PDA

View Full Version : Could we've been seeing each character through our Assassin's perspective in each AC?



EmbodyingSeven5
04-12-2015, 04:12 PM
This idea originated from a book I read that existed parallel to another book. in the end the author explains that differences in conversation and detail is because the narrators from each book remembered things differently from one another. this made me think of the animus which runs off memory. I mean memory cant be completely accurate right? ideals or prejudices could affect or even change memory couldn't it? I have been recently going through things in my head like why the Templar branch in AC 2- B was so demonized and evil. or why Charles lee gave that racial slur in front of Connor when he had been so polite and calm in the beginning.

I think I have now come to a conclusion.

think back to AC 1. Al mualim is always lecturing altiar and giving him wisdom throughout the game. his advice always seems vague but begins to make sense as we progress through the story. al mualim is like a father figure to altiar projecting his opinions and ideals onto him. This could explain why altiar never saw all of the Templars as downright evil doers or sociopaths. but that didn't stop him from disagreeing with his targets. this is because Al Mualim may have intentionally swayed him this way so altiar would be more accepting of himself by the end game.

AC 2. Ezio is a young man and views his fathers friend as a seemingly jolly and happy man until that the man betrays his family and then turns into a figure of evil and revenge for Ezio. Ezio then projects this image onto every Templar. this would explain why we never hear anyone try to humanize the Templars in the game or in brotherhood. ezio is too consumed by revenge to listen. only when the revenge is finished with in AC R does ezio stop view Templars as evil monsters.

AC 3 begins with Haytham joining together the Templars who all seem like nice and trustworthy people, especially Charles who is the most loyal to Haytham. then we see Connor waking up to soon see his village in flames. this may be why he remembers lee being so hostile and rude. Connor though unlike ezio has sane people to pull him out of his original quest for revenge. possibly through Achilles teachings of the events in Rouge Connor understands the Templars almost as Altiar did.

AC 4 Edward has a equal opinion of both assassins and Templars at the time. he probably gave us one of the most unbiased look at both sides. eventually taking sides with the assassins..

before I go any further post your current thoughts and ideas please(:

Markaccus
04-12-2015, 04:41 PM
You could have something here. Certainly the perspective of what is happening will be directly affected by the persons memorys we are reliving. In fact, i dont even think i could add to what you already said.

ze_topazio
04-12-2015, 05:04 PM
We have discussed here similar theories in the past.

It's possible, not sure if the producers had that in mind.

EmbodyingSeven5
04-12-2015, 05:11 PM
We have discussed here similar theories in the past.

It's possible, not sure if the producers had that in mind.
could you give me a link?

pacmanate
04-12-2015, 06:12 PM
M bought this up once about Ezio.

It makes 100% sense and this is true. Memories are always someones perspective of the event, in this case, it is always our Assassin (or Templar) in Shays case. And also who is to say the memories dont get even more inaccurate with time? I doubt any assassin would have 100% correct recollection of any event, especially as they get older.

Hans684
04-12-2015, 06:32 PM
We are reliving genetic memories, past actions. Not what they think but what they did.

pacmanate
04-12-2015, 06:56 PM
We are reliving genetic memories, past actions. Not what they think but what they did.

That makes no sense. No one said we were reliving what they think. Genetic Memories are still memories, imprinted on genes. Memories can change with time. For example, I know i ordered a pizza last week, but what toppings? Say IRL i got chicken and pepperoni, but i THOUGHT I had chicken and bacon, then the relived memory would be of chicken and bacon.

Hans684
04-12-2015, 07:13 PM
Memories can change with time.

True.


For example, I know i ordered a pizza last week, but what toppings? Say IRL i got chicken and pepperoni, but i THOUGHT I had chicken and bacon, then the relived memory would be of chicken and bacon.

Fair enough.

Altair1789
04-13-2015, 12:09 AM
That's an interesting theory. By the way, what were the books you read that inspired this theory?

pirate1802
04-13-2015, 12:16 AM
I hope not. Because then the Animus would lose its single biggest usp: Showing history the way it really happened, free of all biases (recall what William Miles said in the AC3 intro) and instead becomes history as remembered by an old fart bundled up with all his bias and judgements!

