him would shake them to their core.
Shay: It would, I know. But it seems a shame. He's a good man, Gist.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Bravado


And how Haytham said,"I didn't know my father had a sense of shame." and insulting Edward.

Edward was a pirate, doubt he's ashamed of that. Might regret some of it but not ashamed. He wanted the money and piracy was his ticket.


And then what Shay did to Liam and the others.

Shay was all Canadian with his targets, saying sorry, asking for forgiveness and saying he wish me it could be avoided. Hardly bad.


And I was brutally wiping all Assassins from colonies just because Achilles made a wrong decision (the Templars would have made that mistake too if they got to the vault at first).

Not any more brutal then what the Assassins have been going got centuries and Achilles did far more than one wrong decision. Shay never planned on joining the Templars, he was just going to steal the manuscript and take it away so none could have it but then Achilles comes in and accuses him of betrayal for simply wanting to prevent more accidents. So instead of of talking it out he attacks him, they corner him and Shay tries to kill himself so none can have it. Had Shay's plan gone smoothly we would have played as a natural guy in the war but it didn't. You wouldn't be up in arms like your now if the Templars did it.

Achilles: And what is it you're doing exactly? Stealing from your Brothers? Betraying me?
Shay: Someone must make amends.
Achilles: Make amends? You have no idea what you're doing. The future of the whole continent, maybe the whole word, is tied up in that Manuscript.
Shay: Perhaps. But we don't have the right to decide that future.
Achilles: The right? We have the responsibility!
Shay: WE are responsible for killing innocents and destroying cities! This... mad grab for power. It ends now.
Achilles discovering Shay's betrayal
Achilles: I will not let you destroy everything we have built!
[...]
Liam: That's enough!
Hope: Give back the Manuscript, Shay. I'm sure Achilles-
Shay: I cannot. I will not let this happen again. All those souls lost... One more hardly matters.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Freewill


Couple that with the melancholic loading screen (dark moonlit night sea-like theme) and the music. Plus the menu color design all dark blue and it gives a sense of...sadness (at least that's what I think...)

It's good, prefer darks screens instead of eye burning white.


Great thing though is that Achilles succeeds in the end...in AC3.

He uses Connor for revenge.


Now I'm wishing I get to play as an Assassin who kills Shay in a sequel or sth...

How original, Shay is the only protagonist the fans constantly asking to kill. It's Funny because he's a Templar.


Achilles' Assassin Brotherhood were basically the Borgia's flipped. That's not moral ambiguity.

There is in a grander scale, if there never is Assassins like the the Borgia or Germain. Where is the gray morality? Showing the extreme and corrupt of both sides is needed for a balanced grayness.

I-Like-Pie45
03-07-2015, 06:31 PM
In the end you're all nothing except for food

Defalt221
03-08-2015, 12:04 PM
One game. ONE game in which the Assassins aren't portrayed as perfect saints and are capable of committing questionable acts are they suddenly evil to you? Okay.
That's not it. I mean,they're Achilles' guys. And Achilles became more peaceful in AC3,so what orders he issued in AC R makes no sense with those he issues in AC3. That's why the Assassins seem evil.

Namikaze_17
03-08-2015, 12:40 PM
That's not it. I mean,they're Achilles' guys. And Achilles became more peaceful in AC3,so what orders he issued in AC R makes no sense with those he issues in AC3. That's why the Assassins seem evil.

Achilles in Rogue isn't Achilles in AC3.

Not ONCE does Achilles ever scold or talk to any of his brotherhood of the actions they were committing.

That in itself should tell you his mindset back then.

"Any means necessary" is one way of putting it.


By AC3, he's basically lost everything from his family to his brotherhood; even his figure changed drastically.

He knew he was wrong with his actions in Rogue, and tried having Connor not do the same.


And for christ sake, no one's evil or seems that way damn it!

Just questionable acts to make one question and think.


There is in a grander scale, if there never is Assassins like the the Borgia or Germain. Where is the gray morality? Showing the extreme and corrupt of both sides is needed for a balanced grayness.

This makes sense.

Hans684
03-08-2015, 01:51 PM
This makes sense.

