PDA

View Full Version : Giving characters proper endings



Smithies89
10-06-2015, 03:05 AM
While most game main characters are simply alive AC is unique in that the characters we are playing as are dead, I just want the writers to let us know more about what happened to them after the game ended if they are planning on using them again great but if not give us something a little less vague than what they gave us about Connor, Codex style documents detailing parts of their lives and how and when they died. Connor, Aveline, Shay, Arno. I assume at some points they had kids to carry on the lineage

Assassin_M
10-06-2015, 03:15 AM
But why? Proper ending =/= death. We don't see Geralt of Rivia die, we don't see Niko Bellic die, we don't see Delsin Rowe die, we don't see Joel nor Ellie die, we don't see Aang die, why is there a standard for AC to show characters dying to have proper endings? Characters dying was only introduced in ACR. Yes, a complete story might necessitate a character dying, but showing a protagonist's death just because is not a proper ending.

Edward had a proper ending in AC IV
Ezio had a proper ending in AC II
Connor had a proper ending in AC III

They all had complete character arcs.

Mr.Black24
10-06-2015, 03:54 AM
we don't see Delsin Rowe die,

The ending implies that Delsin and his friends are off to fight an unknown conduit that was introduced in Paper Trail, so that's a sequel bait right there.


we don't see Joel nor Ellie die,

There is a sequel in the works.


we don't see Aang die,

Aang's ending is a good example of a send off that at least I expected for these 4 characters. Their legacies, how they effect future generations, and tells what they did later in their life (Especially not from a Abstergo/Templar perspective) Its how Ezio and Edward's clousres had done for them, their mark is known, its explained in a much more respectable format, while Connor was just a footnote.

As for his "closure",Connor's ending was literally look at a crowd and exit stage right, while Ezio and Edward had a much more stronger and fulfilled closure with no loose ends. I mean Connor was alive during the events of Unity, I expected to hear news of his work from time to time, as apparently he is a well known and respectable Assassin after the American Revolution, proven that Assassins like Charles and Bellec knew of him. A small cameo would have been nice as he could have done just one mission here that will affect the American Assassins overseas and needs to personally oversee it or something. True, it doesn't have to be a death, but no one is asking for death, just a closure that is actually closure and not a loose jawbone hanging by a thread of muscle from a skull. Not to mention you have Shay around and those Precursor Trees that can be added to the story. Did Achilles even tell him about the two? There is a chance right there.

But I agree, death =/= ending.

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 06:10 AM
But why? Proper ending =/= death.

Complete story =/= dying, that's true. Likewise complete story =/= certainly doesn't mean half-a-sed excuses that ignores the foundations and logic of the story and the game, where one character is treated less than equal than others, where even side characters in DLC get some closure but not the guy who headlines the cover art of a Numbered Game.

Assassin's Creed is not WITCHER or GTA 4 or 5. The nature of the Animus is that its tied to history and we know the past. So there's no way we can't, like say, peeking at the memories of Altair's children, not know about his kids and grandkids and from them learn about his later life. The Animus is also objective so there's no "shroud of history" voodoo about we can't know about the past. But most of all, even if that were the case, Connor is a legend in his own time. Pierre Bellec has a man crush on Connor, Charles Dorian dies with his name on his lips. Connor shaped a massive event of international consequences, not some obscure Pirate Republic that time forgot. He's the founder of the American assassins, so logically all of the Assassins in the MD, and other characters should know about his life and fate, and the audience has a right to know what the in-game characters know. If we list all the playable protagonists, we have closure (i.e. seen the deaths, or know how they died, and likewise know the later career of) for the following figures: Altair, Ezio, Haytham, Edward, Adewale. We see and know about these five guys in different stages of their career. I can include Shay Cormac and Arno as well but their game was 2014, so the question of silence with them is not as egregious as it is with Connor. Let's look at the extent of short-term resolutions.

1) Altair was the star of AC1, and even though he didn't get a full sequel, in AC2, his presence and later career was totally addressed and resolved with the Codex. His actions in AC1 had consequences that are discussed in the game. He even gets a cool cameo. In effect, a fan of AC1 has no right to feel cheated or complain. This is separate from Revelations and Bloodlines as well.

2) Edward. Obviously his backstory was given in Forsaken. In Black Flag we see his early career and an epilogue shows him at the start of Forsaken. We also get a novel that discusses his backstory between end of black flag and start of forsaken. Not necessary but it's there. In Rogue we get another database entry telling us what all he's been up to, him being an archeologist of First-Civ Tech putting this book together. And likewise Syndicate is going to tell us more about him as developers have stated.

3) Haytham and Adewale are both supporting characters who became player characters in brief campaigns. But even then, solely for being player characters, Haytham got a Journal after AC3 came out, Adewale got Eseosa's Codex in Initiates after Freedom Cry which told us a lot about his later life, influence and importance, even the fact that he died at a certain date, this is separate from Rogue. In the case of other characters, even Shay Cormac in Rogue, we see him in his 40s at the end of Rogue in France, in Middle Age a feared Templar hunter. Shao Jun in Chronicles China gets an epilogue where she's an old master, and we already knew from AC3 that she was a legendary Assassin since her Rope Darts became standard arsenal for Assassins across the world. Aveline de Grandpre got a small DLC in PS4 Black Flag where she's a "legend" of the proto-Underground Railroad so we kind of know her later career as well. Likewise, Syndicate, merely the fact that you are going to have DLC set in 1888, it means we will have some hints or information about the later career of the Frye Twins, one or both of them will be in their forties by then.

