PDA

View Full Version : Top 5 Assassinations from the Original Assassin's Creed!



sedgieROI
03-28-2015, 04:32 PM
It was a while ago the first AC dropped. I replayed it recently and still had a good time with it. Despite a little repetition the game still holds up and the assassinations are still fantastic.

I made a list of my top 5 assassinations, let me know what you think...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IU_46u48Fg&feature=youtu.be

Cheers!

https://youtu.be/5IU_46u48Fg

Assassin_M
03-28-2015, 04:46 PM
I wouldn't consider Robert and AlMualim to be part of the "Assassination" missions. Nice choices, though otherwise.

I'd say:

1- AboulNoqood
2- Garnier di Naplouse
3- Majduddin
4- Talal
5- Sibrand

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 06:09 PM
My choices are:

1) Hochmeister Sibrand
2) Abul Nu'quod
3) William of Montferrat
4) Garnier de Naplouse
5) Majd Addin

GunnerGalactico
03-28-2015, 06:46 PM
- Sibrand
- Majd Addin
- Garnier De Naplouse
- Talal
- William of Montferrat

sedgieROI
03-28-2015, 06:46 PM
I wouldn't consider Robert and AlMualim to be part of the "Assassination" missions. Nice choices, though otherwise.

I'd say:

1- AboulNoqood
2- Garnier di Naplouse
3- Majduddin
4- Talal
5- Sibrand

i know what you mean, they we're too epic to leave out though, i remember finding out about the al mualim bombshell when i played it the first time, it was a good plot twist

sedgieROI
03-28-2015, 06:48 PM
- Sibrand
- Majd Addin
- Garnier De Naplouse
- Talal
- William of Montferrat

william was a good one, it would have been awesome if altair could air assassinate from any height. I liked sibrand too

GunnerGalactico
03-28-2015, 06:54 PM
william was a good one, it would have been awesome if altair could air assassinate from any height. I liked sibrand too

I successfully managed to assassinate those 2 targets without ever being detected on my very first play-through. :)

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 07:26 PM
Why would Robert and Al Mualim not count as assassinations?

My top 5:

1) Sibrand
2) Garnier
3) Al Mualim
4) Abu'l Nuqoud
5) William

Surprised no-one has named Jubair. If not for Al Mualim, he would have had a place on my list.

I-Like-Pie45
03-28-2015, 07:47 PM
cause they are boss fights silly willy jessixkeys

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 07:49 PM
Surprised no-one has named Jubair. If not for Al Mualim, he would have had a place on my list.

Well he's a boring character, and he has a gimmick Assassination (ignore my body doubles, or look out for the golden thread on my duds).

Assassin_M
03-28-2015, 08:44 PM
Why would Robert and Al Mualim not count as assassinations?
Because they're more like boss fights, i'd say

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 08:49 PM
Well he's a boring character, and he has a gimmick Assassination (ignore my body doubles, or look out for the golden thread on my duds).

I don't see how he's a boring character. He's certainly more interesting that Abu'l Nuqoud or Majd Addin who openly admitted they only cared about power. Talal's assassination is probably the most boring to me, since it's a small pre-assassination area and inevitably ends in a chase.


Because they're more like boss fights, i'd say

So are Charles Lee and Haytham, pretty much.

Assassin_M
03-28-2015, 08:56 PM
So are Charles Lee and Haytham, pretty much.
Uhh, okay? That's random.


I don't see how he's a boring character. He's certainly more interesting that Abu'l Nuqoud or Majd Addin who openly admitted they only cared about power.
It's certainly boring when you say it like that but alas...there's quite more to them.

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 08:58 PM
I don't see how he's a boring character. He's certainly more interesting that Abu'l Nuqoud or Majd Addin who openly admitted they only cared about power.

No Abul Nuqoud doesn't care about power. He's gay and so hated by society (and even some of the Assassins like the Rafiq seem to be homophobic) and he hates the nobility for backing Saladin's war machine so he invited them all to a party and killed them all. He's one of my favorite Templars for that reason, he was more Assassin than the Assassins as he proudly admits to Altair.

