PDA

View Full Version : In defense of Rogue



Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 06:59 PM
At heart. Rogue was made from two factors. The first was that all of the hard work they'd put into the past generation console's assets were about to become obsolete and they still had plenty of material which was useful for creating games. So, they made a "last hurrah" of a video game for fans to play on. It made them a little more money and I hope they got to enjoy that money and use it to provide a few bonuses for Christmas.

The second factor was that the next generation of consoles had left a lot of loose-ends which they felt needed to be tied up: the destruction of the Colonial Brotherhood, what was in Ezio's box, the opportunity to play a member of the Knights Templar after years of clammoring from fans to do so, and the fate of Adewale. Hell, the NOT YET ASKED question of, "Who killed Charles Dorian?"

The story of Black Flag is no more "fanfic" than any other in the series because they're all pretty much retcons to the original Assassin's Creed from Ezio to Edward Kenway. Certainly, the idea that Haytham Kenway's father is an infamous Welsh pirate is kind of out of the blue. However, it nicely adds a lot of interesting stuff to the story.

Not everything works perfectly, of course. For example, basically, Shay is DARTH VADER now. If we're to assume that the Animus is correct then even in the stand-alone missions, he's killed dozens of Assassins and possibly as many as a hundred alone. That's a pretty damn big bit of history to become so obscure that Juhani Otso Berg and the Templars have NO IDEA what happened to him.

My headcanon is Charles Lee was going to England to get Shay to kill Connor after Haytham's death but that still doesn't explain why Shay wasn't there in the first place. Still, that's a minor complaint in the grand scheme of things. I like Shay as a character and his story. A LOT.

ACZanius
05-16-2015, 07:06 PM
Cool story bro, keep telling yourself that.

VestigialLlama4
05-16-2015, 07:07 PM
At heart. Rogue was made from two factors. The first was that all of the hard work they'd put into the past generation console's assets were about to become obsolete and they still had plenty of material which was useful for creating games. So, they made a "last hurrah" of a video game for fans to play on. It made them a little more money and I hope they got to enjoy that money and use it to provide a few bonuses for Christmas.

Those are noble intentions but the actual choices and means used to accomplish it dissatisfy me. It's a perfect Templar game in that sense.


The story of Black Flag is no more "fanfic" than any other in the series because they're all pretty much retcons to the original Assassin's Creed from Ezio to Edward Kenway. Certainly, the idea that Haytham Kenway's father is an infamous Welsh pirate is kind of out of the blue. However, it nicely adds a lot of interesting stuff to the story.

Black Flag is perfectly understandable to anyone who hasn't played AC3, mostly because its about the Pirate Era, which is part of our cultural memory and there are very little references to AC3's story aside from stuff fans will note. Even the end, when Edward introduces his son Haytham is a nice sweet detail on its own. Knowing who Haytham will be gives that scene a nice poignant sense of tragedy to someone who recognizes it. But it doesn't take away from the main climax which is Edward and Jenny, the Parting Glass. It's entirely a standalone story.

ROGUE on the other hand cannot stand on its legs. I don't think the game works at all if you didn't know the lore and series. Like if you didn't know who Haytham was, who Adewale was, who Achilles was. Fanfiction ultimately cannot be read by anyone unfamiliar with the main series and that's why I call ROGUE fanfiction. It's essentially a kind of Templar-game fantasy that has nothing to do with the setting of the Seven Years War and other world-historical and political issues.


Not everything works perfectly, of course. For example, basically, Shay is DARTH VADER now.

Well even Darth Vader in the third prequel had that moment where he killed those Jedi children. We don't see that in ROGUE. No honesty.

Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 08:16 PM
ROGUE on the other hand cannot stand on its legs. I don't think the game works at all if you didn't know the lore and series. Like if you didn't know who Haytham was, who Adewale was, who Achilles was. Fanfiction ultimately cannot be read by anyone unfamiliar with the main series and that's why I call ROGUE fanfiction. It's essentially a kind of Templar-game fantasy that has nothing to do with the setting of the Seven Years War and other world-historical and political issues.

It's a game made for fans of the series. Assassins Creed 3 doesn't stand on its own legs because it's the culmination of a trilogy, the same as Return of the Jedi. Not everything should be made for new gamers like Black Flag was.


