PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed: The Forrest Gump Effect



Mr.Black24
04-21-2015, 01:38 AM
So I had been thinking long and hard about this. When people got AC3, they all get mad that Connor was around the various events of the American Revolution. When Unity rolled around, people got mad that Arno and the story didn't focus enough on the French Revolution.

But the thing is, either hidden in plain sight, or working within the shadows, the Assassins and Templars had worked within and around various historical events for centuries. How was it a crime for Connor and Arno to be the way they were in their respective Revolutions? Isn't that the point of being an Assassin/Templar, to weave in and out of the historical events in order to further your Order? How was it "shoehorned" as this word was tossed around alot? I liked how the American Assassins was involved in the events, it felt like they did more than their other fellow Brotherhoods did. I mean Ezio freed Italy from Borgia grasps, abit within the shadows, same with Altair within the Crusades and Mongolia, while Connor was a bit more open, but still unknown to the public, who still freed America from Templar hands. Arno wasn't bad either. While the main missions did not show involvement in the French Revolution, the co-op missions revealed that he was indeed involved in key events.

How much is too much? What is the point of two opposing Orders manipulating or guiding events within history to further their goals, if people get all mad about it? I don't get it. Maybe I am looking at it wrong? Maybe I am not? Tell me, how much is too much?

SixKeys
04-21-2015, 02:00 AM
So I had been thinking long and hard about this. When people got AC3, they all get mad that Connor was around the various events of the American Revolution. When Unity rolled around, people got mad that Arno and the story didn't focus enough on the French Revolution.

This is exactly why I think some people will just never be happy no matter what the devs do.

Megas_Doux
04-21-2015, 02:01 AM
AC III was too much in that regard!!!!! Connor basically ignited and then "won" the American Revolution by himself.

However my main complaint was not his presence itself but execution!!!!!!!! I mean, the Midnight Ride could┤ve been a mission in which you had to protect Revere from being ambushed and thus killed. The player could┤ve chosen a stealthy approach or guns blazing. Instead we just were his chauffeur receiving orders.......

Many critiziced that and thus, we got Unity┤s approach in which the French Revolution was reduced to a background, sadly.

I-Like-Pie45
04-21-2015, 02:10 AM
Ubi insulted French Revolution! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Shahkulu101
04-21-2015, 02:41 AM
This is exactly why I think some people will just never be happy no matter what the devs do.

Well the key is balance, not swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction. The utter lack of connection to the French Revolution in Unity was shocking, as were the obfuscation of historical facts to support it's bizarrely pro-royalist agenda.

SixKeys
04-21-2015, 03:08 AM
Well the key is balance, not swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction. The utter lack of connection to the French Revolution in Unity was shocking, as were the obfuscation of historical facts to support it's bizarrely pro-royalist agenda.

True, but I don't think that the time period not having much of an effect on the story is in and of itself a problem. We could have had a love story that simply takes place against the backdrop of the revolution - if only the love story itself would have been compelling enough, the historical backdrop needn't have even played a huge role. Unfortunately Unity fell short in both regards. In AC1 the history was more scenery than a vital part of the plot really. You had the Saracens fighting against Christians, but their skirmishes had nothing to do with Alta´r's personal quest of trying to win back his honor. He was entirely indifferent to the religious wars being fought. He ran into some famous figures, but they weren't in-your-face. King Richard didn't grant Alta´r knighthood for beating his best men or anything ridiculous like that. In contrast, AC2 had Leonardo da Vinci personally designing weapons for us and Lorenzo de Medici granting us special privileges. I wouldn't be opposed to future games focusing more on the assassin's personal struggle and less on introducing us to famous figures just for the sake of it.

Dead1y-Derri
04-21-2015, 03:13 AM
True, but I don't think that the time period not having much of an effect on the story is in and of itself a problem. We could have had a love story that simply takes place against the backdrop of the revolution - if only the love story itself would have been compelling enough, the historical backdrop needn't have even played a huge role. Unfortunately Unity fell short in both regards. In AC1 the history was more scenery than a vital part of the plot really. You had the Saracens fighting against Christians, but their skirmishes had nothing to do with Alta´r's personal quest of trying to win back his honor. He was entirely indifferent to the religious wars being fought. He ran into some famous figures, but they weren't in-your-face. King Richard didn't grant Alta´r knighthood for beating his best men or anything ridiculous like that. In contrast, AC2 had Leonardo da Vinci personally designing weapons for us and Lorenzo de Medici granting us special privileges. I wouldn't be opposed to future games focusing more on the assassin's personal struggle and less on introducing us to famous figures just for the sake of it.

However the one thing they did right in AC2 was have those famous historical figures in there for a purpose, reason and part of the story and narrative. It wasn't like they just crammed a bunch of people from history in and gave them a dialogue which basically involved them saying "Hi" to Ezio, they were included because it helped the narrative and was actually real life friends of the family. So it wasn't like they just did it for the sake of it.

rprkjj
04-21-2015, 03:19 AM
AC III was too much in that regard!!!!! Connor basically ignited and then "won" the American Revolution by himself.

