PDA

View Full Version : Why do people hate Connor so much?



EmptyCrustacean
09-04-2015, 06:03 PM
I would at least like to hear some legitimate and rational reasons for why people hate him.

I don't want to hear "he's boring" - Arno is boring and yet seems to get the benefit of the doubt for being in a crap game. And besides someone so "boring" would not generate the pure red fire hatred I have seen spouted on here. I just don't understand how the same people that hate Connor then go on to praise Edward - even though he was a greedy, lying, thieving, cheating, selfish good for nothing scum bag. Even Haytham in his adult life only remembers his father as a man that "had no shame"

As a character, Connor is my second fave (after Ezio) - he's noble, kind, perceptive, intelligent, courageous, selfless and generous. Yes, he's a little stubborn and hot tempered but all the characters have flaws. The homestead missions in particular really reveal all his best traits and what he did to build that community and make it a wonderful place for everyone to live and work was extraordinary.

Disclaimer: please refrain from racist comments. I only say that because discussions about characters of colour always seems to have a few dodgy responses. Keep your issues to yourself. Thanks.

Shahkulu101
09-04-2015, 06:31 PM
I love Connor, but even I can agree that his VA was off sometimes - especially during the Homestead missions. That being said I think his voice acting is great at other times and Noah Watts' performance is incredibly nuanced in terms of character movement and facial expressions. So I think Connor's acting is very good overall.

And I guess he's also just a bit too stoic for some people, in combination with his occasionally hot temper (and it is occasionally - people are so fixed on his anger but there like 3 scenes where he's actually really angry and plenty more when he's gentle, kind), he's just not a 'fun' character I guess.

ze_topazio
09-04-2015, 06:49 PM
I've seen people give all kinds of reasons for why they don't like Connor, I've seen people write long and complex posts about why they don't particularly like Connor.

Yet, Connor fans never accept the reasons, never, the responses are always:

-That 250 pages long detailed explanation is not enough.

-You're just a fanboy/girl of Ezio and can't move on

-You're just racist

-You're dumb and can't understand such complex and deep writing


So what's the point of discussing such thing? Connor fans will never accept that other people may not like that character, no argument or reasons will ever convince them of such.

Besides, Connor is so 2012.

EmptyCrustacean
09-04-2015, 06:52 PM
I've seen people give all kinds of reasons for why they don't like Connor, I've seen people write long and complex posts about why they don't particularly like Connor.

Yet, Connor fans never accept the reasons, never, the responses are always:

-That 250 pages long detailed explanation is not enough.

-You're just a fanboy/girl of Ezio and can't move on

-You're just racist

-You're dumb and can't understand such complex and deep writing


So what's the point of discussing such thing? Connor fans will never accept that other people may not like that character, no argument or reasons will ever convince them of such.

Besides, Connor is so 2012.

I would appreciate you giving your views as to why you don't like Connor. I have personally never come across an essay of a post breaking it down so will remain open-minded.

Kaschra
09-04-2015, 08:20 PM
I don't hate Connor, but I don't really care about him either.
I actually started out liking him when I played AC3 for the first time, but after a while I stopped caring about him. Welp.

His fanbase however is terrible and completely ruined him for me.

Shahkulu101
09-04-2015, 08:44 PM
Yep, knew this would get hostile within the first page...

*sigh*

Kaschra
09-04-2015, 08:58 PM
Yep, knew this would get hostile within the first page...

*sigh*

Uh... what? Where is the hostility?

Shahkulu101
09-04-2015, 09:16 PM
Uh... what? Where is the hostility?

Generalized statements made by Ze about Connor fans.

Then you went and called his fanbase 'terrible'.

None of which were relevant to the actual topic which is supposed to be about his character.

I-Like-Pie45
09-04-2015, 09:31 PM
shahkulu, accept the contact request

then you can join the cool kids club

Sushiglutton
09-04-2015, 09:34 PM
Google "why do people dislike Connor, 2012" and you should get like five billion hits.

Short version: he's boring.

GunnerGalactico
09-04-2015, 09:41 PM
Urrgghh! I don't why people always create threads about this. :rolleyes:

This is a really touchy subject on the forums, so I will try not to sound hostile. I like Connor, but I'm not too overly obsessed over him. I didn't like him at first until after sequence 8. He is my second favourite Assassin after Altair. I found his personality traits very endearing and I like good hearted and noble characters. I know of a few legitimate reasons as to why people dislike Connor.

1. After having a suave and charming character like Ezio, it was difficult for people to warm up to a serious and stoic character like him.
2. His voice sounded monotone at times (especially during the Homestead missions).
3. He was Forrest Gump-ed into a lot of main missions and looked like the odd one out.
4. He seemed like an errand boy for most of the time.
5. I agree with Sushi, people just found him too boring.


-That 250 pages long detailed explanation is not enough.

I never stumbled across a 250 page explanation as to why people hate him. Not here or anywhere else


-You're dumb and can't understand such complex and deep writing

There is a ring of truth to that. Most of the haters out there insist that Connor still killed Charles Lee out of revenge even though he discovered that Washington was responsible for burning his village and killing his mother. Everybody knows the full story, so there's no need to explain the rest.

HDinHB
09-04-2015, 09:43 PM
Did we need another thread about hating Connor? What's left to say?

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/992149-Hate-on-Connor-(there-might-already-be-hundreds-of-these-but-whatevs)

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/970599-No-more-Connor-please!

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/685684-Altair-Vs-Ezio-Vs-Connor

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/910547-(Spoilers)-The-case-for-Connor-being-a-bad-character

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/898267-AC-Discussion-Thread-For-topics-that-don-t-warrant-their-own-threads

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/764634-He%E2%80%99s-Not-Perfect-But-Connor-Ratonhnhak%C3%A9-ton-Kenway-is-not-a-bad-character-Rant

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/825366-1st-Timer-(-_-)-AC3-Connor-s-Defense-Long-Post-w-Spoilers-(but-worth-a-read)

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/806835-Connor-since-he-belongs-to-the-fanbase-now-Spoilers

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/769964-Why-we-dislike-Connor

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/769963-Why-we-love-Connor

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/777104-The-quot-problem-quot-with-Connor

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/726877-Why-don-t-you-guys-like-Connor-spoilers

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/756043-so-is-Connor-really-the-least-liked-out-of-all-the-protags

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/751232-Ezio-gt-Connor

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/738498-What-would-make-Connor-a-better-character

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/736646-Am-I-the-only-one-who-hates-Connor

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/726019-Is-it-me-or-is-Connor-a-tool

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/724834-Am-I-alone-in-thinking-that-Connor-is-the-best-protagonist-so-far-(spoilers)

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/724684-Team-Haytham-or-Team-Connor-spoilers

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/726595-Why-Is-Connor-Such-A-Dull-Character

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/725951-Less-Country-Bumpkin-Connor-more-Roving-Sea-Captain-Connor

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/724431-Am-I-the-only-one-who-actually-likes-Connor

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/723170-Your-views-on-Connor-SPOILERS

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/721637-Spoilers-What-s-everyones-thoughts-on-Connor

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/726032-spoilers-Connor-has-done-to-AC3-what-JarJar-did-to-Star-Wars
(http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/726032-spoilers-Connor-has-done-to-AC3-what-JarJar-did-to-Star-Wars?highlight=hate+connor)


There are dozens more, and thousands of posts, but I had to stop when I got to Jar Jar (it's a variant of the Nazi rule).

GunnerGalactico
09-04-2015, 09:48 PM
The funniest thing about the whole thing is that the potato thread was created by a Connor fan and I genuinely found it very amusing.

EmptyCrustacean
09-04-2015, 09:50 PM
Generalized statements made by Ze about Connor fans.

Then you went and called his fanbase 'terrible'.

None of which were relevant to the actual topic which is supposed to be about his character.

In Kaschra's defense he/she did say the fans ruined the character for him/her also so it was on topic.

Shahkulu101
09-04-2015, 09:55 PM
You know what, HDinHB you're right. There's nothing to discuss anymore. Let's all just watch this video of a hat-wearing owl, and never talk about Connor again.


http://youtu.be/kJFm4CVEdBo

GunnerGalactico
09-04-2015, 10:00 PM
You know what, HDinHB you're right. There's nothing to discuss anymore. Let's all just watch this video of a hat-wearing owl, and never talk about Connor again.

I would actually prefer that. I hope this thread gets locked ASAP!

ze_topazio
09-04-2015, 10:27 PM
Generalized statements made by Ze about Connor fans.

Then you went and called his fanbase 'terrible'.

None of which were relevant to the actual topic which is supposed to be about his character.

I exaggerated a bit for dramatic effect, lol, but I've seen a lot people act like that.

I don't hate Connor by any means, I'm actually fond of him in a way, but for the most part I'm just neutral.

D.I.D.
09-04-2015, 10:28 PM
As often happens, you've gone off the deep end in your polarisation of an issue. There's barely any hatred, certainly not "pure red fire hatred", so this conversation is something of a non-starter.

I don't like AC3 because it's an indulgent yawnfest. and Connor is an expression of the game's lightness. Some things about it were so exciting at first: the way the world built itself out of fragments of White Room data and suddenly you were in Haytham's life, walking down a London street. We go into the opera house, not for a real mission but a tutorial, but hey, it looks lovely. Oh, but cut scenes. A long boat journey, with more tutorials. Walking about. Cut scenes, more not-really-missions which are tutorials. Child Connor. Tutorials. Walking, meet the mentor, tutorials. Adult Connor. Missions? Lol no, tutorials. And not a single memorable mission happens, by which I mean memorable for its gameplay - "That was awesome, I can't wait to do that again" - until we're in the sea. Except I can't actually remember the specifics of any mission in the sea. I just remember how liberating it was to get into the arcing, aim-based navigation compared with the strictures of the game up to that point. Everything about the structure is so pleased with itself that it never considered what torture it would be to play a second time. There's a certain arrogance about the way it's built as if it's more than just a game, and it doesn't earn those airs.

AC3 is so flat, you might almost imagine that it's pregnant with possibility. Well, there's always next year's game.

So they made us wade through all that treacle, and lots of it before we even met our real main character - and what did we get? Dead parent cliché. Karate Kid cliché (grouchy old master rebuffs exuberant boy until he proves through persistence that he's worthy of... my God, this was a cliché before it was even in The Karate Kid), dead mentor cliché. This isn't necessarily a problem, and you can build a story out of nothing clichés as long as it's well done. AC3 isn't. So much happens to Connor, at Connor, around Connor, and rarely does the story even touch on the concept of cashing in the value of who Connor is or could be (i.e. he is steered through the events but the events are not reflected off him, as they should be). Their easy welcome and his neutrality bestow a certain forgiveness upon a large chunk of the European people with whom he aligns himself. It's pretty terrible that Connor is still treated as some kind of nebulous tourist in his own country, and that the players left AC3 none the wiser about the indigenous Americans' lives or their history. You still see people saying there's no way Connor could have travelled to England for a subsequent game, for example, which is tragically incorrect.

Connor is so flat, you might almost imagine that deep waters boil fathoms deep beneath that unrippled surface. Well, there's always Tumblr.

This problem affects Arno too, which is why there are so many complaints that Arno doesn't reflect his period either, and things just happen around him. He isn't shown to give a monkey's about the Revolution beyond a rare moment where he ruefully surveys the "madness". There is no use of his position as an aristocrat to say anything at all, except it gets him into parties. He also goes through the dead parent/dead authority chain to try to imbue him with some edge. He is of little benefit to the game's story. So he's a fairly flat character, but at least he's in a game with a lot of flexible gameplay. Connor is a fairly flat character lying atop a fairly flat game, a game whose high points of gameplay come in side mission forts.

These are all criticisms of the writers, and I think that gets lost with you. I see you and others getting personally offended on behalf of the characters sometimes, going on the offensive against Edward because of his comparatively worse morality, and that's unnecessary. Edward is better painted because his writer had a clear sense of who Edward was meant to be, and I really don't think Connor's creators had a handle on Connor's identity at all; without that basis, they had nothing to communicate to the audience. An assassin can be a scumbag and still be be popular (he/she can have a worse character but be a better character, if you will). It's not everyone's hope to see Nice Guy Greg trot about being amenable between murders anyway.

HDinHB
09-04-2015, 10:45 PM
Yellow is not his color. Besides, he looks like a potato. A cute potato in a yellow hat.

Consus_E
09-04-2015, 11:02 PM
It's because Connor doesn't have a thick stereotypical Italian accent for fanboys and youtubers to be amused by.

EmptyCrustacean
09-04-2015, 11:11 PM
As often happens, you've gone off the deep end in your polarisation of an issue. There's barely any hatred, certainly not "pure red fire hatred", so this conversation is something of a non-starter.

Rubbish. I've seen plenty of irrational hatred for the character and I started this thread to get to the bottom of why. So far I have yet to see any legit reasons.


I don't like AC3 because it's an indulgent yawnfest. and Connor is an expression of the game's lightness.

We're not talking about the game, we're talking about the character and if you can't separate the two please leave. Thanks.


Some things about it were so exciting at first: the way the world built itself out of fragments of White Room data and suddenly you were in Haytham's life, walking down a London street. We go into the opera house, not for a real mission but a tutorial, but hey, it looks lovely. Oh, but cut scenes. A long boat journey, with more tutorials. Walking about. Cut scenes, more not-really-missions which are tutorials. Child Connor. Tutorials. Walking, meet the mentor, tutorials. Adult Connor. Missions? Lol no, tutorials. And not a single memorable mission happens, by which I mean memorable for its gameplay - "That was awesome, I can't wait to do that again" - until we're in the sea. Except I can't actually remember the specifics of any mission in the sea. I just remember how liberating it was to get into the arcing, aim-based navigation compared with the strictures of the game up to that point. Everything about the structure is so pleased with itself that it never considered what torture it would be to play a second time. There's a certain arrogance about the way it's built as if it's more than just a game, and it doesn't earn those airs.

Completely meaningless waffle. Focus on CONNOR, not the game.


AC3 is so flat, you might almost imagine that it's pregnant with possibility. Well, there's always next year's game.

Completely off topic.


So they made us wade through all that treacle, and lots of it before we even met our real main character - and what did we get? Dead parent cliché. Karate Kid cliché (grouchy old master rebuffs exuberant boy until he proves through persistence that he's worthy of... my God, this was a cliché before it was even in The Karate Kid), dead mentor cliché. This isn't necessarily a problem, and you can build a story out of nothing clichés as long as it's well done. AC3 isn't. So much happens to Connor, at Connor, around Connor, and rarely does the story even touch on the concept of cashing in the value of who Connor is or could be (i.e. he is steered through the events but the events are not reflected off him, as they should be). Their easy welcome and his neutrality bestow a certain forgiveness upon a large chunk of the European people with whom he aligns himself. It's pretty terrible that Connor is still treated as some kind of nebulous tourist in his own country, and that the players left AC3 none the wiser about the indigenous Americans' lives or their history. You still see people saying there's no way Connor could have travelled to England for a subsequent game, for example, which is tragically incorrect.

This tells me nothing about why people hate the character so much.


Connor is so flat, you might almost imagine that deep waters boil fathoms deep beneath that unrippled surface. Well, there's always Tumblr.

Completely off topic.


This problem affects Arno too, which is why there are so many complaints that Arno doesn't reflect his period either, and things just happen around him. He isn't shown to give a monkey's about the Revolution beyond a rare moment where he ruefully surveys the "madness".

Connor's entire arc was centered around the actual American Revolution. :rolleyes:


There is no use of his position as an aristocrat to say anything at all, except it gets him into parties. He also goes through the dead parent/dead authority chain to try to imbue him with some edge. He is of little benefit to the game's story. So he's a fairly flat character, but at least he's in a game with a lot of flexible gameplay. Connor is a fairly flat character lying atop a fairly flat game, a game whose high points of gameplay come in side mission forts.

And yet people give Arno the benefit of the doubt and not Connor. :rolleyes:


These are all criticisms of the writers, and I think that gets lost with you. I see you and others getting personally offended on behalf of the characters sometimes, going on the offensive against Edward because of his comparatively worse morality, and that's unnecessary. Edward is better painted because his writer had a clear sense of who Edward was meant to be, and I really don't think Connor's creators had a handle on Connor's identity at all; without that basis, they had nothing to communicate to the audience. An assassin can be a scumbag and still be be popular (he/she can have a worse character but be a better character, if you will). It's not everyone's hope to see Nice Guy Greg trot about being amenable between murders anyway.

If you want to justify your lack of morals by hiding behind the veil of "he's really well written" then so be it. Edward is not well written. He's one dimensional, rarely conflicted and his actual grown is tacked on right at the end of the game. People only liked Edward because he played into humans' most icky power fantasies and desires, nothing more or less.

There was a lot of fat in your post. I guess I am going to have to continue my search for some insight into this issue...

HDinHB
09-05-2015, 12:13 AM
Rubbish. I've seen plenty of irrational hatred for the character and I started this thread to get to the bottom of why. So far I have yet to see any legit reasons.



We're not talking about the game, we're talking about the character and if you can't separate the two please leave. Thanks.



Completely meaningless waffle. Focus on CONNOR, not the game.



Completely off topic.



This tells me nothing about why people hate the character so much.



Completely off topic.



Connor's entire arc was centered around the actual American Revolution. :rolleyes:



And yet people give Arno the benefit of the doubt and not Connor. :rolleyes:



If you want to justify your lack of morals by hiding behind the veil of "he's really well written" then so be it. Edward is not well written. He's one dimensional, rarely conflicted and his actual grown is tacked on right at the end of the game. People only liked Edward because he played into humans' most icky power fantasies and desires, nothing more or less.

There was a lot of fat in your post. I guess I am going to have to continue my search for some insight into this issue...

I don't think you have been search (http://forums.ubi.com/search.php?search_type=1&contenttype=vBForum_Post&forumchoice[]=201)ing very hard. I've done some of the work for you in my previous post. You're welcome.


I would appreciate you giving your views as to why you don't like Connor. I have personally never come across an essay of a post breaking it down so will remain open-minded.

You might want to look up the meaning of "appreciate" and "open-minded." I don't think they mean what you seem to think they mean, certainly not in light of your ____* reply to D.I.D.'S poetic but thoughtful post. I'm left pondering my original question.


*As soon as I think of a more apt word than "rude," I'll edit my post. In the meantime, I'll be watching an owl in a hat.

Xstantin
09-05-2015, 12:38 AM
I just don't understand how the same people that hate Connor then go on to praise Edward - even though he was a greedy, lying, thieving, cheating, selfish good for nothing scum bag. Even Haytham in his adult life only remembers his father as a man that "had no shame"


Not gonna get into the Connor debate but scumbag-vile-greedy characters can be fun to watch/read/play as too. Even more so than noble-honest-selfless ones in some cases

Shahkulu101
09-05-2015, 12:52 AM
Not gonna get into the Connor debate but scumbag-vile-greedy characters can be fun to watch/read/play as too. Even more so than noble-honest-selfless ones in some cases

You got that right.

"My name is...Captain Pissoff!"

SixKeys
09-05-2015, 04:12 AM
Christ, another one of these threads?


Out of curiosity, who exactly is giving Arno the benefit of the doubt? I've seen nothing but universal hatred towards him.

Mr.Black24
09-05-2015, 04:41 AM
Not gonna get into the Connor debate but scumbag-vile-greedy characters can be fun to watch/read/play as too. Even more so than noble-honest-selfless ones in some cases

Which is completely fine, as I do love Edward, as I love the entire Kenway family equally. However, Empty has a point. I never seen a well thought out point of view on why Connor is "boring" . Obviously after a successful character like Ezio, Connor had a big pair of shoes to fill in, not to mention the sudden shock of a different character is way too much for the masses who still had their Ezio goggles on. I seen the reasoning too many times, he was too boring and not charismatic. They were looking for another Ezio really, as moving on from a character was too much on the opposite end was just way too much for a lot of people, as what it seems.

And the ones that do come close to explaining their dislike on Connor, its always on the game itself and not the character. I mean people can always say why Ezio, Edward, and Arno is good or bad on character analysis itself, but with Connor, its always his fault that the game is ruined. Like him and the game are one, when we want to know solely on him.

