PDA

View Full Version : AC Series Plot Holes Discussion



Jessigirl2013
08-05-2015, 09:49 PM
Everyone seems to point out that the AC series as a whole has quite a few plot holes.;)
I personally cant think of anything major.;)
So tell me, What are these plot holes?:confused:

Locopells
08-06-2015, 12:10 AM
Mostly it's inconstancies in the lore, such as with some of the stuff that Sixteen/Clay says. I'll let the guys take this one, it's kinda late here :rolleyes:.

Sorrosyss
08-06-2015, 12:29 AM
Eve.

*mic drop*

The_Kiwi_
08-06-2015, 03:22 PM
@OP: Assassin's Creed Rogue, "The Truth" segment in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood

You take that back you heathen

Hans684
08-06-2015, 03:39 PM
Ac2/b

Jessigirl2013
08-06-2015, 08:26 PM
Ac2/b

What plot holes are there?

Eve.

*mic drop*
Can you explain?

I think I must be blind or something because I cant think of any. :rolleyes:
So I don't understand why people say its full of plotholes

Locopells
08-07-2015, 12:25 AM
As far as the Eve thing goes, that's more a dropped plot point, then a plothole. But then, as I said, as lot of what 16/Clay said, which sounded important at the time, was later written out as mad ramblings.

Farlander1991
08-07-2015, 01:14 AM
I wouldn't say AC has a lot of plot holes. But it does have a lot of unsatisfyingly resolved plotlines, most of those relate to modern day.

Though ACB did introduce a plot hole that they had to fix with ACR, and the only reason why they managed to fix it just due to a technicality of things not being stated directly.
The Apple that Altair found in AC1 was destroyed some time before the events of the modern day plot. In AC2 and Bloodlines it is really heavily implied that Altair hid the Apple on Cyprus and it's the one that Borgia brought to Venice and Ezio got in his possession.

Then in ACB modern day, we search for and find the Apple that's supposed to be destroyed!

So in ACR (a game, btw, that wasn't even supposed to exist in the first place, it was made in 11 months) they explain it by essentially saying, oh, Ezio's apple is a different apple, Altair's apple was hidden elsewhere, he just spread rumours that it's on Cyprus.

Which makes things even a bit more ridiculous, because after ACR's retcon, in retrospect Rodrigo has set out to find an Apple on Cyprus that is not actually on Cyprus... but actually managed really to find one cause there just happened to be one? Wha?

EDIT: Then there's also the Venice carnevale sequence in AC2 which is an absolute mess and doesn't make any sense (http://stanislavcostiuc.com/2013/11/01/assassins-creed-ii-sequence-9/), and Arsenale one is not better.

Altair1789
08-07-2015, 05:19 AM
You take that back you heathen

R.I.P my comment. 2015-2015. Only half of it deserved to die

Assassin's Creed Rogue is the most overrated game of the series. That's not saying that it's considered that good by all, but even considering it a good game is shameful. I went from loving Rogue to hating Rogue, I can bring on the details, but for now I'm just gonna say: Shay's transformation from Assassin to Templar was extremely undeveloped


Can you explain?

I think I must be blind or something because I cant think of any. :rolleyes:
So I don't understand why people say its full of plotholes

Both ACB and Eve are huge plot holes because what happened in ACB regarding Eve. Juno's whole command of "find eve, find the key", Clay's rants about "the sun... your son", and then Desmond died

Fatal-Feit
08-07-2015, 09:09 AM
R.I.P my comment. 2015-2015. Only half of it deserved to die

Assassin's Creed Rogue is the most overrated game of the series. That's not saying that it's considered that good by all, but even considering it a good game is shameful. I went from loving Rogue to hating Rogue, I can bring on the details, but for now I'm just gonna say: Shay's transformation from Assassin to Templar was extremely undeveloped.

I know exactly how you feel. The game progressively got worse as I tried to immerse myself in its narrative. --Which is a first in the series for me. It's not only shallow, especially for Assassin's Creed, it's also inconsistent and hypocritical. If you're interested, my thread went into depth for you, alongside SixKey's post. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1240543-I-just-can-t-get-into-Rogue

But poor narrative aside, the gameplay aspect isn't bad. Much of the core experience is a downgraded BF with some minor tweaks and gimmicks here and there, and the level designs aren't as good either BF or Unity, but I would consider the base game to still be a decent experience for fans. Some of the open world aspects and side missions were cool. I really enjoyed taking down Assassin hideouts, robbing random convoys, and participating in battles during free-roam. Many of the returning side missions from BF, like forts and Legendary Ships were still fun, assuming you weren't burnt on BF already. The stealth bits were actually pretty by AC standard. Shay's arsenal was a bit bloated because of the Air Rifle, but it did the job. And I enjoyed the psuedo-blackbox aspect the game had in some missions like the assassination of Washington. You could infiltrate the party via social stealth or go through the plantation. And other than BF, the game had the best pseudo-stealth transitioning in its level designs.