Farlander1991
04-13-2015, 01:02 AM
I hope not. Because then the Animus would lose its single biggest usp: Showing history the way it really happened, free of all biases (recall what William Miles said in the AC3 intro) and instead becomes history as remembered by an old fart bundled up with all his bias and judgements!

Well, this point is kinda alluded to even in AC1, that Animus isn't infallible.

Warren says how Animus is so awesome that it doesn't leave room for interpretation, and Desmond replies with that there's always room.

EmbodyingSeven5
04-13-2015, 01:35 AM
Well, this point is kinda alluded to even in AC1, that Animus isn't infallible.

Warren says how Animus is so awesome that it doesn't leave room for interpretation, and Desmond replies with that there's always room.

also noticed in brotherhood. Rebecca says something about ezio remembering something else when a memory is brought up. Shaun then then said Ezios troubled state is being reflected onto Desmond so they need to relive the moments that went up to the event.

EmbodyingSeven5
04-13-2015, 01:42 AM
That's an interesting theory. By the way, what were the books you read that inspired this theory?

Remember I'm on my last year of middle school lol.

The ender games title Enders Shadow. its supposed to take place along side the enders game story but in the POV of a side character. In the authors notes the author explains that the reason conversations and character descriptions differ is because of the difference in the memory and bias of the two. I personally think the author didn't want to go back and change the text just to fit the other lol.

Defalt221
04-13-2015, 12:49 PM
This idea originated from a book I read that existed parallel to another book. in the end the author explains that differences in conversation and detail is because the narrators from each book remembered things differently from one another. this made me think of the animus which runs off memory. I mean memory cant be completely accurate right? ideals or prejudices could affect or even change memory couldn't it? I have been recently going through things in my head like why the Templar branch in AC 2- B was so demonized and evil. or why Charles lee gave that racial slur in front of Connor when he had been so polite and calm in the beginning.

I think I have now come to a conclusion.

think back to AC 1. Al mualim is always lecturing altiar and giving him wisdom throughout the game. his advice always seems vague but begins to make sense as we progress through the story. al mualim is like a father figure to altiar projecting his opinions and ideals onto him. This could explain why altiar never saw all of the Templars as downright evil doers or sociopaths. but that didn't stop him from disagreeing with his targets. this is because Al Mualim may have intentionally swayed him this way so altiar would be more accepting of himself by the end game.

AC 2. Ezio is a young man and views his fathers friend as a seemingly jolly and happy man until that the man betrays his family and then turns into a figure of evil and revenge for Ezio. Ezio then projects this image onto every Templar. this would explain why we never hear anyone try to humanize the Templars in the game or in brotherhood. ezio is too consumed by revenge to listen. only when the revenge is finished with in AC R does ezio stop view Templars as evil monsters.

AC 3 begins with Haytham joining together the Templars who all seem like nice and trustworthy people, especially Charles who is the most loyal to Haytham. then we see Connor waking up to soon see his village in flames. this may be why he remembers lee being so hostile and rude. Connor though unlike ezio has sane people to pull him out of his original quest for revenge. possibly through Achilles teachings of the events in Rouge Connor understands the Templars almost as Altiar did.

AC 4 Edward has a equal opinion of both assassins and Templars at the time. he probably gave us one of the most unbiased look at both sides. eventually taking sides with the assassins..

before I go any further post your current thoughts and ideas please(:

The same event repeated in AC Rogue. After Shay joined the Templars, suddenly all assassins are criminals, heartless murderers and harm innocents. And Templars are the innocent protecting,kind caring loving group of innocent victims to Assassin oppression. As Connor you always see the oppossite event happening.

VestigialLlama4
04-13-2015, 03:29 PM
I mean memory cant be completely accurate right? ideals or prejudices could affect or even change memory couldn't it?

What you are talking about is consciousness. That is our present day self censors and alters our memories of past events. Our recollection and the way we remember events is subject to prejudices and ideals. However the memories themselves can be accurate to a reasonable degree.

In any case, in AC, its stated repeteadly several times that the Animus is objective. It's like the Pensieve from the Harry Potter books. The idea of genetic memory is magical-fantastic anyway and according to the device, all the memories are accurate and since there's no human consciousness filtering it (i.e. all the ancestors are dead) there's no way those memories can be changed.