As for the Connor fanbase, I'll break it for you in this way, especially to Kaschra, as I see a similarity between him/her, being a Shay fan, and myself as a Connor fan. Say that I like Strawberry, and Kaschra likes Chocolate for example, and he/she asks why do I preffer Strawberry over chocolate? I would respond that I like the texture,color, and fruity flavor of strawberry, as chocolate simply isn't right for me. That is a fine opinion. However, if I went over and said, "chocolate ****ing sucks as its not as sweet as strawberry! Why can't it be chocolate!", now there is a problem. Not only I just gave a poor reason as to why I prefer one flavor over another, I insulted my fellow person as well. I seen you get mad whenever someone hates Shay over petty reasons like, for betraying the Brotherhood for example, where there is a good reason why. Similarly to how we Connor fans hate it that people say he is boring because he isn't funny or charismatic, when he just witnessed a massacre and the loss of his mother at an early age that harden him so, and can't be as loose as his grandfather or Ezio was.

I guess the Black Flag analysis on Connor was correct: "Although we feel although Ratonhnhaké:ton early life would be of interest to our more educated viewers, its unlikely that it would appeal on a broader scale, being *too foreign as it were, to normal audiences"

*Basically no one can understand that the reason that he was stoic and serious most of the time is because people fail to understand that his way of life is endangered, while Ezio's wasn't under constant pressure and urgency, so he had the privilege to breathe more and be more lenient.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=B3180T0GJUE

SixKeys
09-05-2015, 04:58 AM
And the ones that do come close to explaining their dislike on Connor, its always on the game itself and not the character. I mean people can always say why Ezio, Edward, and Arno is good or bad on character analysis itself, but with Connor, its always his fault that the game is ruined. Like him and the game are one, when we want to know solely on him.


But character and story are inextricably linked. If you don't like the character, you're not going to care what happens to them. I never became emotionally invested in Connor, hence his whole story was boring to trudge through.

I think one of the things that makes Connor boring (IMO) is that he doesn't have many flaws. Flawed characters are interesting. He's the most heroic character the series has had. He has a strong sense of justice and he always protects people, he avoids violence when he can (some gameplay contradictions aside), he's always soft-spoken and respectful even when he's angry. If I had to compare him to someone, I would compare him to Prince A$hitaka in Princess Mononoke, who I think is another boring character. There are no edges to him, he's justice and virtue personified. He feels like someone tried to think of every good quality a person can have and then poured it all into one mold. In other words, he doesn't feel real. The only real flaw Connor has is his naivete, which is comparable to Mary Sues whose only flaw is something cute but not really damaging to the audience's perception of them, like being slightly clumsy or having self-esteem issues. Connor's naivete doesn't make him feel more interesting, it's just another trait designed to make him seem sympathetic, like a lost puppy.

He becomes 10x more interesting in the ToKW DLC when he gives in to basic human flaws like greed, vengeance and lust for power.

VestigialLlama4
09-05-2015, 07:09 AM
There's barely any hatred, certainly not "pure red fire hatred", so this conversation is something of a non-starter.

There actually is hatred and an excess amount of it. Compare it to Altair who was considered polarizing before Connor. Trying to pretend that Connor doesn't get a disproportionate negative coverage is being disingenuous.


There's a certain arrogance about the way it's built as if it's more than just a game, and it doesn't earn those airs.

This is actually a legitimate criticism unlike everything that follows on your post. AC3 is a little too blindsided by the American Revolution setting so it never really breathes life into it except as an interactive textbook. I guess because Ubisoft is largely French they didn't want to be accused of being "anti-American" so they tried to be critical while being respectful.


AC3 is so flat, you might almost imagine that it's pregnant with possibility.

Terrible metaphor. You can't be "flat" and "pregnant with possibility", those are two different things. Flatness has to do with context not being important, background not being valuable. That is not true of AC3 at all, whereas that is true of Rogue and Unity. And I cannot take anyone who says that AC3 isn't bursting with possibility because every game after it has done little but recycle its assets. There hasn't really been a true new AC game since AC3.

VestigialLlama4
09-05-2015, 07:29 AM
I think one of the things that makes Connor boring (IMO) is that he doesn't have many flaws.

Now here is something I get annoyed when talking about AC3. People who criticize AC3 keep making contradictory statements. Some people says Connor is too goody shoes, others say Connor keeps losing his temper, he shouts and gets angry, he's emotional and those are character flaws. It cannot be said that Connor "doesn't have many flaws" while keep listing his "flaws" at the same time.


Flawed characters are interesting. He's the most heroic character the series has had. He has a strong sense of justice and he always protects people, he avoids violence when he can (some gameplay contradictions aside), he's always soft-spoken and respectful even when he's angry.

Well, for some people Connor's strong sense of justice and wanting to protect people isn't unrealistic at all. For a minority, those desires and needs are all too real, its not about some ideal, its based on actual desires and experiences. I also don't get why people think Connor's "strong sense of justice and he always protects people" is unique to him, all the Assassins had that. Like Altair still went around the three cities and did Liberation missions, beating up the guards who harass citizens. Ezio likewise defended the weak and poor througout AC2 and Brotherhood. The difference is that in Connor's case, that defending people isn't empowering to the player because Connor is himself a victim of social injustice so it doesn't feel you have done something special or heroic, whereas Altair and Ezio being power fantasies make you feel like you're being a hero.

Ultimately I think Connor's story is upsetting and unlikable to some people because its not a power fantasy at all and any time a game tries to use the game medium to tell a different kind of story people get up in arms about it. Altair and Ezio are part of a kind of elite in their society, Altair less so but even then he gets an education and combat training without being a soldier, scholar or priest. Ezio experiences injustice but for him that involves having his rights and privileges as a nobleman taken away from his family but then he's back to being Lord of Monteriggioni again, so he loses but not to a great extent.

GunnerGalactico
09-05-2015, 10:09 AM
Now here is something I get annoyed when talking about AC3. People who criticize AC3 keep making contradictory statements. Some people says Connor is too goody shoes, others say Connor keeps losing his temper, he shouts and gets angry, he's emotional and those are character flaws. It cannot be said that Connor "doesn't have many flaws" while keep listing his "flaws" at the same time.



Well, for some people Connor's strong sense of justice and wanting to protect people isn't unrealistic at all. For a minority, those desires and needs are all too real, its not about some ideal, its based on actual desires and experiences. I also don't get why people think Connor's "strong sense of justice and he always protects people" is unique to him, all the Assassins had that. Like Altair still went around the three cities and did Liberation missions, beating up the guards who harass citizens. Ezio likewise defended the weak and poor througout AC2 and Brotherhood. The difference is that in Connor's case, that defending people isn't empowering to the player because Connor is himself a victim of social injustice so it doesn't feel you have done something special or heroic, whereas Altair and Ezio being power fantasies make you feel like you're being a hero.

Ultimately I think Connor's story is upsetting and unlikable to some people because its not a power fantasy at all and any time a game tries to use the game medium to tell a different kind of story people get up in arms about it. Altair and Ezio are part of a kind of elite in their society, Altair less so but even then he gets an education and combat training without being a soldier, scholar or priest. Ezio experiences injustice but for him that involves having his rights and privileges as a nobleman taken away from his family but then he's back to being Lord of Monteriggioni again, so he loses but not to a great extent.

Good post.

Jessigirl2013
09-05-2015, 11:42 AM
Haha... Another Connor thread.. This got busy quick :rolleyes:
Didn't the last one get locked... these threads always get ugly.;)

I don't think people hate him.
He's just boring and lacking in personality unlike other protagonists.

king-hailz
09-05-2015, 11:53 AM
Well I'm playing AC3 right now and I have some stuff to say. The voice acting is pretty bad, Naoh Watts delivers his lines with no emotion and sometimes it feels like he wasn't responding to the other VA, he was just told to say a line and he said it. Another reason is the overall story of AC3, it's executed so badly with such awkward pacing that it's hard to like a character like that, we never got creative ways to learn about his character through cutscenes, we just got a long paragraph on what he did. I mean it would have been so much better to see him in his training days learning with achilles to see his personality, all we see of him in the main story is anger and his mind always on one thing which makes it hard for people to connect with him. Nothing with the story in this game was handled well, it was an amazing idea with terrible execution. I always find myself playing through it imagining ways it could have been better and I wish it was that way. There are other things that annoy me with the plot as well. For example Connor already know haytham was his father.... It would have been so interesting to see Connor and haytham react to the news, and it would have made for some heartbreaking and intense scenes. Another thing that has always bothered me is that Ziio dies too quick. I think it would have had way more impact if we saw Connor and Ziio grow up, because a child is always themselves when with their parents and we would have seen what Connor was really like. It also would have given Ziio more development to make it sadder when she died. There are many things that could have been done to make it better, sadly they weren't done...

VestigialLlama4
09-05-2015, 12:40 PM
Well I'm playing AC3 right now and I have some stuff to say. The voice acting is pretty bad, Naoh Watts delivers his lines with no emotion and sometimes it feels like he wasn't responding to the other VA, he was just told to say a line and he said it.

So isn't that a fault of the voice directing? Bear in mind that Connor rarely has scenes with groups. Its usually him and one other character. And can people please cite exact dialogue deliveries which "lacks emotion" and what their preferred pitch would have been and also what their idea of emotion is?


Another reason is the overall story of AC3, it's executed so badly with such awkward pacing that it's hard to like a character like that, we never got creative ways to learn about his character through cutscenes, we just got a long paragraph on what he did. I mean it would have been so much better to see him in his training days learning with achilles to see his personality,

What would be the purpose of the Haytham prologue then? That was a long tutorial to the basic controls and combat, why do we need another tutorial on parkour, leap-of-faith-ing and combat? Also what is the personality that can be revealed in Connor's training with Achilles? The relationship between them is already concisely explained in their introduction, Connor insists, Achilles grumbles and then begrudgingly lets him in and takes him on. Their entire relationship is put across there.


For example Connor already know haytham was his father.... It would have been so interesting to see Connor and haytham react to the news, and it would have made for some heartbreaking and intense scenes.

Would have been too Star Wars, its already too Star Wars for its own good...


Another thing that has always bothered me is that Ziio dies too quick. I think it would have had way more impact if we saw Connor and Ziio grow up, because a child is always themselves when with their parents and we would have seen what Connor was really like. It also would have given Ziio more development to make it sadder when she died. There are many things that could have been done to make it better, sadly they weren't done...

Again another contradictory criticism of AC3. People generally the game is burdened with too many tutorials and now this post argues for longer training sequences and longer sequences of Connor as child. The only way this can work is if you remove the Haytham prologue completely which I am sympathetic to since the prologue doesn't actually add or provide anything but then a lot of people like playing as Haytham (He who can't climb trees and can't sail) for some reason.

strigoi1958
09-05-2015, 01:11 PM
I enjoyed the game... especially the homestead missions, pegleg trinkets/ missions and the forts.

Difficult for me to say about the VA because I've only met one native american and we chatted online while playing a flying sim but he was very quiet, softly spoken and deliberate.... So connors VA seemed perfect... but without speaking with a lot more people I cannot say.
Anyway his VA seemed to match the personality so no complaints there from me. Just as Ezio's VA suited his personality.... I think the fact that people had grown to like Ezio and then had him taken away and replaced with someone not as vibrant made Connor and AC3 unlikely to be well received.

I think what helped me was I played AC1 thought good-ish game lots of potential then never played AC until AC3 so my opinion was never influenced by Ezio as I bought all the other AC games after AC3.

Personally I like the fact that the protagonists are all different in personality, VA and morals... it makes the game better for me.

Sorrosyss
09-05-2015, 03:04 PM
The main issue for me with Connor, was going from the amazing Haytham to playing as him. Connor was very different, whereas Haytham was more charismatic and witty, Connor was a no nonsense straight talking hero. Depends what you like from a protagonist I suppose, but for me Haytham overshadowed Connor throughout. Apart from that, Connor was a noble Assassin who lived from his heart - whats to dislike about that?

VestigialLlama4
09-05-2015, 04:28 PM
The main issue for me with Connor, was going from the amazing Haytham to playing as him. Connor was very different, whereas Haytham was more charismatic and witty, Connor was a no nonsense straight talking hero. Depends what you like from a protagonist I suppose, but for me Haytham overshadowed Connor throughout. Apart from that, Connor was a noble Assassin who lived from his heart - whats to dislike about that?

This makes even less sense when you consider things objectively. What fans like about Haytham is this snarky British guy who makes fun of Connor, the thing is that whole part only comes in the Connor section of the game. Haytham and all the other Templars are far better etched out (except for Charles Lee) when you see them from Connor's perspective than they are in the Haytham prologue. The reasons are obvious, the prologue quite deliberately conceals them as being Templars because its a big plot twist. So there's a lot of deliberate holding back about Haytham's character.

The prologue being flat (to use D.I.D.'s phrase appropriately) allows gamers to project all kinds of qualities to Haytham, him being this James Bond aristocratic type. Its easy to buy that this guy is charismatic and charming in these first sections when the main element is that he's cold and methodical, doesn't associate too much with his social inferiors and keeps to one side of his cabin. Then ROGUE came out and you had Haytham riding shotgun and people were acting surprised that he is kind of dull. Well he was always dull, he only came alive in his interactions with Connor. Those two sequences with Haytham and Connor hanging out was the only real time Haytham's personality was fleshed out and its not surprising that all the dialogues people like about Haytham comes from there.

Altair1789
09-05-2015, 04:55 PM
Why is it such a big deal if someone likes or dislikes a character?

Hans684
09-05-2015, 05:13 PM
A dengerously naive dull fool not knowing what he's doing could a reason, but at least he learned his lesson to a degree. All that's left is to see if he have improved, a sequel could solve that. But I don't expect another game staring him. He'd fail in the Northwest Indian War as well, can't beat history.

strigoi1958
09-05-2015, 05:14 PM
Why is it such a big deal if someone likes or dislikes a character?
Best answer today... it doesn't affect gameplay :D. I like the personalities, the voices and interactions but it doesn't stop me enjoying the game... some characters are more preferable/ likable or in some way easier to relate to... (bad grammar) but really are we not the real protagonist ?

D.I.D.
09-05-2015, 06:02 PM
Rubbish. I've seen plenty of irrational hatred for the character and I started this thread to get to the bottom of why. So far I have yet to see any legit reasons.

And I've seen you go nuclear on people out of nowhere, insisting that [Person X] is passionately attacking [Assassin Y] when they're not doing any such thing, so what you judge to be 'irrational hatred' isn't necessarily how it is.


We're not talking about the game, we're talking about the character and if you can't separate the two please leave. Thanks.



Completely meaningless waffle. Focus on CONNOR, not the game.

Jesus, here we go. This must be that conversation you wanted. If you always take everything up to this ridiculous level, nobody can talk with you.

The way the game feels is relevant to the topic. One: when the game is bland, a truly great character ought to stand out even more. Connor doesn't, because he's part of the wallpaper. Two: a general problem with the writing, design and construction of the game in general is a mark of the upper limit of how good Connor could possibly have been, too. If they couldn't make any of these other things sing, how likely is it that Connor is as great as you imagine him to be?


Completely off topic.

No, I'm making a parallel point with the same conclusion about Connor. I'm using Tumblr as a symbol of something, which is that Connor's supposed greatness has, I think, been filled in for the AC writers in the imaginations of the fans. You want him to be good so badly that you fill in the gaping blanks in what's actually there in the game.


This tells me nothing about why people hate the character so much.

Unsurprisingly, because I don't agree that a significant number of people do hate Connor. I think the problem is that the writing didn't provide reasons to enjoy him, which you can take as a defence of Connor if you want. There are three ways that the word "dislike" can express opinion about a character: a lack of sufficient positive feelings towards him/her, a simple lack of enjoyment in spending time with him/her, or an active antipathy towards him/her. I think you're confusing the first two cases for the last. That's why "potato" caught on as a minor meme. A lot of people saw that he was meant to be placid and understood the intention, but nonetheless felt the life draining out of them when sitting through his cut scenes and other dialogue. I'd been calling Desmond 'beige' before AC3, so having this new assassin wasted in the same way was disappointing but not surprising.

Perhaps you think it was entirely coincidental that Connor's weird snaps of bratty anger against Achilles and Desmond's strops against his dad happen to be in the same game, but I don't. It might have simply been a clumsy attempt to appeal to teenagers whose parents, like, just don't understaaaand bruhhh, but I think it was another indication of the limits of the writers' storytelling. I think that does speak to how good Connor's construction really was versus how good you think it was. It's not just Connor who's poorly described in AC3 - it's literally everyone. There's not a single decent character in that game from beginning to end. There's a ton of bad dialogue, poorly delivered story, and mismanaged events.



Connor's entire arc was centered around the actual American Revolution. :rolleyes:

Yes, the American Revolution is a thing that happens during this game. That's not what I mean. We see it around Connor but not truly through him, and with his character the way it is, we never could have. We'd need a different person in his shoes to get this to work.


And yet people give Arno the benefit of the doubt and not Connor. :rolleyes:

No, I don't think they do. "Starts well, goes to **** after that" is about as positive as it gets. I haven't seen any fandom for Arno at all. I'm sure it's out there, but it's not big enough to get expressed on this forum or in the discussions on games media sites. There are at least flashes of something alive in Arno, but that's largely because the technology was better: I think pretty much any character would come off fairly well with this level of artistry. I would very much like to have seen this tech in place when AC3 was made. The things they can do now with subtle, tiny expressions allowed Arno to have substance which no other assassin had been allowed before, and a quiet character could especially have benefited from this. The creators would no doubt have been able to do things with Connor that they couldn't at the time, and had different ideas about how to indicate Connor's inner feelings. Maybe they could have had the most phenomenal communication through his face in the moments of AC3 where Connor appeared simply dormant. Who knows? We can only go with what we actually get, not what could have happened.


If you want to justify your lack of morals

lol i'm done


Best answer today... it doesn't affect gameplay http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/biggrin.png. I like the personalities, the voices and interactions but it doesn't stop me enjoying the game... some characters are more preferable/ likable or in some way easier to relate to... (bad grammar) but really are we not the real protagonist ?

This is key - if you're playing a game, an enjoyable game, it doesn't necessarily matter. If you're being tightly funnelled through very scripted missions and forced to watch interminable cut scenes that think they're better than they are, instead of playing a game, then surely there is a risk that you will resent those characters as obstructions.

SixKeys
09-05-2015, 06:27 PM
Now here is something I get annoyed when talking about AC3. People who criticize AC3 keep making contradictory statements. Some people says Connor is too goody shoes, others say Connor keeps losing his temper, he shouts and gets angry, he's emotional and those are character flaws. It cannot be said that Connor "doesn't have many flaws" while keep listing his "flaws" at the same time.

You're assuming that the people making those statements are one and the same. I think Connor's emotional outbursts make sense in most situations. I never claimed I have a problem with his temper, so there's no contradiction.

I disagree that being emotional and getting angry are character flaws, anyway. Having a bad temper is only a flaw if it's irrational or unjustified. Edward has a worse temper than Connor, as he allows his anger to turn into aggression and threats. Even Haytham does, as we see in the scene where he's beating Benjamin into a bloody pulp. Connor never goes to such extremes. He gets angry, maybe stomps around for a bit but then cools down again. That's not a flaw, that's a sign of a healthy, balanced human being. In ToKW he does allow his anger to turn into aggression, which immediately turns him into a more flawed character. I enjoy him more in that DLC than in the main game.


Well, for some people Connor's strong sense of justice and wanting to protect people isn't unrealistic at all. For a minority, those desires and needs are all too real, its not about some ideal, its based on actual desires and experiences. I also don't get why people think Connor's "strong sense of justice and he always protects people" is unique to him, all the Assassins had that. Like Altair still went around the three cities and did Liberation missions, beating up the guards who harass citizens. Ezio likewise defended the weak and poor througout AC2 and Brotherhood. The difference is that in Connor's case, that defending people isn't empowering to the player because Connor is himself a victim of social injustice so it doesn't feel you have done something special or heroic, whereas Altair and Ezio being power fantasies make you feel like you're being a hero.

I didn't say that having a strong sense of justice and wanting to protect people are inherently unrealistic traits. I'm saying Connor was written in a way where there is nothing else to him besides those traits. He's like a personification of Plato's ideals: justice and courage in the flesh. But it's just not interesting to watch a character who's all good. Greek gods - with their temper tantrums, jealousy and love triangles - are more interesting as characters than the Christian God who is supposed to be perfect in every way. Batman is more interesting than Superman.