Well even Darth Vader in the third prequel had that moment where he killed those Jedi children. We don't see that in ROGUE. No honesty.

Only if you presume the Templars are innately evil.

Even so, you still have Shay killing a bunch of likable noble Assassins for flimsy pretexts and helping the Templars in their schemes despite the fact they are a bunch of schemers.

The Templars aren't exactly portrayed as heroes in Rogue and I get the impression they're just using Shay.

Shay is deluding himself, IMHO, that the Templars are better than the Assassins. He was right the two sides need to make peace. Sadly, he just exchanged one side for another.

ze_topazio
05-16-2015, 08:20 PM
Rogue was made to get a few more coins of the past gen only fans, still a fun little game to entertain yourself with for some time.

Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 09:57 PM
Rogue was made to get a few more coins of the past gen only fans, still a fun little game to entertain yourself with for some time.

To be fair, is any game different?

ze_topazio
05-16-2015, 10:26 PM
Nope, this a business after all.

SixKeys
05-16-2015, 10:32 PM
I kept my expectations low which worked, I suppose. Even so, I was still disappointed in Shay and his story. I kept waiting for him to turn sympathetic and for it to make sense why he would switch over to the Templar side (as opposed to just going, well, rogue) but that moment never came. He was an absolute tool. The rest of the story had people from previous games conveniently popping up everywhere for no good reason. Seriously, what exactly did Haytham's presence add to the story? For a game that was supposed to "tie up" all the loose ends from the North American saga, it suspiciously left out the most important character: Connor. Nobody particularly cared to know what Haytham or Achilles was up to during the Seven Years' War. But fans did want to know what happened to Connor, and they didn't even attempt to address that. Seems obvious to me that was because Connor was such a divisive character in the gaming press. Let's just make a game with all the popular characters and leave out the most central one!

Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 10:38 PM
See, I saw this as an opportunity to play a Templar, not about the setting.

SixKeys
05-16-2015, 10:43 PM
But Shay was a crappy Templar. His motives were completely at odds with the gameplay. He was all "I don't want to kill any more people, nobody should suffer!" while happily going around blowing up poison gas tanks near civilians. He was the first protagonist we've played who has been allowed to kill civilians without penalty. Even Haytham had that restriction, because he was more true to his idealistic views. Shay's actions didn't make a lick of sense.

Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 10:55 PM
But Shay was a crappy Templar. His motives were completely at odds with the gameplay. He was all "I don't want to kill any more people, nobody should suffer!" while happily going around blowing up poison gas tanks near civilians. He was the first protagonist we've played who has been allowed to kill civilians without penalty. Even Haytham had that restriction, because he was more true to his idealistic views. Shay's actions didn't make a lick of sense.

Eh, he DID kill civilians by accident. As a Templar, he joined to protect people.

You can do both.

SixKeys
05-16-2015, 10:57 PM
All assassins have killed civilians by accident, but we still always got the "your ancestor did not kill civilians" warning. Shay was the first one who had no such restriction.

Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 10:59 PM
All assassins have killed civilians by accident, but we still always got the "your ancestor did not kill civilians" warning. Shay was the first one who had no such restriction.

Yeah, it was a bad bit of characterization since Shay is very concerned about collateral damage.

Fatal-Feit
05-17-2015, 03:55 AM
I like to think of Rogue as the Star Wars' prequel of the Kenway Saga. Easier to accept and pretend it's not canon.

Charles_Phipps
05-17-2015, 04:00 AM
I like to think of Rogue as the Star Wars' prequel of the Kenway Saga. Easier to accept and pretend it's not canon.

It ranks amongst my favorite of all AC games so....well, let's just say I disagree.

RA503
05-17-2015, 04:08 AM
I have more fun playing Rogue tham black flag, I love how the plot is fast passed,black flag have that damn giant ship tutorial sequence,the game have more fun parts overall (that awesome fight against Hope,the part you have to explode a factory in New York,the earthquake sequence and various others)and we discover the function of the box and the voynich manuscript,this game is the most fun AC experience that I already have

VestigialLlama4
05-17-2015, 04:27 AM
It ranks amongst my favorite of all AC games so....well, let's just say I disagree.