So it's impossible not to conclude by listing all this that Connor is treated essentially as an outcaste by Ubisoft. His game, AC3 came out in 2012, and aside from snide jokes, you don't get any follow-up, not in a simple database entry, not in Initiates, not a journal nothing. Forget about the Royal Ezio treatment of a Movie and Trilogy, he's not even being treated like Adewale, Shao Jun, Edward or Altair. ROGUE gave us pointless backstory about Achilles, Haytham, Adewale, told us how Connor's Ship was invented but didn't say anything about Connor.

Assassin_M
10-06-2015, 06:28 AM
You know, you two, you replied to my post saying you disagree, but then in the end, you say, yes you agree that complete story =/= death. Which is all I said, lol. I didn't talk about equal treatment, nor sequels, I only talked about death.

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 06:29 AM
You know, you two, you replied to my post saying you disagree, but then in the end, you say, yes you agree that complete story =/= death. Which is all I said, lol. I didn't talk about equal treatment, nor sequels, I only talked about death.

Well when fans ask to know about Connor's death what they really mean is equal treatment. In most cases, especially the stars of main games, we know how they died. Connor being a glaring and bizarre exception.

Assassin_M
10-06-2015, 06:33 AM
Well when fans ask to know about Connor's death what they really mean is equal treatment. In most cases, especially the stars of main games, we know how they died. Connor being a glaring and bizarre exception.
Well, unlike you, I don't have amazing mind reading skills. I'm a simple guy, I take what I read :p

I-Like-Pie45
10-06-2015, 07:21 AM
don't you know that derby mcdebbitcard wants you and tumblr to pick up where they left off?

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 07:22 AM
Well, unlike you, I don't have amazing mind reading skills. I'm a simple guy, I take what I read :p

Touché.;)

Mr.Black24
10-06-2015, 07:23 AM
You know, you two, you replied to my post saying you disagree, but then in the end, you say, yes you agree that complete story =/= death. Which is all I said, lol. I didn't talk about equal treatment, nor sequels, I only talked about death.
I agree that death does not mean a proper closure, but I disagreed with Connor's "proper ending" in AC3.


Well when fans ask to know about Connor's death what they really mean is equal treatment. In most cases, especially the stars of main games, we know how they died. Connor being a glaring and bizarre exception. Exactly this^ Everytime I talk to fans on tumblr or even on reddit about Connor, it's pretty much this case. The biggest case made was when Loomer mentioned in his latest podcast that many felt insulted that Connor had a throw away "ending" to the Lead Writer of AC Rogue. Of course, at it is known, he confirms alongside the other devs like Darby that Abstergo's mention of his later life is not meant to be taken to truth, however indeed his later life is a tragic one. What we want to know is how it comes to be, and does it involve characters like Shay, Aveline, or Arno, with more Precursor artifacts and locations, or perhaps even the political turmoil in America such as slavery and the aggressive takeover of the native lands.

So much can be worked with here, but hey you know, lets just ignore all that right?

I-Like-Pie45
10-06-2015, 07:40 AM
thats cause dandy mcdeluxe said that its up to the fanbase to finish connors story for him like i said earlier

Aphex_Tim
10-06-2015, 08:03 AM
Connor's "messy" death was mentioned in Black Flag or Rogue's modern day I believe. That was either one hell of a tease or Ubisoft trolling us. The latter doesn't even seem that unlikely...

ze_topazio
10-06-2015, 12:02 PM
http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2011/278/77735489_131794381406.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Grave_of_the_dog_Arno.jpg/360px-Grave_of_the_dog_Arno.jpg

http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2012/116/12315958_133548143967.jpg

http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2012/199/29277848_134262413184.jpg

dxsxhxcx
10-06-2015, 12:32 PM
But why? Proper ending =/= death. We don't see Geralt of Rivia die, we don't see Niko Bellic die, we don't see Delsin Rowe die, we don't see Joel nor Ellie die, we don't see Aang die, why is there a standard for AC to show characters dying to have proper endings? Characters dying was only introduced in ACR. Yes, a complete story might necessitate a character dying, but showing a protagonist's death just because is not a proper ending.

Edward had a proper ending in AC IV
Ezio had a proper ending in AC II
Connor had a proper ending in AC III

They all had complete character arcs.

This happens because many people only care about historical tourism and forget that the sole reason why we are reliving someone's life in the animus is to gather information we'll need during the modern days and not to see the ancestor's entire life...

EmptyCrustacean
10-06-2015, 12:48 PM
I would like to know how characters' stories end but I don't necessarily need to see it.

Farlander1991
10-06-2015, 01:00 PM
This happens because many people only care about historical tourism and forget that the sole reason why we are reliving someone's life in the animus is to gather information we'll need during the modern days and not to see the ancestor's entire life...

Well, it's not just that, but people think that story means a life story or something, ignoring such things like character arcs and narrative needs.

Tell any Connor fan that AC3 story is finished and concluded and people will be like 'nooooo it's a cliffhanger we need to know what happens next', but it's not. There was conclusion to the story and arc the game had to tell.

Doesn't mean that you can't tell more stories, but doesn't mean that you have to.

Like let's say first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, back when no sequels were planned. It ends abruptly, but it's a standalone and selfsufficient story. You can tell more but it will be different story with different arc.

D.I.D.
10-06-2015, 01:36 PM
Not bothered. Stories benefit from endings, characters not so much. The characters are there for the storytelling, not the other way around. It's possible for your characters to be bigger than your story and for it not to be a flaw, but these a videogame protagonists and we're still in the early stages of raising videogame characters up to the level of truly great literary ones. At this point, if your characters are bigger than your story then there's probably something wrong with your story.

cawatrooper9
10-06-2015, 02:10 PM
But why? Proper ending =/= death. We don't see Geralt of Rivia die, we don't see Niko Bellic die, we don't see Delsin Rowe die, we don't see Joel nor Ellie die, we don't see Aang die, why is there a standard for AC to show characters dying to have proper endings? Characters dying was only introduced in ACR. Yes, a complete story might necessitate a character dying, but showing a protagonist's death just because is not a proper ending.