Majd Addin though is entertaining. He's this total psychopath who goes to the grave admitting to be an a--hole. Also the whole thing where he tells Altair that the only part he agrees with the Templars is that rebels must be crushed. It shows how weak that ideology is since it attracts scumbags like him.

Jubair just burns books and burns people on books because I don't know, I forgot what his motivation was. People kill in name of religious books so burning books will prevent ignorance...that's a comic book villain's logic, whereas Nuqoud and Majd Addin are better written.

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 09:17 PM
Uhh, okay? That's random.

How is it random? I'm saying if Al Mualim and Robert de Sable don't count as assassinations, then neither do those two. Yet people always talk about them as assassinations. I just don't see the logic. Is it the linearity? Because Talal's assassination is linear too. The only reason Robert is considered a boss battle is because we have to kill him "twice" (due to the decoy in Jerusalem).


It's certainly boring when you say it like that but alas...there's quite more to them.

In Abu'l Nuqoud's case, maybe, but Majd Addin is just as two-dimensional as AC2's villains.


No Abul Nuqoud doesn't care about power. He's gay and so hated by society (and even some of the Assassins like the Rafiq seem to be homophobic) and he hates the nobility for backing Saladin's war machine so he invited them all to a party and killed them all. He's one of my favorite Templars for that reason, he was more Assassin than the Assassins as he proudly admits to Altair.

His gayness is only subtly alluded to, if he even is gay. In the AC1 art book they refer to him as a "she-male" (which is wildly offensive, but what can you do) which could allude to him being transgender or intersex instead. All he says about himself is that people don't accept him and that they mock him, which could be for a number of reasons. He's also fat, rich, corrupt and looks like he has some kind of disease. So there are lots of possibilities. I don't have a huge problem with his character or anything, but I think Jubair's motive is more intriguing than just "ha ha, I showed those bullies!".


Majd Addin though is entertaining. He's this total psychopath who goes to the grave admitting to be an a--hole. Also the whole thing where he tells Altair that the only part he agrees with the Templars is that rebels must be crushed. It shows how weak that ideology is since it attracts scumbags like him.

I just find him completely uninteresting. He's just as flat as AC2's cardboard villains and people like to rail on them all the time. It's nice for variety in a game like AC1 where all the other villains are much more gray, to have this one villain (kind of like Hickey) who is just openly greedy and power-hungry. But I'm glad he's the only one.


Jubair just burns books and burns people on books because I don't know, I forgot what his motivation was. People kill in name of religious books so burning books will prevent ignorance...that's a comic book villain's logic, whereas Nuqoud and Majd Addin are better written.

Jubair burns books because he's afraid of the spread of information which might make people think for themselves. He's like the people today who fear the power of ther internet. He believes himself to be the guardian of truth, and thinks that free access to information is an invitation to the sort of chaos the templars oppose. It's certainly more interesting than Majd Addin's moustache-twirling.

Assassin_M
03-28-2015, 09:27 PM
How is it random? I'm saying if Al Mualim and Robert de Sable don't count as assassinations, then neither do those two. Yet people always talk about them as assassinations. I just don't see the logic. Is it the linearity? Because Talal's assassination is linear too. The only reason Robert is considered a boss battle is because we have to kill him "twice" (due to the decoy in Jerusalem).
How does this involve me? I don't care what others say. They're Assassination targets. What I consider Assassinations are ones where a hidden blade kill (not through combat) is possible in plain sight of a lot people. Robert's kill was a duel, so were Almualim's and Haytham's. Lee was a cutscene. I consider Miko's mission an Assassination, even though it's extremely linear.



In Abu'l Nuqoud's case, maybe, but Majd Addin is just as two-dimensional as AC2's villains.
Ohohohoh, oh no. And this is why I disagree when you talk about Hickey. AC II's villains are not 2D for their motivations, they're 2D because they lack complexity. You can simplify everything but there's always subtext. NONE of the AC II villains had any subtext. Rodrigo wanted power just because, the Pazzis are the same way (heck, the made Francisco intentionally sadistic and hateful of the middle class and they had to point that fact out, whilst Lorenzo was white washed as this innocent angel)

Fact is, Majd and Hickey are great villains. You may disagree, and that's fine but they served a purpose. Majd was a foil to Altair. He was a personification of his arrogance. He's a madman who took advantage of laws to twist them for his gain. He felt entitled to respect, just as Altair did. It infuriated Altair when he saw himself from this point of view, so much that he stabbed him twice. He never did that with anyone. Majd also served as a third party. Not a Templar and not an Assassin but a man crazed with power and respect. It adds more complexity to the A-T conflict.