The_Kiwi_
08-07-2015, 09:27 AM
I know exactly how you feel. The game progressively got worse as I tried to immerse myself in its narrative. --Which is a first in the series for me. It's not only shallow, especially for Assassin's Creed, it's also inconsistent and hypocritical. If you're interested, my thread went into depth for you, alongside SixKey's post. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1240543-I-just-can-t-get-into-Rogue

But poor narrative aside, the gameplay aspect isn't bad. Much of the core experience is a downgraded BF with some minor tweaks and gimmicks here and there, and the level designs aren't as good either BF or Unity, but I would consider the base game to still be a decent experience for fans. Some of the open world aspects and side missions were cool. I really enjoyed taking down Assassin hideouts, robbing random convoys, and participating in battles during free-roam. Many of the returning side missions from BF, like forts and Legendary Ships were still fun, assuming you weren't burnt on BF already. The stealth bits were actually pretty by AC standard. Shay's arsenal was a bit bloated because of the Air Rifle, but it did the job. And I enjoyed the psuedo-blackbox aspect the game had in some missions like the assassination of Washington. You could infiltrate the party via social stealth or go through the plantation. And other than BF, the game had the best pseudo-stealth transitioning in its level designs.

I expect your apology by dawn

Fatal-Feit
08-07-2015, 09:45 AM
I know martial arts.

The_Kiwi_
08-07-2015, 09:48 AM
I know martial arts.

You can give me an apology in blood, doesn't bother me

X_xWolverinEx_X
08-07-2015, 09:50 AM
I know martial arts.

you aren't the only one mate

Fatal-Feit
08-07-2015, 09:55 AM
I'm Asian so my martial arts > yours.

Dunno what you want me to apologize for, BTW.

The_Kiwi_
08-07-2015, 10:20 AM
I'm Asian so my martial arts > yours.

Dunno what you want me to apologize for, BTW.

You've hurt me so

Fatal-Feit
08-07-2015, 10:24 AM
I says it hows I sees it.

X_xWolverinEx_X
08-07-2015, 10:29 AM
i do kyokushin karate what one do you do fatal ??? huh

Fatal-Feit
08-07-2015, 11:10 AM
i do kung fu

X_xWolverinEx_X
08-07-2015, 11:29 AM
mine beats yours

Fatal-Feit
08-07-2015, 11:39 AM
yes, but are you asian?

X_xWolverinEx_X
08-07-2015, 11:42 AM
i might be i dont know

Locopells
08-07-2015, 11:48 AM
Ahem...

itsamea-mario
08-07-2015, 03:26 PM
I don't think there many or any proper plot holes, as in actual contradictions, not in the main games at least. It's just the story is so messy and all over the place, and from what i can tell they keeping changing bits of it and passing it off as the Templars changing the history books or some shizz, so there are probably a few inconsistencies in there.
There are sort of plot holes in character motivation i guess, as in characters doing stuff that they wouldn't really do.

EDIT: Does Desmond say he uses a fake name? In the little first person platforming sections in revelations, we hear bits of dialogue from desmond's memories, the one which is from when he was working at a bar people are calling him by Desmond, and i think when we here a guy say "Are you Desmond Miles?" or something, Desmond says Yeah. That's kind of a plot hole i guess. (assuming i remembered that stuff right)

Jessigirl2013
08-07-2015, 08:57 PM
I don't think there many or any proper plot holes, as in actual contradictions, not in the main games at least. It's just the story is so messy and all over the place, and from what i can tell they keeping changing bits of it and passing it off as the Templars changing the history books or some shizz, so there are probably a few inconsistencies in there.
There are sort of plot holes in character motivation i guess, as in characters doing stuff that they wouldn't really do.

EDIT: Does Desmond say he uses a fake name? In the little first person platforming sections in revelations, we hear bits of dialogue from desmond's memories, the one which is from when he was working at a bar people are calling him by Desmond, and i think when we here a guy say "Are you Desmond Miles?" or something, Desmond says Yeah. That's kind of a plot hole i guess. (assuming i remembered that stuff right)
Sounds odd? I agree theres parts that are just badly explained and then forgotten about.<----- Like practically everything to do with 16.
Do you think they will ever reference him in future entries.?

Shahkulu101
08-07-2015, 09:11 PM
There were plot holes, but they've been filled - unsatisfactorily.

Like fixing pot holes on a road with plasticine.

