PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Assassins Creed took ideas from 'Lost'?



king-hailz
05-02-2015, 05:55 AM
If you haven't seen lost than this makes no sense and I'd rather you not read because you should probably go watch it, instead of spoiling it.

I just finished Lost for the first time and I loved it all. I do feel like there were certain links between it and AC, they both gave me the same feeling in the lore and the mystery. Lost was way more advanced in its lore but they both have the same aspect of mystery, in lost we never knew anything about it and it left something amazing in the public which was to question everything. It left almost everything to interpretation so that every viewer has their own ideas and theories of the lore. Even in the finale they don't wrap everything up which is good because they left it for us to question, if they chose one direction many people would be disappointed because there are so many theories.

I believe that AC used to have this sense of mystery however then people wanted them to reveal everything not knowing it's effects, it seems AC3 was when they revealed almost everything. Now we know so much about what happened that we don't really care. One major flaw with this series is that when they revealed everything it should have been the beginning of the end. And now it seems they are dragging out the end. They should have either carried on the mystery of us not knowing for much longer or forever like lost did or to tell us in AC3 but then to make AC4 the major finale. That's why if you put the entire series together you see that it loses steam after AC3 which is probably another reason why people prefer the older games.

It's one of the reasons people loved AC is that it never told them everything and people came up with all sorts of theories but now it's linear and even though we have theories they follow the much more linear path. We kinda know what the first civilization where, we know nearly everything going on. Which is not always a good thing and wasn't a good thing for me.

So discuss about this and tell me what you think if you prefer the mystery of not knowing or if you want to know everything.

Fatal-Feit
05-02-2015, 06:19 AM
On the contrary, I believe AC lost its steam long before AC3. AC2-R was full of first Civ shenanigan, with Revelations showing the complete destruction of the First Civ, etc. I think it's unfair to call out AC3 and not the previous trilogy. Most of AC3 was what we already knew before, except w/ more insight from Juno. Starting w/ Black Flag, I like the current direction of the franchise w/ its First Civ (although, I'm not ganna deny the missed opportunities and various other problems). Minimal, subtle, and very ominous, almost reminiscent of AC1.

king-hailz
05-02-2015, 06:22 AM
On the contrary, I believe AC lost its steam long before AC3. AC2-R was full of first Civ shenanigan, with Revelations showing the complete destruction of the First Civ. I think it's unfair to call out AC3 and not the previous trilogy. As with Black Flag, I like the current direction of the franchise w/ its First Civ (although, I'm not ganna deny the missed opportunities and various other problems). Minimal, subtle, and very ominous, almost reminiscent of AC1. This is how the franchise should have been since the first game.

I agree that they did reveal before however I liked how it was in AC2-ACB since I still had no idea what was going on, they kept adding more things to question when they answered, ACR did kind of give a lot away but we still questioned so much. In AC3 Juno was like narrator telling us everything that happened without giving us anymore questions.

Showing us the first Civ is not bad at all, it gave even more mystery, at the end of AC2 I was definitely at a WTF moment same with ACB. It was when they revealed almost everything without giving more mystery in AC3 when it lost its steam. If you put them all together as a movie you see the story is going well up to AC3 but after that we expect an ending because we knew everything and we just needed to see the end. However it carried on.

Imagine the last of us when Joel finds out they want to kill Ellie but they carry the story on for another 6-7 hours. It wouldefinitely be terribly paced and won't make a lot of sense. Now imagine AC which has dragged out the ending to 3 games with about 10 more.

VestigialLlama4
05-02-2015, 07:31 AM
About the only common link between AC and LOST that I can think of is that both of them are pretty much made up as it goes along. It had a vague plan for a lore which was probably more like rough drafts while they waited to come up with a grand explanation. By the time they found a grand explanation the story was essentially dead.

Assassin's Creed at least has the advantage that its a video game and as such its okay if the Modern Day doesn't pay off as long as the meat-and-bones(Historical Tourism) function. LOST as a TV show has no luxury and as such all the tiny subplots and red herrings are so much fairy dust. After LOST, I gave up on TV. It's a dead medium.

king-hailz
05-02-2015, 09:33 AM
About the only common link between AC and LOST that I can think of is that both of them are pretty much made up as it goes along. It had a vague plan for a lore which was probably more like rough drafts while they waited to come up with a grand explanation. By the time they found a grand explanation the story was essentially dead.

Assassin's Creed at least has the advantage that its a video game and as such its okay if the Modern Day doesn't pay off as long as the meat-and-bones(Historical Tourism) function. LOST as a TV show has no luxury and as such all the tiny subplots and red herrings are so much fairy dust. After LOST, I gave up on TV. It's a dead medium.