Game Of Thrones or Watchmen is an example of that.

SirSionis
03-08-2015, 04:27 PM
Achilles' Assassin Brotherhood were basically the Borgia's flipped. That's not moral ambiguity.

I don't think so.Achilles was wrong and he didn't listened to Shay,but that's it.But he had good intentions,unlike the Borgias.You can see it,for example,in Liam final words:''I hope that world is a good one''.

Shahkulu101
03-08-2015, 06:45 PM
I don't think so.Achilles was wrong and he didn't listened to Shay,but that's it.But he had good intentions,unlike the Borgias.You can see it,for example,in Liam final words:''I hope that world is a good one''.

Maybe not Achilles personally but since when did the Assassin's hire gangs to terrorize cities?

The only reason is to make the Assassin's look antagonistic and the Templar's sympathetic. It's totally contrived.

Hans684
03-08-2015, 06:51 PM
Maybe not Achilles personally but since when did the Assassin's hire gangs to terrorize cities?

Not the first time the Assassins has used gangs, Ezio's brotherhood also used gangs.


The only reason is to make the Assassin's look antagonistic and the Templar's sympathetic. It's totally contrived.

And vise versa, it's needed is the series is supposed to be as gray as it's claimed.

Shahkulu101
03-08-2015, 06:58 PM
Not the first time the Assassins has used gangs, Ezio's brotherhood also used gangs.



And vise versa, it's needed is the series is supposed to be as gray as it's claimed.

They used gangs to liberate the city from corruption, not to terrorize citizens and make plans to poison them like Rogue's Assassin's.

You can't make a conflict grey by showing either side to be clearly in the wrong. That's the entire point - AC2/BH is a mistake that should not be replicated and Rogue did precisely that. Doesn't matter which faction in particular is portrayed as one-sided bad guys. If you think the Assassin's should be shown as the bad guys every so often for the sake of balance, then so too should the Templar's but If that happens you freak out. I'd prefer that neither were portrayed as totally nefarious ever again.

Besides, the writers intention was for Rogue to be ambiguous according to interviews but it's really not. It totally exaggerated the Assassin's flaws, and covers up any unsavory aspects that the Templar's are associated with.

VestigialLlama4
03-08-2015, 07:06 PM
Maybe not Achilles personally but since when did the Assassin's hire gangs to terrorize cities?

They don't terrorize cities in the game. The only people who complain about the gangs are the rich people who take Shay in under Monro's orders, we don't know what those gangs are from their perspective. Gangs historically comprised of low-level immigrants who were looked down and insulted by the majority (that's Hope Jensen's background and she's the mob-boss, which is kind of impressive). These gangs are a threat to their "property" and so on. The only reason Shay has an education is that Achilles brought him into the brotherhood, the Templars would not have done that for him, that is pick a gutter street rat and give him opportunity or purpose (or you know, willing recruit to brainwash, which is a way to look at it).


The only reason is to make the Assassin's look antagonistic and the Templar's sympathetic. It's totally contrived.

The biggest contrivance is "actually causing an earthquake" thing. I mean that's way overpowered and silly, and the main reason why ROGUE is like a fanfiction. The earlier pieces of eden were elaborate metaphors (and Al Mualim says that the Apple only casts illusions) at best, unwieldy and unpredictable objects that drive people mad. It's extreme but at least it's localized and small scale.

In any case, the appeal of playing a Templar is that they are not bound by the Assassins rules, they are dedicated to achieving their goals by any means necessary and Templars cause atrocities in all the games (even Haytham stage-managed the Boston Massacre and Governor Torres massacred native guardians on his way to the Observatory, killing hundreds) and it's impossible for Shay to be part of a largely white Templar outfit (with one black guy added because they realized it would look too awkward) during the French and Indian War and have clean hands. The French and Indian War devastated Native American tribes and the defeat of the French (not good guys obviously but in a Cold War sense, someone who kept things balanced) meant that they had no other force to protect them against the English. There were outfits that burnt whole villages and in the game, we have Shay getting a gift of a Native Armor by a oneida tribe. It's pretty much the whiteboy fantasy people wanted from the Haytham section of AC3. I mean yeah, they give you the option of killing civilians to allude to it, but it doesn't come in the games itself.