Jessigirl2013
08-07-2015, 09:23 PM
There were plot holes, but they've been filled - unsatisfactorily.

Like fixing pot holes on a road with plasticine.

Any in particular?

Jessigirl2013
02-05-2016, 08:30 PM
I've seen on various threads that apparently Syndicate has a lot of plot holes, Can someone elaborate?

VoldR
02-06-2016, 09:36 AM
I

Though ACB did introduce a plot hole that they had to fix with ACR, and the only reason why they managed to fix it just due to a technicality of things not being stated directly.
The Apple that Altair found in AC1 was destroyed some time before the events of the modern day plot. In AC2 and Bloodlines it is really heavily implied that Altair hid the Apple on Cyprus and it's the one that Borgia brought to Venice and Ezio got in his possession.

Then in ACB modern day, we search for and find the Apple that's supposed to be destroyed!

So in ACR (a game, btw, that wasn't even supposed to exist in the first place, it was made in 11 months) they explain it by essentially saying, oh, Ezio's apple is a different apple, Altair's apple was hidden elsewhere, he just spread rumours that it's on Cyprus.

Not sure what u meanů
Where was this Intel about cyprus? I don't recall a mention about it in AC1.
Nvr played bloodline because its not pc.
Maybe it's bloodline which is wrong

So without that info, there's no contradiction...

From what I can gather.
In AC2 all they want to do is train Desmond. Can't find a reference that they're looking for Altair's apple.

Finding one was surprisingly in itself and I never considered it as Altair's
Didn't give much thought actually. Its just an apple. As they learn there's more than one.


The only thing they're looking for is the vault & 16's msg

Its always referred to as Ezio's apple in AC:Brotherhood

Templar found in AC2, Assassins took it, lost to the Orzis, taken by a monk, lost the apple to Rodrigo where he opens the vault and got it back after beating him.

AC:B, gave to Mario. He lost it and the Borgias got it again. Finding it from where rodrigo hid it from his son.
Used it and hid it in the colosseum.

Where did they say its Altair's?

Jessigirl2013
02-07-2016, 11:08 AM
I wouldn't say AC has a lot of plot holes. But it does have a lot of unsatisfyingly resolved plotlines, most of those relate to modern day.

Though ACB did introduce a plot hole that they had to fix with ACR, and the only reason why they managed to fix it just due to a technicality of things not being stated directly.
The Apple that Altair found in AC1 was destroyed some time before the events of the modern day plot. In AC2 and Bloodlines it is really heavily implied that Altair hid the Apple on Cyprus and it's the one that Borgia brought to Venice and Ezio got in his possession.

Then in ACB modern day, we search for and find the Apple that's supposed to be destroyed!

So in ACR (a game, btw, that wasn't even supposed to exist in the first place, it was made in 11 months) they explain it by essentially saying, oh, Ezio's apple is a different apple, Altair's apple was hidden elsewhere, he just spread rumours that it's on Cyprus.

Which makes things even a bit more ridiculous, because after ACR's retcon, in retrospect Rodrigo has set out to find an Apple on Cyprus that is not actually on Cyprus... but actually managed really to find one cause there just happened to be one? Wha?

EDIT: Then there's also the Venice carnevale sequence in AC2 which is an absolute mess and doesn't make any sense (http://stanislavcostiuc.com/2013/11/01/assassins-creed-ii-sequence-9/), and Arsenale one is not better.

That apple isn't Altair's apple, Where did you get that info?
Isn't Altair's apple the one he has in Revelations?

Also was Altair's apples destroyed?

Farlander1991
02-07-2016, 11:49 AM
As I said before, it isn't stated directly that the ACII apple was Altair's one which is the only reason they managed to get away with that plothole and retcon with the explanation in Revelations.

Let's imagine there's no games past AC2 (and let's also not forget that ACB and ACR were not planned for at all, especially ACR which appeared out of nowhere and was made in less than a year). There's AC1, where we learn that Altair has found an Apple and it was destroyed in the Modern Day.

In the Codex in AC2, Altair mentions hiding it on hidden treasury on an island. "We will take it to the island - once theirs, now ours. There is a treasury there – hidden well - and it shall have to suffice." Given how there's also a map of Cyprus in the Codex, and Altair mentions retaking Cyprus from Templars (which is something that we actually do in Bloodlines and we see the mentioned treasury there ourselves), it is clear, that he has hidden the Apple on Cyprus (once Templars', now Assassins'). Which is why the Templars want the Codex pages so much, as they used them to get that information and send a team to bring the Apple from Cyprus to Italy to use it to open the Vault in Rome. It all makes sense. And yes, Altair doesn't say 'I hid the Apple on Cyprus' directly, he says he hid it on an island, but there's no way to think that it's any other island than Cyprus, everything in the Codex and the Templar's plan and Bloodlines makes it clear that Altair hid it there, and there's absolutely no indication that the Apple from AC1 and Apple from AC2 are different apples.