Well we all disagree about a bunch of things in life.

The point is you have to at least understand where we are coming from in our views on ROGUE. I think earthquake machine plots are stupid and jump-the-shark but that's not the only reason. I think having a Templar who doesn't think much about ideology but likes them because the first Templar (George Monro) he meets after being thrown out of the Assassins was nice to him, is not very interesting. And I also think having a sympathetic Templars that neglects what we see and know of them from other games, that moreover ignores the evidence in the first sequence of ROGUE (that one of them is a slaveowner and another is an ethnic-cleanser) is kind of dishonest and cheaply manipulative.

ROGUE is not a Templar game, its an Ex-Assassin Game. The characters in Rogue that I like are in fact the Assassins, I even liked Verendrye, I like Hope Jensen best. Her model and personality seems to have inspired Evie Frye in SYNDICATE. Also Liam and Keseegowaase. I liked Achiles and Adewale as always. I hated the way they treated Adewale, first mate of the Jackdaw, captain of Experto Crede and the hero of Freedom Cry. They should have given him a Legendary Ship Battle and an awesome Boss Fight, and then Haytham has to be a jerk to his Dad's best friend (at least Adewale called Haytham out on being the Kenway family disappointment and how Edward would be ashamed of him). The only Templar that's nice in ROGUE is George Monro, the others all suck. And Haytham...well ROGUE at least proves how people totally misread that character. Without Connor and Ziio, he's just a cheap-thug in period clothing, with the personality of a sociopath.

Charles_Phipps
05-17-2015, 04:44 AM
Well we all disagree about a bunch of things in life.

The point is you have to at least understand where we are coming from in our views on ROGUE. I think earthquake machine plots are stupid and jump-the-shark but that's not the only reason. I think having a Templar who doesn't think much about ideology but likes them because the first Templar (George Monro) he meets after being thrown out of the Assassins was nice to him, is not very interesting. And I also think having a sympathetic Templars that neglects what we see and know of them from other games, that moreover ignores the evidence in the first sequence of ROGUE (that one of them is a slaveowner and another is an ethnic-cleanser) is kind of dishonest and cheaply manipulative.

ROGUE is not a Templar game, its an Ex-Assassin Game. The characters in Rogue that I like are in fact the Assassins, I even liked Verendrye, I like Hope Jensen best. Her model and personality seems to have inspired Evie Frye in SYNDICATE. Also Liam and Keseegowaase. I liked Achiles and Adewale as always. I hated the way they treated Adewale, first mate of the Jackdaw, captain of Experto Crede and the hero of Freedom Cry. They should have given him a Legendary Ship Battle and an awesome Boss Fight, and then Haytham has to be a jerk to his Dad's best friend (at least Adewale called Haytham out on being the Kenway family disappointment and how Edward would be ashamed of him). The only Templar that's nice in ROGUE is George Monro, the others all suck. And Haytham...well ROGUE at least proves how people totally misread that character. Without Connor and Ziio, he's just a cheap-thug in period clothing, with the personality of a sociopath.

I understand, I just hope you understand you understand why I disagree.

I like it when First Civilization artifacts are mysterious and dangerous. One of my prevailing theories about Altair is that he was affected by the Apple of Eden's power to start the war with the Templars. The original Apple of Eden is explained to have been possibly responsible for not only every religion in history but also the greatest empires in history. The idea of creating earthquakes is just minor compared to the technological power there. I like when they can raise the dead, control the weather, and create massive energy shields over the planet to stop solar flares.

I also like Shay's emotional journey because it's not just one motivated by the first Civilization artifacts. In the first scenes with Shay, he brings up numerous good points about the Assassins. He talks at length about: 1. How the Templars and Assasisns fighting forever is stupid. 2. How it's insane for the Assassins to support the French against the British while fighting against them in Haiti. 3. How killing Templars for no other cause than just being Templars is wrong. and 4. How obeying the Mentor in all things is dangerous. We get a graphic illustration of why Altair's rule about obeying the Mentor with no question is dangerous since all of Shay's life-long friends descend upon him in a murderous fury just because Achilles said it in a heat of passion. It's not just one dramatic moment which turns Shay against the Assassin but multiple ones building up a lifetime of resentment.