Well after finishing lost I can say it's the greatest TV show I have ever seen and one of the best stories I have witnessed. Usually people who dislike lost didn't understand it at all. It wasn't made up as they went along. They always knew it would end with Jack dying and they always knew the story of the protectors of the island with Jacob and the man in black from season 1. They had the whole story and it was a great story of so many morals. However why I think it's amazing is that I have never cared so much about characters this much with this many characters. At the end it was always about that and that's what was told.

In AC1 they knew AC3 would end with Desmond dying and they knew about the first civ and everything that happened up until AC3. After that is when they made things up...

Also I disagree with what you say as video games being able to do certain things to allow a bad story... All mediums are essentially based on a story and it depends how we get that story which makes it a different medium.

VestigialLlama4
05-02-2015, 10:33 AM
Well after finishing lost I can say it's the greatest TV show I have ever seen and one of the best stories I have witnessed. Usually people who dislike lost didn't understand it at all. It wasn't made up as they went along. They always knew it would end with Jack dying and they always knew the story of the protectors of the island with Jacob and the man in black from season 1. They had the whole story and it was a great story of so many morals. However why I think it's amazing is that I have never cared so much about characters this much with this many characters. At the end it was always about that and that's what was told.

The writers of LOST openly admit that they made it up as they went along. Initially they had some ideas for two seasons but the show kept getting renewed so they had to come up with new subplots and mini-mysteries to tease out a plot for the Season. And then they had to manufacture bizarro twists and fake climaxes because nobody knew which season would be the last. Then when they got to the finale, they were able to actually finish up and wrap the series along but the story had gotten so out of hand that they had to come up with a new gimmick with the afterlife to wrap up any remaining subplots and minor characters along the way. In a TV sense it works, aesthetically it doesn't. The truth is this is how all TV shows essentialy work, they have no set start and finish, no commitment to economy and concision, don't let stories and ideas go and end up becoming an incohesive experience almost universally.


In AC1 they knew AC3 would end with Desmond dying and they knew about the first civ and everything that happened up until AC3.

That is supremely debatable. We know that the initial plans were vastly different. Darby McDevitt said at one point AC2 had an equal amount of MD and Historical focus. Desmond was explicitly said to be trained by absorption to become the Ultimate Assassin and learn from his mentors. But they eventually realized that they could never really do justice to the MD. Likewise in AC1, everyone talked about the Templar Satellite Launch, AC2 introduced the Solar Flare. So on and on it goes...where she stops nobody knows. What was the initial plan for Desmond is absolutely unknown but the Messianiac Parody they ended up going strikes me as very much a business decision.


Also I disagree with what you say as video games being able to do certain things to allow a bad story... All mediums are essentially based on a story and it depends how we get that story which makes it a different medium.

Well the story works in a different way in different mediums. In a TV show, you have no clear finale or end in sight. Most TV shows until recently never had the finale. And you know most of them can't assume that the TV show will click with enough that it will survive Season One. Nobody expected LOST to be this big TV show, yet it became and then their fairly limited concept and lore had to be strained and overwritten, new characters had to be invented overnight. That's similar to AC modern day now. But as a game, the historical part is the most relevant and that is what allows the games to work. AC isn't about the MD Assassins, its about assassins in the past, it's about new periods and timelines, that's what the games are about. The story is in the gameplay.

In games, you have this sense of franchise yes, that's kind of like TV shows but each game has to work singularly. Uncharted 2 does not depend much on Uncharted 1 nor does it need Uncharted 3 for a conclusion and that's a single ensemble series unlike AC which is multi-ensemble, or essentially different franchises roled into one. It's the reason why each Zelda game has a new Link, new Zelda, new Ganon, all of them being reincarnations, the idea is each game is singular and no one game is more canonical than either.

king-hailz
05-06-2015, 06:53 PM
Actually that is untrue. They actually had the show created for 4 seasons, but the writer's strike that year changed everything. Once the writer's strike ended they worked it out with the parent company determining how many seasons the show would be. They also knew how the show would start and end from day 1. Without giving it away, the main character also knew how the should would end as well from the beginning. While the new subplots and side stuff may have certainly been created as they went, the show as a whole was drafted out from the very beginning. (Smoke Monster/MIB) I feel LOST was the greatest show on tv and the ending was great. With that being said, I wished they would have dealt with Jacob/MIB and the Island more itself in the end (they could have done a whole season showing the whole history after the MIB came into existence and all the people brought to the island over the years) but the way they reconciled the core modern day story with the characters themselves was brilliant. Most of the people (not all) who didn't like the ending, didn't truly understand what transpired.