However my main complaint was not his presence itself but execution!!!!!!!! I mean, the Midnight Ride could┤ve been a mission in which you had to protect Revere from being ambushed and thus killed. The player could┤ve chosen a stealthy approach or guns blazing. Instead we just were his chauffeur receiving orders.......

Many critiziced that and thus, we got Unity┤s approach in which the French Revolution was reduced to a background, sadly.

Agreed. I'm actually okay with the assassin being in historical events, but as an assassin behind the scenes instead of, say, one of the people who were present right next to Sam Adams in his assassin robes during the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

I actually thought Black Flag did this the best, albeit it was more about the characters rather than certain events.

VestigialLlama4
04-21-2015, 05:17 AM
In AC1 the history was more scenery than a vital part of the plot really. You had the Saracens fighting against Christians, but their skirmishes had nothing to do with Alta´r's personal quest of trying to win back his honor. He was entirely indifferent to the religious wars being fought. He ran into some famous figures, but they weren't in-your-face. King Richard didn't grant Alta´r knighthood for beating his best men or anything ridiculous like that. In contrast, AC2 had Leonardo da Vinci personally designing weapons for us and Lorenzo de Medici granting us special privileges. I wouldn't be opposed to future games focusing more on the assassin's personal struggle and less on introducing us to famous figures just for the sake of it.

Well, the problem is quite simply that Altair occupies a real historical position at that time. The Assassins during the Crusades are an actual organization with a set purpose. The real-life Richard the Lionheart is even believed to have employed their services to kill Conrad Montferrat (you end up killing his father because they didn't want to fudge dates that heavily). So what you see in AC1, for all the dates and names moved forward and backward, is broadly accurate and correct in spirit to the historical dimensions. The Asasiyun had a set role and presence in the actual history of the Crusades and AC1 respects that. So that's why you don't have Altair being Knighted (which was impossible since only Christians and Catholics could be knights, it was originally a religious office).

The minute you take the Assassins and Templars out of the Crusades (and actual history) and make them figures in conspiracy mythology, everything has to be redefined. You have to say why the Assassins are hiding, you have to say what they are for and who they are against...these things are naturally different across history. In AC2 during the Renaissance, the choice was between a bunch of frustrated, resentful conservative aristocrats backed by a deeply corrupt Church (Pazzi) and a forward looking emerging middle class (Medici and Auditore), so it became a question about progress, social change and politics.

To paraphrase Al Mualim, Ezio's purpose and job hasn't changed (killing Templars) but only the context in which he does it. Altair was both Assassin and Asasiyun, Ezio can't be both because he's Italian and not living in the Crusades. This by itself increased the Gump factor. For the Assassins to be good guys more than Templars, they now have to be shown on "the right side of history". So Ezio pals around with Leonardo da Vinci and pays his rent. Ezio kils people but he also spreads art and civilization, helps out shopkeepers and the like. He's both Assassin and Renaissance Patron of Arts. All the Assassins have that double function, one is their role as Assassins, the other is their historical role, specific to the period and setting. Some might think this increases the gump factor, others might think its exciting and opens the door to all kinds of possibilities.

So to people who criticize the gump factor and want to go back to AC1 style of just being an Assassin and not part of "history", well I am not saying they are wrong, but I am saying that they don't entirely appreciate, or respect the reasons why AC went in that direction to begin with, or for matter appreciate the possibilities that come from that change. Trying to reinvent that wheel without any amount of critical thought is what leads to a miserable disaster like UNITY.


Many critiziced that and thus, we got Unity┤s approach in which the French Revolution was reduced to a background, sadly.

Except its not even that, its just a fictitious fantastic setting. Keeping it in the background is not the same as making fake details altogether. The background of that game is a lie. Keeping the French Revolution in the background is an absurd idea anyway since, unlike the American Revolution, this was the first mass movement in history. Everyone in France was affected and took part in it. In Paris, where the game is set, its not an option, you would be killed outright if you were indifferent. As one critic noted about UNITY and Arno being disengaged "A Parisian not thinking about the Revolution is like a Newyorker not thinking about the 9/11 attacks."

VestigialLlama4
04-21-2015, 05:55 AM
How much is too much? What is the point of two opposing Orders manipulating or guiding events within history to further their goals, if people get all mad about it? I don't get it. Maybe I am looking at it wrong? Maybe I am not? Tell me, how much is too much?