Part of what I love about Rogue is the fact the game doesn't attempt to change the Templars or the Assassins. The Assassins are still lovable Rogues. Hope is awesome, Keseegowaase is fighting for the rights of oppressed peoples, Achilles and Adewale we like for existing reasons, and so on. The Templars, by contrast, are still a bunch of rich white guys (with a couple of non), who are out to control the world. What we get is the Templar perspective from the position of the majority. That they bring order, wealth, and prosperity to the people under their control. They also represent the status quo which sometimes people DO benefit from. They are a conservative rather than revolutionary point and sometimes, just maybe, that's not always bad. Rather than trying to convince us the Templars are good and the Assasins are evil, the Templars are presented as ruthless but having a point while the Assassins are presented as woefully misguided and self-righteous.

Shay, for once, is the guy who chooses to be ruthless but effective rather than heroic but ineffective.

I think Rogue would have been dishonest, really, if they'd just allowed Shay to be a heroic Templar. Moral certainty is actually against the Templar way as they're people who share the Assassins belief in "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." What it did was, however, show the kind of moral ambiguity the Templars choose to live in. A place where decisions are hard and righteousness is not something you're allowed. I like that quality embodied by Juhani Otso Berg who is NOT a nice man but you understand why he considers the Assassins to be terrorists who need to be stopped.

VestigialLlama4
05-17-2015, 05:35 AM
I like it when First Civilization artifacts are mysterious and dangerous.

This I agree with. I think Assassins should seek out these objects and destroy them since nothing really good comes from them. I like the suggestion in ROGUE MD that sometime after Black Flag, the Assassins destroyed the Observatory to prevent the Templars or anyone else from using it. I would be far more sympathetic to Shay if he decided to destroy the Box or burn the manuscript when he gets hold of it, or at the end he decides to steal it from the Templars and bury it so that its never found and kept from both groups.

But generally my feeling is that if Assassins and Templars keep stumbling into First Civilization sites and relics all the time, it kind of takes away the fact that these are supposed to be rare and difficult to find. Like in AC2, Mario says that Assassins have waited for decades to get close to finding the vault and the Apple. AC3 had Haytham come to the Grand Temple see it as a dead end and shrug his shoulders and move on. There should be less First-Civ elements so that its still surprising when we see it.


The idea of creating earthquakes is just minor compared to the technological power there. I like when they can raise the dead, control the weather, and create massive energy shields over the planet to stop solar flares.

The other stuff is very difficult. Like the Solar Flare is a good example, its presented as a long shot and very difficult to achieve, requires complicated tinkering with quantum history to pull off and then Juno says she needs a human sacrifice. It shows that the First Civilization have some limits. If they could stop earthquakes I fail to see why they couldn't have prevented the Toba Catastrophe.


3. How killing Templars for no other cause than just being Templars is wrong.

That's where you are wrong. The Assassins clearly tell Shay why those Templars are bad. He's told that Lawrence was a slaveowner and corrupt businessmen, and James Wardrop was involved in "countless massacres". They oppose the Templars because Templars do evil stuff.


Rather than trying to convince us the Templars are good and the Assasins are evil, the Templars are presented as ruthless but having a point while the Assassins are presented as woefully misguided and self-righteous.

I would agree with this if we are shown the Templars are ruthless when they are Templars. We need to see "burn down whole villages to hunt one lone Assassin". We need to get our hands dirty. You have to be honest about the people we are playing as. Like in GTA, there's never any doubts about a character like Trevor.


I think Rogue would have been dishonest, really, if they'd just allowed Shay to be a heroic Templar.

That is exactly what they have done. Shay is right, Shay is good, Shay is the little girl whose hair is braided by Haytham the Great and gets a girl scout merit badge by asking to spare Achilles.


Moral certainty is actually against the Templar way as they're people who share the Assassins belief in "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."

Now you are rewriting the series I am sorry. The Assassins are the ones who are against moral certainty, they are the ones who insist that man is complex. The Templars are self-righteous fanatics who believe that good intentions and greater good excuses any means they use to achieve it. The Assassins believe the total opposite of that. They believe its better to have a code for killing people, its better to put that in place then pretending that you are not going to kill people when you are building a utopia. The Templars New World Order is a justification for them to do all kinds of rotten stuff in the present as long as they think they will be on the highway to paradise.