I find "you're just mad because it's not a power fantasy" such a weak argument. AC3 isn't the first game ever to feature a protagonist who is ultimately powerless, doesn't have a happy ending or is a victim of some kind of (social) injustice. There are other games that are simply better at portraying such characters in a way that makes them interesting. See for example Freedom Cry, which was generally well-received.

king-hailz
09-05-2015, 06:31 PM
So isn't that a fault of the voice directing? Bear in mind that Connor rarely has scenes with groups. Its usually him and one other character. And can people please cite exact dialogue deliveries which "lacks emotion" and what their preferred pitch would have been and also what their idea of emotion is?



What would be the purpose of the Haytham prologue then? That was a long tutorial to the basic controls and combat, why do we need another tutorial on parkour, leap-of-faith-ing and combat? Also what is the personality that can be revealed in Connor's training with Achilles? The relationship between them is already concisely explained in their introduction, Connor insists, Achilles grumbles and then begrudgingly lets him in and takes him on. Their entire relationship is put across there.



Would have been too Star Wars, its already too Star Wars for its own good...



Again another contradictory criticism of AC3. People generally the game is burdened with too many tutorials and now this post argues for longer training sequences and longer sequences of Connor as child. The only way this can work is if you remove the Haytham prologue completely which I am sympathetic to since the prologue doesn't actually add or provide anything but then a lot of people like playing as Haytham (He who can't climb trees and can't sail) for some reason.

I would prefer no haytham. We only get 9 sequences with connor when I would have preferred 12 with Connor to flesh the story out more.

D.I.D.
09-05-2015, 06:35 PM
I didn't say that having a strong sense of justice and wanting to protect people are inherently unrealistic traits. I'm saying Connor was written in a way where there is nothing else to him besides those traits. He's like a personification of Plato's ideals: justice and courage in the flesh. But it's just not interesting to watch a character who's all good. Greek gods - with their temper tantrums, jealousy and love triangles - are more interesting as characters than the Christian God who is supposed to be perfect in every way. Batman is more interesting than Superman.

I both agree and disagree with this. I think a 100% "good" character can be very interesting, but you have to put them in circumstances that compromise their goodness: seemingly impossible choices; choices that confront what they will sacrifice of themselves for the "right" outcome; threats to their legend versus the immediate comfort of others, etc. To be fair to AC3, I think they did attempt this to some extent, in terms of Connor's choice of allies, but it just wasn't done in an effective or gripping way.

TO_M
09-05-2015, 07:06 PM
What an interesting thread premise:

"Hi guys, I'd like to know what 2+2 is, but I don't want to hear people saying it's 4 because I dont believe that"

He's boring. That's all there is to it (imo of course), no need for a 10 page dissertation.

VestigialLlama4
09-05-2015, 07:19 PM
I didn't say that having a strong sense of justice and wanting to protect people are inherently unrealistic traits. I'm saying Connor was written in a way where there is nothing else to him besides those traits.

Well, in a time of revolution upheaval and change, stuff tends to get simplified. This isn't Renaissance Italy with an active theatre and art scene. It would take a while before American culture really developed. And you also have to consider that Connor doesn't really have that big supporting cast that Edward and Ezio does. The Assassins are essentially him and Achilles, so he never really gets a chance to show other sides of his personality.


He's like a personification of Plato's ideals: justice and courage in the flesh. But it's just not interesting to watch a character who's all good. Greek gods - with their temper tantrums, jealousy and love triangles - are more interesting as characters than the Christian God who is supposed to be perfect in every way.

I am quite sure the Old Testament God, or YHVH will have a word with you on that front (if he/it existed that is...), he's supremely tantrum-prone, manipulative and jealous. And in Christianity, Jesus who is goody two-shoes is still pretty interesting as is evidenced by the fact that there are so many movies, paintings and books on him by serious artists. Even atheists like Jose Saramago and Pasolini can't let go of that guy. The Bible is a work of great literature after all. And the Greek Gods are not interesting as characters, they are usually one dimensional figures and deliberately so because all Greeks knew that you can't really relate to the Gods. They are above and beyond humanity, they represent primal desires. The most interesting characters in Greek myths are the heroes, people who are part-man and part-God but mortal. The Iliad and the Odyssey are about Achilles, Hector, Odysseus and Penelope. They're not about the Gods. The only mythology where the Gods are genuinely interesting characters are Norse myths and the reason for that is it's the only mythology where the Gods actually die.


AC3 isn't the first game ever to feature a protagonist who is ultimately powerless, doesn't have a happy ending or is a victim of some kind of (social) injustice.

Which other game there is before AC3? And I mean putting that in an actual real-world recognizable context rather than some Final Fantasy crap. Its usually spoken out loud and discussed by side characters rather than touched on in the main story.


See for example Freedom Cry, which was generally well-received.

It was well recieved as a DLC. People were also very kind towards Liberation and Aveline, because then they can say, "This should have been the main game" and the like, there's a programmed response for that. But they aren't receptive when its dealt with in a main game like in AC3. I have no doubt that if they put Adewale and Freedom Cry in the main game there will be similar complaints too, mostly because to do so they would be targeting a wider audience whereas Freedom Cry's audience was the people who liked Black Flag.

And you know Freedom Cry is kind of a power fantasy too, you spend a lot of time freeing slaves and then you get to sadistically and brutally kill the evil slaveowning villain. It's quite cathartic moreso than AC3, where there isn't really any catharsis at all. A lot of people compared it to Tarantino's Django Unchained which was criticized by many people for trying to make slavery a revenge fantasy when that's not really true to what happened. Freedom Cry is have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too. They kind of say revenge and violence is not going to solve slavery but they let you do it anyway. Of course I don't blame Ubisoft because this is part of the restrictions of video games in general and they should get credit for at least doing this much in an industry which otherwise doesn't try at all. Partly because the open world gaming and freedom which is romanticized across all gaming sites is essentially about control and that's essentially a white guy fantasy and it takes a bit of effort to try and put actual minority experiences in the same context.

SixKeys
09-05-2015, 07:20 PM
I both agree and disagree with this. I think a 100% "good" character can be very interesting, but you have to put them in circumstances that compromise their goodness: seemingly impossible choices; choices that confront what they will sacrifice of themselves for the "right" outcome; threats to their legend versus the immediate comfort of others, etc. To be fair to AC3, I think they did attempt this to some extent, in terms of Connor's choice of allies, but it just wasn't done in an effective or gripping way.

Can you give examples? The scare quotes around "good" and "right" make me think you're not actually talking about goody-two-shoes characters but rather characters with questionable morals or a choice that will change them into less-than-perfect.

SixKeys
09-05-2015, 08:07 PM
Well, in a time of revolution upheaval and change, stuff tends to get simplified. This isn't Renaissance Italy with an active theatre and art scene. It would take a while before American culture really developed. And you also have to consider that Connor doesn't really have that big supporting cast that Edward and Ezio does. The Assassins are essentially him and Achilles, so he never really gets a chance to show other sides of his personality.

It's not my fault as a player if the time period or plot circumstances somehow makes it impossible for the writers to show the character's personality in a way that actually makes him compelling. You're basically saying "the character wasn't properly rounded because of the time period, but you should still like him because I say so". That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. If the time period limits storytelling possibilities, maybe pick a more interesting setting?


I am quite sure the Old Testament God, or YHVH will have a word with you on that front (if he/it existed that is...), he's supremely tantrum-prone, manipulative and jealous. And in Christianity, Jesus who is goody two-shoes is still pretty interesting as is evidenced by the fact that there are so many movies, paintings and books on him by serious artists.

I don't want to get further into this debate lest the thread gets shut down. Most modern Christians tend to ignore or cherry-pick the Old Testament so they can justify their belief in a God who's loving and perfect. Regardless of my personal views on the matter, I used it as an example to highlight that whereas official Christian doctrine expects its followers to believe their God is flawless, the ancient Greeks never tried to deny that their gods weren't all-good.

The latter half of your argument is ridiculous. For centuries the Catholic Church was a patron of the arts. They commissioned many of the famous paintings, buildings and music pieces we now regard as classics. Michaelangelo didn't just up and decide to paint the Sistine Chapel because he was a Jesus fanboy, he was being paid to portray specific biblical events and characters.


Which other game there is before AC3? And I mean putting that in an actual real-world recognizable context rather than some Final Fantasy crap. Its usually spoken out loud and discussed by side characters rather than touched on in the main story.

The "real-world recognizable context" is rather limiting when talking about games, you know. AC is one of the only historical games on the market, and even AC has crazy stuff like ancient aliens. There are no direct comparisons. So setting that arbitrary limitation aside, I would name for example The Walking Dead, Amnesia: The Dark Descent and Silent Hill 2. Horror games in general tend to throw power fantasies out the window and make the player feel weak and vulnerable. They also tend to abuse their protagonists for sometimes unknown/unfair reasons and the concept of a happy ending is questionable at best. The Walking Dead is perhaps closest to AC3 in that while it features zombies, the protagonist is an African-American convict who struggles to win his (mostly white) companions' trust and protect a little girl in a world where no character is immune to death.


It was well recieved as a DLC. People were also very kind towards Liberation and Aveline, because then they can say, "This should have been the main game" and the like, there's a programmed response for that. But they aren't receptive when its dealt with in a main game like in AC3. I have no doubt that if they put Adewale and Freedom Cry in the main game there will be similar complaints too, mostly because to do so they would be targeting a wider audience whereas Freedom Cry's audience was the people who liked Black Flag.

Freedom Cry was better received because it actually had enjoyable gameplay. AC3 did not. It's not the players' fault if AC4 provided a better basis for gameplay loops than AC3 or Liberation.


And you know Freedom Cry is kind of a power fantasy too, you spend a lot of time freeing slaves and then you get to sadistically and brutally kill the evil slaveowning villain. It's quite cathartic moreso than AC3. A lot of people compared it to Tarantino's Django Unchained which was criticized by many people for trying to make slavery a revenge fantasy when that's not really true to what happened. Freedom Cry is have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too. They kind of say revenge and violence is not going to solve slavery but they let you do it anyway. Of course I don't blame Ubisoft because this is part of the restrictions of video games in general and they should get credit for at least doing this much in an industry which otherwise doesn't try at all. Partly because the open world gaming and freedom which is romanticized across all gaming sites is essentially about control and that's essentially a white guy fantasy and it takes a bit of effort to try and put actual minority experiences in the same context.

Yes and no. I find Freedom Cry super interesting on many levels because of all the cognitive dissonance it both employs and causes in the player. It is definitely a revenge fantasy, but it handles it in a way that makes the player feel uncomfortable. It's not a pure power fantasy because Adewale (and thus the player) can never truly win. The ever-respawning gameplay loops are designed in such a way that they player can never feel truly satisfied. White players get frustrated because the game doesn't allow them to be a savior who marches in and solves everyone's problems. They are stuck in Adewale's underprivileged position even at the end of the story. No matter how many slaves you rescue, there will always be more. The same guy you just saved is back at his master's house less than five minutes later. It makes you go "can't you people save yourselves? I'm ready to give up on you". Which creates an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance in the player. Do you keep endlessly helping people even though you know it's ultimately futile, or do you get frustrated at some point and simply leave them to their fate? If these were real human beings, what would that say about your morals? That you'll only help people as long as it's convenient for you? As long as you get something out of it?

I absolutely disagree that Freedom Cry is more cathartic than AC3 for that reason. When Connor's battle is over, America has won its freedom, the Redcoats have disappeared and you have a new family at the Homestead. The status quo has changed, even if it's not ideal. In Freedom Cry, you don't get even that much. The slavers never go away, plantations keep running, people are still constantly mistreated. According to the Initiates lore, Adewale did end up starting a family eventually, but the game itself ends with him walking away from Bastienne's affections. He starts the game alone, stranded in a hostile place, and by the end that hasn't changed.

I-Like-Pie45
09-05-2015, 08:58 PM
thats because adewale wasn't fighting with the power of jesus christ

if he had used prayer instead of violence he could've stopped slavery centuries earlier

EmptyCrustacean
09-05-2015, 09:19 PM
What an interesting thread premise:

"Hi guys, I'd like to know what 2+2 is, but I don't want to hear people saying it's 4 because I dont believe that"

He's boring. That's all there is to it (imo of course), no need for a 10 page dissertation.

The difference is 2+2 = 4 is a fact. Connor being boring is not fact, it's opinion. And I don't have a problem with people saying he's boring i just find it odd that a so-called boring person can inspire such hate. Boring people don't inspire hate, they inspire indifference. The things I have seen written about Connor go above and beyond hatred so he can't be boring.

dxsxhxcx
09-05-2015, 10:29 PM
The difference is 2+2 = 4 is a fact. Connor being boring is not fact, it's opinion. And I don't have a problem with people saying he's boring i just find it odd that a so-called boring person can inspire such hate. Boring people don't inspire hate, they inspire indifference. The things I have seen written about Connor go above and beyond hatred so he can't be boring.

a game was wasted on him, maybe that's the reason why some people hate him, maybe a little of the hate towards the setting might contribute to that as well, it may be hard for some to be rational and judge the character and the setting as two separate things..

TO_M
09-05-2015, 11:06 PM
I forgot to add that his fans are also probably a good reason for the "hate".

"Oh you don't like Connor? You must be an uneducated & unsophisticated brute who only likes simple things. You probably didn't understand the character or the story. Return to the cave from whence you came pleb"

(This a is a slight exaggeration though :p)

Shahkulu101
09-05-2015, 11:10 PM
What the hell are you all doing?

Stop arguing THIS INSTANT and look at the cute owl wearing a hat!

Jaysus.

VestigialLlama4
09-05-2015, 11:16 PM
It's not my fault as a player if the time period or plot circumstances somehow makes it impossible for the writers to show the character's personality in a way that actually makes him compelling.

I am trying to at least point out stuff about the setting that you may or might not appreciate. Ultimately if you dislike the game, you dislike the game, nothing anyone can do about it. But you know there are quite a few books or movies that I didn't like or appreciate first, so because of that, I tend to regard differences from the norm as refreshing and I tend to look at deeper issues of form.

I am just saying that you need to consider that the kind of personality variation you are looking for might not be realistic in a setting like that. Connor effectively doesn't have a personal life nor does he have time for one, so his personality does fit the story and setting he's in. In the Ezio games, you had the hero interact with a range of people from different backgrounds so you had the sense that Ezio had many traits because he could interact with Lorenzo de'Medici and Rosa the pickpocket. In Connor's game, you had the Patriots, you had the village in the Froniter, you had settlers (the Homestead) and that's pretty much it. Connor doesn't really have friends, he has allies and people he looks after, but he doesn't really have any equals. Its either father figures, village elders, or people he's leading (like the Assassin recruits and young Kanento;kon). So that makes him quite different from Altair who had Malik, Ezio who had Leonardo or Antonio or his brother Frederico (and later Machiavelli), Edward had Adewale and the Pirates who are all more or less the same age with Blackbeard being older. Arno likewise had Elise not that that helped him one bit.


It is definitely a revenge fantasy, but it handles it in a way that makes the player feel uncomfortable.

Again that's called "having your cake and eating it too". You can't be a revenge fantasy and then say vengeance is empty. All that tells people is "vengeance is empty but you can only really know that after you have taken vengeance...its an awesome feeling that only lasts for a second but that second is totally worth feeling bad about for the rest of your life."


It's not a pure power fantasy because Adewale (and thus the player) can never truly win. The ever-respawning gameplay loops are designed in such a way that they player can never feel truly satisfied.

That's not any different from most open world games. Open world games are essentially unsatisfying experiences because once you reach 100% you are still stuck in a sandbox and don't really get to see any of your actions shape the environment around you. AC3 actually makes you uncomfortable and challenges the usual AC quest. It attacks the idea that killing Templars will actually matter, the only things that Connor did that really mattered are the Homestead. You know in AC3, after Connor sees the British leave his eyes turn back and he sees a slave auction block in New York. The amazing thing is that when the game goes to normal you can actually see the same auction block and you can go and kill those NPC slavers but you get a synch warning then. That itself is quite disturbing, the fact that Connor didn't do that. Did he find another way to save them? (Historically New York did become a centre for abolition in the 1790s). Who knows?


I absolutely disagree that Freedom Cry is more cathartic than AC3 for that reason. When Connor's battle is over, America has won its freedom, the Redcoats have disappeared and you have a new family at the Homestead. The status quo has changed, even if it's not ideal. In Freedom Cry, you don't get even that much. The slavers never go away, plantations keep running, people are still constantly mistreated. According to the Initiates lore, Adewale did end up starting a family eventually, but the game itself ends with him walking away from Bastienne's affections. He starts the game alone, stranded in a hostile place, and by the end that hasn't changed.

Well at the start of Freedom Cry, Adewale was just an Assassin on a mission, proud of leaving behind his pirate past and doing some good. At the end of the game, he's become a Maroon revolutionary finding a higher cause to be part of than just the brotherhood (which Rogue, in its infinite lack of wisdom chose to neglect). So that's still more optimistic than Connor, who at the end of it is left alone, with doubts, regrets and uncertainty if anything he did mattered. Adewale doesn't have that, his cause is just and worthwhile, he has allies in Haiti and with Bastienne, he even finds love of some sort. He also freed many people from bondage whereas Connor feels that he's been a tool for powerful people to exploit others (not only the Patriots but Juno who has the decency to admit she lied to Connor). About the only catharsis that Connor gets is in TOKW where he learns that Washington for all his failings was a good man and the right choice to back over his father and Charles Lee, but even then the last shot of that game is Connor uncertain and unsure as ever.

EmptyCrustacean
09-05-2015, 11:46 PM
Urrgghh! I don't why people always create threads about this. :rolleyes:
1. After having a suave and charming character like Ezio, it was difficult for people to warm up to a serious and stoic character like him.

Translation: he's not Ezio. ok, cool. That's still not a legiimate reason as we can't have every character be the same. It kind of reminds me of how a kid treats their new step parent - it's not that they hate them, it's just that they're not their "real parent". It's juvenile.


2. His voice sounded monotone at times (especially during the Homestead missions).

But that's the actor's faut. That has nothing to do with the character himself.


3. He was Forrest Gump-ed into a lot of main missions and looked like the odd one out.

Do elaborate.


4. He seemed like an errand boy for most of the time.

Ok, fair enough but then does that really inspire such hatred?


5. I agree with Sushi, people just found him too boring.

See above.

EmptyCrustacean
09-05-2015, 11:51 PM
I don't think you have been search (http://forums.ubi.com/search.php?search_type=1&contenttype=vBForum_Post&forumchoice[]=201)ing very hard. I've done some of the work for you in my previous post. You're welcome.
You might want to look up the meaning of "appreciate" and "open-minded." I don't think they mean what you seem to think they mean, certainly not in light of your ____* reply to D.I.D.'S poetic but thoughtful post. I'm left pondering my original question.

*As soon as I think of a more apt word than "rude," I'll edit my post. In the meantime, I'll be watching an owl in a hat.

I think you'll find that D.I.D came at me in an aggressive and rude manner first: "Oh as always you blah blah blah". I responded in kind. You're focusing on my reaction simply because I don't agree with you. Also posting those links are pointless because you make the assumption that I haven't read them before. As my OP says - I've never seen a GOOD analysis breaking it down other than "he's boring".



Well I'm playing AC3 right now and I have some stuff to say. The voice acting is pretty bad, Naoh Watts delivers his lines with no emotion and sometimes it feels like he wasn't responding to the other VA, he was just told to say a line and he said it.


Again, that's the fault of the actor and not the character himself.


Another reason is the overall story of AC3, it's executed so badly with such awkward pacing that it's hard to like a character like that, we never got creative ways to learn about his character through cutscenes, we just got a long paragraph on what he did. I mean it would have been so much better to see him in his training days learning with achilles to see his personality, all we see of him in the main story is anger and his mind always on one thing which makes it hard for people to connect with him. Nothing with the story in this game was handled well, it was an amazing idea with terrible execution. I always find myself playing through it imagining ways it could have been better and I wish it was that way. There are other things that annoy me with the plot as well. For example Connor already know haytham was his father.... It would have been so interesting to see Connor and haytham react to the news, and it would have made for some heartbreaking and intense scenes. Another thing that has always bothered me is that Ziio dies too quick. I think it would have had way more impact if we saw Connor and Ziio grow up, because a child is always themselves when with their parents and we would have seen what Connor was really like. It also would have given Ziio more development to make it sadder when she died. There are many things that could have been done to make it better, sadly they weren't done...