So the chronology as of AC1-AC2 is the following:
1. Altair finds the Apple.
2. Altair retakes Cyprus from Templars and later hides the Apple there.
3. Altair writes it down in Codex.
4. Rodrigo via the Codex learns that Apple is on Cyprus, sends people there to find it.
5. Ezio takes the Apple.
6. ???
7. In the Modern Day, Apple somehow gets to Abstergo and then destroyed in an experiment.

Everything is clear and makes sense.

And then a year later, ACB gets released, where we find the Apple that Ezio had in ACII. Which doesn't make sense, because that Apple is supposed to be destroyed already. That's a plot hole.

The developers of ACR obviously knew that (because it was a point that was discussed a lot after ACB's release). So they added there a scene where Altair says to spread rumours that the Apple is on Cyprus, but hiding it elsewhere. Which makes the whole situation absolutely ridiculous, as it means that:

1. Altair takes the Apple, doesn't hide it on Cyprus, but makes everybody think that he did.
2. Rodrigo, learning that the Apple is on Cyprus, sends people there to find it. There's supposed to be no Apple in any treasury there, but the Templars still manage somehow to find a different apple anyway.
3. So that different Apple is now Ezio's apple which we find in MD, while Altair's apple somehow gets found in Masyaf anyway and later gets to Abstergo.

ze_topazio
02-07-2016, 04:59 PM
Not really a plot hole but when Ezio, Maria and Claudia escape Florence they walk to Monteriggioni, couldn't they get an horse? it's 55 km / 34 Miles between both cities.

Neo_notheone
02-07-2016, 07:41 PM
what really bothers my is how alexander gram bell is apparently a fictitious character when he created the telephone but assassins and templars are historical events i don't think anyone one knowns whats really going on when they don't tell you the truth to begin with or is it? what do the devs know that we don't? what aren't they sharing? is this game going to take 20 play throughs just to get one point of view fully clear? or is it up to us to decide. i played assassins with from the get go and i still don't comprehend why they made this game

Jessigirl2013
02-11-2016, 11:20 PM
what really bothers my is how alexander gram bell is apparently a fictitious character when he created the telephone but assassins and templars are historical events i don't think anyone one knowns whats really going on when they don't tell you the truth to begin with or is it? what do the devs know that we don't? what aren't they sharing? is this game going to take 20 play throughs just to get one point of view fully clear? or is it up to us to decide. i played assassins with from the get go and i still don't comprehend why they made this game

Huh? Alexander Graham Bell was real, I didn't think Syndicate stated otherwise.:confused:

Jessigirl2013
02-12-2016, 03:26 PM
Bit of a throwback to older AC, But does anyone else think the only reason they killed Lucy was because apparently it was the end of her voice actors contract?.:confused:
I'm sure I heard somewhere that was the case.

MasterSimaYi
02-13-2016, 01:37 PM
there's absolutely no indication that the Apple from AC1 and Apple from AC2 are different apples.

You're only taking one page from the Codex into account, which is page 26. Take a look at page 30, the last page. Alta´r implies he wrote it very close to his death, and he talks about what the harm would be in taking one last look at the Apple's knowledge, meaning he still had it when he was about to pass away. There are things to be said for both interpretations of the Codex, but you should take the entirety of it into account. Alta´r never ended up hiding the Apple on Cyprus, which is what they decided to go by.

Alta´r never hid his Apple on Cyprus, but through the Apple he did obtain knowledge of the prophecy surrounding the Apple and Staff. Assassin's Creed Recollection (that old mobile card game) explained it by saying that the Apple hidden on Cyprus originally belonged to Sultan Mehmet II and was used to conquer Constantinople, and was then stolen by his son Cem (a Templar) after his death. Cem could not get the artifact to function right, and decided to hide it in the Templar Archive for the European Templars to find as they were more knowledgeable about the artifacts.

In AC1 and AC2 it's clearly stated that the artifact from Masyaf was destroyed and that they're looking for another Apple, which is why they decided to explore Ezio's memories. What was written in the Codex about Alta´r hiding it on Cyprus and the Templars recovering an Apple from Cyprus obviously created a lot of confusion and the story didn't benefit from that confusion. The fact that when the Templars arrive with the artifact in Venice, it is hidden in the very same casing as Alta´r's Apple was when it was recovered from Solomon's Temple, didn't help at all. That's the one thing that just can't be explained away.

Long story short, AC1 and AC2 never outright state that the Apples from both games are the same ones. According to the characters they're not the same artifact, but I feel like this is an example of "show, not tell" gone slightly wrong.