As Clay Kaczmarek says in REVELATIONS: "Clay Kaczmarek: That's the trouble with the Templars in general, I think. Their philosophy is just so damn simple, so tantalizing, offering easy solutions to complex problems. Just do X, Y, and Z and all your problems disappear."


What it did was, however, show the kind of moral ambiguity the Templars choose to live in. A place where decisions are hard and righteousness is not something you're allowed.

Again total rewriting of series lore. Darby McDevitt himself said that ROGUE was confused there. He pointed out that Shay said that nobody has the right to decide what to do with the artefacts when the Templars do believe that they have the right to decide. Its not a game that thinks clearly.

Charles_Phipps
05-17-2015, 05:56 AM
This I agree with. I think Assassins should seek out these objects and destroy them since nothing really good comes from them. I like the suggestion in ROGUE MD that sometime after Black Flag, the Assassins destroyed the Observatory to prevent the Templars or anyone else from using it. I would be far more sympathetic to Shay if he decided to destroy the Box or burn the manuscript when he gets hold of it, or at the end he decides to steal it from the Templars and bury it so that its never found and kept from both groups.

Connor won an incredible amount of respect from me in the Tyranny of King Washington when he throws his Apple into the ocean. It was about the first sensible action done by anyone in the series, I think.


The other stuff is very difficult. Like the Solar Flare is a good example, its presented as a long shot and very difficult to achieve, requires complicated tinkering with quantum history to pull off and then Juno says she needs a human sacrifice. It shows that the First Civilization have some limits. If they could stop earthquakes I fail to see why they couldn't have prevented the Toba Catastrophe.

Honestly, we don't know what the earthquake generating temples are for. They might be weapons against the slaves and doing exactly what they're supposed to do. Maybe the First Civilization made them as ways to wipe out the slaves who were rebelling. They could also be related to the plans against the Toba Catastrophe. The fact they don't know what it does is one of the big issues of it.


That's where you are wrong. The Assassins clearly tell Shay why those Templars are bad. He's told that Lawrence was a slaveowner and corrupt businessmen, and James Wardrop was involved in "countless massacres". They oppose the Templars because Templars do evil stuff.

None of which has a damn thing to do with why they're killed. Shay knows it and is pissed off about it because it's just platitudes they're feeding him. They're not killing Lawrence Washington because he's a slave owner, otherwise they'd be murdering almost every rich white man in Virginia. They're killing him for First Civilization technology. The same for James Wardrop. His war crimes are immaterial to the Assassins targeting him.


I would agree with this if we are shown the Templars are ruthless when they are Templars. We need to see "burn down whole villages to hunt one lone Assassin". We need to get our hands dirty. You have to be honest about the people we are playing as. Like in GTA, there's never any doubts about a character like Trevor.

The thing is that Trevor is the exact reason the Templars exist. They're supposed to be the Galactic Empire, the guys who claim they're for bringing order to the galaxy. Emperor Palpatine/Borgias may be in it only for the money but the other Templars are in it because they really believe they're doing the right thing. They just believe any means are justified in the pursuit of that.

In this respect, we have Shay massacre all of his former friends and allies, start a riot, and serve as an English privateer. You can argue Shay should order a massacre of a village to get one Assassin but that implies that he's not smart enough to do it the old fashioned way. Templars CAN commit atrocities but they aren't REQUIRED to. Which is something that's important to remember.


That is exactly what they have done. Shay is right, Shay is good, Shay is the little girl whose hair is braided by Haytham the Great and gets a girl scout merit badge by asking to spare Achilles.

Part of why I like Rogue is it's ambiguous about Shay's journey. You may disagree but the game I played made it clear that Shay's choice to join the Templars is one which may not have been the right decision. Achilles chooses NOT to activate the device when he gets there. It's entirely possible that if Shay had taken a couple of days to calm down and talked to Achilles about it seriously, they might have chosen not to do it.

Either way, it was in the middle of nowhere. No one would have been hurt if they'd chosen to test it there.