Now we're getting somewhere - and it's not just because I agree with all of this. I too thought it was an odd choice to not show Connor discovering that Haytham is his father. I wouldn't be surprised if that was cut. But having said all of this was this really more poorly executed than the love story of Arno/Elise? Or Arno's entire motivation and how it never seem to transition to the actual conflict between Assassins and Templars?

bitebug2003
09-06-2015, 12:36 AM
If you (everyone in general) have NOTHING to contribute in relation to the thread topic, then please don't post.

Thanks.

HDinHB
09-06-2015, 12:58 AM
You're focusing on my reaction simply because I don't agree with you.

No, I pointed out your reaction was uncalled for. You have no idea if we agree or not.


Also posting those links are pointless because you make the assumption that I haven't read them before.

Those weren't solely for your benefit. I know you haven't read them.


As my OP says - I've never seen a GOOD analysis breaking it down other than "he's boring".

You mean you've never seen an analysis that you agreed with, and I don't think you ever will.


[Some] Connor fans will never accept that other people may not like that character, no argument or reasons will ever convince them of such.

Amen, brother.

Mr.Black24
09-06-2015, 01:56 AM
But character and story are inextricably linked. If you don't like the character, you're not going to care what happens to them. I never became emotionally invested in Connor, hence his whole story was boring to trudge through. You are exactly right on that. However what I meant was that somehow just because the level design sucks, or that we didn't see enough Haytham, or even the stealth was nearly non existent, people somehow found Connor to blame for all of that, and this grew a huge gathering. Somehow it made sense to many people, when it really never did.


I think one of the things that makes Connor boring (IMO) is that he doesn't have many flaws. Flawed characters are interesting. He's the most heroic character the series has had. He has a strong sense of justice and he always protects people, he avoids violence when he can (some gameplay contradictions aside), he's always soft-spoken and respectful even when he's angry. If I had to compare him to someone, I would compare him to Prince A$hitaka in Princess Mononoke, who I think is another boring character. There are no edges to him, he's justice and virtue personified. He feels like someone tried to think of every good quality a person can have and then poured it all into one mold. In other words, he doesn't feel real. The only real flaw Connor has is his naivete, which is comparable to Mary Sues whose only flaw is something cute but not really damaging to the audience's perception of them, like being slightly clumsy or having self-esteem issues. Connor's naivete doesn't make him feel more interesting, it's just another trait designed to make him seem sympathetic, like a lost puppy.

See, I not only like this but respect this. At least now I can see why someone has a real reason to why he is boring to that person. If we are to talk characters, I want more of this, and then have a civil debate on it.


Now I guess if anything, what would you guys would have want to see or expected from Connor?

EmbodyingSeven5
09-06-2015, 02:09 AM
Why are we still making Connor threads? Some people like him, and some find him uninteresting and boring. I loved characters like Aiden from watchdogs and Desmond. They were remembered as boring characters by the majority too, But, you don't see me getting pissy about it and constantly making "why do you idiots hate this character!" threads.

Just stop. Please.

Mr.Black24
09-06-2015, 02:23 AM
Why are we still making Connor threads? Some people like him, and some find him uninteresting and boring. I loved characters like Aiden from watchdogs and Desmond. They were remembered as boring characters by the majority too, But, you don't see me getting pissy about it and constantly making "why do you idiots hate this character!" threads.

Just stop. Please.

Its not "why you idiots hate this guy", at least not me. For me, I genuinely want to know why, as the most replies I had ever gotten was "He wasn't funny or charismatic like Ezio". After the Connor Wars of 2012-2014, people had finally simmered down, and I think now with the fog of war out, we can have an actual civil talk about this fella.




Yes and no. I find Freedom Cry super interesting on many levels because of all the cognitive dissonance it both employs and causes in the player. It is definitely a revenge fantasy, but it handles it in a way that makes the player feel uncomfortable. It's not a pure power fantasy because Adewale (and thus the player) can never truly win. The ever-respawning gameplay loops are designed in such a way that they player can never feel truly satisfied. White players get frustrated because the game doesn't allow them to be a savior who marches in and solves everyone's problems. They are stuck in Adewale's underprivileged position even at the end of the story. No matter how many slaves you rescue, there will always be more. The same guy you just saved is back at his master's house less than five minutes later. It makes you go "can't you people save yourselves? I'm ready to give up on you". Which creates an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance in the player. Do you keep endlessly helping people even though you know it's ultimately futile, or do you get frustrated at some point and simply leave them to their fate? If these were real human beings, what would that say about your morals? That you'll only help people as long as it's convenient for you? As long as you get something out of it?

I absolutely disagree that Freedom Cry is more cathartic than AC3 for that reason. When Connor's battle is over, America has won its freedom, the Redcoats have disappeared and you have a new family at the Homestead. The status quo has changed, even if it's not ideal. In Freedom Cry, you don't get even that much. The slavers never go away, plantations keep running, people are still constantly mistreated. According to the Initiates lore, Adewale did end up starting a family eventually, but the game itself ends with him walking away from Bastienne's affections. He starts the game alone, stranded in a hostile place, and by the end that hasn't changed.

This is something I would love to see in a Connor sequel. With all the events of slavery, forcible removal of the natives, and the growth of the Brotherhood, I would like to see how Connor, and to an extent Aveline, handle all of these problems. We seen how the former Colonial Brotherhood run before, how would Connor deal with everything now that he had grown wiser.

EmbodyingSeven5
09-06-2015, 02:30 AM
Its not "why you idiots hate this guy", at least not me. For me, I genuinely want to know why, as the most replies I had ever gotten was "He wasn't funny or charismatic like Ezio". After the Connor Wars of 2012-2014, people had finally simmered down, and I think now with the fog of war out, we can have an actual civil talk about this fella.

I found him rather boring too admittedly. He also had a rude and unlikable arrogance about him at least for me. I grew on him, but by the end I was still pretty "meh" on his character as a whole. I also hate him a little more because some of his fanbase can be rather rude. Hard to put into words though. I just......... didn't like him.

Mr.Black24
09-06-2015, 02:55 AM
I found him rather boring too admittedly. He also had a rude and unlikable arrogance about him at least for me. I grew on him, but by the end I was still pretty "meh" on his character as a whole. I also hate him a little more because some of his fanbase can be rather rude. Hard to put into words though. I just......... didn't like him.
Thats fine! The guy isn't your cup of tea. Thats all I wanted to know. Each to their own, and I respect that.

Plus don't let others ruin your fun, if you like a thing, then like the thing! I like Arno, despite all the hate on him, and that won't stop me from wanting to see a conclusion on him just as much as I want to see on for Connor, Shay and Aveline too.

D.I.D.
09-06-2015, 02:58 AM
Can you give examples? The scare quotes around "good" and "right" make me think you're not actually talking about goody-two-shoes characters but rather characters with questionable morals or a choice that will change them into less-than-perfect.

I guess we see this kind of thing on a fairly crude level with superheroes a lot. Because so many of them have superpowers, the villains have to find ways to manipulate their personal traits. However, I think games lean too much on comics, and they could go in a different direction. Click below for wall o' text!

Now you've done it.

One better example that springs to mind is Tom Stoppard's adaptation of Ford Maddox Ford's "Parade's End". I won't spoil the whole thing in case you ever see it, and I thoroughly recommend you do because it's a great piece of work. The same team is adapting China Miéville's "The City and the City" soon, which ought to be worth a look too. There's a dynamic I'll talk about next which comes up very early in the story, so I think it's safe to talk about that, and I'll be as vague as possible about the rest!

This production streamlines the story in some ways and changes the slant of many events and outcomes, without beating you over the head about what it all means. One of the main characters, Christopher Tietjens, is a young English man just coming into his role as the gentleman of his family's estate. He was born into privilege, he's very proper, and he sees it as his role to carry the weight of tradition on his shoulders. The story begins just before WWI, and it's hard to watch it and not see Tietjens as an embodiment of English society's image just as it rolls out of the Edwardian period. He has lots of conversations about the things he can see coming: he predicts WWI, but nobody around him will take it seriously; he's acutely aware of the loss of Britain's Empire, and why it has happened; he can see there's adaptation to come, but he can't see how to balance it with his responsibilities to his role.

If he is the male, wealthy face of England as it's been, then his wife Sylvia represents something of Britain's future. She loves modern culture, and seizes on the small ways that society has opened up for women of her status. She's hyper-aware of the sexual potential of this changing society, but it burns her to know how life could be but how many invisible ties are preventing her from having that life openly and honestly. She feels trapped in her marriage with Tietjens, in which she knows he has no passion - he cannot, will not love her, which might have been enough once. They married because it was what tradition and their families required. She's doubly trapped in that Tietjens is such a gentleman: no matter what she does, he would never divorce her. It's an early sign of the limitless weight that Tietjens is prepared to bear, believing that he's doing a difficult thing but the right thing. He will weather the slurs that his wife's dalliances bring to bear on them both. The child they are raising might not be his. He'll 'protect' her from the ignominy of a divorce. He thinks this is kind, good, right, but it's destroying his wife, destroying him, destroying either of their chances of happiness.

Sylvia's simmering anger boils over into fury. Tietjens becomes her enemy, as the main obstruction to her happiness, and she allows her rage to consume her in the hope that she can destroy him too. Meanwhile, a young suffragette has caught Tietjens's attention (see, I told you there'd be symbolism), and Tietjens finds himself attracted to her clear-eyed, hopeful belief. Here's the woman he can truly love, who he would love if not for his tradition. Very soon, all kinds of knots are tightening around Tiejens: romantic, political, martial, social, ecumenical. He cannot pull or release one without binding himself more tightly with another.

Although he could have avoided service, Tietjens is there immediately to fight in the thick of the war. Again, what he does is seemingly very brave. While there he hurls himself into danger, even after personal experience of the worst this war has to offer. Yet in a strange way, it's not brave; Tietjens is doing this because he prefers it to the battleground waiting for him at home.

That's as far as I'll go with this. There's a lot more I'd like to say about the twists in the story and the way your sympathies move around and extend to different characters, but I hope you get the point about the kind of person Tietjens is. He's genuinely a virtuous man, driven by justice, but the plot contrives to make him very destructive to everyone, not least himself. There are so many times when your psyche is screaming at Tietjens to respond in a different way, but what you're asking is for the old world to be the modern world, and there's a reason why the two are separate (and why one of them won). Tietjens would happily walk through the fires of Hell eternally rather than raise his voice in defence of himself, if he thought that protecting himself would hurt another person.

So yes, that. I hope you didn't click that. It was very boring.

strigoi1958
09-06-2015, 07:00 AM
I think a better thread would have been... "do you think it rational to dislike a fictional character in a video game ?";)

GunnerGalactico
09-06-2015, 07:34 AM
I forgot to add that his fans are also probably a good reason for the "hate".

"Oh you don't like Connor? You must be an uneducated & unsophisticated brute who only likes simple things. You probably didn't understand the character or the story. Return to the cave from whence you came pleb"

(This a is a slight exaggeration though :p)

Some of them actually do have a valid reason for saying that. The haters on YT and Escapist claim that Connor still killed Charles Lee out of revenge despite having found out that it was actually Washington that was responsible for burning down his village. They be like " Ooh, he still killed Charles Lee out of revenge because he was after him for a long and it was too late for him to change his decision". When in fact, he killed Charles Lee because he was a Templar and America would've been in an even worse state had he been left in charge instead of Washington.

EmptyCrustacean
09-06-2015, 09:04 AM
No, I pointed out your reaction was uncalled for. You have no idea if we agree or not.

I can take an educated guess mainly because you conveniently leave out that D.I.D was rude first which shows bias. If you're rude to people they will retaliate. That's life.



Those weren't solely for your benefit. I know you haven't read them.

ok lol. I don't even think it is worth arguing with such a deluded quote.



You mean you've never seen an analysis that you agreed with, and I don't think you ever will.

No, I've NEVER seen an analysis that actually gives legitimate reasons for the sheer HATRED this character gets. They all seem to be factors that are AROUND the character like voicing acting, a bad script, even the mission gameplay - all things which have NOTHING to do with the character himself. And then of course I have seen the racist comments made towards him too which tbh I think is the real underlying reason for the hate. I don't think some people like seeing a strong Native American man sticking it to the people that would destroy his home and that's the fact of the matter.

I think I've seen all I need to see. Mods, you can lock the thread now.

king-hailz
09-06-2015, 09:29 AM
I can take an educated guess mainly because you conveniently leave out that D.I.D was rude first which shows bias. If you're rude to people they will retaliate. That's life.




ok lol. I don't even think it is worth arguing with such a deluded quote.




No, I've NEVER seen an analysis that actually gives legitimate reasons for the sheer HATRED this character gets. They all seem to be factors that are AROUND the character like voicing acting, a bad script, even the mission gameplay - all things which have NOTHING to do with the character himself. And then of course I have seen the racist comments made towards him too which tbh I think is the real underlying reason for the hate. I don't think some people like seeing a strong Native American man sticking it to the people that would destroy his home and that's the fact of the matter.

I think I've seen all I need to see. Mods, you can lock the thread now.

I guess that's the answer. Most people hate Connor for reasons why the entire game is bad, the hate Connor gets is basically hate for AC3. And honestly if the story in the overall game was handled better he would have been liked more.

ze_topazio
09-06-2015, 01:18 PM
EmptyCrustacean, you're perfect example of what I was saying in my first post, to begin with you seem to believe that people's reasons need to convince you or something, that's not the point, nobody is here to change the mind of anyone, nothing people say will change your personal opinion of the character and nothing you say will change other people opinions of the character.

People give their reasons, you say: "I see" and move on, that's how this works, who the hell do you think you are to say: "That's not a good reason, I don't accept that reason, start worshiping this character now"?

D.I.D.
09-06-2015, 01:46 PM
I can take an educated guess mainly because you conveniently leave out that D.I.D was rude first which shows bias. If you're rude to people they will retaliate. That's life.

Ehhh. I could argue with you about this, but I don't want to, and thankfully your posting history means I don't have to.


And then of course I have seen the racist comments made towards him too which tbh I think is the real underlying reason for the hate. I don't think some people like seeing a strong Native American man sticking it to the people that would destroy his home and that's the fact of the matter.

I think I've seen all I need to see. Mods, you can lock the thread now.

I've never seen a single example of that. I have seen lots of people insinuate that's the reason, with no evidence. I've argued with those people before to suggest that an abstract form of racism is part of the issue, but not the one they think.

I don't think the creators of AC3 were flat-out racist, first of all. I do think they were out of their depth, culturally speaking, but nonetheless got into their design work before they even brought in qualified advisors. I'm not just grabbing this out of their air; the creative director himself admitted that they'd had to scrap a scalping mechanic after a cultural liaison officer was brought in. This is so important. I'm not even from North America, but even I'd hear the alarm bells if someone suggested scalping. These people didn't. They had scenes planned out with ceremonial masks, but it turned out that Mohawk culture doesn't feature this kind of thing.

As I say, I'm not calling them racist. I am saying that they were clumsy, and they were clumsy because they were so far outside of where they needed to be and the topic was so alien to them. The end result is a positive thing: a rare (as hens' teeth) example of a game with a Mohawk hero.

Unless someone is straight up saying, "I resent playing as a Mohawk character", your accusation of racism is misplaced. If someone says, "I cannot relate to this character" (after trying and playing the game), given what we know of the creators' struggles to hit their targets, there is more reason to assume that the problem is with the creators - that they did not flesh out this character because their own cultural barriers prevented them from doing so.

EmptyCrustacean
09-06-2015, 01:47 PM
EmptyCrustacean, you're perfect example of what I was saying in my first post, to begin with you seem to believe that people's reasons need to convince you or something, that's not the point, nobody is here to change the mind of anyone, nothing people say will change your personal opinion of the character and nothing you say will change other people opinions of the character.

People give their reasons, you say: "I see" and move on, that's how this works, who the hell do you think you are to say: "That's not a good reason, I don't accept that reason, start worshiping this character now"?

I'm not saying that people need to change my mind about the character - that's never going to happen. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why some hate this character so much. It's not that I don't accept the reasons, I just can't see how some of the reason listed could generate such vitriol of the character I have seen on these forums.

EmptyCrustacean
09-06-2015, 01:51 PM
Ehhh. I could argue with you about this, but I don't want to, and thankfully your posting history means I don't have to.

You've just proved my point. You came out all guns a-blazing due to your personal beef with me in the past which is irrelevant to the topic. If you don't enjoy my posts just put me on ignore.


I've never seen a single example of that.

Of course you haven't. :rolleyes:


I don't think the creators of AC3 were flat-out racist, first of all. I do think they were out of their depth, culturally speaking, but nonetheless got into their design work before they even brought in qualified advisors. I'm not just grabbing this out of their air; the creative director himself admitted that they'd had to scrap a scalping mechanic after a cultural liaison officer was brought in. This is so important. I'm not even from North America, but even I'd hear the alarm bells if someone suggested scalping. These people didn't. They had scenes planned out with ceremonial masks, but it turned out that Mohawk culture doesn't feature this kind of thing.

As I say, I'm not calling them racist. I am saying that they were clumsy, and they were clumsy because they were so far outside of where they needed to be and the topic was so alien to them. The end result is a positive thing: a rare (as hens' teeth) example of a game with a Mohawk hero.

Unless someone is straight up saying, "I resent playing as a Mohawk character", your accusation of racism is misplaced. If someone says, "I cannot relate to this character" (after trying and playing the game), given what we know of the creators' struggles to hit their targets, there is more reason to assume that the problem is with the creators - that they did not flesh out this character because their own cultural barriers prevented them from doing so.

Nobody has said the creators were racist towards Connor so I don't understand you bringing this up.

strigoi1958
09-06-2015, 01:56 PM
To me it is no more rational to "hate" or "love" any character in AC games than it is to love or hate 1 of the colour ghosts in Pacman over another. Although I'm sure there is probably a forum somewhere arguing the case for RED ghost Sigh....

D.I.D.
09-06-2015, 02:03 PM
Of course you haven't. :rolleyes:

And you can't show me one, so what now?




Nobody has said the creators were racist towards Connor so I don't understand you bringing this up.

Sigh.

You asserted that the real reason people "hate" Connor is that they're racist. I just pointed out to you a well-documented example of the creators' struggles and surprises at the cultural mistakes they were making. They actually sat around a table with their non-indigenous American team and thought scalping would be cool. FFS.

My consistent point throughout this thread is this:

The creators couldn't mentally place themselves inside a Mohawk character and, because they failed to do so, Connor ended up leaving lots of people in the audience cold. The writing standard throughout the whole game, for all characters, has a low ceiling, and it makes no sense to me to assert that this one character is somehow the exception to the AC3 rule but the critics are too blind to see it. I think you are ascribing depth and complexity to a character where it is absent (painting this blank canvas of a character with your imagination and your wishes, if you will).

EmptyCrustacean
09-06-2015, 02:39 PM
And you can't show me one, so what now?


I'll PM you one major one. I'm not going to post it here as it's sure to make the thread go off-topic and people will get defensive over it.


Sigh. You asserted that the real reason people "hate" Connor is that they're racist. I just pointed out to you a well-documented example of the creators' struggles and surprises at the cultural mistakes they were making. They actually sat around a table with their non-indigenous American team and thought scalping would be cool. FFS.

My consistent point throughout this thread is this:

The creators couldn't mentally place themselves inside a Mohawk character and, because they failed to do so, Connor ended up leaving lots of people in the audience cold. The writing standard throughout the whole game, for all characters, has a low ceiling, and it makes no sense to me to assert that this one character is somehow the exception to the AC3 rule but the critics are too blind to see it. I think you are ascribing depth and complexity to a character where it is absent (painting this blank canvas of a character with your imagination and your wishes, if you will).

Your comment somehow implies that Connor's character is bad because of the creator's failure to understand his Native American culture which doesn't really make any sense considering that the more rational criticisms I've seen lobbied at him in this thread at least don't address that at all. They talk about the bad VA, the bad script and bad missions - please tell me how the way the creator's handled his NA ancestory directly informs these factors and vice versa.

Mr.Black24
09-07-2015, 02:26 AM
They talk about the bad VA, the bad script and bad missions - please tell me how the way the creator's handled his NA ancestory directly informs these factors and vice versa.
Agreed. This is the only criticism I hear "about" Connor. Never about the guy itself, but only the game, and somehow make it Connor's fault that the level design is crappy or the stealth sucks. Never a legit reason why Connor is a poor protagonist.

If anything, how else would Connor function in that setting that is faithful to his roots?