Well the fact is there is no fixed or set answer to it. That is actually a good thing. The important thing is not to lose sight why AC went for historical tourism, what purpose it served. Remember historical tourism was invented by Our Lord and Master Patrice Desilets himself. It wasn't something other developers created. He was the one who really pushed for accuracy. For one thing it gave AC an edge, a quality that no other game or franchise had. For another, it made AC a potentially infinite franchise. It could basically be any kind of game. It gave it a freshness and a promise of constant renewal. So the Franchise could always stay fresh, in theory at least. As long as the games realize that every historical period is unique and has opportunities for new gameplay and interactions, new kinds of missions and challenges, the historical part is more than useful and vital.

Assassin's Creed as a game is about history, that is a central part of the entire franchise. It is Historical Fiction and practically the only gaming franchise that can claim that title. The historical part affects the gameplay, the setting, the character and interactions, it is the spine of the entire thing, even if you know the period or not. Even AC1, which people don't think is historical, largely works because of the solid grounding and historical framework that is there. So there's no point wishing it away. Or wanting it to be "mere background" that is there for "casuals."


AC III was too much in that regard!!!!! Connor basically ignited and then "won" the American Revolution by himself.

However my main complaint was not his presence itself but execution!!!!!!!! I mean, the Midnight Ride could┤ve been a mission in which you had to protect Revere from being ambushed and thus killed. The player could┤ve chosen a stealthy approach or guns blazing. Instead we just were his chauffeur receiving orders.......

With AC3 they told an AC2-style story but the setting was way more complicated than the Renaissance. Ezio palling around with famous historical figures made sense since he's from more or less, the same social class as them (he's lower than the Medici, Borgia and Caterina Sforza but higher than Machiavelli and Leonardo). Connor being mixed-race and poor makes him talking to white people all the time something you have to suspend disbelief altogether to look at all the time.

A Revolutionary setting is far more complex than a cultural setting which is static. Ideally to do AC3 properly they should have had multiple protagonists and I think that's why they put the Haytham prologue there. They should have taken this further in UNITY as well. But you know between Gump Factor and nothing, I'd take Gump Factor. In AC3, remove the silliness of the Midnight Ride and Connor being there for the Declaration of Independence, and it's still okay.

I-Like-Pie45
04-21-2015, 06:01 AM
Ubi remake the Unity game!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Megas_Doux
04-21-2015, 03:45 PM
A Revolutionary setting is far more complex than a cultural setting which is static....

I agree, with that!

Which is Why I prefer if Ubi don┤t do a revolution again.......

VoXngola
04-21-2015, 04:38 PM
I feel that it's not necessarily the base idea that is the problem, be it focusing too much on the setting (AC3) or too much on the MC (ACU), but rather the execution.
It's like holding a presentation, if you can't pull it off well nobody will listen to you. You can put in as much information as you want, it won't change anything.


That's how I see it. Execution is a very very important thing, people. Though I admit they shouldn't have neglected the French Revolution as much. I'm no history buff but apparently they screwed up the history of that time period a little, at least that's what other people have been telling me.


I mean, it worked out with Ezio's games didn't it? Big focus on Ezio but Italian Renaissance as a backdrop. ACU kinda had the same direction, but it lacked in the story department (imo!) and neglected the setting a bit too much. But the base idea is not the problem.


Those are my 2 cents.

cawatrooper9
04-21-2015, 06:51 PM
I wonder which game, in your guys opinion, implemented the historical sections the most effectively?

To me, I think it was Black Flag. Edward was witness to a few important historical events, and met many high profile characters, but he rarely was the linchpin in these scenarios like Connor was.

VestigialLlama4
04-21-2015, 07:46 PM
I wonder which game, in your guys opinion, implemented the historical sections the most effectively?

AC2 for me. Just the sense of the world growing bigger and bigger, and you meet these historical figures, big and small (yes, Bartolomeo d'Alviano actually existed) and the way you get to know Leonardo like he's a person and not just some "Great Mind". Then of course you have the Bonfire of the Vanities, which was a historical event I was familiar with and it was brilliant to see it. AC2 felt like you were in a moving historical fiction novel, like an Alexandre Dumas book (who was fairly accurate for a fiction writer). Also the way the architecture looked at the time, like the Rialto Bridge is made of wood, and the Sistine Chapel before Michelangelo, the background and all those little deft touches that adds to that world.

To me AC3's flaws doesn't come from the gump factor or anything, I mean those are symptoms, people see AC3 and think this won't be a problem if there was no history (which is a false conclusion). The problem is in AC3 the historical part is kind of cut-off and separate from the rest of the game. None of the historical figures of AC3 are really characters like Leonardo, Lorenzo, Caterina Sforza, Blackbeard, Prince Suleiman, Machiavelli, Richard the Lionheart, Mary Read, Anne Bonny or even Piri Reis are, they are kind of like interactive textbook illustrations. None of the founding fathers are Assassins or Templars or a Sage.