By invoking a comic book story (objects cause earthquake) actual historical conflicts and issues (which are the main thrust and conflict between Assassins and Templars in all the games) get sidelined completely. I mean if people want a fanfiction story of a Templar-being-right, then ROGUE is okay for them, I mean its a mediocre game by and large but I prefer a failed game (even UNITY) to a mediocrity that cannibalizes all its assets.

I don't mind playing a Templar provided that its consistent with what we see and know of Templars from the earlier AC titles, that is they are capable of doing cruel and manipulative things to get ahead. Otherwise you are being dishonest to your product. Let's play as bad guys but let's not play an Assassin palette-swap.

Hans684
03-08-2015, 07:24 PM
They used gangs to liberate the city from corruption, not to terrorize citizens and make plans to poison them like Rogue's Assassin's.

I know.


You can't make a conflict grey by showing either side to be clearly in the wrong.

Actually you can by doing it with both sides.


That's the entire point - AC2/BH is a mistake that should not be replicated and Rogue did precisely that.

Rogue balanced the mistake done by 2 & B. Putting it one the same level.


Doesn't matter which faction in particular is portrayed as one-sided bad guys.

It does if the conflict is supposed to be gray.


If you think the Assassin's should be shown as the bad guys every so often for the sake of balance, then so too should the Templar's but If that happens you freak out.

It does bring balance since it puts both orders on the same level. I only "freak out" since the Templars already is on that level, the entire war should be gray. If one side is treated as bad guys in a few games, then so should the other. It's simply balancing something one-sided and putting both at the same level creating a balanced grayness. We've had this discussion before, in case you don't remember.


I'd prefer that neither were portrayed as totally nefarious ever again.

Thank 2/B for starting it R is simply pulling it at the same level and people are freaking out in denial.


Besides, the writers intention was for Rogue to be ambiguous according to interviews but it's really not.

I know.


It totally exaggerated the Assassin's flaws, and covers up any unsavory aspects that the Templar's are associated with.

Just like 2, Brotherhood and Unity. So it's Rogue is one out if tree needed for a perfect balance. Its simply giving both orders the same treatment.

Mr.Black24
03-08-2015, 07:33 PM
Maybe not Achilles personally but since when did the Assassin's hire gangs to terrorize cities?

The only reason is to make the Assassin's look antagonistic and the Templar's sympathetic. It's totally contrived.
Its ironic that the Templars have expressed multiple times on how they loath the gangs corrupting the city, and yet in AC3, we had to liberate Boston from Templar backed gangs when we had to recruit Duncan Little. Story inconsistency much or just a bunch of manipulating hippocrates, although I suspect poor story writing?




If you think the Assassin's should be shown as the bad guys every so often for the sake of balance, then so too should the Templar's but If that happens you freak out. I'd prefer that neither were portrayed as totally nefarious ever again.

Besides, the writers intention was for Rogue to be ambiguous according to interviews but it's really not. It totally exaggerated the Assassin's flaws, and covers up any unsavory aspects that the Templar's are associated with. I never felt them as "bad guys" but rather a bunch of idiots. They were too prideful to accept Shay's warning, so a huge kick in the *** was to be expected by said Shay, really. I felt some things like holding native tribes hostages and the poisons very exaggerated too, especially since Hope mentioned that those positions are for Templars only. So I guess the twisted the information around to trick Shay into doing the dirty work for them?

VestigialLlama4
03-08-2015, 07:40 PM
Its ironic that the Templars have expressed multiple times on how they loath the gangs corrupting the city, and yet in AC3, we had to liberate Boston from Templar backed gangs when we had to recruit Duncan Little. Story inconsistency much or just a bunch of manipulating hippocrates, although I suspect poor story writing?

Well the fact is they tried to introduce a reformist angle in BLACK FLAG with Governor Torres opposing slavery, the problem is that simply can't work logically within their metaphor. In the series, Templars represent wealth power and influence and there is absolutely no way anybody attained that in the New World in the pre-Revolutionary society without being involved in the slave trade, or in colonization or in removing native people of the land.