In any case, the whole point of the game's metaphor is that the Animus is accurate. Otherwise stuff like Minerva sending messages from Ezio to Desmond would not make sense. So nice try, but your theory is fairly obsolete.

VestigialLlama4
04-13-2015, 03:33 PM
Well, this point is kinda alluded to even in AC1, that Animus isn't infallible.

Warren says how Animus is so awesome that it doesn't leave room for interpretation, and Desmond replies with that there's always room.

What Desmond means is that even when we see events in the past, there is going to be room for interpretation. Like fans trying to decide how sincere/insincere Haytham was and so on. I don't think he means it in the sense that the events seen in Animus is fabricated.

As per the User Manual of AC1, the video game GUI used by the Animus does alter how the rendering of those memories, which means that it could be a little more static and less dynamic than say if they had made it into a movie or TV show. In any case, what we see in the Animus isn't fabricated. The Templar multiplayer are fabrications and it's clearly different from the normal single player AC animus.

SixKeys
04-13-2015, 06:00 PM
I hope not. Because then the Animus would lose its single biggest usp: Showing history the way it really happened, free of all biases (recall what William Miles said in the AC3 intro) and instead becomes history as remembered by an old fart bundled up with all his bias and judgements!

Isn't that what Abstergo Entertainment is doing? Editing memories so they fit their own biased narrative? Maybe the Animus showed memories more accurately, but Helix (being an upgraded model designed specifically for mass usage) could already be pre-programmed to do some creative nipping and tucking here and there.

pirate1802
04-13-2015, 07:24 PM
Isn't that what Abstergo Entertainment is doing? Editing memories so they fit their own biased narrative? Maybe the Animus showed memories more accurately, but Helix (being an upgraded model designed specifically for mass usage) could already be pre-programmed to do some creative nipping and tucking here and there.

Well there's a difference between the finished factory product being morally iffy and the raw mined data being so. Indeed the game makes no secret of the fact that the Templars do indeed do such a thing and if you're playing an Abstergo Entertainment product you should never trust what you're seeing but that's different from say the 'you' mining through Edward's memory, because it's supposed to be first hand while the AE products aren't. If we still can't trust the Animus then the whole premise of the franchise crumbles down.

And I took Desmond's 'there is always room for interpretation' line as the typical assassiny rebuttal. After all, his own father disagreed with him on this matter. The only time when there is no room for interpretation is when you are physically there, seeing and hearing all first hand. that was what the Animus was designed to do. And if it fails, well then how is it better than books? Afterall books too, are recollections of one's faded memory with heavy rollings of bias. I like to think the Animus is one step above this.

Farlander1991
04-13-2015, 07:47 PM
And I took Desmond's 'there is always room for interpretation' line as the typical assassiny rebuttal. After all, his own father disagreed with him on this matter. The only time when there is no room for interpretation is when you are physically there, seeing and hearing all first hand. that was what the Animus was designed to do. And if it fails, well then how is it better than books? Afterall books too, are recollections of one's faded memory with heavy rollings of bias. I like to think the Animus is one step above this

Desmond's line can be interpreted in different ways, yes, but the point is, we don't know how accurate the Animus is. Even if genetic memories aren't influenced by their person's owner, there's the very simple fact that we never have all the data. From the very first game, memories are either missing or the data is inaccurate. This is why we control the characters in the first place, because we're kinda trying to get it close to what it has been, and then cutscenes are supposedly chunks of whole data that don't require our control (remember how in AC1 with each cutscene it would say 'synchronizing'? The whole game is basically us trying to navigate from synch point to synch point, and every game after it is about pretty much the same too), but if we already have missing data, who's to say that there's no missing data in cutscenes as well? Some lines missing there and there, some actions too, which would paint a different picture of the events in question.

Every game shows how imperfect Animus is, from missing data, to it being corrupted, to it being repressed (btw, if memories are harder to reach because they were being repressed by the owner, then that is an evidence of the fact that the owner of the memories influences them at least in some shape or form), to simply not having the whole picture, Animus is always shown to have a bunch of fallacies making it not necessarily better than books or people's recollections, and it being influenced or shaped by the owner's perception (that doesn't necessarily got to be a HUGE influence mind you) would not be contrary to that.