Edward had a proper ending in AC IV
Ezio had a proper ending in AC II
Connor had a proper ending in AC III

They all had complete character arcs.
I'd absolutely agree that Ezio had a proper ending, even in lieu of his death.
Altair too (though his death was a bit more obvious).
Again, even without an on screen death, Edward's ending almost made me bawl (I'm a 24 year old, red-blooded American guy),
Shay's as well, actually. Apparently I cry a lot.

But that's it, in my opinion. Connor's ending certainly left something to be desired, and judging by one of the most common thread topics, I'm not alone in that (it's been at least a day since we've had a "Bring Connor Back" thread here, a new record?).

Aveline, though she wasn't a major installment protagonist and actually did get a decent ending in my opinion (at least, as befitting a minor installment in the series), has room to have more of her story explored.
Adewale, as well, or perhaps his son Eseosa. I'm still holding out that we might get a Connor/Aveline/Eseosa game, perhaps with Syndicate-style character switching (though, yeah, I know it won't happen.)

Arno's ending also left a lot to be desired, in my opinion. How cruel was it that the developers teased a storyline where Arno fights Napoleon in Egypt, one of the most requested settings and a storyline that would probably be far better than the actual game?

ze_topazio
10-06-2015, 02:18 PM
I don't want Egypt wasted on direct sequel for Arno.

Journey93
10-06-2015, 02:20 PM
But why? Proper ending =/= death. We don't see Geralt of Rivia die, we don't see Niko Bellic die, we don't see Delsin Rowe die, we don't see Joel nor Ellie die, we don't see Aang die, why is there a standard for AC to show characters dying to have proper endings? Characters dying was only introduced in ACR. Yes, a complete story might necessitate a character dying, but showing a protagonist's death just because is not a proper ending.

Edward had a proper ending in AC IV
Ezio had a proper ending in AC II
Connor had a proper ending in AC III

They all had complete character arcs.

I disagree with Connor. I'm not the biggest fan of that guy but its no secret that he got shafted hard by Ubisoft.
AC3 feels like an origin story for him through and through. Especially with that cut epilogue, it seemed like they were setting up another game with him (this time a more experienced and mature Connor)

Its the same with Unity (just play Dead Kings). With both Arno and Connor its obvious that if they were well received they would have gotten other games (like Ezio did).
They even said that much before the release of AC3.

Now as we know Connor never got that fame, he is a polarizing character at best. With AC4 they definitely went all out with Edward, he got a proper ending (apart from showing his death)

And if AC2 was Ezio's ending..that would suck ***.

Journey93
10-06-2015, 02:23 PM
I don't want Egypt wasted on direct sequel for Arno.

Yep me neither. Thank god we aren't getting another game with that dude. My least favourite protag (under Connor and Shay).

cawatrooper9
10-06-2015, 02:26 PM
I don't want Egypt wasted on direct sequel for Arno.

Agreed, but I was willing to take it.
Now we have London. Woo.

ze_topazio
10-06-2015, 02:29 PM
I wouldn't want Egypt wasted on a direct sequel for Altair, Ezio, Connor, Aveline, Adewale, Shay, Jacob and Evie either.

cawatrooper9
10-06-2015, 02:32 PM
I wouldn't want Egypt wasted on a direct sequel for Altair, Ezio, Connor, Aveline, Adewale, Shay, Jacob and Evie either.

I'd agree, but only because I'm beyond done with anything from 1700-1899 in the series for a while, and that leaves only Ezio and Altair, whose arcs are well complete.

ze_topazio
10-06-2015, 02:51 PM
I wouldn't want Egypt wasted on a direct sequel for Altair, Ezio, Connor, Aveline, Adewale, Shay, Jacob and Evie either.

I forgot Edward, Haytham, Shao Jun, Arbaaz Mir and Nikolai, I don't want Egypt wasted on them too.

Senningiri_GR
10-06-2015, 02:53 PM
I forgot Edward, Haytham, Shao Jun, Arbaaz Mir and Nikolai, I don't want Egypt wasted on them too.

Well Edward James Kenway had his ending in the Assassin's Creed novel, Forsaken and Nikolai Orelov in The Fall (as I remember)

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 02:54 PM
Tell any Connor fan that AC3 story is finished and concluded and people will be like 'nooooo it's a cliffhanger we need to know what happens next', but it's not. There was conclusion to the story and arc the game had to tell.

Doesn't mean that you can't tell more stories, but doesn't mean that you have to.

I totally agree that there's not much potential or room for a full Connor sequel, since after the American Revolution, the setting gets kind of boring for a long time (America in general after the Revolution can't really support an AC game, GTA games, Western games and other games yes, but not AC). But I think the real issue is about equality and fairness.

The nature of AC and the Animus is that there is no way we can't not know about these characters later life and eventual fate. So the whole idea that Connor's story is shrugged away unlike that of the majority of player protagonists and especially headlining main characters, well, it's kind of disrespectful on a basic level to the audience but more importantly, it's also poor storytelling. If you make a big epic game in the American Revolution an event of global consequence shaped by the Assassin character of the previous game, you can't simply wash your hands off it, especially since Connor is a living legend among the French Assassins. It's not like Connor participated in a minor event that only few will know, he was front and center of a key event in history and that was what 240 years in the past, so the American Assassins in the present day should logically know a good bit about the founder of the American Assassins. Essentially you have characters in the game knowing stuff that the audience doesn't and in a long serial game like AC with its expanded lore and information, it beggars disbelief that this kind of stuff isn't known.