SpiritOfNevaeh
09-07-2015, 03:23 AM
Another Connor debate thread?

Must... resist... posting... here :rolleyes:

Farlander1991
09-07-2015, 10:57 AM
Agreed. This is the only criticism I hear "about" Connor. Never about the guy itself, but only the game, and somehow make it Connor's fault that the level design is crappy or the stealth sucks. Never a legit reason why Connor is a poor protagonist.

If anything, how else would Connor function in that setting that is faithful to his roots?

You can't truly separate a character from the work they're in, and how they're presented, it's all interconnected. Paraphrasing Al Mualim (as I don't remember the exact quote): What you are and what you do are intricately connected.

For the record, I like Connor, however:
1. You can have the most amazingly written and deep character, but if the acting doesn't captivate you or make you believe that character, then it won't matter at all because the character is not presented in a good way.

2. Level design matters for presenting a good character. Not just level design, mechanics and optional objectives as well. In terms of that, Connor can (and should to achieve 100% completion) steal money from people (something he'd never do), and if we trust optional objectives, he killed people while trying to convince Stephane not to kill people, killed arbitrary targets that are no way near his goal, etc. There's good optional objectives as well (for example, Connor takes time to save hostages while army is retreating, it's something he'd do), but there is clear dissonance in what he does gameplay wise and what he does or says in the story, and it can't be explained by the Animus (i.e. just because we kill 1000 people means we actually did it, for example, is an explainable example) because that stuff is required for 100% synch, i.e. Connor did all that. This is why when for example Connor acts all like 'you didn't have to kill him' people get weirded out, because of all the killings he actually did when he didn't have to.

3. Main missions also matter and influence perception of the character. Like, if you compare Haytham's missions and Connor's, Haytham is the driving force in his ones - he's a pro-active character that from time to time is passive, Connor is a passive character that is sometimes pro-active, and as we talk about games where the main means of interaction, is, well, activity, that may be annoying and influences perception of said character. In Sequence 6 Connor is essentially an errand-boy for Sons of Liberties - he does mention it and his dissatisfaction with it, but it doesn't change the fact that until the part where he needs to kill Johnson, he's not really influencing what's happening around him, just rolls with it. In Sequence 7 Connor half of the sequence is a messenge who just does whatever the next random Patriot he meets for the first time tells him to do. In Sequence 8 Connor decides to be active once, and that activity makes him go into a freakin' prison, waiting to be rescued by the Assassins during his execution. Most of Sequence 9 Connor follows Haytham. Sequence 10 is similar as well - only this is the breaking point when because of his passivity everything goes to **** (and there's still that moment when we have to just sit and shoot cannons which is very passive gameplay), and only in Sequences 11 and 12 Connor takes the matter into his own hands and starts driving.

Regarding cannons, you might say, 'But Ezio shot cannons as well!", well, yeah, he also galloped on a horse across crumbling city, fought with soldiers on the wall, and even while wounded helped people go to safety, that's a very different losing battle to what Connor participated in. Ezio's active. Of course sometimes he gets told what to do even when he's a full-fledged Assassin, but the keyword here is 'sometimes'.

So, yeah. TL:DR, presentation, mechanics, plot and level design all matter in how you perceive a protagonist of a narrative-based game, and if you're unsatisfied with all those things, then you're in turn going to be unsatisfied with the protagonist as well - as he's pretty much the connecting force between all that in a game.

SixKeys
09-07-2015, 11:08 AM
Agreed. This is the only criticism I hear "about" Connor. Never about the guy itself, but only the game, and somehow make it Connor's fault that the level design is crappy or the stealth sucks. Never a legit reason why Connor is a poor protagonist.

If anything, how else would Connor function in that setting that is faithful to his roots?

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "His VA can't act, his missions are s***e, he can't do stealth to save his life and his lines are poorly written, but he's a great character really!"

D.I.D.
09-07-2015, 12:38 PM
I'll PM you one major one. I'm not going to post it here as it's sure to make the thread go off-topic and people will get defensive over it.



Your comment somehow implies that Connor's character is bad because of the creator's failure to understand his Native American culture which doesn't really make any sense considering that the more rational criticisms I've seen lobbied at him in this thread at least don't address that at all. They talk about the bad VA, the bad script and bad missions - please tell me how the way the creator's handled his NA ancestory directly informs these factors and vice versa.

If it's not suitable for the thread then I won't be reading it, let alone answering it. I only come here to chat about the games.

This conversation can't work if you have to re-bracket the entire argument so that it rests entirely on the latest point. I'd still rather talk about what's actually there and what's not there, and all those points about the script and the tone are still the core of this. I had plenty of other reasons before we got onto this issue, as did other people, which is why this point wasn't even needed. You decided to damn the lot of them with your muttering about racism, which then raises this other factor which I think is at the root of Connor's lack of focus.

Your position relies on the idea that the racists saw all the promotional videos and features, bought the game anyway, but at some point Connor just became too intensely Native American for them and their inner Hitlers rose up. The whole counter argument to this thread is concerned with the notion that Connor lacked substance, and I'm saying these cultural blunders are fundamental to why that's the case. Early on, they had such a strong idea of their Mohawk assassin but then had the rug pulled from under them when their cultural advisor struck some of their core ideas down. Their first Connor must have been a pretty hardcore and steely guy, if he'd be going around scalping his kills. Back to the drawing board then, and... I don't think they knew what to put in his place. I can't see what they put in his place. Connor is almost not a character at all. He's like a talking Gordon Freeman - a nebulous figure with just an outline, and you fill in the rest.

For some reason, in AC3, character design did not begin with research specifically about the Mohawks, and it should. The character should had sprung from there. The Connor we got was a hasty remodelling, not the Connor who the team was originally excited to bring you.

Farlander1991
09-07-2015, 12:50 PM
For some reason, in AC3, character design did not begin with research specifically about the Mohawks, and it should. The character should had sprung from there. The Connor we got was a hasty remodelling, not the Connor who the team was originally excited to bring you.

I'm not sure that's particularly true about the hasty remodelling. The scalping incident happened during pre-production and research phase somewhere in 2010, I doubt it even existed as a designed game mechanic back then. There still would be 2 years to create a character, which is enough, and besides, characters are rarely ever the same as they're originally envisioned.

SixKeys
09-07-2015, 01:32 PM
I'm not sure that's particularly true about the hasty remodelling. The scalping incident happened during pre-production and research phase somewhere in 2010, I doubt it even existed as a designed game mechanic back then. There still would be 2 years to create a character, which is enough, and besides, characters are rarely ever the same as they're originally envisioned.

Scalping was still a feature shown in the target video, so it was there for quite a while. They had also planned to add native masks as collectibles but only later learned that their native consultants considered it sacrilege. I think D.I.D. is right, they already had a character in mind before doing proper research, then realized halfway that the character was based on offensive stereotypes and replaced him with a far gentler, mellower character. Having a gentle character in general isn't bad, but Connor feels unfinished. There are too many inconsistencies between who he supposedly is (doesn't steal, avoids killing etc.) and what he does in the gameplay. It feels like some missions may have been designed early on to fit the ruthless warrior they firat envisioned, so they clash with who Connor actually ended up being.

Farlander1991
09-07-2015, 01:39 PM
Scalping was still a feature shown in the target video

Target video is also done as early steps of pre-production, it's a thing they try to do the earliest according to GDC talks. All that is during period when no character or proper storyline is even formed yet, just concepts and ideas, so I'm not sure that would be part of the problem.

D.I.D.
09-07-2015, 01:46 PM
I'll concede "hasty", but I'm keeping "nebulous" and "Freeman" :)

Speaking of characters who are essentially puppy eyes and a broad chest, the racism charge is as odd as it would be in the case of the recent Wolfenstein. It doesn't especially matter that, despite quite a lot of dialogue, Blaskowicz is a muscular shell who carries you from point to point through the story because the game is so satisfying.

A: "I didn't really warm to Blaskowicz, though"
B: "Yeah, because you're anti-semitic"
A: "What? Against my... beef car?"

Shahkulu101
09-07-2015, 02:16 PM
I really like your posts, D.I.D, but your insinuation that Connor fans just invent characteristics is a load of bollocks.

People love him because he's strong-willed despite facing hardship, he's kind, gentle and humble, He views the world the way it should: a place where everyone is equal and his homestead is an example of that. There are others, and they are all demonstrable things throughout the game.

I believe SpiritOfNevaeh wrote a very detailed and well written tumblr post, which frames the type of character Connor is very well - I recommend you read it, it was praised by Alex Hutchinson himself if I'm thinking straight.

VestigialLlama4
09-07-2015, 05:00 PM
Scalping was still a feature shown in the target video, so it was there for quite a while. They had also planned to add native masks as collectibles but only later learned that their native consultants considered it sacrilege. I think D.I.D. is right, they already had a character in mind before doing proper research, then realized halfway that the character was based on offensive stereotypes and replaced him with a far gentler, mellower character. Having a gentle character in general isn't bad, but Connor feels unfinished. There are too many inconsistencies between who he supposedly is (doesn't steal, avoids killing etc.) and what he does in the gameplay. It feels like some missions may have been designed early on to fit the ruthless warrior they firat envisioned, so they clash with who Connor actually ended up being.

The fact is we can't really know what was in the game or planned until we get access to scripts, renders and other production material for these games. The only way that would work is if some enterprising writer decides to write a book on the making of these games and gets access to archives and papers. Speaking for myself, I think Ubisoft should be commended for doing their research rather than following on their initial idea because it would have been a very bad game and made Ubisoft as popular as the Washington Redskins.

From what I have read and based on what I have played, Haytham was a later addition to AC3. He was made much more prominent in the final version and the whole prologue wasn't planned from the start at all. Originally Connor wasn't supposed to have a European father and its kind of obvious that they added the whole oedipal dynamic with him and Haytham as a way to write Connor into something more familiar to them and their percieved audience, you know Connor's division between two cultures, his dynamic with his father and the like, which is one reason why Connor is fairly likable and relatable to a lot of people.

Considering that Ubisoft started with the gameplay decision of Connor/North America/Natural Gameplay first, the narrative options to fit that in must have taken some time and consideration. Within the game, Haytham is far and away the most linear section of the entire game. His tutorials are useless in the extreme in that regard, its interactive cutscenes all throughout, and the section where Haytham and Connor interact are the most linear sections of the entire game. So for me this strikes of being a later addition. So all things considered rationally, the real flaws of AC3 is Haytham.

SixKeys
09-07-2015, 10:51 PM
Oh yes, it's definitely good they came to their senses and actually listened to their native consultants. I'm not saying going with the original, more stereotypical approach would have been better, but it seems obvious in retrospect that they didn't really know what to do with Connor. Is he a ruthless warrior or a gentle giant? The narrative suggests the latter, the gameplay the former. Like D.I.D. said, the gameplay systems should be designed around the character, not the other way around. This happens too often in game development. Darby McDevitt has said on several occasions that the way game design tends to work in AC is that they start with a bunch of mechanics and mission types and then write a character to fit around those mechanics. If the mechanics are broken or repetitive (in a yearly cycle that's inevitable), then the character will suffer for it.



Considering that Ubisoft started with the gameplay decision of Connor/North America/Natural Gameplay first, the narrative options to fit that in must have taken some time and consideration. Within the game, Haytham is far and away the most linear section of the entire game. His tutorials are useless in the extreme in that regard, its interactive cutscenes all throughout, and the section where Haytham and Connor interact are the most linear sections of the entire game. So for me this strikes of being a later addition. So all things considered rationally, the real flaws of AC3 is Haytham.

Good points, though I wouldn't say he's the sole or biggest flaw in the game. There are much bigger problems in both the narrative and gameplay that don't have anything to do with Haytham.

Farlander1991
09-07-2015, 11:17 PM
Haytham was actually present in the target footage video... or well, proto-Haytham, heh. So the character existed in one form or another quite early in pre-production.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140222153148/assassinscreed/images/e/ee/Haytham_Kenway_-_Concept_Art.jpg

SixKeys
09-07-2015, 11:47 PM
Haytham was actually present in the target footage video... or well, proto-Haytham, heh. So the character existed in one form or another quite early in pre-production.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140222153148/assassinscreed/images/e/ee/Haytham_Kenway_-_Concept_Art.jpg


But the character could have been anyone at that point. The target demo never makes references to him and Connor being related, he could have just been a generic mission-giver that would appear in the game from time to time.

VestigialLlama4
09-08-2015, 05:21 AM
Oh yes, it's definitely good they came to their senses and actually listened to their native consultants. I'm not saying going with the original, more stereotypical approach would have been better, but it seems obvious in retrospect that they didn't really know what to do with Connor. Is he a ruthless warrior or a gentle giant? The narrative suggests the latter, the gameplay the former.

Well that is a broader problem with gaming as a whole: Is Nathan Drake an affable regular self-taught historian or a psychopathic war criminal? Is Arkham Batman a superhero or a psychopathic vigilante who beats up the poor? There is always that dichotomy between story and gameplay and its true across all games, or at least all games that try and tell a story. In any case the idea that the only personality who can be a warrior is a crazed anti-hero cliche is not true to life.


Like D.I.D. said, the gameplay systems should be designed around the character, not the other way around. This happens too often in game development. Darby McDevitt has said on several occasions that the way game design tends to work in AC is that they start with a bunch of mechanics and mission types and then write a character to fit around those mechanics. If the mechanics are broken or repetitive (in a yearly cycle that's inevitable), then the character will suffer for it.

Well the main idea is what kind of gameplay they want to do. AC3 was obviously intended to be totally different from the Ezio games. There's no monuments in Colonial America, none of that architectural stuff, its a big change of registers. To do natural Assassin's Creed and from there they decided to have a Native American hero because obviously there were a bunch of reasons why a Native American would be an Assassin. I don't know when they decided to set the game during the American Revolution since obviously they were pretty interested in the French and Indian War. I assume that would resonate with them since Ubisoft is Canadian and that war is taught more deeply there than in America (since it was obviously a foundational event there).


Good points, though I wouldn't say he's the sole or biggest flaw in the game. There are much bigger problems in both the narrative and gameplay that don't have anything to do with Haytham.

Well if most people's complaints are linear mission, QTE and long cutscenes then the fact of the matter is that the Haytham sections are the most linear of the game. The most open sections are Connor's first three sections (before he arrives in New York). People who like Haytham and slam the gameplay are essentially hypocrites.


But the character could have been anyone at that point. The target demo never makes references to him and Connor being related, he could have just been a generic mission-giver that would appear in the game from time to time.

Yeah, and take a look at this picture:
http://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-3-story-theory-charles-lee/assassins-creed-3-charles-lee-young-connor/

That's Charles Lee...historically accurate Charles Lee (he was an older man rather than the ageless black-haired barfly we see in the game when Adult Connor arrives). Notice how if you squint his side profile looks a bit like older Haytham. Haytham and Lee are essentially the same character split into two.

VestigialLlama4
09-08-2015, 05:28 AM
Haytham was actually present in the target footage video... or well, proto-Haytham, heh. So the character existed in one form or another quite early in pre-production.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140222153148/assassinscreed/images/e/ee/Haytham_Kenway_-_Concept_Art.jpg

Well his left bracer does have the Assassin Logo on it. Anyway, as I said, until someone gets access to Ubisoft's archives we can't really know for sure. Games generally are not as self-scrutinizing as movies with their DVD commentaries, feature interviews and extensive production material open to researchers.

Mr.Black24
09-08-2015, 05:45 AM
Oh yes, it's definitely good they came to their senses and actually listened to their native consultants. I'm not saying going with the original, more stereotypical approach would have been better, but it seems obvious in retrospect that they didn't really know what to do with Connor. Is he a ruthless warrior or a gentle giant? The narrative suggests the latter, the gameplay the former.

He is both. How is that hard to miss? He is a kind person around his friends, as they are the only people whom he can actually relax around. When its Assassin time, he is all business, and has no time to play games, he has a war to win.



You can't truly separate a character from the work they're in, and how they're presented, it's all interconnected. Paraphrasing Al Mualim (as I don't remember the exact quote): What you are and what you do are intricately connected.

For the record, I like Connor, however:
1. You can have the most amazingly written and deep character, but if the acting doesn't captivate you or make you believe that character, then it won't matter at all because the character is not presented in a good way.

This is true, however when it comes to Connor, it is a hit or miss moment for many. Like for me, it was an instant click. Why? He pretty much exemplifies the struggle of various oppressed groups, which is the obvious one is the native struggles against the oncoming invasion of the European people. Being of Mayan decent, I can totally not only believe in such a character, but also fully understand his fight, as this fight reflects my ancestors' struggle against the Spanish people. To me, not only he is a good hearted character, but one who wishes to protect his home, his family, and culture, which soon evolves to seek peace in all things. He became a symbol of truth, justice, and all around good, something that I take as someone to look upon as an one example to be a good being. Hence why I get upset when the only thing I get from people is just "boring" without any substance on why. It more of complaints than actual criticism. Its worse when it just becomes petty insults. Maybe as the video said, perhaps he was just too foreign to understand for many, or perhaps something really is missing, who knows? IF anything, what do people expect from Connor, or wish what he could have been without deriving so much of what he is really about?


2. Level design matters for presenting a good character. Not just level design, mechanics and optional objectives as well. In terms of that, Connor can (and should to achieve 100% completion) steal money from people (something he'd never do), and if we trust optional objectives, he killed people while trying to convince Stephane not to kill people, killed arbitrary targets that are no way near his goal, etc. There's good optional objectives as well (for example, Connor takes time to save hostages while army is retreating, it's something he'd do), but there is clear dissonance in what he does gameplay wise and what he does or says in the story, and it can't be explained by the Animus (i.e. just because we kill 1000 people means we actually did it, for example, is an explainable example) because that stuff is required for 100% synch, i.e. Connor did all that. This is why when for example Connor acts all like 'you didn't have to kill him' people get weirded out, because of all the killings he actually did when he didn't have to. I've always kept level design as its own entity from the character, as its just the world that the character is roaming around. However, you do have fair points, and its something I myself have never thought of as much.

Although that level when Connor was just in his training years, tearing down posters and learning about the notoriety levels, that really could have been handled better. I mean these sequences were meant for stealth, as it plainly shows, but the mechanics weren't there for it, and the design of it was just very, very poor. That right there took me away for a while.


3. Main missions also matter and influence perception of the character. Like, if you compare Haytham's missions and Connor's, Haytham is the driving force in his ones - he's a pro-active character that from time to time is passive, Connor is a passive character that is sometimes pro-active, and as we talk about games where the main means of interaction, is, well, activity, that may be annoying and influences perception of said character. In Sequence 6 Connor is essentially an errand-boy for Sons of Liberties - he does mention it and his dissatisfaction with it, but it doesn't change the fact that until the part where he needs to kill Johnson, he's not really influencing what's happening around him, just rolls with it. In Sequence 7 Connor half of the sequence is a messenge who just does whatever the next random Patriot he meets for the first time tells him to do. In Sequence 8 Connor decides to be active once, and that activity makes him go into a freakin' prison, waiting to be rescued by the Assassins during his execution. Most of Sequence 9 Connor follows Haytham. Sequence 10 is similar as well - only this is the breaking point when because of his passivity everything goes to **** (and there's still that moment when we have to just sit and shoot cannons which is very passive gameplay), and only in Sequences 11 and 12 Connor takes the matter into his own hands and starts driving.

Regarding cannons, you might say, 'But Ezio shot cannons as well!", well, yeah, he also galloped on a horse across crumbling city, fought with soldiers on the wall, and even while wounded helped people go to safety, that's a very different losing battle to what Connor participated in. Ezio's active. Of course sometimes he gets told what to do even when he's a full-fledged Assassin, but the keyword here is 'sometimes'.

To be fair, Brotherhood has some character growth for Ezio, as in ACII he was being an errand boy himself. Seeing how we are cut off from a newly developed Connor at the end of ACIII, its unfair to compare two characters, when one is more established than the other. One thing for sure, we know that he is taking charge in the Brotherhood, as he even asked Aveline to help him recruit Assassins, as shown in the Aveline DLC of Black Flag.


So, yeah. TL:DR, presentation, mechanics, plot and level design all matter in how you perceive a protagonist of a narrative-based game, and if you're unsatisfied with all those things, then you're in turn going to be unsatisfied with the protagonist as well - as he's pretty much the connecting force between all that in a game.

Overall, this is kind of criticism that I want to hear! Something that is informative and gets me to think more. cookies for you!