ModernWaffle
02-16-2016, 03:07 AM
Apart from MD (which just ended up becoming a total mess), the stories of the entries up to AC IV had some plot holes, but not enough to really irk me; it was from Rogue to Syndicate that more obvious issues appeared that I couldn't easily let go. To name a few...

Rogue - love this game but its story had so many issues:
-Shay ridiculing Achilles for killing innocent people (or for not being careful enough in minimising casualties) but he later plays the role of judge himself and goes to kill his fellow Assassins; seemingly misguided in their intentions, but far from being completely evil or deserving of death

-Shay leaves the Assassins and joins the Templars; this seems illogical since he may disagree with the Assassins, but as he voluntarily became an Assassin beforehand it can be assumed that he didn't approve of Templar methods / philosophy either - would have made more sense if he stayed as a 'rogue' to both factions

-It's hard to completely sympathise with Shay when he is just as responsible for the earthquake in Lisbon as Achilles - he heard Adawale and Achilles' conversation about the previous earthquake at Port-au-Prince and therefore he was aware of the risks as well - the events that play out just make it seem like he's trying to pass all the blame on Achilles because he didn't want to accept that he accidently killed innocent people for not acting more carefully on his own part

-I know Shay had his own mission going on at the time, but surely the Templars would bring in the famous Assassin hunter to stop Connor as he was beginning to take out the Templar organization; ok, maybe they were arrogant and overlooked Connor's threat earlier on, but surely after Haytham's death someone like Charles Lee would have called in appropriate support elsewhere

-Shay is still in training at the start of the game - how does he end up killing all his mentors without sustaining any proper injury from any single one of their confrontations?

Unity:
-Arno is concerned about finding who killed his adopted father but never makes an attempt to find out who killed his biological father

-In AC2 the other notable Assassin members were at least relatively active, but the Assassin Council in Unity are very passive (apart from Bellec) and it's only Arno, a fresh recruit, who takes the responsibility of tracking down the major Templar targets by himself

-Arno seems to only join the Assassins since his biological father was one and as it provided a means for him to track down his adopted father's killer with additional support - a motive which is partly influenced by his decision to make things right with Elise; all these are personal issues for Arno and I don't really remember a point where he takes a genuine concern for the population of France - therefore once Germain and Elise were dead, along with the council denouncing him for his actions, it doesn't make sense to me why Arno goes back and rejoins the Assassins later. His whole story arc was about fulfilling his individual goals rather than fighting for the 'common man'


Syndicate:
-Templars in control of London for the last 100 years - two normal Assassins enter the city and they reclaim it back in just one year

-Starrick only really acts in the final sequence of the game - he's portrayed as being calm and intelligent so why didn't he just do something earlier to stop Jacob / Evie before all his important associates are killed

-Jacob and Evie have a large argument, bringing out the tension between their methods of liberating London and the touchy subject of their father - they quickly make amends by the end of the game without really discussing any of these issues or to how they might make a compromise to one another

-The Assassin council (i.e. George Westhouse) tell Jacob / Evie to stay out of London - surely with the twins long absence and news of their big impact in the city would have reached back to the council somehow, prompting them to give some response - most likely an attempt to stop the twins from disobeying their orders. I also don't understand why Henry was ignored for so long when it was obvious that London was in such a dire situation

ModernWaffle
02-16-2016, 03:13 AM
Bit of a throwback to older AC, But does anyone else think the only reason they killed Lucy was because apparently it was the end of her voice actors contract?.:confused:
I'm sure I heard somewhere that was the case.

I remember reading that somewhere as well - probably the main reason why they killed her - but maybe also to allow William Miles to come in as the new leader of their small group?

Farlander1991
02-16-2016, 09:25 AM
You're only taking one page from the Codex into account, which is page 26. Take a look at page 30, the last page.

I'm taking into account pages 6, 15, 26 and 30 (where it is stated that he chose to seal it away, and while the 'last one look' at the end is ambiguous, there was no indication that he actually took the Apple from the place he hid it in), AC Bloodlines and the Templars' plan of AC2, plus the lore of AC1 of course, all of which form a logical connection as to what happened to the Apple. The connection is ****ed up with the introduction of the Apple in ACB in MD, and they then spent time and effort to try and make it straight.


Assassin's Creed Recollection (that old mobile card game) explained it by saying that the Apple hidden on Cyprus originally belonged to Sultan Mehmet II and was used to conquer Constantinople, and was then stolen by his son Cem (a Templar) after his death.

Assassin's Creed Recollection was released in 2011, after ACB, so it was part of creating a retcon explanation why there was some kind of Apple on Cyprus.