Reposting and paraphrasing from above: If we list all the playable protagonists, we have closure (i.e. seen the deaths, or know how they died, and likewise know the later career of) for the following figures: Altair, Ezio, Haytham, Edward, Adewale. We see and know about these five guys in different stages of their career. Altair was the star of AC1, and even though he didn't get a full sequel, in AC2, his presence and later career was totally addressed and resolved with the Codex. His actions in AC1 had consequences that are discussed in the game, he even gets a cool cameo. In effect, a fan of AC1 has no right to feel cheated or complain. Edward. Obviously his backstory was given in Forsaken. In Black Flag we see his early career and an epilogue shows him at the start of Forsaken. We also get a novel that discusses his backstory between end of black flag and start of forsaken. Not necessary but it's there. In Rogue we get another database entry telling us what all he's been up to, him being an archeologist of First-Civ Tech putting this book together. And likewise Syndicate is going to tell us more about him as developers have stated.
...
Haytham and Adewale are both supporting characters who became player characters in brief campaigns. But even then, solely for being player characters, Haytham got a Journal after AC3 came out, Adewale got Eseosa's Codex in Initiates after Freedom Cry which told us a lot about his later life, influence and importance, even the fact that he died at a certain date, this is separate from Rogue of course. Likewise, Syndicate, merely the fact that you are going to have DLC set in 1888, it means we will have some hints or information about the later career of the Frye Twins, one or both of them will be in their forties by then surely.
...
So it's impossible not to conclude by listing all this that Connor is treated essentially as an outcaste by Ubisoft. His game, AC3 came out in 2012, and aside from snide jokes, you don't get any follow-up, not in a simple database entry, not in Initiates, not a journal nothing. Forget about the Royal Ezio treatment of a Movie and Trilogy, he's not even being treated like Adewale, Edward or Altair. ROGUE gave us pointless backstory about Achilles, Haytham, Adewale, told us how Connor's Ship was invented but didn't say anything about Connor and that was a game intended to close out the New World Saga.

So its irrational for fans to ask for a new full length sequel Altair and Edward didn't get a sequel, but in so far as Ubisoft have dug themselves into this corner they fully earned this scorn, since it's clearly a case that the major non-white protagonist, star of the cover art of their box art, is kind of being treated as an embarassment by the company.

SixKeys
10-06-2015, 03:01 PM
I don't understand what was wrong with Connor's ending. It was poignant. He spends his whole life fighting for his people, only to find they've moved on without him. The injustice of it all fits the sombre tone of his story.

I kinda wish ACR never existed. Ever since then people expect all characters to get a definite ending. When AC1 ended with Altaïr looking at a glowing map, I didn't think I'd see what happened to him after that, and I was fine with it.

Farlander1991
10-06-2015, 03:30 PM
When AC1 ended with Altaïr looking at a glowing map, I didn't think I'd see what happened to him after that, and I was fine with it.

Same with AC2, I fully expected Ezio's last lines we hear in a non-spinoff title to be that he has so many questions and then.we'd move on to another protagonist

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 03:31 PM
I kinda wish ACR never existed. Ever since then people expect all characters to get a definite ending. When AC1 ended with Altaïr looking at a glowing map, I didn't think I'd see what happened to him after that, and I was fine with it.

As I said above, It's not Revelations that started it. AC2 gave us Altair's Codex already and we also saw a cameo by Altair in that game via bleeding effect. All by itself, that wrapped up Altair's story, telling us Altair's romance with Maria, him fighting Genghis Khan, him and Malik being best buds, him sending his stuff to the Italian brotherhood. If you want no backstory or continuation, you have to argue against AC2 itself, made by the Lord and Master, Patrice Desilets.

The Animus shows us the unfiltered past, it has access to DNA, so you can trace Ezio through the generations. So logically from what the game tells us, it's pretty clear we can know these characters, how they lived and died and what they did after the story. In fact there's no way we can't not know about this. Assassin's Creed is a serial epic historical story. It's not standalone like GTA which is also this cartoonish outlandish story that, in recent games, has a choice mechanic. By the logic of the open world, your ancestor shaped history, so it's entirely reasonable, even logical from a purely story perspective that his legacy, influence and important should be addressed in the following games and that you would know when and where he died, how the actions there mattered to the characters afterwards. In the case of Connor, he was part of a major historical event, front and center, he founded the American Assassins, so it's ridiculous to think that William Miles or Shaun Hastings or others wouldn't know what happened to him afterwards. I will argue that if Melanie Lemay knows about Connor's future and ending then fans have every right to know.


Same with AC2, I fully expected Ezio's last lines we hear in a non-spinoff title to be that he has so many questions and then.we'd move on to another protagonist

Yes but in AC2 itself, we know about Altair's later career from the Codex and we see a cameo of him...so it's not like Altair's totally standalone.

EmptyCrustacean
10-06-2015, 04:06 PM
Not bothered. Stories benefit from endings, characters not so much. The characters are there for the storytelling, not the other way around. It's possible for your characters to be bigger than your story and for it not to be a flaw, but these a videogame protagonists and we're still in the early stages of raising videogame characters up to the level of truly great literary ones. At this point, if your characters are bigger than your story then there's probably something wrong with your story.

Wow, completely disagree. For me, characters drive story. Sometimes a story is enough if it's told really well but a character driven story doesn't mean that the story itself is weak because in a "character driven story" character and story is one and the same.

SixKeys
10-06-2015, 04:08 PM
In the case of Connor, he was part of a major historical event, front and center, he founded the American Assassins, so it's ridiculous to think that William Miles or Shaun Hastings or others wouldn't know what happened to him afterwards.