The main thing about using history is that you really need to actually "use" history. You have to take historical figures out of the textbooks and make them characters, this is something every good historical novelist has written. AC3's George Washington is a fairly flat character, he only comes alive in the Tyranny DLC (which is inspired by the fact that Washington was in fact offered to be King but he turned it down). And the weird part is anyone who has read about the real Washington knows that he was a man who was really hard tempered, ambitious, even a bit of a vain dandy and that part of the personality actually comes out more in King Washington (the evil side) in the DLC then the main game. There's no way the real Washington would have allowed Haytham and Connor to talk smack to him like they did in AC3, he'd have them imprisoned for insubordination and flogged.

The same problem is there in UNITY, which is odd because the French Revolutionaries are way more colourful than the Founding Fathers. They made Mirabeau the Assassin Mentor, but he's a flat character. He's just this all-knowing wise guy. The database entries by Shaun, keep repeating over and over again that he's some kind of firebrand and womanizer but that doesn't show up at all in the game (like he doesn't hit on Elise or anything). Likewise they wasted Robespierre even if he's the obvious inspiration for Pierre Bellec, La Touche and others. One character that works is Le Peletier but then you need to wait for a while to hear him give that secret dialogue which I thought was a rare redeeming moment in the game. The Co-Op Cutscenes are supremely bad. The major istorical character that really works is Napoleon and that's because Arno is his b-tch. They made Marquis de Sade plucky comic relief which is a huge letdown from the real-guy (who ideally would have been a better Sage than the poor jewel designer whose reputation they ruined).

Altair1789
04-21-2015, 09:06 PM
Ubi remake the Unity game!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I protest to Ubi now :mad:

Mr.Black24
04-22-2015, 02:52 AM
This is exactly why I think some people will just never be happy no matter what the devs do.
From what I'm looking at with all the talk people have in AC in general, it an unfortunate and painful truth. People want Japan, others don't since it feels so cliche. Some people want Modern Day, others want it in the trash. Some want a female character, others don't think its necessary. It goes on, and on, and on....


AC III was too much in that regard!!!!! Connor basically ignited and then "won" the American Revolution by himself. How did he "win" the revolution? He just helped from time to time, and he did want the Colonies to have their freedom sure, but it was greatly explained and shown that Connor only focused on the Templars themselves. It just happens that some British members were also Templars. As the E3 Demo sums up perfectly, "Let the Patriots fight their own battles, I am here for the Templar"


However my main complaint was not his presence itself but execution!!!!!!!! I mean, the Midnight Ride could┤ve been a mission in which you had to protect Revere from being ambushed and thus killed. The player could┤ve chosen a stealthy approach or guns blazing. Instead we just were his chauffeur receiving orders........ That is true, I thought that the Ride could have been better somehow.


Many critiziced that and thus, we got Unity┤s approach in which the French Revolution was reduced to a background, sadly. Thank those who thought that an Assassin being involved in an actual important historical events is "shoehorned"

I can't believe that Ubisoft would listen to dumb things like that, but an female assassin and proper character closure is down right awful...*sigh*

I-Like-Pie45
04-22-2015, 03:15 AM
I protest to Ubi now :mad:

Someone petition the Ubi remake the Unity love French Revolution! :mad:

SixKeys
04-22-2015, 07:13 AM
How did he "win" the revolution? He just helped from time to time, and he did want the Colonies to have their freedom sure, but it was greatly explained and shown that Connor only focused on the Templars themselves. It just happens that some British members were also Templars. As the E3 Demo sums up perfectly, "Let the Patriots fight their own battles, I am here for the Templar"


He helped "from time to time".....By single-handedly taking down the bulk of the attackers at Monmouth, by being randomly assigned as leader of the Patriot troops at Lexington and Concorde (and winning the battle), by taking down the leader of the British troops at the battle of Bunker Hill, by single-handedly stopping the bombing of Charlestown, by personally leading the Boston Tea Party, by being Paul Revere's own private chauffeur, by taking down the traitor Benedict Arnold even after finding out Washington killed his mother, etc.

Connor should have been more like in the E3 demo, but in the game it's ridiculous how much he acts as an errand boy for the Patriots. He's not neutral, he's 100% on the bluecoats' side judging by his actions.

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 08:40 AM
He helped "from time to time".....By single-handedly taking down the bulk of the attackers at Monmouth, by being randomly assigned as leader of the Patriot troops at Lexington and Concorde (and winning the battle), by taking down the leader of the British troops at the battle of Bunker Hill, by single-handedly stopping the bombing of Charlestown, by personally leading the Boston Tea Party, by being Paul Revere's own private chauffeur, by taking down the traitor Benedict Arnold even after finding out Washington killed his mother, etc.

Don't forget the Battle of the Chesapeake Bay, which along with Bunker Hill is my favorite historical part of the game. You know, in real-life John Pitcairn got whacked by an African-American soldier.


Connor should have been more like in the E3 demo, but in the game it's ridiculous how much he acts as an errand boy for the Patriots. He's not neutral, he's 100% on the bluecoats' side judging by his actions.

He absolutely is. And its more than a little strange. I said once that people don't criticize Connor for the right reasons but that there is one of them.