All Shay managed to accomplish, potentially, is kill a 100+ Assassins and increase the Templar's power across the East Coast. The fact we don't get to know if this is true or not is awesome because it's very much like RL in that respect.


Now you are rewriting the series I am sorry. The Assassins are the ones who are against moral certainty, they are the ones who insist that man is complex.

Arno says that the code is a warning against fanaticism but every individual Assassin we've met has been passionately devoted to the cause, up to and including their death. They are absolutely certain in their morality which is part of the paradoxes which Altair talks about it. They have to create their own morality because nothing is true and everything is permitted.


The Templars are self-righteous fanatics who believe that good intentions and greater good excuses any means they use to achieve it. The Assassins believe the total opposite of that.

Yes, I agree exactly and I think the Templars believe in the moral grays because of this. Any means is justified as long as there is good ends. Exactly what I said.


As Clay Kaczmarek says in REVELATIONS: "Clay Kaczmarek: That's the trouble with the Templars in general, I think. Their philosophy is just so damn simple, so tantalizing, offering easy solutions to complex problems. Just do X, Y, and Z and all your problems disappear."

Which is exactly WRONG about every Templar we meet given they operate on complex diplomatic, geopolitical, and social levels. I mean, for crying out loud, Germaine's plans involve the transfer of the power of the upper class to the middle class via capitalism. That is not a simple solution to a complex problem. That is a complex solution to a complex problem.

VestigialLlama4
05-17-2015, 06:28 AM
None of which has a damn thing to do with why they're killed. Shay knows it and is pissed off about it because it's just platitudes they're feeding him. They're not killing Lawrence Washington because he's a slave owner, otherwise they'd be murdering almost every rich white man in Virginia.

You have a point there. But the fact is these Templars targets who are attacked are clearly guilty because unlike the Muggles of the AC world, they know better and still indulge in these actions.


In this respect, we have Shay massacre all of his former friends and allies, start a riot, and serve as an English privateer. You can argue Shay should order a massacre of a village to get one Assassin but that implies that he's not smart enough to do it the old fashioned way. Templars CAN commit atrocities but they aren't REQUIRED to. Which is something that's important to remember.

The fact is Templars DO commit atrocities, regardless of being "required to". Professional types like Otso Berg or Shay or AC3-Prologue!Haytham may not want to be unnecessarily cruel but the same ones will do it if they think it needs to be done, they don't have a code that says we will always find another way or take care to ensure it doesn't come to that. Haytham started the Boston Massacre and he converted the Fort in New York into his personal Abu Ghraib and tortured British POWs.


Part of why I like Rogue is it's ambiguous about Shay's journey. You may disagree but the game I played made it clear that Shay's choice to join the Templars is one which may not have been the right decision. Achilles chooses NOT to activate the device when he gets there. It's entirely possible that if Shay had taken a couple of days to calm down and talked to Achilles about it seriously, they might have chosen not to do it.

Well the main thing is Achilles takes responsibility. That look on his face when he sees the Pivot says it all. He accepts that because of him, his disciplies have died for nothing all out of loyalty to his vision and judgment. That's a real tragic moment for him. Achilles was a great mentor, he was doing what Altair and Ezio would do, its just that he was unlucky, his hunch paid off, he lost his wife and child to a plague and then all his students and its down to a tragic miscommunication which undoes everything in his life.

But you know for me the earthquake stuff in ROGUE is an unacceptable contrivance and its kind of dubious in terms of subtext, the one major African-American mentor in the series and he's in charge of nearly sinking the earth and he's opposed by white Templars who are "right". The other African-American mentor, Aveline's mentor in Liberation was also a nutcase.


All Shay managed to accomplish, potentially, is kill a 100+ Assassins and increase the Templar's power across the East Coast.

He also recovered the Box and kept it in Templar hands.


Arno says that the code is a warning against fanaticism but every individual Assassin we've met has been passionately devoted to the cause, up to and including their death. They are absolutely certain in their morality which is part of the paradoxes which Altair talks about it. They have to create their own morality because nothing is true and everything is permitted.