Farlander1991
09-08-2015, 07:49 AM
But the character could have been anyone at that point. The target demo never makes references to him and Connor being related, he could have just been a generic mission-giver that would appear in the game from time to time.

While this is true, the point that I stand earlier still stands - characters at the beginning of development are pretty much never who they are at the end, this would include the a lot more beloved characters of Altair, Ezio and Edward as well.


I've always kept level design as its own entity from the character, as its just the world that the character is roaming around.

So if Connor in the narrative would've been the same like he is now, but levels would be about murderous sprees, disregard for innocents, and low-life criminal GTA kind of stuff that would've still be fine and Connor would still be a great character? :rolleyes:


To be fair, Brotherhood has some character growth for Ezio, as in ACII he was being an errand boy himself. Seeing how we are cut off from a newly developed Connor at the end of ACIII, its unfair to compare two characters, when one is more established than the other.

Ok, fair enough, let's compare ACIII Connor to ACII Ezio. Ezio does begin the game as sort of an errand boy and a person in training, he has his goals of revenge but doesn't know how to do them, and then he doesn't really know what to do with his life. This really lasts only for the first 3 sequences though. In sequence 4 Ezio's more of a mix, as he hunts down his first real target. And then in sequence 5 Ezio is a truly active character. He hunts down all the Pazzi Conspiracy targets because that's what he intends to do, he goes to Venice because he learned that there's Templars there, so he's like, I've got to go there now and stop them there. He comes up with the plan for the Flying Machine, and... basically, Ezio's pretty active in AC2. Sure, he asks for help, which is normal, and sometimes he gets told what to do, which is also normal. AC2 Ezio becomes an active character much faster than AC3 Connor, the transition begins after the end of tutorial sequences and then is fairly quick.

And while we're at it, I've already said that Haytham is an active character, and just like Connor, he wasn't established beforehand at all.

VestigialLlama4
09-08-2015, 08:45 AM
Ok, fair enough, let's compare ACIII Connor to ACII Ezio. Ezio does begin the game as sort of an errand boy and a person in training, he has his goals of revenge but doesn't know how to do them, and then he doesn't really know what to do with his life. This really lasts only for the first 3 sequences though. In sequence 4 Ezio's more of a mix, as he hunts down his first real target. And then in sequence 5 Ezio is a truly active character. He hunts down all the Pazzi Conspiracy targets because that's what he intends to do, he goes to Venice because he learned that there's Templars there, so he's like, I've got to go there now and stop them there. He comes up with the plan for the Flying Machine, and... basically, Ezio's pretty active in AC2. Sure, he asks for help, which is normal, and sometimes he gets told what to do, which is also normal. AC2 Ezio becomes an active character much faster than AC3 Connor, the transition begins after the end of tutorial sequences and then is fairly quick.

And while we're at it, I've already said that Haytham is an active character, and just like Connor, he wasn't established beforehand at all.

I don't quite agree with Ezio being more "active" mostly because the defintion of being "active" ignores real differences. The situation Connor has in AC3 is not really the same as Ezio. For Connor the Brotherhood is essentially him and Achilles, and both of them are dead to the world whereas Ezio had allies and network wherever he went backing him secretly, he has Lorenzo de'Medici on Speed Dial...er Carrier Pigeon. Its not really as dire for him as the Assassins were in AC3. Even in Brotherhood, Ezio didn't have it as bad, he still had Machiavelli and others waiting by the side for new leadership to come and unite them, and he had Fabio Orsini pay the mortgage for HQ in Rome. He had a decent base to expand from. So I don't see how Ezio can be more active when plainly speaking he had a easier time of it.

Connor spends a lot of time in AC3 simply trying to get his voice heard and build some kind of network. So that comes from doing errands for people since he is his own best employee, best resource and asset. A side effect of this is that it leads to him getting used by people, whether its the Patriots, Washington, Haytham, even Achilles, and of course Juno. He still manages to rebuild the Homestead and get the Brotherhood going so I don't think its entirely passive, since its just a different set of circumstances. Because you know AC3 was genuinely an underdog story which AC1 and AC2 weren't.

And yes Haytham does feel more active than Connor, after all he has a ready made set of allies and recruits waiting to kiss his a-- the minute he arrives in Boston. The first time Connor arrives in Boston, he has to escape the city after being framed by Templars by hiding from Jagers (one of my favorite missions in AC3). I don't know for me AC3's side activities gives a real sense that Connor earned his trust and respect entirely by his own actions rather than simply be given preferential treatment because of who his father or patron was. So I don't feel its really passive, its just a story of a guy in a situation where he isn't in full control and to be honest that was refreshing and necessary because the Assassins did decline over a period of time and that meant they can't really have as emphatic a victory as Ezio did against Borgia, so you had to have characters who believably failed or wasn't entirely in control. In that respects AC3 was a true follow-up to the earlier games.

Farlander1991
09-08-2015, 09:41 AM
I don't quite agree with Ezio being more "active" mostly because the defintion of being "active" ignores real differences. The situation Connor has in AC3 is not really the same as Ezio.

This doesn't matter. You're looking at this only purely from a narrative stand-point, which to me is not correct as we're talking about games where the total experience matter. Narrative, gameplay, systems, etc., everything has to work together, and everything influences the perception of the character.

The feeling of agency is a very important aspect. Now, this doesn't mean that the player has to be in charge of everything or that the player can't take a role of a repressed, helpless, or a character who can't influence the events globally - he can and there's games that do that well. AC3 tampers with player agency. There's an example of such tampering in AC2 as well, the Carnevale sequence - which is so non-sensical and far-fetched just so it could have a plot, and removes the feeling of agency from the player. AC3 does this on a global basis. Not just in the narrative terms of being a repressed minority that is forced to follow somebody to gain allies, but in terms of plot structure of being randomly thrown into big historical events, in terms of the character doing something just to contrive a reason for a plot sequence, and the general handholding in level design.

I mean, the very basic things, like 'go from point A to point B' are enforced on the player - in Charelston you're forced to follow a horse-rider even though it would be enough to just place a goal marker, in some missions you can get desynchronized if you decide to get down from horse, you get desynchronized if you're noticed on a ship that you're going to explode, and so on and so on. You might say, 'well that's level design, that doesn't have anything to do with character', but it does, as the character is the connecting force between everything, and you're removing player agency from basic gameplay elements, which can be irritating enough, you then add the character not having agency in the plotline until much-much later (as well as agency that exists to contrive complications, seriously Sequence 8 of AC3 is as contrived as the Carnevale sequence of AC2, if not more so), and you get one very passive character both gameplay-wise and narrative-wise, which can lead to the dislike of said character.

Connor is handled like he's a character of a movie or a novel, not like he's a character of a game. And the truth is, he can be handled like he's a character of a game with the same narrative struggles that he faces, but AC3 doesn't do that.

VestigialLlama4
09-08-2015, 03:43 PM
You're looking at this only purely from a narrative stand-point, which to me is not correct as we're talking about games where the total experience matter. Narrative, gameplay, systems, etc., everything has to work together, and everything influences the perception of the character.

I agree that the game has a lot of scripted sequences but that being said, I don't see how you can say that Haytham is an active character by the same token. His missions are far and away the most scripted and handheld. If you say that the games give a feeling that he has agency and he's active then that feeling can only come from the narrative and not the gameplay.


You might say, 'well that's level design, that doesn't have anything to do with character', but it does, as the character is the connecting force between everything, and you're removing player agency from basic gameplay elements, which can be irritating enough, you then add the character not having agency in the plotline until much-much later (as well as agency that exists to contrive complications, seriously Sequence 8 of AC3 is as contrived as the Carnevale sequence of AC2, if not more so), and you get one very passive character both gameplay-wise and narrative-wise, which can lead to the dislike of said character.

AC3 is definitely a very frustrating game though not for reasons that are usually said. he conclusion of AC3 is riddled with confusing plotholes introduced and dropped, and they didn't really know how to resolve the story. So it is a mess but an interesting one definitely.


Connor is handled like he's a character of a movie or a novel, not like he's a character of a game. And the truth is, he can be handled like he's a character of a game with the same narrative struggles that he faces, but AC3 doesn't do that.

That's a fair point but I see that as more general for any game that decides to bring in a new kind of story and perspective and I feel that AC3 should definitely get credit for merely tackling the problems even if they didn't come up with decent solutions.

ajl992015
09-08-2015, 09:32 PM
If people dislike connor thats fine but don't say its because he is a bad character, just say his type of character doesn't resonate with you and you enjoy playing as more charismatic lead characters. connor in ac3 had more character development than ezio in ac2 in my opinion and his journey was way more interesting for me to follow, you need to invest in the side missions of ac3 to really get further into his character such as the homestead missions which were amazing. ezio did not have any activities in ac2 that added to this character.

VoXngola
09-08-2015, 09:47 PM
I can't believe we are at page 10 right now. People need to move on with Connor already, it's been 3 years.

Farlander1991
09-08-2015, 10:04 PM
I agree that the game has a lot of scripted sequences but that being said, I don't see how you can say that Haytham is an active character by the same token. His missions are far and away the most scripted and handheld. If you say that the games give a feeling that he has agency and he's active then that feeling can only come from the narrative and not the gameplay.

As I said, it's how it works in tandem, not on its own, and Haytham's sections work better (although I presume the Journey to the New World mission is boring as hell on replays, even though it's really atmospheric on the first try). That said, several points:
a) Haytham's sequences can't be the most scripted and handheld, at least because it's Connor's Sequence 8 that takes the honor of this title :p There's literally no breathing room in that one at all.
b) While Haytham section missions have some restrictions like desynch on detection for example, they're not as handholdy as you think - the Silas fort mission (with the exception of the part when we're on a carriage), the sabotage mission, the finding Church mission, Johnson's errand (with the exception of gun tutorial part), they're all fairly freeform, and that's like half of Haytham's missions already.
c) Context matters. Haytham's part is introductory and tutorialy, and while I don't agree with the principle of strict tutorials (i.e. like the aforementioned gun tutorial where you can't do anything except using a gun, for example), in perception of the player in such beginning parts some linearity and handholding is more forgiving (as an example, there's very few free-form missions in AC2's first three sequences, but it's fine and players react fine cause it's introductions)


That's a fair point but I see that as more general for any game that decides to bring in a new kind of story and perspective and I feel that AC3 should definitely get credit for merely tackling the problems even if they didn't come up with decent solutions.

Listen, I like Connor and I applaud the ambition that AC3 had (without which we wouldn't have had a game like AC4), I'm just listing things that may cause an overall negative perception of the main protagonist. Speaking of AC4, and other games, it's ironic how each new AC game on a new engine is incredibly ambitious (AC1, AC3, ACU, and I know you don't consider ACU ambitious, but trust me, it was, and I'm saying this not just out of speculation based on what we have, though to me based on what we have is enough to see the ambition) but ultimately doesn't live up to its full potential, while next installments tend to make something cohesive out of that (AC2, AC4) which brings hope for ACS.

SixKeys
09-08-2015, 11:52 PM
Well that is a broader problem with gaming as a whole: Is Nathan Drake an affable regular self-taught historian or a psychopathic war criminal? Is Arkham Batman a superhero or a psychopathic vigilante who beats up the poor? There is always that dichotomy between story and gameplay and its true across all games, or at least all games that try and tell a story. In any case the idea that the only personality who can be a warrior is a crazed anti-hero cliche is not true to life.


Nathan Drake IS an anti-hero though. So is Batman. We know these are characters who fight dirty and don't have purely selfless motives. There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in their respective games because we want to see them win even if they do it brutally. The difference is that Connor is supposed to be a hero, not an anti-hero. His motives are unselfish and he says he wants to avoid bloodshed if possible. The problem is that the gameplay ptesents us with a different character, which makes him seem like a hypocrite. He berates Haytham for killing an innocent man after killing innocent people in the Stephane mission (just one example out of many). If he was meant to be an anti-hero like Altair and Ezio were, that contradiction wouldn't be so troubling, but it becomes problematic when the narrative is trying to sell us the idea that Connor is a peace-loving idealist who cares about the value of human life.


He is both. How is that hard to miss? He is a kind person around his friends, as they are the only people whom he can actually relax around. When its Assassin time, he is all business, and has no time to play games, he has a war to win.

That's not the issue, the issue is that the conflict between script and gameplay mskes him out to be a dishonest hypocrite. He's not just "all about business" when he's out, he is literally murdering innocents and stealing from them. The narrative tries to convince us that he's honest and peace-loving, but the full synch requirements in certain missions prove that this is not true. Achieving full synch means the ancestor performed the mission exactly like that. If the full synch requires you to air-assassinate someone, then that's how the ancestor did it in canon.

There are several missions in the game where the full synch requires that Connor kill someone for no good reason, someone who wasn't a threat to him at all. You have to go out of your way to kill this person when Connor could have easily used a non-violent method. So why does he get so mad at Haytham when he kills an innocent soldier in a cut scene? He's been doing that himself! That makes him a hypocrite.

Similarly, Connor is supposed to look out for the common folk and protect them from abuse. And yet, joining the Thieves' Club is required for full synch so we know he did join them. And how does one join the club? By stealing a lot of money from pedestrians. If Connor is supposed to be honest and kind, why would he do that? It's not like he desperately needs money, he gets plenty from honest trade at the Homestead.

So the problem isn't that he can be both gentle and efficient, it's that we are told he is honest and fair while some of his missions prove that he clearly is not.

Farlander1991
09-09-2015, 12:15 AM
There are several missions in the game where the full synch requires that Connor kill someone for no good reason, someone who wasn't a threat to him at all. You have to go out of your way to kill this person when Connor could have easily used a non-violent method. So why does he get so mad at Haytham when he kills an innocent soldier in a cut scene? He's been doing that himself! That makes him a hypocrite.

I would like to add that, more than that, if the players want to achieve 100% in main campaign (which quite a number of players do, as psychologically you kinda want to do that), it's their input that's required, so it gets ingrained into the mind, 'okay, I NEED to kill these people, I NEED to use human shield instead of knocking them out, etc.', and it becomes part of the character because they're completing in-game goals.

There are perfect ways to show Connor's character better through full synch objectives, it is not utilized, full synch are just challenges that don't have anything to do with the character but yet they still paint the character in a certain way, because, well, that's how storytelling in games works. Mechanics also paint a character in a certain way. Stealing mechanic for Connor should've been kept to Altair levels of stealing max - i.e. Connor steals only for the greater cause with a particular goal (for example, one of the Liberation mission is about stealing some plans or intel or something like that). Just like in movies narrative is not limited to just the actions, it also happens through visual storytelling, musical storytelling, etc., so in games we add to that mechanical and systemic storytelling.

Anybody interested in a sort of distillation how it works, I recommend checking out Thomas Was Alone (narrated by the guy who voiced Shaun Hastings, btw). In essence, it's a game about blocks, a simple platformer, but each block has a certain character and character arc. Like, Chris has some insecurity issues, he's grumbling and not pleasant at first, and the way his jump works is that it's got a very small arc and a particular sound to it. Then there's John, who's full of himself and likes to show-off, he's tall and has a very high jump. Then there's, I don't remember the name of the top of my head, but there's a block that's... different, and wasn't really accepted by some. Gravity works inverted on that block - ceiling is the floor and he jumps 'down'. Etc.

Their characters are shown through narration and mechanic (and, mind you, narration is not the 'lead' part, if you had mechanics alone that would still tell a lot about their characters, narration is used to add additional layers to that - they work together), and how they're evolving as characters and befriend each other is shown through narration and level design. Thomas Was Alone is amazing in that regard, it makes better characters than most AAA games (and non-AAA games too to be fair), and it's a game about jumping blocks. So if Thomas Was Alone can do things like that, then an AAA title like AC can do things like that to combine everything in a cohesive way. And, well, it does, with a game like AC4 for example, which for the most part is very cohesive in terms of connection between narrative, mechanics, mission design etc. Only AC3 doesn't really do that, it's disjointed.

VestigialLlama4
09-09-2015, 04:28 AM
Nathan Drake IS an anti-hero though. So is Batman.We know these are characters who fight dirty and don't have purely selfless motives.

If your definition of an "anti-hero" is "don't have purely selfless motives" then neither of your two examples qualify. Nathan is into treasure hunting for the adventure and exploration mainly. He is at essence a "good guy" in that average American fashion. As for Batman, what selfish motive does Batman have, especially Arkham Batman who actually suffers real consequences for his actions that Batman in other media don't and actually mans up and faces it. A true anti-hero in gaming is a GTA protagonist. Those guys are functional psychopaths without exception.


The difference is that Connor is supposed to be a hero, not an anti-hero. His motives are unselfish and he says he wants to avoid bloodshed if possible. The problem is that the gameplay ptesents us with a different character, which makes him seem like a hypocrite. He berates Haytham for killing an innocent man after killing innocent people in the Stephane mission (just one example out of many).

That mission with Stephane does not have Connor killing innocent people. He kills guards and government stooges, you know servants of the British Empire, neither of whom are "innocent" (and certainly not in Connor's eyes). And that mission can be done by using fists.


There are several missions in the game where the full synch requires that Connor kill someone for no good reason, someone who wasn't a threat to him at all.

I said before that the guards in the games are not innocent at all and are fair game as legitimate targets.


Similarly, Connor is supposed to look out for the common folk and protect them from abuse. And yet, joining the Thieves' Club is required for full synch so we know he did join them. And how does one join the club? By stealing a lot of money from pedestrians. If Connor is supposed to be honest and kind, why would he do that?

There are always some form of contradictions across any game but supposedly its a problem only with Connor.


Listen, I like Connor and I applaud the ambition that AC3 had (without which we wouldn't have had a game like AC4), I'm just listing things that may cause an overall negative perception of the main protagonist.

I don't know for me there's this huge double standard people have. They want games to be ambitious and try something new and when a game actually does go there, they pick some flaws to do away with all the good things the game actually does while at the same time other games get away with huge huge flaws in gameplay and story simply because it caters better to a basic fantasy. If I have been emotional in defening AC3 its mainly because that game was actually the culmination of a promise in the first games that each game would be bigger and more immersive and detailed and after that, they simply decide not to try anymore.


Speaking of AC4, and other games, it's ironic how each new AC game on a new engine is incredibly ambitious (AC1, AC3, ACU, and I know you don't consider ACU ambitious, but trust me, it was, and I'm saying this not just out of speculation based on what we have, though to me based on what we have is enough to see the ambition) but ultimately doesn't live up to its full potential, while next installments tend to make something cohesive out of that (AC2, AC4) which brings hope for ACS.

AC1 does live up to its full potential as is evidenced by how the later games have essentially nerfed the combat and stealth, and put more distractions in the open world. And you know it doesn't really make sense to compare AC1 with the later games, since the later games were made when annualization kicked in and you had a larger franchise that factored into the game at hand, so it was about whether so-and-so is franchise-worthy (can we make another game with the hero or not?) rather than telling full stories.

All I am saying is put a grid on the things AC3 innovated (that is things it brought which wasn't there before) and ACU did and ACU will be found vaunting. About the only achievements the second game had is that its Next Gen and HD and that's not innovation since Ubisoft did not invent Next-Gen at all. And you know compare the inheritance AC3 left behind with what ACU does and its clear that its not much at all.

Zafar1981
09-09-2015, 09:43 AM
I don't think people hate Connor. They just only rank him lower to Ezio and/or Al Tair.

Connor is a game character and he can't harm or help any living person so the word hate makes no sense.

pacmanate
09-09-2015, 10:58 AM
I don't think people hate Connor. They just only rank him lower to Ezio and/or Al Tair.

Connor is a game character and he can't harm or help any living person so the word hate makes no sense.

Every time I think of him I want to throw AC3 at my neighbours cat

Farlander1991
09-09-2015, 01:09 PM
If your definition of an "anti-hero" is "don't have purely selfless motives" then neither of your two examples qualify. Nathan is into treasure hunting for the adventure and exploration mainly. He is at essence a "good guy" in that average American fashion.

Anti-hero is a protagonist who doesn't possess qualities of a hero archetype - idealism, self-sacrifice, strong and evident morals, among others. It doesn't have anything to do with being a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'. So, yes, Nathan Drake is an anti-hero.

Batman is not, though, as while Batman can be shown as a pretty dark character, he has a strong sense of morality, justice, honor, is not reluctant to answer the call, in archetypal terms Batman is a Hero.


AC1 does live up to its full potential as is evidenced by how the later games have essentially nerfed the combat and stealth, and put more distractions in the open world.