In AC1 and AC2 it's clearly stated that the artifact from Masyaf was destroyed and that they're looking for another Apple, which is why they decided to explore Ezio's memories.

No, they decided to explore Ezio's memories to find the Vault. Desmond asked Lucy why they're going through Ezio's life and Lucy says that they believe Ezio found something called the Vault. Apple was never part of the equation, and even when it appeared on screen in AC2 they never bothered to think about it (because it was presumed destroyed anyway and not important). Searching for the Apple that belonged to Ezio was never a goal until ACB.


The fact that when the Templars arrive with the artifact in Venice, it is hidden in the very same casing as Alta´r's Apple was when it was recovered from Solomon's Temple, didn't help at all. That's the one thing that just can't be explained away.

It can, because in AC2 that was supposed to be the same damn apple as Altair's :p


Long story short, AC1 and AC2 never outright state that the Apples from both games are the same ones. According to the characters they're not the same artifact, but I feel like this is an example of "show, not tell" gone slightly wrong.

No, this is an example of an oversight. As I already said, the fact that it's not stated openly that they're the same Apple was the only saving grace for the retcon to somehow work, even though it still destroyed the whole logic of events.

AC2 and Bloodlines clearly set up Altair's apple as being the one that gets into Ezio's possession. Altair captures Cyprus and the Templar Archive (Bloodlines + Codex), then seals the Apple in the Archive on Cyprus (AC2 Codex), then the Italian Templars find the codex pages and use them to learn the location of the Apple and send people to recover it as it's important for their plan, and as you've already stated yourself the casing proves that it's, once again, the same Apple. And in AC1 we learn that the Apple was destroyed which is why in AC2 finding the Apple is never ever mentioned (why do you need to care for something that you know is destroyed? They cared about the Vault). It puts all the logical connections there.

And then ACB comes, and boom. Ezio's apple is not destroyed for some reason. Plot hole. So in 2011 they release products, like Revelations and as it turns out Recollection as well (I didn't know about that piece of lore from Recollection) to explain why it's two different Apples. It kinda works because AC2 chose to put pieces to be connected together rather than straight direct information, but it makes all motivations and plans in AC2 very shaky anyway.

Jessigirl2013
02-17-2016, 03:27 PM
I remember reading that somewhere as well - probably the main reason why they killed her - but maybe also to allow William Miles to come in as the new leader of their small group?

I don't really mind about that then, William miles was a great character and I hope he's in the next AC possible as a protagonist.

Jessigirl2013
02-17-2016, 03:35 PM
Apart from MD (which just ended up becoming a total mess), the stories of the entries up to AC IV had some plot holes, but not enough to really irk me; it was from Rogue to Syndicate that more obvious issues appeared that I couldn't easily let go. To name a few...

Rogue - love this game but its story had so many issues:
-Shay ridiculing Achilles for killing innocent people (or for not being careful enough in minimising casualties) but he later plays the role of judge himself and goes to kill his fellow Assassins; seemingly misguided in their intentions, but far from being completely evil or deserving of death

-Shay leaves the Assassins and joins the Templars; this seems illogical since he may disagree with the Assassins, but as he voluntarily became an Assassin beforehand it can be assumed that he didn't approve of Templar methods / philosophy either - would have made more sense if he stayed as a 'rogue' to both factions

-It's hard to completely sympathise with Shay when he is just as responsible for the earthquake in Lisbon as Achilles - he heard Adawale and Achilles' conversation about the previous earthquake at Port-au-Prince and therefore he was aware of the risks as well - the events that play out just make it seem like he's trying to pass all the blame on Achilles because he didn't want to accept that he accidently killed innocent people for not acting more carefully on his own part

-I know Shay had his own mission going on at the time, but surely the Templars would bring in the famous Assassin hunter to stop Connor as he was beginning to take out the Templar organization; ok, maybe they were arrogant and overlooked Connor's threat earlier on, but surely after Haytham's death someone like Charles Lee would have called in appropriate support elsewhere

-Shay is still in training at the start of the game - how does he end up killing all his mentors without sustaining any proper injury from any single one of their confrontations?