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 09:32 PM
Ohohohoh, oh no. And this is why I disagree when you talk about Hickey. AC II's villains are not 2D for their motivations, they're 2D because they lack complexity. You can simplify everything but there's always subtext. NONE of the AC II villains had any subtext. Rodrigo wanted power just because, the Pazzis are the same way (heck, the made Francisco intentionally sadistic and hateful of the middle class and they had to point that fact out, whilst Lorenzo was white washed as this innocent angel)

Fact is, Majd and Hickey are great villains. You may disagree, and that's fine but they served a purpose. Majd was a foil to Altair. He was a personification of his arrogance. He's a madman who took advantage of laws to twist them for his gain. He felt entitled to respect, just as Altair did. It infuriated Altair when he saw himself from this point of view, so much that he stabbed him twice. He never did that with anyone. Majd also served as a third party. Not a Templar and not an Assassin but a man crazed with power and respect. It adds more complexity to the A-T conflict.

Interesting. I never looked at it from that perspective, but I like that interpretation.

I still don't like Hickey, though. :p

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 09:40 PM
His gayness is only subtly alluded to, if he even is gay.

Rule of Thumb, when someone is subtly alluded to be gay, he is gay, basic rule of drama.


I just find him completely uninteresting. He's just as flat as AC2's cardboard villains and people like to rail on them all the time. It's nice for variety in a game like AC1 where all the other villains are much more gray, to have this one villain (kind of like Hickey) who is just openly greedy and power-hungry. But I'm glad he's the only one.

Majd Addin may be flat but he is realistic, in any organization hoping to control and manipulate people, there will always be those who are in it for power and torture. Most of history's villains are more like Majd Addin than otherwise.


Jubair burns books because he's afraid of the spread of information which might make people think for themselves. He's like the people today who fear the power of ther internet. He believes himself to be the guardian of truth, and thinks that free access to information is an invitation to the sort of chaos the templars oppose. It's certainly more interesting than Majd Addin's moustache-twirling.

I just don't get that kind of logic. Its something that comes from comic books where you have gimmick motivations. You know he sets riddles because he wants to solve all of life's problems, he burns books because he wants to preserve information. The fact is, I can relate to why Abul Nuqoud does what he does and I can totally understand why Majd Addin does what he does, the world is filled with his likes. I can't relate to Jubair at all.

Assassin_M
03-28-2015, 09:43 PM
I still don't like Hickey, though. :p
Sure, okay, fine. Hickey may not please all tastes but he has his charm.

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 09:48 PM
I just don't get that kind of logic. Its something that comes from comic books where you have gimmick motivations. You know he sets riddles because he wants to solve all of life's problems, he burns books because he wants to preserve information. The fact is, I can relate to why Abul Nuqoud does what he does and I can totally understand why Majd Addin does what he does, the world is filled with his likes. I can't relate to Jubair at all.

I find the comparison to Riddler unfair. I'm not exactly able to relate to either Majd Addin or Jubair, but I understand Jubair's motivation better because I see it all the time. People like Majd Addin surely exist in the world, but almost nobody ever outright wants to admit that what they're doing is evil and wrong. They will always try to justify it in some roundabout way. Majd Addin is a prime example of a comic book villain who's evil "just because". Jubair is more like the priests and politicians who do terrible things in the name of their faith or power, but attempt to justify it to themselves and others. Jubair pushes one of his questioning disciples into a bonfire. He's like the witch hunters of olden days who refused to even listen to any explanations, out of fear that "the devil" may sway their faith. Jubair can't abide to listen to reason because he's afraid he might be persuaded. So he shuts down dissenters with brute force and burns any traces of the old knowledge that may tempt him. He has chosen a path that he wants to believe is righteous. When there's no more information left other than the stuff he believes in his own head, then there will be no more threat to his faith.