Maybe they just don't care. The only reason they had to look through any of Desmond's ancestors' memories was to find out what could help them fight Abstergo in present day. Altaïr's story in AC1 ended abruptly because that final memory was all they needed. AC2 should have been Ezio's only game, but we all know what happened. At least in his case it kinda made sense because of Minerva's reveal and speaking directly to Desmond. Makes sense that Desmond and co. would want to hear more after that in case there was more to the message. Ezio's story could have ended with him hiding the Apple in the Colosseum for Desmond and co. to retrieve. ACR was just an unnecessary game that was only justified by the cliffhanger ending in ACB (which itself was probably written to justify ACR :rolleyes: ). But because it wrapped up both Altaïr and Ezio's lives in a very definite way, people suddenly think all assassins should get the same treatment.

Edit: Also, when referring to AC2's Codex, keep in mind that at that point the series was still planned to be a trilogy, with the next game probably featuring Desmond in MD. There were only going to be two (possibly three) historical protagonists and then the series would be over. So at that point the Altaïr cameos were just cute little nods. Everything changed when ACB went from a planned expansion to a full-fledged game.

D.I.D.
10-06-2015, 04:15 PM
Wow, completely disagree. For me, characters drive story. Sometimes a story is enough if it's told really well but a character driven story doesn't mean that the story itself is weak because in a "character driven story" character and story is one and the same.

That's not quite what I meant. I mean that if your characters are overshadowing your story in terms of importance, there's probably something wrong with your story. Characters can of course be bigger than plot inside the game/movie/book itself.

Remember, this hunger, this feeling of injustice... You could take it as a sign that the game you had was just so damn awesome, the fans can't get enough, but that's not quite what this is, is it? Some people want more about Connor because they don't feel like they got satisfaction in the first place, and they want to see the company do right by his character. That's not "Encore!" so much as "Rewrite it!". AC3 failed its fans and its detractors, imo. I realise that sounds illogical; if they're fans, they must have enjoyed it, you'd think. They don't sound like happy people, though.

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 04:31 PM
Edit: Also, when referring to AC2's Codex, keep in mind that at that point the series was still planned to be a trilogy, with the next game probably featuring Desmond in MD. There were only going to be two (possibly three) historical protagonists and then the series would be over. So at that point the Altaïr cameos were just cute little nods.

Major Text-Only Supplement (Codex) that you have to collect to unlock the finale, in addition to Armour, in addition to repeated references by characters, in addition to a single playable cameo is more than just "cute little nods". I know because I played AC2 before AC1 and I knew all about Altair from that game alone, because he was quite a major posthumous character in the story.


Everything changed when ACB went from a planned expansion to a full-fledged game.

So is Brotherhood illegitimate then? If Patrice Desilets was the original visionary and if the games he extensively worked on (AC1, AC2) had a heavy sense of connection between each other, where the Events of AC1 definitely influenced AC2, obviously that has greatest legitimacy. The events of AC2 likewise directly led to ACB, sharing the same supporting cast moreover. Now Desilets left Brotherhood before finishing, so you can say it's less legitimate than the first two games but it still reflects his vision at least partly.

But after that, Revelations, AC3, Black Flag, Unity, Rogue are either all equally legitimate or equally illegitimate. I mean AC3 is maybe more legitimate than Revelations since that was always intended to be a game set in America by PD. And even AC3 has Achilles discussing Ezio's conversation with Minerva. And as I mentioned earlier Edward, Adewale, Haytham got closure..so why not the star of the Numbered Title? It's not inconsistent in style and purpose from the original PD games and it's not inconsistent with the later games either.

LoyalACFan
10-06-2015, 04:51 PM
Of course I agree that a full story arc doesn't necessarily need to end in the protagonist's death, but IMO leaving off with Connor in his twenties clashes pretty hard with the rest of Desmond's saga. I mean, at that point it was very much about the lives and deaths of the Assassins throughout history, culminating in the death of Desmond himself, and we know essentially the entire life stories of every other one of his major ancestors (even the ones irrelevant to Desmond's story like Haytham and Edward). Abandoning Connor so early with no epilogue or peek at the end of his life kind of feels like a significant omission to me.

But it's kinda too late now TBH, it would have been great to see the deaths of the main trinity of Altair, Ezio, and Connor as a preamble to Desmond's death, but now that that whole plotline is over and done with there's no point going back to it. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more Connor, but the opportunity has kind of passed now IMO and TBH I wasn't dissatisfied with his conclusion in AC3. I just think it would have been more thematically relevant if Desmond became aware of his ancestor's honorable deaths before deciding to make his sacrifice.

cawatrooper9
10-06-2015, 05:12 PM
But it's kinda too late now TBH, it would have been great to see the deaths of the main trinity of Altair, Ezio, and Connor as a preamble to Desmond's death...

Honestly, the first time I played ACIII back in 2012, I absolutely thought that somehow (even though it went against the logic of the Animus) Connor was doomed to die. He took quite a beating in the end, and I figured he and Charles Lee would both just bleed out together in the tavern, perhaps showing the futility of revenge.

Farlander1991
10-06-2015, 05:16 PM
Yes but in AC2 itself, we know about Altair's later career from the Codex and we see a cameo of him...so it's not like Altair's totally standalone.

Yeah, but you can't really compare the AC2 treatment of Altair to Revelations/Secret Crusade treatment (not to mention Ezio's ACB/ACR treatment).

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 05:28 PM
Yeah, but you can't really compare the AC2 treatment of Altair to Revelations/Secret Crusade treatment (not to mention Ezio's ACB/ACR treatment).