That's a weird definition of living up to full potential, what later games do doesn't have anything to do with what AC1 does, doesn't do, and can do but is not doing (as well as the things they wanted to do but had to cut).


All I am saying is put a grid on the things AC3 innovated (that is things it brought which wasn't there before) and ACU did and ACU will be found vaunting.

Ambition is not just about quantity and doing new things. And lots of new things is not necessarily a victory.

dxsxhxcx
09-09-2015, 01:58 PM
There are perfect ways to show Connor's character better through full synch objectives, it is not utilized, full synch are just challenges that don't have anything to do with the character but yet they still paint the character in a certain way, because, well, that's how storytelling in games works.

aren't sync objectives supposed to be the way the ancestor did it? So Connor did all those things when he was alive, but inside the animus emulation they are optional, but it doesn't change the fact that the ancestor did those things...

Farlander1991
09-09-2015, 02:11 PM
aren't sync objectives supposed to be the way the ancestor did it? So Connor did all those things when he was alive, but inside the animus emulation they are optional, but it doesn't change the fact that the ancestor did those things...

Yes, sorry for a bit of confusion in my wording. I meant that in terms of how their approach to design of full-sync objectives worked (a bunch of arbitrary challenges for the most part) it disregarded Connor's character and painted him in a contradictive way (the rest of my post is basically about why it's important and how it can be avoided :) )

VestigialLlama4
09-09-2015, 02:42 PM
That's a weird definition of living up to full potential, what later games do doesn't have anything to do with what AC1 does, doesn't do, and can do but is not doing (as well as the things they wanted to do but had to cut).

If as you say, that AC1 (along with AC3 and ACU) " is incredibly ambitious" but "ultimately doesn't live up to its full potential, while next installments tend to make something cohesive out of that (AC2, AC4)" then a comparison is being made between AC1 and AC2 as well as later games. The games that followed AC1 were some steps backward in a lot more respects than they were some steps forward as Ubisoft's own retrospective videos attest. After all, even ACU was promoted by Amancio as going back to AC1 style open assassinations, as he said in several interviews before the game's launch.


Ambition is not just about quantity and doing new things. And lots of new things is not necessarily a victory.

I agree in principle. Black Flag might not have been ambitious but it is a more cohesive, better written game than AC3 and AC3 likewise has excess features that don't really fit into the story but seems to be there because they wanted to fill as many activities as they can get away putting into the game. However, the fact of the matter was that ACU was promoted as the "next big leap", it was intended to be the AC2 or the AC3, the game that Ubisoft were preparing while annualized asset-recycled products separated it from the earlier big game. In Old Hollywood terms, AC2, AC3 and Unity are the A-movies while Brotherhood, Revelations, Black Flag, Rogue are the B-Movies. The A-movies are the ones they built huge sets, special effects, costumes for while B-Movies are cheap products reusing a lot of the same material. This is simply about how the movies are made not necessarily a quality judgment (in the old Hollywood, there were many occassions a B-Movie was better than the A-Movie).

So given that promise and buildup, ACU should have been much better, much bigger. Let's take character models, AC3 probably had the most NPC unique character models of the entire series (all the American Revolutionaries, all the Homesteaders, all the Assassin Recruits, all the Templars, Connor's village) whereas UNITY despite boasting huge crowds and spending a lot of time on emergent NPC gameplay, has very few character designs, maybe fewer than Revelations. There's also none of the weather system in AC3 which is odd because the real Paris has a variable climate (indeed a calendar based on Northern France's weather patterns was a feature of the French Revolution). You do have greatly expanded interiors and increased size and that is undoubtedly a considerable technical achievement. But there's no true variation from how we interacted with the new spaces compared to earlier. Its still a huge obstacle course and the interiors don't really feel alive, its just something you go in and out of. Its kind of just there. That's just one of many observations of course. It's also a huge step back from the open-world in that there's no sense of the wider society and culture you are interacting with.

dxsxhxcx
09-09-2015, 03:03 PM
Yes, sorry for a bit of confusion in my wording. I meant that in terms of how their approach to design of full-sync objectives worked (a bunch of arbitrary challenges for the most part) it disregarded Connor's character and painted him in a contradictive way (the rest of my post is basically about why it's important and how it can be avoided :) )

I thought you were talking about it from a design perspective rather than from a story one, I just wanted to be sure, but I agree with you, those missions have little to do with story, what is shame, because like you said, they could be used to flesh out the protagonist (and why not other NPCs as well?) even more, this approach IMO could even make them more enjoyable than they are today, I certainly would feel more compelled to do them if there was more story involved..

Farlander1991
09-09-2015, 03:23 PM
If as you say, that AC1 (along with AC3 and ACU) " is incredibly ambitious" but "ultimately doesn't live up to its full potential, while next installments tend to make something cohesive out of that (AC2, AC4)" then a comparison is being made between AC1 and AC2 as well as later games. The games that followed AC1 were some steps backward in a lot more respects than they were some steps forward as Ubisoft's own retrospective videos attest. After all, even ACU was promoted by Amancio as going back to AC1 style open assassinations, as he said in several interviews before the game's launch.

The difference between AC1 and AC2 (and the games that followed AC2) are more in overall design style. It's more of a side-step rather than step backwards. That said, I wasn't comparing AC1 and AC2 directly. AC1 has set out to do much more things than it has achieved, while AC2 has achieved most of the things it has set out to do. The same is true for the AC3/AC4 pairing, and possibly might be true for ACU/ACS pairing - though until ACS release that's obviously under question.

Also, I never said BF wasn't ambitious, and not calling it ambitious is the same as not calling AC2 ambitious. And calling it a 'B-movie' is quite frankly wrong. Just because it has the same relative time era and the character is related doesn't mean that there wasn't ****tons to do for Black Flag. Aside from Kingston buildings, there's barely any reused assets from AC3 - buildings are different, there's a lot of new vegetation. Most of the character models are new and not from AC3. Ships are not the same as AC3 as well - they're built from the ground up as they had to work correctly with the dynamic boarding environment. They've added a numeral to the game for a good reason - there's tons of new stuff that had to be done for it, just like in AC2 there's tons of new stuff that had to be done for it as well (and it more than likely reused some stuff from AC1 that it could).

SixKeys
09-09-2015, 03:31 PM
If your definition of an "anti-hero" is "don't have purely selfless motives" then neither of your two examples qualify. Nathan is into treasure hunting for the adventure and exploration mainly. He is at essence a "good guy" in that average American fashion. As for Batman, what selfish motive does Batman have, especially Arkham Batman who actually suffers real consequences for his actions that Batman in other media don't and actually mans up and faces it. A true anti-hero in gaming is a GTA protagonist. Those guys are functional psychopaths without exception.

I've only played 1.5 Uncharted games, so my memory of Drake is a bit hazy. I was mainly referring to the fact that he's not out in the jungle to rescue orphans or something like that, he's just out for treasure. And he has no qualms about killing people who get in his way. He's kinda like Han Solo (in the first movie) or Indiana Jones in that sense. Are those characters heroes? Depends on your definition, I suppose. At the very least they stretch the term.

As for Batman, his selfish motive is revenge for his parents' death and his own agony. He's only a hero on the surface if you look at the fact that he apprehends criminals, but it's more of an excuse for him to vent his anger and beat up people who are deemed "acceptable" targets. Have you seen the knock-out animations in the Arkham games? I cannot believe for a second that no-one's skull got cracked or their neck broken. One of the running themes in the comics (and other media) is that Batman is only a hair's breadth away from being just as crazy and dangerous as the criminals he chases.

Can't comment on GTA since I haven't played those games. I would assume John Marston from RDR comes close, though, depending on how you play him. You can play him as a callous criminal who just wants to cause mayhem, or as an ex-criminal trying to stay on the straight and narrow but still ending up doing questionable things.


That mission with Stephane does not have Connor killing innocent people. He kills guards and government stooges, you know servants of the British Empire, neither of whom are "innocent" (and certainly not in Connor's eyes). And that mission can be done by using fists.

I've argued this before, but I don't view guards in these games as guilt-by-association. I know we're supposed to, but if someone is just doing their job trying to keep the peace, they're not being malicious.

I did that mission with fists once and got "full sync failed".

There are other examples if you need more. Connor kills an innocent man in one of the Peg Legs missions simply because he runs off with a map that neither one has claim to. The guy found it first, Connor shows up and screams aggressively at him "what you have is MINE!". The guy is startled, runs away and Connor kills him.
Another example is the one during the bombing of Charlestown. Connor has to sneak onto a ship to send a signal. There are two ships, but you can avoid killing soldiers on both of them. However, the full synch requires that you air-assassinatea grenadier. I was almost done with the mission, but I had to swim back to the other ship, find a grenadier, then kill him because reasons.

Again, you can argue that soldiers don't count as innocents, but I disagree.



There are always some form of contradictions across any game but supposedly its a problem only with Connor.

I have a problem with hypocrisy no matter the character. I have big problems with Ezio in ACR due to his unnecessarily brutal kill animations and blowing up Cappadocia. Ezio in ACR comes off as out-of-character in many places due to his callousness, which is why I don't particularly like him in that game. In Connor's case, the contradictions only add to the bigger sin, which is being boring.



I don't know for me there's this huge double standard people have. They want games to be ambitious and try something new and when a game actually does go there, they pick some flaws to do away with all the good things the game actually does while at the same time other games get away with huge huge flaws in gameplay and story simply because it caters better to a basic fantasy. If I have been emotional in defening AC3 its mainly because that game was actually the culmination of a promise in the first games that each game would be bigger and more immersive and detailed and after that, they simply decide not to try anymore.

Not to get off-topic by moving onto AC3 itself, but I highly disagree that AC3 was more immersive than its predecessors. It's the least immersive in my opinion, bar Liberation perhaps, which shared many of the same problems. Bigger doesn't always mean better. You should be aware of that, being so adamantly against Unity.


AC1 does live up to its full potential as is evidenced by how the later games have essentially nerfed the combat and stealth, and put more distractions in the open world.

It's curious to hear you say that, since Patrice Desilets said that the reason for AC2's improvements was that those were all things he wanted in AC1 but couldn't due to time/technical limitations. So AC2 was the game where he got to realize all the ideas he had to leave out of AC1.

Farlander1991
09-09-2015, 03:48 PM
I have a problem with hypocrisy no matter the character. I have big problems with Ezio in ACR due to his unnecessarily brutal kill animations and blowing up Cappadocia. Ezio in ACR comes off as out-of-character in many places due to his callousness, which is why I don't particularly like him in that game. In Connor's case, the contradictions only add to the bigger sin, which is being boring.

I will see how my opinion changes after replaying ACR (to shake up my memory), though I do agree that the brutal kills can be quite ridiculous, but I actually liked that Ezio is more contradictory and more careless and calluous. Ezio is a person who never wanted to be an Assassin, he tried to retire once before he even started, he tried to retire once after he thought he was finished with his job, but circumstances and some consequences of his actions make him go on. He's tired, he doesn't really want to continue that life, so it makes sense to me that he wouldn't look more into Tarik's background to make sure he isn't making a huge mistake, or that his actions are more of a 'let's get this over with' type. Plus it's not like it's not pointed out in the game (Yusuf giving **** to Ezio for the Arsenale plan to use citizens, and Ezio realizing the mistake he has done with Tarik). And it leads well into his admiration of Altair, in a sense that Altair was pretty much always true to the Brotherhood until the end, and also leads well into Ezio's final decision to retire - it's not the life that he can lead properly anymore, he'll make only worse if he continues. And I remember how my attitude towards something changed when I was getting sick and tired of it and didn't want to do it anymore, and I can totally understand how it would affect Ezio on a grander scale (due to him working on a pretty grand scale in terms of responsibility to society)


I thought you were talking about it from a design perspective rather than from a story one, I just wanted to be sure, but I agree with you, those missions have little to do with story, what is shame, because like you said, they could be used to flesh out the protagonist (and why not other NPCs as well?) even more, this approach IMO could even make them more enjoyable than they are today, I certainly would feel more compelled to do them if there was more story involved..

Yeah. I imagine objectives like, take wounded patriots into cover during the Battle of Bunker Hill to protect them from harm. When Haytham and Connor fight the redcoats, limit the amount of lethal deaths (while Haytham tries to efficiently murder them. Connor is not somebody who wouldn't kill when necessary or when situation is incredibly high-stakes (like it's in the midst of a battle), but in case of a small urban skirmish when something can be done about it? He would try not to do it. But yeah, you know, stuff like that. Make the Stephane mission optional objective that was mentioned several times be passable only if we use fists and poison darts (which in AC3 is not lethal poison, as enemies are still alive after using it). Show with optional objectives how Connor goes to great lengths to maintain his principles.

One of my favourite optional objectives is in AC4 - to steal money from Templars during a meeting. 'Oh, I'm in a society of people planning for world domination? They must have money'. And that really fits Edward.

Mr.Black24
09-09-2015, 04:13 PM
While this is true, the point that I stand earlier still stands - characters at the beginning of development are pretty much never who they are at the end, this would include the a lot more beloved characters of Altair, Ezio and Edward as well.

Well of course! Ohhhh...I really want to see Connor in a Mentor role, but nope! :(



So if Connor in the narrative would've been the same like he is now, but levels would be about murderous sprees, disregard for innocents, and low-life criminal GTA kind of stuff that would've still be fine and Connor would still be a great character? :rolleyes: The narrative influences the game design, so yeah why would Connor do all those things? Hence why I agreed with you that in some cases, some things that Connor did in the gameplay didn't make sense at times. But thats just poor structure. There are so many games that had a good narrative and characters, but suffer like crap becouse the gameplay is terrible. Like Beyond Two Souls. the way that the gameplay is structured suffers much, but the narrative and characters itself is decent. The idea of having a ghost companion is awesome and the twist in the end was indeed a whoa moment. But it doesn't sour the character, if anything, it made me wish that the gameplay was handled better, the story deserved better than this garbage.

Like for example, in the game, you CANNOT lose in Beyond Two Souls, like ever. David Cage himself says "Game Overs are failures of the game designers" Does that mean that Jode is immortal, as she gets shot like 1,000 in the damm game and never dies? Or perhaps the fact that in quick time events, no matter how purposelessly you try to fail at it, the game woun't let you die or fail, does that mean she is that OP? No, it just terrible game mechanics. In Call of Duty, after getting shot over beyond the surviving capability of a human being, does that mean this WWII soldier is a super human with a regenerative healing factor? No, its just game mechanics. How can the Doomguy in Doom, or any other FFS carry over 50 guns and not get tired? Just game mechanics. Can he or any other being really do that? No, unless you have some kind of lore that justifies it, and many times it doesn't. You cannot dictate that the game mechanics is what makes the character all the time when its obvious that its poor planning on the developers themselves.




Ok, fair enough, let's compare ACIII Connor to ACII Ezio. Ezio does begin the game as sort of an errand boy and a person in training, he has his goals of revenge but doesn't know how to do them, and then he doesn't really know what to do with his life. This really lasts only for the first 3 sequences though. In sequence 4 Ezio's more of a mix, as he hunts down his first real target. And then in sequence 5 Ezio is a truly active character. He hunts down all the Pazzi Conspiracy targets because that's what he intends to do, he goes to Venice because he learned that there's Templars there, so he's like, I've got to go there now and stop them there. He comes up with the plan for the Flying Machine, and... basically, Ezio's pretty active in AC2. Sure, he asks for help, which is normal, and sometimes he gets told what to do, which is also normal. AC2 Ezio becomes an active character much faster than AC3 Connor, the transition begins after the end of tutorial sequences and then is fairly quick.

And while we're at it, I've already said that Haytham is an active character, and just like Connor, he wasn't established beforehand at all.

True, but there is a thing that people are missing. The reason why Connor is going with the flow is because that he is an alien in his own land. That is the general idea of the game, that he is two halves of a different world, one is being threatened, and the other is gigantically new. He is working with people that he does not have much of an understanding, with new ideas and concepts that he trying to grasp. Ezio and Edward was capable of doing most on their own because they knew the environment that they were in. Edward was already rolling with pirates when we start the game, when we are introduced to characters, he knew them before hand. Same with Ezio, he knows his own home, the people, and customs. He learns about his allies in time, and they help him along the way because they were secretly Assassins, so it made things easier for him to get things done. Haytham was a Master Templar by that stage that we are playing, he knows the game, hence why he is taking charge at every turn. The colonial world is something new to Connor however, so he trying to learn on the run. You see various times that Connor argues with his colonial allies becouse of their thought process. Connor thought that telling the truth will make things better but Samuel argued that this will get him killed very soon if the doesn't learn. Ever since arguments like this, he became more of a person that listen to whats going on around him, and go with that, as how can one act within a unfamiliar world? Because of this, he is forced to become an errand boy. When you mentioned that he takes action on his own later in the game, that's because he is feeling the vib of how to approach things on his own and starts trying to go that route. Later, when he worked with his father, he had to become a slight errand boy again, becouse he knows that argueing with him will only burn time they didn't have. Remember that speech: "Compromise, that is what everyone had insisted of, and I have learned it, but differently from most I think"

Farlander1991
09-09-2015, 04:46 PM
Like for example, in the game, you CANNOT lose in Beyond Two Souls, like ever. David Cage himself says "Game Overs are failures of the game designers" Does that mean that Jode is immortal, as she gets shot like 1,000 in the damm game and never dies? Or perhaps the fact that in quick time events, no matter how purposelessly you try to fail at it, the game woun't let you die or fail, does that mean she is that OP? No, it just terrible game mechanics. In Call of Duty, after getting shot over beyond the surviving capability of a human being, does that mean this WWII soldier is a super human with a regenerative healing factor? No, its just game mechanics. How can the Doomguy in Doom, or any other FFS carry over 50 guns and not get tired? Just game mechanics. Can he or any other being really do that? No, unless you have some kind of lore that justifies it, and many times it doesn't. You cannot dictate that the game mechanics is what makes the character all the time when its obvious that its poor planning on the developers themselves.

You're getting into 'suspension of disbelief' territory here, the acceptable breaks from reality the user/viewer/reader/whoever is ready to take to enjoy the work of art. That's everywhere. The problem we're talking about here is not when the Doomguy can carry 50 weapons, the problem we're talking about here is when the Doomguy is a Demon's Right Activist who wants demons to be accepted in society, yet the mechanics and level design is about shooting to pieces as many Demons as possible. Well, obviously that's an extreme explanation of the issue, but you get the point.

Also, since you've reposted pretty much your post, I'll repost mine:


There are perfect ways to show Connor's character better through full synch objectives, it is not utilized, full synch are just challenges that don't have anything to do with the character but yet they still paint the character in a certain way, because, well, that's how storytelling in games works. Mechanics also paint a character in a certain way. Stealing mechanic for Connor should've been kept to Altair levels of stealing max - i.e. Connor steals only for the greater cause with a particular goal (for example, one of the Liberation mission is about stealing some plans or intel or something like that). Just like in movies narrative is not limited to just the actions, it also happens through visual storytelling, musical storytelling, etc., so in games we add to that mechanical and systemic storytelling.

Anybody interested in a sort of distillation how it works, I recommend checking out Thomas Was Alone (narrated by the guy who voiced Shaun Hastings, btw). In essence, it's a game about blocks, a simple platformer, but each block has a certain character and character arc. Like, Chris has some insecurity issues, he's grumbling and not pleasant at first, and the way his jump works is that it's got a very small arc and a particular sound to it. Then there's John, who's full of himself and likes to show-off, he's tall and has a very high jump. Then there's, I don't remember the name of the top of my head, but there's a block that's... different, and wasn't really accepted by some. Gravity works inverted on that block - ceiling is the floor and he jumps 'down'. Etc.

Their characters are shown through narration and mechanic (and, mind you, narration is not the 'lead' part, if you had mechanics alone that would still tell a lot about their characters, narration is used to add additional layers to that - they work together), and how they're evolving as characters and befriend each other is shown through narration and level design. Thomas Was Alone is amazing in that regard, it makes better characters than most AAA games (and non-AAA games too to be fair), and it's a game about jumping blocks. So if Thomas Was Alone can do things like that, then an AAA title like AC can do things like that to combine everything in a cohesive way. And, well, it does, with a game like AC4 for example, which for the most part is very cohesive in terms of connection between narrative, mechanics, mission design etc. Only AC3 doesn't really do that, it's disjointed.