VestigialLlama4
04-13-2015, 09:43 PM
Desmond's line can be interpreted in different ways, yes, but the point is, we don't know how accurate the Animus is. Even if genetic memories aren't influenced by their person's owner, there's the very simple fact that we never have all the data. From the very first game, memories are either missing or the data is inaccurate. This is why we control the characters in the first place, because we're kinda trying to get it close to what it has been, and then cutscenes are supposedly chunks of whole data that don't require our control (remember how in AC1 with each cutscene it would say 'synchronizing'? The whole game is basically us trying to navigate from synch point to synch point, and every game after it is about pretty much the same too), but if we already have missing data, who's to say that there's no missing data in cutscenes as well? Some lines missing there and there, some actions too, which would paint a different picture of the events in question.

Every game shows how imperfect Animus is, from missing data, to it being corrupted, to it being repressed (btw, if memories are harder to reach because they were being repressed by the owner, then that is an evidence of the fact that the owner of the memories influences them at least in some shape or form), to simply not having the whole picture, Animus is always shown to have a bunch of fallacies making it not necessarily better than books or people's recollections, and it being influenced or shaped by the owner's perception (that doesn't necessarily got to be a HUGE influence mind you) would not be contrary to that.

Those are fascinating points you raise there about "missing data" (something which the games don't tackle well as a theme). One thing that the game has never managed to convey very well is the "missing picture", we always get a linear point A-point B view of the character's actions. There's no sense of actually sorting out data, separating childhood and the differing stages. Like how come we never get okay synch these memories of Baby Altair's first steps, and then synch Altair killing the Templar Grandmaster, there's none of that random disconnect. In AC1, the afterlife conversations were implied to be random pasted events from the character's interactions (In Unity we get the whole Assassins actually talk to Templars in a white room by reading their minds).

You are right that the Templars do try and alter memories but from the glimpses we get in BLACK FLAG of their Special Character Assessment videos, they are not very good at all. There's Devils in the Carribbean (Nothing is Sacred, Everyone is Committed) which looks cheesy as hell. The point is memory altering looks fake and bad (and in the Helix Rift videos we know that Devils in the Caribbean didn't sell very well at all).

For narrative reasons the Animus renders are objective, If they aren't the entire premise and the Assassins and Templars fight in the MD and why they are exploring the past is totally destroyed. The Animus has to represent perfect recollection subject to technical and biological limitations, otherwise the Assassins and Templars have no reasons for sending someone on a mental time travel, since nothing they see, hear or record is truly reliable.

SixKeys
04-13-2015, 09:50 PM
And I took Desmond's 'there is always room for interpretation' line as the typical assassiny rebuttal. After all, his own father disagreed with him on this matter. The only time when there is no room for interpretation is when you are physically there, seeing and hearing all first hand. that was what the Animus was designed to do. And if it fails, well then how is it better than books? Afterall books too, are recollections of one's faded memory with heavy rollings of bias. I like to think the Animus is one step above this.

Reminded me of this quote: "Am I not unlike those precious books you seek to save? A source of knowledge with which you disagree?" -Jubair

I do believe there is always room for interpretation as Desmond said. We have photographic and filmic evidence of certain historical events, yet even those are always presented from someone's personal perspective. Even if the Animus does show things that really happened, it's always possible that some details are wrong, pieces of vital information are missing or personal biases get in the way. In the past we've talked about how there are ways to get full synchronization in certain missions that probably don't reflect what the developers intended. In ACR when you have to retrieve Sofia's stolen painting, full sync requirement says "steal the painting without being detected". This implies that stealth should be the only way, but it's entirely possible for Ezio to throw some bombs to scatter civilians or berserk-poison some guards who will kill the salesman, preventing him from seeing you. So you can literally set off a bomb in the middle of this busy market, kill a bunch of people and retrieve the painting unseen. BAM! "Full synchronization achieved". If the player does that and still achieves full sync, then that means Ezio must have done it that way. How does this fit with his portrayal as a generally good guy who would never endanger civilian lives? It doesn't, yet if we are to accept this line of thinknig, we must conclude some information regarding this mission must be missing, damaged or tampered with.