NEWSPAPER EXCERPT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/are-video-games-like-assassins-creed-rewriting-history/article9237302/?page=all

None of these arguments impress Marc Egnal, a U.S. military historian at York University. It isn’t just that a Mohawk fighting for the Americans is “very unlikely.” What troubles Prof. Egnal is the meaning that is implied. “If they wanted to get it right,” he says, “they should have made the hero from one of the smaller tribes in the south,” where fighting for the Americans was more common. “But ‘Mohawk’ is a better sell.”

By way of analogy, he points out that a very small number of African Americans fought for the South in the U.S. Civil War. To depict that as a norm “would be a gross distortion of history,” he says.

The main idea of a Mohawk fighting for the American Revolution is pretty weird, and the only reason they chose that was Mohawk meant New England (Boston, New York) and the most iconic parts of the Revolution. In AC3, none of the Founding Fathers are Assassins or Templars, so the way the history hinges on the plot is awkward because Connor doesn't really have any direct connection to them. In other words Connor is Mohawk for geographical reasons rather than historical or social reasons.

Still at least with AC3, Ubisoft knew what they were getting into. In contrast to the gutlessness with which they handled criticism of UNITY, they actually wrote a defense of their viewpoint to newspaper which doesn't use "our games are fiction" as a defense. What happened to you, Ubisoft Marketing, you used to be cool
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/ubisoft-responds-to-the-globes-editorial-on-assassins-creed-iii/article5839655/

Mr_Shade
04-22-2015, 10:44 AM
Someone petition the Ubi remake the Unity love French Revolution! :mad:

:rolleyes: lets not start sending up the 'bat signal' to certain people please;)

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 03:22 PM
He helped "from time to time".....By single-handedly taking down the bulk of the attackers at Monmouth, by being randomly assigned as leader of the Patriot troops at Lexington and Concorde (and winning the battle), by taking down the leader of the British troops at the battle of Bunker Hill, by single-handedly stopping the bombing of Charlestown, by personally leading the Boston Tea Party, by being Paul Revere's own private chauffeur, by taking down the traitor Benedict Arnold even after finding out Washington killed his mother, etc.

Connor should have been more like in the E3 demo, but in the game it's ridiculous how much he acts as an errand boy for the Patriots. He's not neutral, he's 100% on the bluecoats' side judging by his actions.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind having had a few of those sections in the game. Bunker Hill was pretty cool, and I thought Lexington and Concord was okay (though I wish you actually got to fight rather than command).

I think the parts I hated most were the Boston Tea Party and Paul Revere's ride. The former was ridiculous, as the Boston Tea Party was a relatively bloodless protest, yet Connor basically ends up killing a whole regiment of British troops during it. The latter was just obnoxious- however, they could have made it less of an escort mission and had Connor be one of the other warning riders and not had Revere tag along. After all, Paul Revere was not the only person that went through the area and rallied the troops that night.

Democrito_71
04-22-2015, 03:42 PM
He helped "from time to time".....By single-handedly taking down the bulk of the attackers at Monmouth, by being randomly assigned as leader of the Patriot troops at Lexington and Concorde (and winning the battle), by taking down the leader of the British troops at the battle of Bunker Hill, by single-handedly stopping the bombing of Charlestown, by personally leading the Boston Tea Party, by being Paul Revere's own private chauffeur, by taking down the traitor Benedict Arnold even after finding out Washington killed his mother, etc.

Connor should have been more like in the E3 demo, but in the game it's ridiculous how much he acts as an errand boy for the Patriots. He's not neutral, he's 100% on the bluecoats' side judging by his actions.


However the one thing they did right in AC2 was have those famous historical figures in there for a purpose, reason and part of the story and narrative. It wasn't like they just crammed a bunch of people from history in and gave them a dialogue which basically involved them saying "Hi" to Ezio, they were included because it helped the narrative and was actually real life friends of the family. So it wasn't like they just did it for the sake of it.


The problem I feel with AC3 is that Connor is in the center of almost all the big events that happens during the American Revolution and that he single handedly won the Revolution itself.
For example of shoehorned historical events in AC3;
* Boston Massacre; Connor gets the blame for the massacre and his face is on wanted posters all over Boston.
* Boston Tea Party; Connor dumps the Tea with the sons of liberty
* Reveres ride: Riding Paul Reveres horse while Paul points his finger and screams " To the Left Connor." "I believe we are on course." " Yes, this is exactly where we need to be!"
* Battle of Lexington and Concord, Connor captains over a group of Colonial soldiers and gives them order to shoot at the redcoats
* The battle of Bunker Hill, Connor blows up 2 ships and kills Pitcairn(running through in the middle of the battle Bunker hill and the Pitcairn part was the best part of that mission imo)
* The Assassination attempt on George Washington, Connor accused and being hung in public for "plotting to kill" Washington
* The declaration of independence, Connor sat there and watched when Franklin wrote his signature the documents(extremed shoehorned scene which was not necessary for Connors story)
* Battle of Monmouth, Connor captains over a group of Colonial soldiers to shoot at redcoats with cannons
* Battle of Chesapeake, Connor technically singlehandedly won this important battle

Ac3 also shoehorned historical characters that added nothing to it's main story like Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, James Barret, William Molineux, Israel Putnam(cool historical figure to meet in the game, but he didn't add anything to the main story imo) for example. The Characters you meet in AC2 has a purpose and reason to be in the main story in AC2. The historical characters weren't shoehorned just for the sake of it and we got to know them more compared to Unity.