Regardless of what you believe about why we are here and if an afterlife does exist, LOST played off of that, by not telling you the whole back story of the Island (it just starts with Mother/Jacob/MIB..leaving others to ponder how did the Island start? Who created it?) It also was heavily themed on Man of Science vs Man of Faith and free-will vs. fate. All of these are things we deal with every day in our own battles. Many of the themes on LOST certainly play in Assassins Creed. In-fact without giving away the show, the different groups on the island (DHARMA, The Others, the Survivors, Jacob, MIB, etc.) could very well be fit into the roles of Templars/Assassins in the battle of free-will vs. order. The MIB and Jacob are fighting over the nature of man the whole series (Templars/Assasins fight over this) and Jacob must protect the center of the Island, whereas the MIB wants to obtain the power of the center of the Island. (Certainly sounds a lot like a POE)

I just saw the thread you started and wanted to talk about LOST with you, then saw that you replied to this thread! Haha. Well your response was great! It's exactly the kinda response I wanted, well welcome to the forums! :)

VestigialLlama4
05-06-2015, 07:04 PM
Actually that is untrue. They actually had the show created for 4 seasons, but the writer's strike that year changed everything. Once the writer's strike ended they worked it out with the parent company determining how many seasons the show would be. They also knew how the show would start and end from day 1.

I doubt this very much and it simply doesn't come across in what is there in the show.


Most of the people (not all) who didn't like the ending, didn't truly understand what transpired.

Its pretty clear what does transpire. its just deeply silly that's all. It's very hard to do the Afterlife right the only movie that succeeded is A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH.


Many of the themes on LOST certainly play in Assassins Creed. In-fact without giving away the show, the different groups on the island (DHARMA, The Others, the Survivors, Jacob, MIB, etc.) could very well be fit into the roles of Templars/Assassins in the battle of free-will vs. order. The MIB and Jacob are fighting over the nature of man the whole series (Templars/Assasins fight over this) and Jacob must protect the center of the Island, whereas the MIB wants to obtain the power of the center of the Island. (Certainly sounds a lot like a POE)

Well, I don't care for two characters introduced at a very late stage in the show as somehow being the true puppeteers...its deeply silly.

In AC, the Assassins and Templars are introduced upfront, and its not one key Assassin and one key Templar but an organization and philosophy. Its a lot less cluttered and vague than LOST is, except for the Juno and First Civ POE crap.

king-hailz
05-06-2015, 08:15 PM
Once again...just wanted to warn of LOST spoilers in the answer




Well for someone who followed the show in great detail, watching all the extras and what not, I can tell you that they did in-fact do create their core show from the beginning. As I said, not every specific character and every specific scene, but the core elements of the show were drafted from the get go.. How it would start and how it would end, the smoke monster, the flashbacks, people already being on the island, Science v. Faith. Those are core elements of the show. Characters such as those who show up in random seasons; not so much.



Once again that is merely your opinion in regard to the afterlife plot device being silly. Most of the people I have spoken to all say, they didn't get the ending and ask was everyone all dead from the beginning, etc.? The afterlife goes to the devices used throughout the show (flashbacks, future and finally sideways/afterlife) and gave the fans closure over certain characters dying/reunions) I would have went a different avenue for the last season, but I thought it was done well, and people went crazy over reunions. The scene between Jack and his dad was very rewarding for fans who since Season 1 wanted more of the Jack/Father dynamic. That relationship also mirrors many relationships between fathers/sons throughout the world. The ending of the show focusing on how it began shows the true and absolute change of Jack from a Man of Science to a Man of Faith. That was written from the very beginning. How it was implemented developed throughout the seasons, but the main idea of that taking place was set from day 1. The journey of the man (Jack) from being a man of science in Season 1 to being a man of faith by the end of the show was the core plot of LOST.



In regard to you mentioning about Jacob and MIB being introduced at the end and being puppeteers, if they had introduced them at the beginning, nobody would have been shocked to finally SEE Jacob at the end of Season 5 and nobody would have been surprised to find out who the other person was all along. It also goes to the whole fate v free will part of the show. Whether you believe in God or not, in real life people debate free will v. fate. In the show, multiple situations occur where that is debated (whether or not Jacob the puppeteer brought them to the island, or was it by free will and by chance that they crash landed there....Jacob has been following these people since day 1...how could he get everyone there on the island due to a plane crashing, what if one of them or two of them didn't get on that plane..they were all candidates...did Desmond really crash the plane, when all along it was Jacob who arranged for them to get on the island in the first place. Clearly a fate v. free will example in that. So many other situations like such, that I won't write about. Anyway, both of these characters (Jacob/MIB) in the beginning would have had no surprise element at all if they were introduced to be running the show from Day 1. Each season they introduced a new element of the island. Season 1 (the survivors) Season 2 (the other members of the plane/Others) Season 3 (the others) Season 4 (DHARMA) Season 5 (The Oceanic 6/Old School events on the island) Season 6 (Jacob/MIB/Candidates)... The whole fate v. free will argument would not have been developed had they introduced the two puppeteers from the beginning. The fact they were introduced at the end, made people constantly want to know who the hell Jacob was and what the hell the Smoke Monster was. Had they been introduced in Season 1, people would not have cared as much as Season 5-6.