Accent on the Thomas Was Alone part ;)

VestigialLlama4
09-09-2015, 04:54 PM
As for Batman, his selfish motive is revenge for his parents' death and his own agony.

You do know that Connor has nearly the same motivation. As does Ezio (who is very Bruce Wayne) and Arno Dorian. Altair was the most selfless in that for him its "the only life I have ever known" and he's in it for the ideology whereas Connor...well he's an overmotivated guy (a major flaw of the game's story), "Am I doing it because of my tragic past? Am I doing this because I am politically sensitive to encroachments, Am I doing this because the Crystal Ball told me to do so?". So I don't see Connor is, by your definition, purely selfless. He generally is helpful and nice to strangers but that's something he does for free, much like Altair selflessly helping all those harassed citizens across the three cities.


There are other examples if you need more. Connor kills an innocent man in one of the Peg Legs missions simply because he runs off with a map that neither one has claim to. The guy found it first, Connor shows up and screams aggressively at him "what you have is MINE!". The guy is startled, runs away and Connor kills him.

Well that guy is a mercenary after all. But its curious that you don't cite Connor's most dubious action in that Peg Leg series. I am talking about Connor attacking Fort Wolcott. He gets in there for a map, but then he tells Faulkner to bombard it to cover his escape, just so he can steal part of a treasure map? That's kind of a war crime, since unlike Bunker Hill and Charlestown, there's no actual military target and set goal there and Connor isn't fighting treasure hunters who will fight back, because those British soldiers aren't even protecting or hiding that, they didn't even know it was there (otherwise Connor wouldn't have found it under the floor). Fort Wolcott is kind of that awesome mission, like the one in Revelations where Ezio burns that harbor, which is really un-necessary but has cool explosions (UNITY has a similar one in Haux des Bles). Like there's no reason Connor can't drop a smoke bomb and hide and sneak out and they don't give an alternate reason for the bombardment. Likewise, Connor's love for bombardments creates the conditions of the weak confrontation with Haytham, which I always found absurd...bomb the Fort, sneak in and then get wounded by shrapnel from the bombardment that you alone ordered. That's worthy of MASH or any war comedy and then the Haytham boss fight is just a bar brawl QTE. Its pretty obvious they had no real idea how to end the game and resolve it so they come up with these weirdly written contrivances. AC3 is definitely not a polished game in terms of writing, that much is obvious and the finale has several plot holes that can only be called retcons.


Bigger doesn't always mean better. You should be aware of that, being so adamantly against Unity.

UNITY is not big at all. Of course you can cite the map, the number of NPCs and emergent animations and other glass-bowl level distraction but in all the things that actually matter its smaller than Bonfire of the Vanities DLC. That DLC very concisely touched on all of Unity's ideas - extremism, fanaticism, social control and actually delivers a preachy sermon that feels earned rather than obnoxious. In terms of mission design its not vastly different since you had nine assassinations and except for two or three (the ambush in that Palazzo and the final Savonarola one) you can do it any way you want, and unlike Unity it doesn't have synch objectives. Add the one Cristina mission from Brotherhood and you pretty much have the plot of Unity as well.


It's curious to hear you say that, since Patrice Desilets said that the reason for AC2's improvements was that those were all things he wanted in AC1.

He also said later that AC1 was the purest game for him and I agree.

Farlander1991
09-09-2015, 05:23 PM
In terms of mission design its not vastly different since you had nine assassinations and except for two or three (the ambush in that Palazzo and the final Savonarola one) you can do it any way you want, and unlike Unity it doesn't have synch objectives.

Not entirely true, 5 of the Bonfire assassinations have a desync on detection, which hampers the 'any way you want part'. And even the 'not any way you want' is annoying there, as they forcefully put you on full notoriety in those missions, detection can be really fast (I once ragequitted because a guard turned around as I pressed button to air assassinate him, he detected me midflight and I've lost the mission)

SixKeys
09-10-2015, 02:41 AM
You do know that Connor has nearly the same motivation. As does Ezio (who is very Bruce Wayne) and Arno Dorian. Altair was the most selfless in that for him its "the only life I have ever known" and he's in it for the ideology whereas Connor...well he's an overmotivated guy (a major flaw of the game's story), "Am I doing it because of my tragic past? Am I doing this because I am politically sensitive to encroachments, Am I doing this because the Crystal Ball told me to do so?". So I don't see Connor is, by your definition, purely selfless. He generally is helpful and nice to strangers but that's something he does for free, much like Altair selflessly helping all those harassed citizens across the three cities.

Altaïr saving citizens isn't really in conflict with his character as we don't know exactly when he did those. He's an arrogant d0uchebag for half of the game, then slowly transforms into someone with more empathy. You can do the "save citizen" missions any time you like, so if you want to play him as cold and uncaring in the first sequences, you can, and start saving them when his change of character sets in.

Arno's motivation isn't his father's death at all. People make fun of him all the time for basically not giving a **** about his dad. Making up for his mistake with De la Serre is what makes him join the brotherhood, and he continues out of a desire to protect Elise. His daddy issues are resolved within the first trippy initiation scene.

Ezio is an anti-hero and AC2 never tries to pretend otherwise. Even Ezio acknowledges at the very end that revenge for his family's death has not brought him peace of mind. He's much more immature and selfish in his first game than in the next one. (ACR is debatable.)

Connor's mother's death is more of a catalyst that nudges things in motion. For him the story is never about avenging his mother (as evidenced by the fact that he doesn't kill Washington), it's about ensuring others don't meet the same fate. Whereas with AC2 Ezio it's all about revenge.



Well that guy is a mercenary after all. But its curious that you don't cite Connor's most dubious action in that Peg Leg series. I am talking about Connor attacking Fort Wolcott.

I've only played the game 1.5 times, I don't remember every mission. But yes, like I said, lots of examples.


He also said later that AC1 was the purest game for him and I agree.

Not later, this was from a recent lecture he gave at GDC or something like that. (A retrospective on his work up until Ancestors.) Even if AC1 was the purest for him, it doesn't have to mean he thought it was perfect when they shipped it.

Darkicity
09-10-2015, 05:27 AM
Because people are silly. COnnor was a brilliant powerhouse! Very humble too!!

Mr.Black24
09-10-2015, 06:22 AM
Arno's motivation isn't his father's death at all. People make fun of him all the time for basically not giving a **** about his dad. Making up for his mistake with De la Serre is what makes him join the brotherhood, and he continues out of a desire to protect Elise. His daddy issues are resolved within the first trippy initiation scene.


When did this happen in the initiation scene? If anything, in the Abstergo Employee Handbook shows that Arno never did get over him and actually was suggested by De la Serre to make letters addressing his father as a way to cope the loss. Ever since then, Arno had been doing so for most of his early and later life. This letter right here is after the initation, which demonstrates otherwise.

Dear Papa,
Once I confessed to you that, while I earnestly hoped you were in Heaven, I had mighty doubts as to whether this was indeed such a place. Since that time, I have killed a man of the cloth—corrupt though he was—and have beheld a place right here in Paris so monstrous, so inhumane, that I cannot believe a just deity would abide its existence.

It is called the Cour des Miracles, and was ruled by a man so despicable he would order limbs, tongues, and eyes removed so that the beggars who paid him tribute would rouse more hearts to pity. You were an Assassin yourself. I wonder, did you, as I was forced to, ever stand by and watch, unable to interfere, as a man's foot was removed simply because of one man's greed?

It was only by keeping the mission uppermost in my mind that I was able to watch this. The trail of this poor man's blood led me where I needed to go, but my heart and stomach were both sick at the sight.

It was, therefore, with not a little righteous joy that I eliminate this Roi de Thunes. I am now closer to discovering who murdered M. de La Serre, and I must be content with that.

Another Rois de Thunes has arisen to take his place—one who used me to topple the late Roi. His name is the Marquis de Sade, and he has a most unsavory reputation. Have I eliminated the fox from the henhouse, only to allow a ferret entrance? Knowing de Sade's ... predilections ... one might think so. I do not know, and have no wish to find out.

I've done my duty, but it seems that for every answer, I find more questions. How I miss you, Father. You might have helped me make sense of all this. Never has the weight of your death and that of M. de la Serre weighed more heavily upon me than this moment.

I miss you so very much.

Arno

Source: http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Arno_Dorian's_letters

Its a huge mistake that this is never shown in the game itself, as it adds a huge character boost for Arno. Kind of like that huge *** mistake of not including Connor's speech at the end of the game. Seriously, does Ubisoft want to purposely dull the edge on their guys or what?

Farlander1991
09-10-2015, 07:50 AM
Altaïr saving citizens isn't really in conflict with his character as we don't know exactly when he did those. He's an arrogant d0uchebag for half of the game, then slowly transforms into someone with more empathy. You can do the "save citizen" missions any time you like, so if you want to play him as cold and uncaring in the first sequences, you can, and start saving them when his change of character sets in.

It doesn't really matter when we save citizens (though, to be fair, since those missions are part of particular memory blocks, I presume it's fair to say that he did it during investigation of each assassination in the districts), it works with both Altair at the beginning of his journey and Altair at the end. Altair at the beginning would do so out of calculations - all citizens we save are useful in gameplay, be it to enter the cities blended in, help against guards who chase us, and sometimes even added to assassination locations themselves. Later Altair might do out of empathy. Since Altair never actually talks during these events, the motivations applied are the motivations of Altair in his current state, so to speak.

VestigialLlama4
09-10-2015, 08:12 AM
Altaïr saving citizens isn't really in conflict with his character as we don't know exactly when he did those. He's an arrogant d0uchebag for half of the game, then slowly transforms into someone with more empathy. You can do the "save citizen" missions any time you like, so if you want to play him as cold and uncaring in the first sequences, you can, and start saving them when his change of character sets in.

Well the problem is that AC as a series doesn't really allow for that kind of personal "create a story" thing. I mean technically, you can argue that Edward didn't upgrade his Jackdaw until after he quit being a Pirate and only then did he start plundering other ships since it is possible to complete the campaign with only as many upgrades as needed to get past the story (like the diving bell or the early cannons). Then that means that Edward only started plundering after he quit being a pirate in which case he was a total hypocrite, liar and made the Assassins suckers and the game's cutscenes are all lies. The logical inference to be made is that obviously the Player Character canonically did all the side missions as soon as it was available. So when Altair arrives in any district of any city, he liberates all the civilians, all the viewpoints, all the side missions and so on. Then goes to another district and does the same. So that means Altair always did believe in being a do-gooder and helping people its just that he let that feeling of being a hero go to his head and became reckless and arrogant. Altair was only arrogant about being an Assassin at the start and wasn't a team player but that doesn't mean he didn't believe in helping people at all.

Getting back to AC3 and the "hate Connor" thing: You know I am going to try not to get hung up about debating AC3 from now on. Not that I feel I am wrong or have changed my mind its just that I'm getting tired of arguing the same points again and again, especially with someone who I otherwise agree on a lot of other things. I will say that if and when you get spare time, replay AC3 on a good copy and take the game as it is, not your projection of what the game's marketing supposedly promised or about the features that were cut. Because you only played it 1.5 times and I played it 4 times. Maybe you will see that there's stuff missing in the game, maybe not, its entirely up to you.

Assuredly AC3 is a flawed game, it has a needless prologue and the finale is riddled with plotholes and like most games it hasn't fully resolved the whole gameplay and story aspect so a few occassions stand out. The question is if these flaws mean that its several virtues should be written off altogether since other games get a pass despite having many other flaws. For me I do respect any game (or any movie/book or anything) that tries to do something different and even if its imperfect and flawed, I find it more worthy of respect than any dime a dozen game that achieves its limited set of goals. Because there will always be other games that do what those games did, as good or better whereas it will take a long time before anyone tries to make a game like AC3 again, leaving aside the question of bettering it. Likewise I do think that Ubisoft should keep trying and advance its concept and ambition because that was what defined AC more than anything else and until they build further than what AC3 did, AC will ultimately lose whatever little steam it still has, which is sad because they haven't even tapped say 3% of its potential and Rogue-Unity cannot be regarded, objectively, as anything other than a backward march to mediocrity.

Perk89
09-10-2015, 05:35 PM
It's really only a comparatively small number of people that don't like him, for primarily generic reasons (omg hes soooo good i cant staaand itttt!!!)

As evidence by the backlash against people who dont care for him receive and the various awards he won that year, he's actually a pretty popular character.


Unfortunately, Ubisoft overreacted to a relatively small vocal minority and hence the reason why Arno, Shay, and Jacob are all the same generic character in attempt to recreate Ezio. It's a disappointment the series would be watered down to accommodate the aforementioned nitch of uncultured dweebs, but Ubi Corporate is all about the money.

As an aside, ive pondered if BF and Rogue's modern element is a cry for help from the developers, desperately trying to send a message and a warning to be outside world.

SixKeys
09-10-2015, 06:28 PM
When did this happen in the initiation scene? If anything, in the Abstergo Employee Handbook shows that Arno never did get over him and actually was suggested by De la Serre to make letters addressing his father as a way to cope the loss. Ever since then, Arno had been doing so for most of his early and later life. This letter right here is after the initation, which demonstrates otherwise.

The initiation scene has Arno deal with his father's death by chasing him and always being too late to prevent his murder. In the end you enter a ring of shadow people and have to kill someone in the middle. Presumably this symbolizes Arno's dad's killer (Shay) and Arno killing him in this dream sequence means letting go of his guilt and accepting his new life as an assassin.

As for the letters: if it's not in the game, then I don't care about it.


Well the problem is that AC as a series doesn't really allow for that kind of personal "create a story" thing. I mean technically, you can argue that Edward didn't upgrade his Jackdaw until after he quit being a Pirate and only then did he start plundering other ships since it is possible to complete the campaign with only as many upgrades as needed to get past the story (like the diving bell or the early cannons). Then that means that Edward only started plundering after he quit being a pirate in which case he was a total hypocrite, liar and made the Assassins suckers and the game's cutscenes are all lies. The logical inference to be made is that obviously the Player Character canonically did all the side missions as soon as it was available. So when Altair arrives in any district of any city, he liberates all the civilians, all the viewpoints, all the side missions and so on. Then goes to another district and does the same. So that means Altair always did believe in being a do-gooder and helping people its just that he let that feeling of being a hero go to his head and became reckless and arrogant. Altair was only arrogant about being an Assassin at the start and wasn't a team player but that doesn't mean he didn't believe in helping people at all.

AC1 is the only game that DOES allow for such "create-your-own-story" things. It was Patrice's vision from the start, to be able to play Altaïr the way you wanted. That's why we're able to move in cut scenes. Starting with AC2, there is a very specific timeline. We have approximate knowledge of when Ezio did all those missions for Lorenzo, for example. AC1 benefits from not showing dates anywhere in the game. So you can do all side missions whenever you want and it doesn't interfere with canon.

As for replaying AC3: I've tried playing it with an open mind, I really have. Batistabus used to have a monthly "mission club" where we'd all replay certain missions from each game and give our impressions on them at this moment in time, free of nostalgia and marketing hype. When I replayed AC3 missions, each and every time I was reminded of all the things that frustrate me about it. Not just the glitches (which still happened a lot), but the general approach to stealth, navigation and mission design. There are occasional moments when I almost feel like I'm playing AC again, that feeling of freedom and fun and badassery. And then something inevitably happens to remind me why I hate the game. Maybe I'll be having a great time stealthily taking down a fort, then a soldier gets stuck in his pathfinding so there's no way for me to pass without him facing me. Maybe a soldier will materialize out of thin air in a restricted area and alert the rest. Maybe I'll be on my way to a mission marker only to find when I get there that the marker has sunk underneath the street where it can't be interacted with, so I have no choice but to restart. Maybe I'll be galloping on my horse through the Frontier and it keeps getting stuck on invisible pebbles or inside a tree. Just....too much BS to deal with. I just get angry whenever I play the game.

Just to add, none of these things on their own are annoying enough to condemn the whole game. Every game has similar glitches now and then. But in AC3 I always experience several of these annoyances in one mission, to the point that I almost expect to have to restart from the beginning at some point.

HDinHB
09-10-2015, 06:37 PM
As an aside, ive pondered if BF and Rogue's modern element is a cry for help from the developers, desperately trying to send a message and a warning to be outside world.

What message would that be? "All your tablet are belong to us."


Batistabus used to have a monthly "mission club" where we'd all replay certain missions from each game and give our impressions on them at this moment in time, free of nostalgia and marketing hype.

That's a great idea! Someone should do that again. Initiates in one of it's incarnations before it turned to complete crap, had challenges, some of which were just "Kill X guards with the rope dart" but some of which involved replaying old missions. It is fun to go back and relive old memories and experience them from a different perspective.

VestigialLlama4
09-10-2015, 06:42 PM
AC1 is the only game that DOES allow for such "create-your-own-story" things. It was Patrice's vision from the start, to be able to play Altaïr the way you wanted.

I hardly doubt that meant you can consider Altair an unfeeling psychopath if he left civilians unsaved. It visibly says "Loading Memory" any time you approach a Civilian, which means that this actually happened. Desilets meant freedom in the sense that you could plan your route, attack guards or be stealthy and the like. That doesn't mean you actually create the character. Its like playing a role on stage (and Desilets was inspired by theatre so the metaphor fits). You can play Hamlet as a depressive, as a swashbuckler, as a philosopher but at the end of the day you are still playing Hamlet and you can't dictate or draw your own story around it.


That's why we're able to move in cut scenes. Starting with AC2, there is a very specific timeline. We have approximate knowledge of when Ezio did all those missions for Lorenzo, for example. AC1 benefits from not showing dates anywhere in the game. So you can do all side missions whenever you want and it doesn't interfere with canon.

Well the Battle of Arsuf takes place in 1191 that's an actual historical event that occurs in the game and historically 1192 was the year that Rashid ad din Sinan (who is Al Mualim in AC1) died. So the game does have a sense of time, of I am guessing a year or a year and a few more months.

SixKeys
09-10-2015, 06:46 PM
That's a great idea! Someone should do that again. Initiates in one of it's incarnations before it turned to complete crap, had challenges, some of which were just "Kill X guards with the rope dart" but some of which involved replaying old missions. It is fun to go back and relive old memories and experience them from a different perspective.

Yep, it was fun. We would always do both 100% synch runs and non-full synch, to see how the optional objectives changed the gameplay experience. (I.e. did they make it more or less enjoyable, more or less hard etc.) The only game excluded was AC2 since there's no replay function except for tombs.

SixKeys
09-10-2015, 07:34 PM
I hardly doubt that meant you can consider Altair an unfeeling psychopath if he left civilians unsaved. It visibly says "Loading Memory" any time you approach a Civilian, which means that this actually happened. Desilets meant freedom in the sense that you could plan your route, attack guards or be stealthy and the like. That doesn't mean you actually create the character. Its like playing a role on stage (and Desilets was inspired by theatre so the metaphor fits). You can play Hamlet as a depressive, as a swashbuckler, as a philosopher but at the end of the day you are still playing Hamlet and you can't dictate or draw your own story around it.

You may not be creating the character from scratch, but you can still play him in many different ways, as your Hamlet example shows. I never said Altaïr didn't do those missions, I said they may not have happened in the order that the player does them in the game.


Well the Battle of Arsuf takes place in 1191 that's an actual historical event that occurs in the game and historically 1192 was the year that Rashid ad din Sinan (who is Al Mualim in AC1) died. So the game does have a sense of time, of I am guessing a year or a year and a few more months.

Of course there are certain events that took place in certain years, but as I said above, the side missions don't have dates, so Altaïr could have done them when he first arrives in the city or when he's already spent some time there. Technically it's even possible he did them after the events of the main game. He may have gone back to visit the cities for all we know.

VestigialLlama4
09-10-2015, 07:38 PM
You may not be creating the character from scratch, but you can still play him in many different ways, as your Hamlet example shows. I never said Altaïr didn't do those missions, I said they may not have happened in the order that the player does them in the game.



Of course there are certain events that took place in certain years, but as I said above, the side missions don't have dates, so Altaïr could have done them when he first arrives in the city or when he's already spent some time there. Technically it's even possible he did them after the events of the main game. He may have gone back to visit the cities for all we know.

Well he becomes Mentor at Masyaf so i doubt he would be as much on the ground. Not that he's too big but that his responsibilities have increased. Later games and media shows that he's on the move, going to Cyprus (that Bloodlines thing), and in the Codex we know he visited Mongolia to get Genghis Khan's autograph and later tried to start an Assassin cell in Constantinople but failed because of the 4th Crusade.