Unitys love story could have been implemented in any time period in history since love stories are universal. Unitys story could have been more implemented in the historical and political events than the game did. Instead the French revolution was just a backdrop and most of the time I felt Arno did almost no sorts of impact during the french revolution except for stopping Robespierre. That's the only historical impact Arno did imo and I like how Ubi executed that event. But the rest of the game, I sometimes forgot that the game was based during the french revolution because the revolution didn't add much important events to the main story except for the Execution of the King and the fall of Robespierre.

I think a combination of being behind the scenes during events and being partly or directly involved in key events are a need because from what we have seen in AC3 and Unity, having a protagonist who is directly involved in the majority of the key events creates a Forrest Gump feel while a protagonist who is behind the scenes and uses the historical time period and events just as a coulisse makes you(or me at least) feel the protagonist is unimportant and isn't making any sorts of impact in history.

For me, a protagonist in AC should be one way or another be important during the time period the game takes place and that the protagonist did "make History" one way or another.

Connor became too important since he was shoehorned into almost every singe key event during the American Revolution while Arno on the other hand felt unimportant since he was behind the scenes and made significantly little importans during the French Revolution except for stopping Robespierre imo :cool:

SixKeys
04-22-2015, 06:37 PM
The problem I feel with AC3 is that Connor is in the center of almost all the big events that happens during the American Revolution and that he single handedly won the Revolution itself.
For example of shoehorned historical events in AC3;
* Boston Massacre; Connor gets the blame for the massacre and his face is on wanted posters all over Boston.
* Boston Tea Party; Connor dumps the Tea with the sons of liberty
* Reveres ride: Riding Paul Reveres horse while Paul points his finger and screams " To the Left Connor." "I believe we are on course." " Yes, this is exactly where we need to be!"


The frustrating thing is that so many of these missions could have been made entirely workable, had they only considered the story implications more. It's ridiculous that Connor gets blamed as the one who started the Boston Massacre, a tragic event that threw the entire city into upheaval, but he suffers no consequences beyond one mission where he has to rip down a few posters. You'd think the city guard would be on alert for any shady-looking native American after something like that, and likewise some citizens might have seen Connor as a revolutionary hero and decided to help him, but everybody forgets all about him almost immediately. The mission is used as nothing but a tutorial for notoriety when it could have been used to establish friendly and hostile factions, for example. Same goes for his actions at the Boston Tea Party. A high-profile action like that, the same native American at the center of it all just like at the Massacre? The authorities should have been on high alert for any native Americans after that. It would have made sense if Connor was forever "wanted" in Boston, but not New York or the Frontier. In AC2, when you left a city, your notoriety didn't automatically reset to zero. You had a different level of notoriety in every city depending on your actions there, which totally makes sense. Of course you could reset it easily by ripping down posters, but the principle still stands.

Mr.Black24
04-22-2015, 08:08 PM
He helped "from time to time".....By single-handedly taking down the bulk of the attackers at Monmouth, by being randomly assigned as leader of the Patriot troops at Lexington and Concorde (and winning the battle), by taking down the leader of the British troops at the battle of Bunker Hill, by single-handedly stopping the bombing of Charlestown, by personally leading the Boston Tea Party, by being Paul Revere's own private chauffeur,
I found all of this pretty badass, actually. Although the reason why he was Paul's chauffeur was out of necessity. You know he hated every single moment of that, but he had to in order to save his ally from being killed.


by taking down the traitor Benedict Arnold even after finding out Washington killed his mother, etc. The thing is that Connor's view of freedom was from protecting and gaining the freedom of his tribe, to all of the colonies as well. Even Achilles noted that his fight for his tribe will also involve fighting for the country itself. Connor even expressed this when he was preparing his war Mohawk scene. So he had to help out Washington again due out of necessity, for if he falls, then the rest will all fall, causing chaos among the people, making it easier for the Templars to get a foothold. I mean what is the point of doing all that work only to kill Washington out of revenge? That is a selfish motive that would have endangered all, and Connor isn't that type of person to go like that.


Connor should have been more like in the E3 demo, but in the game it's ridiculous how much he acts as an errand boy for the Patriots. He's not neutral, he's 100% on the bluecoats' side judging by his actions.