So in ROGUE, Shay as an Assassin conveniently ices the "bad Templars" Lawrence Washington (who's a slaveowner but later Gist calls him a stand-up guy), then James Wardrop (who Liam says is involved in countless massacres against native tribes), but later works with "good Templars" like Haytham and the like. There's no moral ambiguity because we don't see Shay involved in shady, evil stuff and so they contrive that stupid fantastic earthquake thing to create false conflict.

wvstolzing
03-08-2015, 07:56 PM
Well the fact is they tried to introduce a reformist angle in BLACK FLAG with Governor Torres opposing slavery, the problem is that simply can't work logically within their metaphor. In the series, Templars represent wealth power and influence and there is absolutely no way anybody attained that in the New World in the pre-Revolutionary society without being involved in the slave trade, or in colonization or in removing native people of the land.

I agree -- besides, Torres makes it clear in his next sentence, bluntly put, that slavery of the 'body' is small fries compared to the Templars' true ideal, which is slavery of the *mind*.

The moustache-twirling Disney-baddies of ACB are nothing more than a red herring. The series already established the Templars as a self-appointed 'secret elite', who manipulate lives behind closed doors, way back in the first few cutscenes of AC1. ***Even if it's supposedly informed by 'good intentions'***, that kind of paternalism amounts to the most extreme kind of moral transgression: It's denying human beings the capacity to think, and act for themselves.

Somehow the idea that 'the Assassins and the Templars seek the same end, but follow different means to get there' gained currency recently -- but it's entirely false. The 'ends' are entirely different, though the means might show some similarity. Even the 'good-guy' Templars like Haytham make it abundantly clear, that they believe 'they, and only they, know what's best' for everyone else; that 'the masses' are as reliable as children; moreover, that they wouldn't balk at 'breaking a few eggs', i.e., orchestrating little gigs like the Boston Massacre, or entire wars, as they go about making their 'wise' decisions as to what's best for everyone else, and inseminate 'noble lies' so that the populace can't even understand what's happening to them.

VestigialLlama4
03-08-2015, 08:09 PM
The moustache-twirling Disney-baddies of ACB are nothing more than a red herring. The series already established the Templars as a self-appointed 'secret elite', who manipulate lives behind closed doors, way back in the first few cutscenes of AC1.

As far as I am concerned, the Borgia aren't bad Templars, they are honest Templars, they represent the reality of what Templar ideology means, "it's all about power for myself and the rest of you can go f--k yourself" and "if you want rights, go wait in line and be good and we'll reward you, if we feel like it or if it makes us look good". They aren't any deviation at all.


Even the 'good-guy' Templars like Haytham make it abundantly clear, that they believe 'they, and only they, know what's best' for everyone else; that 'the masses' are as reliable as children.

Yeah a guy who became a puppet to his Dad's murderer and continues serving the same cult that sold his sister into slavery is exactly the guy who knows what's best for the masses.

I mean they can try and reform the Templars for real. In real life there are cases in history where conservative politicians actually were more liberal than the liberals, and so on and so forth, so they can try and bring that ambiguity. Like in ROGUE you see tensions between Otso Berg and the higher-up Templars and they could have tried and worked with that.

SirSionis
03-08-2015, 08:31 PM
Maybe not Achilles personally but since when did the Assassin's hire gangs to terrorize cities?

The only reason is to make the Assassin's look antagonistic and the Templar's sympathetic. It's totally contrived.

Hope was the leader of those gangs.It was her only.The other assassins had good intentions.Liam shows that in the start of the game:he believes Templars are bad and that's why they need to be killed.Adéwale wasn't really bad...

CandiedTexas364
03-09-2015, 12:07 AM
Do I really have to kill my former quartermaster Adewalé. He was a former slave and helped so many men/women to regain liberty. He is a GOOD man. And I really must kill him?

Dear Ubisoft team are you kiddin me????

No guilty feelings killing that poisonous ex colleague of mine though lol. Gues people who played this already get who I mean.