Well Jacob was the leader, but the Others were his organization. You could say Templars right there as they wanted to uphold the order of things on the Island. Jacob however also advocated free will, as he wanted people to come to their own conclusions about things. MIB was a one man army for the most part (call him Shay if you would like) who had help from others carrying out his purpose.

But once again, the main plot of the show was Jack and his journey. They knew how it would start and how it would end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixgI1CeyoqY

Pretty awesome stuff in the video. I did not create it.

Well you said everything I was gonna say... Thank you.

king-hailz
05-06-2015, 08:27 PM
I am always down to talk about LOST. Still sad the show is over. Thanks for the compliment and the welcome.

Well I just finished it a week ago and it was amazing! Not just the lore and all the mystery and the story but the characters! I've never cared for fictional characters that much and the end really complimented it!

VestigialLlama4
05-06-2015, 08:28 PM
Well for someone who followed the show in great detail, watching all the extras and what not,

You are aware that extras can be made-up right. If you want to find out how the show worked you will have to get access to original drafts of the teleplays and see how it shifted then. Documents don't lie whereas anything said in a show that got out of control and needing to justify and pacify fans is different.


I can tell you that they did in-fact do so create their core show from the beginning. As I said, not every specific character and every specific scene, but the core elements of the show were drafted from the get go.. How it would start and how it would end, the smoke monster, the flashbacks, people already being on the island, Science v. Faith. Those are core elements of the show.

I'd call that vague themes rather than core elements. The core element of Lost was the Island and how people are going to be rescued, and what the Island really is and who dies.


Once again that is merely your opinion in regard to the afterlife plot device being silly.

I love the fact that you say "merely your opinion" when what you clearly mean is "you are wrong". Say "You are wrong" if you think I am and tell me why it isn't silly, try and convince me. No need to be too polite. My opinion doesn't count for any more or any less than yours or any of your friends, ergo its not "mere" at all.

My feeling is that afterlife is very tricky to do and very much a cheat, its hard to do in a way that is convincing dramatically and structurally. It takes great skill and capability and I don't think that's there in Lost.


Well Jacob was the leader, but the Others were his organization. You could say Templars right there. MIB was a one man army (call him Shay if you would like) who had help from others carrying out his purpose.

I really don't see any comparison. The Assassins and Templars we meet in the game are mostly human figures. They aren't godlike beings simply people who have access to information and special objects but how they react to it is by using the same limited human understanding and flaws that we can recognize and accept (at least at its best written which is not ROGUE).

You see, stuff like Lore, Themes and General Stuff, that's there to dress up the plot, set the scene, build the mood, the minute that becomes more important than the characters and what purpose they serve, the stories collapse. AC games are character driven. Ultimately, the First-Civ plot and the Juno stuff is not what matters, what matters is Altair, Ezio, Connor and Edward. Those stories count.

LOST at the end of the day becomes about its Lore and as such it gets destroyed completely at the end. Nobody really cares about reused, repititive plot-lines and visual gimmicks played out over and over again, what they care is if it ends up meaning something in the real-world sense. Its less meaningful than a trite sitcom like FRIENDS and far less inventive than the Simpsons.

NondairyGold
05-06-2015, 08:31 PM
Loved the show, right from when it first aired, but sadly they didn't know where the show was going in the beginning. And I quote

“We had some general ideas of what we were going to do, but we were making the show episode to episode. That first writers’ minicamp was really engaging. We started figuring out the whole mythology of what was going on in the island, started talking about the Dharma Initiative, what their history was, who else was on the island. We finally had the time — we didn’t have to deliver next week’s episode — so we built the iceberg for the show, knowing only the top 15 percent was going to end up on the air. We constructed a whole mythological world. Obviously, we didn’t have everything plotted out.” - http://grantland.com/features/alan-sepinwall-origins-lost/

Back in the day I used to spend all my time on these Forums here - http://darkufo.blogspot.ie/# - best lost site on the net, after the Lostpedia!

Edit: So yeah Ubisoft are getting idea's from Lost. At the minute they are making it up as they are going along :)