I think that's a misreading. Just because Templars in earlier games are simplistic despots doens't mean the Assassins are self-righteous. Ezio never really feels he chose to be the Assassins and he's always looking for a time when he can retire. He also gets tired of revenge in AC2 and feels that there's something bigger than Assassin-Templar conflict. Connor himself throughout AC3 finds out that the Creed will offer him no rewards and little satisfaction. In Black Flag, Edward dislikes the Creed but slowly realizes that being a pirate is no fun when everyone dies and your friends hate you so he becomes one to be a better person even if he has nothing to show for it.


Yes, I agree exactly and I think the Templars believe in the moral grays because of this. Any means is justified as long as there is good ends. Exactly what I said.

But that's not moral grayness at all. That's ideological justifcation and fanaticism.


Which is exactly WRONG about every Templar we meet given they operate on complex diplomatic, geopolitical, and social levels.

Its about Ends and Means. Templars use complex means to achieve a simplistic end. Mass Media is fairly complex in and of itself but Hitler made use of it for fairly simple ideas after all. Doesn't make Hitler complex at all.


I mean, for crying out loud, Germaine's plans involve the transfer of the power of the upper class to the middle class via capitalism. That is not a simple solution to a complex problem. That is a complex solution to a complex problem.

I don't think UNITY qualifies as an example because they faked and falsified a great deal of the history to tell that story. We can debate the Kenway games because the historical background of New World and Colonial society has a great deal of verisimilitude and strong research behind it.

LoyalACFan
05-17-2015, 07:37 AM
I disliked Rogue simply because it was a carbon copy of Black Flag. Simple as that. Didn't add a single new thing to the gameplay. Ooh, there's snow on the ground this time instead of sand, much new, very innovate.

As far as the story goes, it felt really, really cheap to me that all of the Assassins of Shay's time just HAPPENED to be totally unconcerned with civilian suffering, because that's the exact opposite of every Assassin we've seen in the rest of the series (except a few crazy renegade ones here and there) and equally cheap that the Templars were such unequivocal goody-two-shoes this time around. Like someone else pointed out, the Templars Shay kills while still an Assassin were slaveowners and mass murderers. So he just conveniently cut out the only bad apples in the bunch, and the rest were noble, happy-go-lucky, ethically-diverse saviors of mankind? :rolleyes: Rogue didn't feel like playing as a Templar in any meaningful way, since we were still doing the same stuff the Assassins did in previous games; reclaiming districts from corrupt gangs, investing in the growth of cities, and assassinating tyrannical, misguided members of a secret society bent on securing powerful ancient artifacts. The only difference is that this time they were wearing hoods.

Charles_Phipps
05-17-2015, 07:43 AM
I disliked Rogue simply because it was a carbon copy of Black Flag. Simple as that. Didn't add a single new thing to the gameplay. Ooh, there's snow on the ground this time instead of sand, much new, very innovate.

As far as the story goes, it felt really, really cheap to me that all of the Assassins of Shay's time just HAPPENED to be totally unconcerned with civilian suffering, because that's the exact opposite of every Assassin we've seen in the rest of the series (except a few crazy renegade ones here and there) and equally cheap that the Templars were such unequivocal goody-two-shoes this time around. Like someone else pointed out, the Templars Shay kills while still an Assassin were slaveowners and mass murderers. So he just conveniently cut out the only bad apples in the bunch, and the rest were noble, happy-go-lucky, ethically-diverse saviors of mankind? :rolleyes: .

Really? You got that impression? I got the impression the Assassins were as moral, just, and upright as they usually were. Kesegowaase is the exception to this since he burned down a town to get at the Templars but given he's a member of the First Nations being subject to genocide, I'm not sure I can really fault him for being flexible about the Creed there. I'd be a little angry too.

Yes, Hope controls a bunch of gangs in New York but we don't know what the situation is like on the ground. She may be keeping things from getting worse.

By contrast, the Templars we meet are ambiguous in the fact they may just be using Shay. Gist openly says he would have murdered Shay if he hadn't joined the Templars.


Rogue didn't feel like playing as a Templar in any meaningful way, since we were still doing the same stuff the Assassins did in previous games; reclaiming districts from corrupt gangs, investing in the growth of cities, and assassinating tyrannical, misguided members of a secret society bent on securing powerful ancient artifacts. The only difference is that this time they were wearing hoods

To be fair, the two groups being more similar than different is a theme the games have touched on.