Unity:
-Arno is concerned about finding who killed his adopted father but never makes an attempt to find out who killed his biological father

-In AC2 the other notable Assassin members were at least relatively active, but the Assassin Council in Unity are very passive (apart from Bellec) and it's only Arno, a fresh recruit, who takes the responsibility of tracking down the major Templar targets by himself

-Arno seems to only join the Assassins since his biological father was one and as it provided a means for him to track down his adopted father's killer with additional support - a motive which is partly influenced by his decision to make things right with Elise; all these are personal issues for Arno and I don't really remember a point where he takes a genuine concern for the population of France - therefore once Germain and Elise were dead, along with the council denouncing him for his actions, it doesn't make sense to me why Arno goes back and rejoins the Assassins later. His whole story arc was about fulfilling his individual goals rather than fighting for the 'common man'


Syndicate:
-Templars in control of London for the last 100 years - two normal Assassins enter the city and they reclaim it back in just one year

-Starrick only really acts in the final sequence of the game - he's portrayed as being calm and intelligent so why didn't he just do something earlier to stop Jacob / Evie before all his important associates are killed

-Jacob and Evie have a large argument, bringing out the tension between their methods of liberating London and the touchy subject of their father - they quickly make amends by the end of the game without really discussing any of these issues or to how they might make a compromise to one another

-The Assassin council (i.e. George Westhouse) tell Jacob / Evie to stay out of London - surely with the twins long absence and news of their big impact in the city would have reached back to the council somehow, prompting them to give some response - most likely an attempt to stop the twins from disobeying their orders. I also don't understand why Henry was ignored for so long when it was obvious that London was in such a dire situation

Regarding Unity I also found it bizarre how Arno wasn't even curious about the death of his father even after learning he was assassin.:rolleyes:
With Syndicate I always thought it would turn out that George was a double agent as he made no attempt to help henry green as was reluctant to allow Jacob and Evie to go.
I also find it somewhat odd how Henry never found out that the Frye twins were never supposed to be in London in the first place, Surely George was going out of his mind with worry about them possible being killed as they had disappeared without trace. Surely he sent out a distress signal or something which would of been seen by henry.:confused:

Jessigirl2013
03-19-2016, 01:37 PM
So.... The Jack the ripper DLC

Plot holes galore I see.:rolleyes:

What I want to know is why on earth did Jacob wait until all the rooks were against him and have Jack on a murder spree to call for backup...

He didn't even need Evie, just any assassin.

Also, Why is he the ONLY assassin in London?

SpiritOfNevaeh
03-19-2016, 06:37 PM
So.... The Jack the ripper DLC

Plot holes galore I see.:rolleyes:

What I want to know is why on earth did Jacob wait until all the rooks were against him and have Jack on a murder spree to call for backup...

He didn't even need Evie, just any assassin.

Also, Why is he the ONLY assassin in London?

DUDE!

Don't EVEN get me started on the plot holes.

As much AS I loved the DLC with tis new elements and such, it had so much potential that it never got to reach.

I is sad o|-<

Jessigirl2013
04-22-2016, 09:32 PM
DUDE!

Don't EVEN get me started on the plot holes.

As much AS I loved the DLC with tis new elements and such, it had so much potential that it never got to reach.

I is sad o|-<



I am SOOOOO GLAD I am not the only one who was frustrated with not only the plot holes but the lack of potential.

What I don't understand is how Jacob saved Jack from the Asylum and yet never questioned his Insanity until he started killing people...
Did he not think that Jack was there for a reason...:rolleyes:

SpiritOfNevaeh
04-22-2016, 11:42 PM
I am SOOOOO GLAD I am not the only one who was frustrated with not only the plot holes but the lack of potential.

What I don't understand is how Jacob saved Jack from the Asylum and yet never questioned his Insanity until he started killing people...
Did he not think that Jack was there for a reason...:rolleyes:

I remember reading somewhere that his mother was murdered by the Templars, and he was so distraught and "went crazy" that they checked them into an insane asylum.

And of course, the insane asylum treated him terribly, and Jacob, out of pity, decided to release him to join the Assassins.

Which of course was a bad idea because Jack was all "you claim to protect the innocent? then where were you and your imitates when my mother was murdered."

Jessigirl2013
05-07-2016, 07:17 PM
I remember reading somewhere that his mother was murdered by the Templars, and he was so distraught and "went crazy" that they checked them into an insane asylum.

And of course, the insane asylum treated him terribly, and Jacob, out of pity, decided to release him to join the Assassins.

Which of course was a bad idea because Jack was all "you claim to protect the innocent? then where were you and your imitates when my mother was murdered."

^ THIS

Its storylines like this that make no sense...

If that's the case then why does Jacks mother tell him to go to Jacob... That he will keep him safe or something along those lines..

Not only that but the way he spoke to him makes him seem like a young child... Surely Jacob would of realised in the years it took Jack to reach adulthood that something was wrong with him...