The point is there was never a promise in AC1-AC2 that these adventures were standalone that would never be referenced in later titles. That the succeeding game would basically leave it hanging, and that it was the later games that ruined everything, So even if you say ACR ruined it by giving us playable Altair: The Final Years, it was only because AC2 heavily featured information about Altair's later career, answering many key questions. Revelations was essentially superfluous in that it visualized what seemed clear from the Codex that Altair lived a long life and died of old age, that he married and had children, he modernized and changed the Brotherhood.

So the point is if AC2 gave closure to AC1's story and Altair then that means that every character should get the same in the following and later titles, and that has been observed for most characters except Connor, leaving aside the 2014 games of course since it's still early. So on one hand while asking for Connor's sequel is extreme, you can't look at any game in any part of the franchise and say that fans are unreasonable in asking for closure and completion or that they are wrong in percieving he's being treated differently.

Farlander1991
10-06-2015, 05:57 PM
The point is there was never a promise in AC1-AC2 that these adventures were standalone that would never be referenced in later titles.

But that was never the argument in the first place. Altair had two side stories in his first two years in form of handheld games and then a presence and cameo in AC2, of course Altair and other characters aren't 'exclusive'. That still doesn't change the fact that both him and Ezio have full, self-sufficient stories and arcs in their respective main games (even though both end abruptly as there's no really other way to end it in an MD/historical structure that AC has set up), and that was the expectation that those two games have set-up - that different games will have different protagonists with a standalone self-sufficient story and then there will be some form of extended universe formed around them in a form of spinoff or other media, as well as references in future titles.

Journey93
10-06-2015, 06:10 PM
Maybe they just don't care. The only reason they had to look through any of Desmond's ancestors' memories was to find out what could help them fight Abstergo in present day. Altaïr's story in AC1 ended abruptly because that final memory was all they needed. AC2 should have been Ezio's only game, but we all know what happened. At least in his case it kinda made sense because of Minerva's reveal and speaking directly to Desmond. Makes sense that Desmond and co. would want to hear more after that in case there was more to the message. Ezio's story could have ended with him hiding the Apple in the Colosseum for Desmond and co. to retrieve. ACR was just an unnecessary game that was only justified by the cliffhanger ending in ACB (which itself was probably written to justify ACR :rolleyes: ). But because it wrapped up both Altaïr and Ezio's lives in a very definite way, people suddenly think all assassins should get the same treatment.

Edit: Also, when referring to AC2's Codex, keep in mind that at that point the series was still planned to be a trilogy, with the next game probably featuring Desmond in MD. There were only going to be two (possibly three) historical protagonists and then the series would be over. So at that point the Altaïr cameos were just cute little nods. Everything changed when ACB went from a planned expansion to a full-fledged game.

Ubisoft would have made Connor sequels too if he was well received, so its not like the Ezio Trilogy was supposed to be a one time thing and that the fans are at fault for wanting more.

The endings for AC1 and 2 definitely didn't give me enough closure. I'm glad we got Brotherhood and especially Revelations to wrap up Ezio and Altair's story.
It allowed for much more development, seeing them in different stages of their life.

Now that doesn't have to happen always. AC4 showed that, apart from Edwards death it showed everything that needed to be shown and provided great character development in only one game.

Compared to that Arno and Connor's stories definitely didn't end in a satisfying way. They felt more like teasers and their games like origin stories

Journey93
10-06-2015, 06:14 PM
Major Text-Only Supplement (Codex) that you have to collect to unlock the finale, in addition to Armour, in addition to repeated references by characters, in addition to a single playable cameo is more than just "cute little nods". I know because I played AC2 before AC1 and I knew all about Altair from that game alone, because he was quite a major posthumous character in the story.



So is Brotherhood illegitimate then? If Patrice Desilets was the original visionary and if the games he extensively worked on (AC1, AC2) had a heavy sense of connection between each other, where the Events of AC1 definitely influenced AC2, obviously that has greatest legitimacy. The events of AC2 likewise directly led to ACB, sharing the same supporting cast moreover. Now Desilets left Brotherhood before finishing, so you can say it's less legitimate than the first two games but it still reflects his vision at least partly.

But after that, Revelations, AC3, Black Flag, Unity, Rogue are either all equally legitimate or equally illegitimate. I mean AC3 is maybe more legitimate than Revelations since that was always intended to be a game set in America by PD. And even AC3 has Achilles discussing Ezio's conversation with Minerva. And as I mentioned earlier Edward, Adewale, Haytham got closure..so why not the star of the Numbered Title? It's not inconsistent in style and purpose from the original PD games and it's not inconsistent with the later games either.

The only reason Connor didn't get another game (and never will) is because he wasn't well received, thats it.
Before the release of AC3 they even said that if fans wanted more games with him, they would get them.

After the backlash though they went in another direction and since then (apart from AC4) we have been getting lame half assed stories that lead nowhere with every year a new protag (Unity, Rogue and Syndicate even seems to be just like that).
I wish they would do another Trilogy or at least two games per Protag,would be much more interesting

SixKeys
10-06-2015, 07:12 PM
So is Brotherhood illegitimate then? If Patrice Desilets was the original visionary and if the games he extensively worked on (AC1, AC2) had a heavy sense of connection between each other, where the Events of AC1 definitely influenced AC2, obviously that has greatest legitimacy. The events of AC2 likewise directly led to ACB, sharing the same supporting cast moreover. Now Desilets left Brotherhood before finishing, so you can say it's less legitimate than the first two games but it still reflects his vision at least partly.
.

ACB was originally meant to be part of AC2, then it became an expansion DLC, then a full-fledged game. That's why I view AC2 and ACB as one whole. ACR, on the other hand, was conceived of as a Nintendo DS side story, akin to Altaïr's PSP games - nice to have if you care about handheld titles but not necessary to the canon as most people only buy the console titles - and then was hurriedly developed into a full game in 10 months. It became much bigger than it had any right to be, and it shows in the quality of writing.