The frustrating thing is that so many of these missions could have been made entirely workable, had they only considered the story implications more. It's ridiculous that Connor gets blamed as the one who started the Boston Massacre, a tragic event that threw the entire city into upheaval, but he suffers no consequences beyond one mission where he has to rip down a few posters. You'd think the city guard would be on alert for any shady-looking native American after something like that, and likewise some citizens might have seen Connor as a revolutionary hero and decided to help him, but everybody forgets all about him almost immediately.

I agree with that Boston Massacre, it should have thrown the city into upheaval, I mean Connor was obviously in Native attire, he should have been stopped at every turn during those sequences before earning his Assassin uniform. It would have greatly emphisis stealth in the game, which according to many people, it lacked.
A Native American would never be looked that way during those days. That is like saying making a slave an equal to a white person. People were huge racists. I mean did you not hear those racist comments when Connor fought those blue/red coats, "What is that, a forest dance?" "Look at the savage fight" Both armies would not recognize him, only our of request of their leaders did they tolerate him, and after the help, they would say the same crap again.
That is part of his character in the story, he is a tragic hero, he done all of these things, believing in the right thing, but only to be used up and casted away. He wasn't Ezio, who would be congratulated for his work, he was the one who was left behind, despite all the good he'd done. His speech had emphasis this: "It has been hard at times, but never harder than today, to see all I worked for, perverted, discarded forgotten" He was set up for loss, the moment his mother died before him...

SixKeys
04-22-2015, 09:21 PM
I found all of this pretty badass, actually. Although the reason why he was Paul's chauffeur was out of necessity. You know he hated every single moment of that, but he had to in order to save his ally from being killed.

It doesn't matter what reasons he had in-game, it remains a stupid decision gameplay-wise to force your hero into all these historical events. It's totally unrealistic to think a native American like Connor would have been allowed to command Patriot troops or be present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Connor could have been working behind the scenes to make sure Paul Revere's message was delivered (by clearing out the path for him) but to have him riding Paul's actual horse was just ridiculous.


The thing is that Connor's view of freedom was from protecting and gaining the freedom of his tribe, to all of the colonies as well. Even Achilles noted that his fight for his tribe will also involve fighting for the country itself. Connor even expressed this when he was preparing his war Mohawk scene. So he had to help out Washington again due out of necessity, for if he falls, then the rest will all fall, causing chaos among the people, making it easier for the Templars to get a foothold. I mean what is the point of doing all that work only to kill Washington out of revenge? That is a selfish motive that would have endangered all, and Connor isn't that type of person to go like that.

Connor basically blows up at Washington after finding out the truth from Haytham, tells him "don't ever come to me for help again", then continues to help the Patriots at every turn. There should have been more of an internal struggle. Like maybe Connor would have returned to the Homestead for a few weeks to mope, until Achilles says something inspiring to make him realize that he shouldn't let his own anger get in the way of helping people. I think one of the problems a lot of people had with Connor's character was that his reactions to things didn't always make sense. He lashed out at people who were trying to help him, and was submissive and polite to those who abused his trust. He abandoned Achilles at one point because they disagreed about the approach, even though they shared the same goals. But he didn't abandon Washington who blatantly kept secrets from him and nearly destroyed his tribe. The way the game presented Connor made him seem like a very contradictory, uneven character who always seemed to do the opposite of logical. He was stoic at times when it would have made sense to be emotional, and he raged at times when it would have made sense to be friendly.





That is part of his character in the story, he is a tragic hero, he done all of these things, believing in the right thing, but only to be used up and casted away. He wasn't Ezio, who would be congratulated for his work, he was the one who was left behind, despite all the good he'd done. His speech had emphasis this: "It has been hard at times, but never harder than today, to see all I worked for, perverted, discarded forgotten" He was set up for loss, the moment his mother died before him...



You're forgetting something important: Connor wasn't alone even though his story was tragic. He managed to recruit all those people to the Homestead, so he must have had a knack for making friends, even in cities that mocked him for being "savage". He did all those liberation missions that ended with people thanking him or joining his brotherhood. There should have logically been factions who hated him for being a troublemaker, and people who cheered him on for helping the common people. I get what you're saying re: people ultimately abandoning him and history forgetting him, but it makes no sense from the way he is presented in the game. He is literally present at every major event in the Revolution, sometimes even commanding American troops, yet somehow nobody remembered him? "Oh yeah, wonder whatever happened to that tall Indian guy we randomly appointed as head of the troops while we were gone?" If Connor had been working behind the scenes, never having time to form meaningful friendships, this would have made him a tragic hero, but we see him making lots of friends and we know he was BFFs with Washington for a time. He does form meaningful relationships, people DO remember him because of all the good he's done, and he gets so famous he's allowed to pal around with the American President. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe he's the hero that time forgot?