Senningiri_GR
05-21-2016, 08:52 AM
I believe there is a small plot hole in the ending of Assassin's Creed Revelations and the start of Assassin's Creed 3. In ACRe when Desmond wakes up, his father makes sure his is OK and then opens the van back door and the camera zooms to the entrance of the Grand Temple. This happens, while in the beginning of AC3 we see the Assassins driving to the Grand Temple and Desmond is awake and then reaching there.

https://youtu.be/NpeKBfiVJQM?t=754

https://youtu.be/S72KRDFAdtk?t=204

By the way I re-watched the ending of ACRe and there is a scene where you see a large building still standing but being slowly covered under a hill. I think it is the Grand Temple:
http://i.imgur.com/Kcg1PML.png

SixKeys
05-21-2016, 11:23 AM
I believe there is a small plot hole in the ending of Assassin's Creed Revelations and the start of Assassin's Creed 3. In ACRe when Desmond wakes up, his father makes sure his is OK and then opens the van back door and the camera zooms to the entrance of the Grand Temple. This happens, while in the beginning of AC3 we see the Assassins driving to the Grand Temple and Desmond is awake and then reaching there.

Yeah, I remember there being some discussion about this around AC3's release.



By the way I re-watched the ending of ACRe and there is a scene where you see a large building still standing but being slowly covered under a hill. I think it is the Grand Temple:
http://i.imgur.com/Kcg1PML.png

Nice catch. So now we have some idea what First Civ temples look like from the outside. (I know they had one in Unity, but it didn't have that modern look associated with the Isu.)

Senningiri_GR
05-21-2016, 04:48 PM
The one in the Dead Kings DLC could have been built after the Toba Catastrophe.

Sigma 1313
05-21-2016, 05:09 PM
I think my favorite "plot hole" was that Lucy was 24 years old when she died. This means if it was 7 years since she Rebecca, she was part of the Templars for a while, and "spent nearly a decade looking for the POE" she graduated college at the age of 17...

Locopells
05-21-2016, 06:43 PM
I believe there is a small plot hole in the ending of Assassin's Creed Revelations and the start of Assassin's Creed 3. In ACRe when Desmond wakes up, his father makes sure his is OK and then opens the van back door and the camera zooms to the entrance of the Grand Temple. This happens, while in the beginning of AC3 we see the Assassins driving to the Grand Temple and Desmond is awake and then reaching there.

Probably went in search of the nearest shower, given how long Des had been in the Animus, then came back :p

cawatrooper9
05-22-2016, 05:11 AM
Probably went in search of the nearest shower, given how long Des had been in the Animus, then came back :p

I don't know. Desmond had a shower in his quarters in AC1, but I never once saw him use it. Dude just has bad hygiene.

AdrianJacek
05-22-2016, 12:14 PM
I don't know. Desmond had a shower in his quarters in AC1, but I never once saw him use it. Dude just has bad hygiene.

You also never saw him take a dump but during each present day segment there was less and less toilet paper on that holder.

Crucify Lucifer
05-23-2016, 12:44 AM
As I'm replaying the series from the bottom up I'm noticing tiny details. While they don't really bother me, it is kind of an "ehh?" moment. For example, in AC3:

After Connor's second 6 months of training, the year is 1770. He goes on his first voyage with the Aquila and it says 1773. When he returns to the Homestead, Achilles says that he was gone for 3 weeks and didn't so much as say bye. In the next sequence, it says 1773 and shows Connor older and more experienced.

cawatrooper9
05-23-2016, 10:25 PM
You also never saw him take a dump but during each present day segment there was less and less toilet paper on that holder.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. I wouldn't suggest using Eagle Vision in there, though. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

ze_topazio
05-24-2016, 07:34 PM
Not really a plot hole but it always cracks me up when Achilles is like:

Hey boy, people around here don't like natives so you're going to pretend to be Spanish, and you're going to pretend to be Spanish by keeping your distinctive native clothes and adopting the British name of Connor.

Achilles confirmed to be terrible with disguises.

Jessigirl2013
05-25-2016, 06:13 PM
I believe there is a small plot hole in the ending of Assassin's Creed Revelations and the start of Assassin's Creed 3. In ACRe when Desmond wakes up, his father makes sure his is OK and then opens the van back door and the camera zooms to the entrance of the Grand Temple. This happens, while in the beginning of AC3 we see the Assassins driving to the Grand Temple and Desmond is awake and then reaching there.

https://youtu.be/NpeKBfiVJQM?t=754

https://youtu.be/S72KRDFAdtk?t=204

By the way I re-watched the ending of ACRe and there is a scene where you see a large building still standing but being slowly covered under a hill. I think it is the Grand Temple:
http://i.imgur.com/Kcg1PML.png
It could be with ACIII they went back in time briefly to show them arriving there...

I think my favorite "plot hole" was that Lucy was 24 years old when she died. This means if it was 7 years since she Rebecca, she was part of the Templars for a while, and "spent nearly a decade looking for the POE" she graduated college at the age of 17...

Oh.... Yeah that doesn't seem right.