BTW, I don't care about Patrice's involvement. Him being part of the production team or not doesn't make a game legitimate or illegitimate to me. :confused: Patrice only had a hand in ACB because, like I said, it was originally part of AC2. The only reason I view ACB as more "legitimate" (which is a dumb term as they are all legitimate in that they're part of the official canon whether we like it or not) than the titles that came after is because it still had a modern day that mattered and a good reason to continue Ezio's story. ACR didn't, because it originally wasn't planned to be an important part of the series.

If Ezio would have only had two titles to his name and if they never talked about what happened to Altaïr after AC1, we wouldn't have all these complaints where only death = a proper ending.

Hans684
10-06-2015, 07:26 PM
Ubisoft hiring George R.R. Martin to write a couple of AC games and books could solve this.

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 07:26 PM
If Ezio would have only had two titles to his name and if they never talked about what happened to Altaïr after AC1, we wouldn't have all these complaints where only death = a proper ending.

Well the fact is that they did talk about Altair after AC1 and Ezio did get more than two titles. And since they are legitimate don't you agree then people asking for closure on Connor's story even in the form of a Codex or a Database Entry have a point? Don't you see or concede that he's treated a little different than other characters?

SixKeys
10-06-2015, 08:09 PM
Well the fact is that they did talk about Altair after AC1 and Ezio did get more than two titles. And since they are legitimate don't you agree then people asking for closure on Connor's story even in the form of a Codex or a Database Entry have a point? Don't you see or concede that he's treated a little different than other characters?

I never said I had anything against a codex page or database entry, or even a book, comic, whatever form of transmedia. I just don't want to see Connor get another game. I don't want ANY protagonists getting more than one game as it's clear that wasn't the original intent and never should have happened in the first place.

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 08:30 PM
I never said I had anything against a codex page or database entry, or even a book, comic, whatever form of transmedia. I just don't want to see Connor get another game. I don't want ANY protagonists getting more than one game as it's clear that wasn't the original intent and never should have happened in the first place.

We finally agree. :)

My feeling is that most people don't really want a new Connor game so much as for Ubisoft drop the snide treatment and simply treat him like they did, Edward, Haytham or Adewale
and give additional information, because otherwise Connor who is the star of AC3, feels like he's an afterthought to the New World games when he isn't that at all. It's certainly not the correct way to treat the major non-white hero of the franchise.

I am okay with a protagonist getting additional games, if the period was rich enough and that you had additional areas to explore and see. In the case of Ezio, the Renaissance was that rich period and you had many cities which were interesting and AC-2 didn't explore all of that. So Brotherhood was justified, and later, obviously they leapt at a chance to Istanbul and visit the Ottoman Empire with Revelations (though obviously it would have been better with a Turkish Assassin). So i don't have too many problems with that at all. In the case of Connor, that New World setting after the Revolution doesn't allow for the right mixage (architecture/events/historical figures/gameplay) to justify an additional sequel. Of course it didn't justify a prequel either, but they still made Rogue anyway, and if they simply followed through on the logical finale of that game that was hinted throughout and the Unity Helix Files then it might have worked.

SixKeys
10-06-2015, 08:36 PM
Ubisoft have implied that Connor being shoved into the background was due to how he was received by the general public. I wonder if that means we'll never hear from Arno again either.

Journey95
10-06-2015, 08:36 PM
I never said I had anything against a codex page or database entry, or even a book, comic, whatever form of transmedia. I just don't want to see Connor get another game. I don't want ANY protagonists getting more than one game as it's clear that wasn't the original intent and never should have happened in the first place.

Disagree completely. I would rather have two games with one protag or at least a connected Saga (like the Kenway one)
Unity and Syndicate (from what we have seen) just feel like standalone and pointless side stories with zero connection. Especially with Ubisoft milking the series its becoming tiresome every year to see a new protag and story.

So what if it wasn't the original intent? The original intent was to only have an AC Trilogy, so screw the rest of the games I guess and they never should have been made?

SixKeys
10-06-2015, 08:41 PM
Disagree completely. I would rather have two games with one protag or at least a connected Saga (like the Kenway one)
Unity and Syndicate (from what we have seen) just feel like standalone and pointless side stories with zero connection. Especially with Ubisoft milking the series its becoming tiresome every year to see a new protag and story.

So what if it wasn't the original intent? The original intent was to only have an AC Trilogy, so screw the rest of the games I guess and they never should have been made?

We've seen what giving an assassin more games than what was originally planned does to the quality. Revelations was a disappointment and Rogue (which featured Haytham, Adewale and Achilles) was like bad fan fiction. Even ACB, my favorite, suffered due to the fact that they stretched a thin story to its limits just to justify turning it from an expansion to a full-priced game.

Did AC1 feel like a standalone, pointless game when you first played it?

Journey95
10-06-2015, 08:47 PM
We've seen what giving an assassin more games than what was originally planned does to the quality. Revelations was a disappointment and Rogue (which featured Haytham, Adewale and Achilles) was like bad fan fiction. Even ACB, my favorite, suffered due to the fact that they stretched a thin story to its limits just to justify turning it from an expansion to a full-priced game.

Did AC1 feel like a standalone, pointless game when you first played it?

Maybe Revelations was a disappointment for you but for me its probably my favourite of the Ezio Trilogy. I do agree about Rogue though but I think its so bad because they shoehorned in another apparently important character into the Kenway Saga, it should have been about Haytham.

No AC1 didn't feel like that because it actually had a meaningful MD and at that time the series wasn't being milked to death, they were going somewhere with it.
Now that thats finished, they should at least connect the games in some way or give us more with one Protag. Having unrelated new stories with new protagonists every freaking year is getting old real fast.