Mr.Black24
04-23-2015, 02:36 AM
It doesn't matter what reasons he had in-game, it remains a stupid decision gameplay-wise to force your hero into all these historical events. It's totally unrealistic to think a native American like Connor would have been allowed to command Patriot troops or be present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Connor could have been working behind the scenes to make sure Paul Revere's message was delivered (by clearing out the path for him) but to have him riding Paul's actual horse was just ridiculous. Well when you have powerful connections like George Washington, Marquis de Lafayette, and General Putnam, they would follow their commander's orders that a Native guy is taking control of a situation. If he is that important for someone to take charge, I don't think they'd question it, especially since in these moments, the British really are coming. I dobut that they would argue as the British begin firing on them.

Gameplay wise...well....I don't see it that way since I am a story wise person, and as long as at least there is something new to the table, and the gameplay functions...it really doesn't bother me, sorry. From a story perspective, its badass to me. But I guess I can understand from where you are coming from.




Connor basically blows up at Washington after finding out the truth from Haytham, tells him "don't ever come to me for help again", then continues to help the Patriots at every turn. He sees the Patriots as a lesser evil in his eyes. He thought, as like the speech said, if he helped them out, they would do the same for him. Unfortunately he didn't. Remember, his ideals is also to see freedom and peace for all people, so of course he'd help out the Patriots.


There should have been more of an internal struggle. Like maybe Connor would have returned to the Homestead for a few weeks to mope, until Achilles says something inspiring to make him realize that he shouldn't let his own anger get in the way of helping people. The thing is Connor's mindset has always been to help the people. He puts others before himself, even his own emotions, so while that scene would have been a nice character moment, its redundant since he is a freedom fighter that never gives up on the idea that all deserve freedom and peace, with the fact that peace can be achieved.


I think one of the problems a lot of people had with Connor's character was that his reactions to things didn't always make sense. He lashed out at people who were trying to help him, and was submissive and polite to those who abused his trust. He abandoned Achilles at one point because they disagreed about the approach, even though they shared the same goals. But he didn't abandon Washington who blatantly kept secrets from him and nearly destroyed his tribe. The way the game presented Connor made him seem like a very contradictory, uneven character who always seemed to do the opposite of logical. He was stoic at times when it would have made sense to be emotional, and he raged at times when it would have made sense to be friendly. Like at who? The only people he'd lashed out was with Achilles and Samuel Adams. Achilles for perspective differences, that we already know. Connor felt like Samuel's plan of making Connor the muscle for the Boston Tea Party plan was asking too much, and gaining too little in return. "Simple seems a bit charitable" . He knew that he felt like an errand boy, and addressed that issue. However, when Samuel revealed that helping them will help his village be kept safe, he backed down, knowing that arguing will only delay them from making any progress and that the village is in danger. I honestly felt that people kept exaggerating all of that "lashing out" crap.

As for the whole submissive part, he is naive remember? One of his biggest flaws there is, too trusting of the people. Plus how can one know you are lying, unless you suck at it, but you know how politicians can dance around words.




You're forgetting something important: Connor wasn't alone even though his story was tragic. He managed to recruit all those people to the Homestead, so he must have had a knack for making friends, even in cities that mocked him for being "savage". He did all those liberation missions that ended with people thanking him or joining his brotherhood. Well obviously not everyone is a racist. And yes he isn't alone, by losing one village, he gained "another" one. The community and the reforming Brotherhood.


There should have logically been factions who hated him for being a troublemaker, and people who cheered him on for helping the common people. You don't hear the bystanders whenever Connor fights redcoats or bluecloats? "Yes, give him another" "Yeah, teach those thugs a lesson!" They made it more obvious in Unity, where there is an actual fraction that helps Arno out, and call him out to say hello whenever they come across one another. I guess something like that should have been in AC3, that I agree as well.


I get what you're saying re: people ultimately abandoning him and history forgetting him, but it makes no sense from the way he is presented in the game. He is literally present at every major event in the Revolution, sometimes even commanding American troops, yet somehow nobody remembered him? "Oh yeah, wonder whatever happened to that tall Indian guy we randomly appointed as head of the troops while we were gone?" Washington did mention that of Connor's importance in his journal, and how he should have been remembered. But he died before he could have done something like honor him. Plus, Connor is a very humble guy, he wouldn't want a medal or anything. In addition, he'd follow the Assassin rule of "Working in the Shadows, to serve the Light", so he'd would not want his name in history books, risking any possibility of discovery of Assassin involvement.


If Connor had been working behind the scenes, never having time to form meaningful friendships, this would have made him a tragic hero, but we see him making lots of friends and we know he was BFFs with Washington for a time. He does form meaningful relationships, people DO remember him because of all the good he's done, and he gets so famous he's allowed to pal around with the American President. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe he's the hero that time forgot? Or a hero that believes that, for the risk of compromising the Brotherhood, he should be.

Weazur
04-24-2015, 04:19 PM
To put it simply, you can't satisfy everyone.