If Syndicate's story is any good I would like another game with Jacob & Evie

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 09:03 PM
Ubisoft have implied that Connor being shoved into the background was due to how he was received by the general public. I wonder if that means we'll never hear from Arno again either.

Altair wasn't Mr. Popular either and yet he got treated fairly in AC2. But then that was PD in charge and obviously he did like to reference Altair in AC1. In Revelations they added him for filler and also changed his character to make it more friendly and less like the first game. Who knows if Connor appears he might get a new voice actor and crack more jokes.

I think you will hear about Arno mostly because he's connected with Napoleon and the whole issue of his Empire and aftermath would need to be addressed in Syndicate since it shaped the 19th Century and England especially. Napoleon was the only real threat to the English Empire and with his defeat, there was no challenge. Syndicate in general, it's set in 1868, so it might be that we get more references to the fallout of AC3 and Unity, I hope so because if the next game is Japan as per Cornik's detective work then this is a good place to solve all those issues once and for all. But then I might be giving credit to Ubisoft (which is not a mistake anyone should make) and they might feel they should keep spinning wheels. Much as I disike Arno and Shay, I agree that they should be treated fairly as well. But then I am sure that they'll stick around, if only because Ubisoft would feel more comfortable with those type of characters, being white Europeans, than they would with Connor, or Aveline for that matter.

Journey93
10-06-2015, 09:19 PM
Altair wasn't Mr. Popular either and yet he got treated fairly in AC2. But then that was PD in charge and obviously he did like to reference Altair in AC1. In Revelations they added him for filler and also changed his character to make it more friendly and less like the first game. Who knows if Connor appears he might get a new voice actor and crack more jokes.

I think you will hear about Arno mostly because he's connected with Napoleon and the whole issue of his Empire and aftermath would need to be addressed in Syndicate since it shaped the 19th Century and England especially. Napoleon was the only real threat to the English Empire and with his defeat, there was no challenge. Syndicate in general, it's set in 1868, so it might be that we get more references to the fallout of AC3 and Unity, I hope so because if the next game is Japan as per Cornik's detective work then this is a good place to solve all those issues once and for all. But then I might be giving credit to Ubisoft (which is not a mistake anyone should make) and they might feel they should keep spinning wheels. Much as I disike Arno and Shay, I agree that they should be treated fairly as well. But then I am sure that they'll stick around, if only because Ubisoft would feel more comfortable with those type of characters, being white Europeans, than they would with Connor, or Aveline for that matter.

We might get a few references but thats it. Arno is as much finished as Connor is, he is less polarizing but most people just give zero ****s about him.

And Connor's reception didn't have anything to do with him not being a white dude. He was just dull and annoying for most.

And how did they change Altair's character? They gave him a more fitting voice actor (thankfully) and made him wiser thats it. He already developed through AC1, did you want him to be a **** again?
If Connor had gotten a sequel, he would be less whiny and naive too, since he developed towards the end(as the epilogue shows).

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 09:22 PM
Disagree completely. I would rather have two games with one protag or at least a connected Saga (like the Kenway one)
Unity and Syndicate (from what we have seen) just feel like standalone and pointless side stories with zero connection. Especially with Ubisoft milking the series its becoming tiresome every year to see a new protag and story.

First of all the Kenway Saga was hardly "connected". The events of Black Flag and all the issues therein (Pirates, Nassau, Sage, Observatory) have nothing whatsoever to do with AC3. Black Flag could very easily have been the adventures of say Kenneth "Ken" Edwards, poor blonde Welsh sailor who becomes a Pirate and stumbles into the Assassin conflict and it would be the same game and work the same way. Until the final scene and post-credits opera finale, there's nothing to connect it to the events of AC3. The only reason he's Kenway because they wanted to tie it to the the Assassin lore and not feel like an entirely random pirate story (which a lot of people still feel it is).

The Kenway Saga is not really a "saga" since the Kenways were never really a family. Edward raised Haytham for a few years but died like an idiot and Haytham became a puppet to the guy who killed him. Then Connor is a lovechild raised by his mother, becomes an orphan and eventually kills his father. Jenny, that little girl at the end of Black Flag, well she got treated like crap by everyone all her life and in retrospect it would have been better for her if Edward abandoned her altogether.


If Syndicate's story is any good I would like another game with Jacob & Evie

Well with Syndicate, the fact is the DLC is set in 1888, by which time one or both twins will be in their early 40s. So you will essentially get a sequel with that anyway.

In any case for me I would like if Ubisoft told complete stories that were well made, well designed and told an intense story that felt complete. Like Rogue is a bad game but it's worse because it's missing the obvious finale that the game hinted and built towards.

Mr.Black24
10-06-2015, 09:27 PM
The whole arguement that Connor doesn't warrent a sequel becouse no or at least mentions in later games reminds me of someone who posted this exact thing on tumblr, abit with some sexism, and ended up burned like so, ***WARNING: Anger and Profanity detected******.
kiango:
assassinscreedconfessions:
I am honestly starting to get tired of fangirls wanting another Connor game. We need to be fair here. The only audience I’ve seen so far that have wanted a Connor sequel are fangirls. It’d be unfair for Ubisoft to produce another Connor game for the fangirls. If the audience were of mixed genders, then why not? But the fact that some people I know of aren’t considering other characters like Altaïr who never got a sequel in the main storyline pisses me off. I believe Connor’s story is complete, and yes, I would like to see an end to his life, but also consider what historical setting could there be for a Connor game. Think about Edward Kenway who may actually never get a sequel as well.
Ezio’s life and death were shown in great detail in-game and in novels
Altair’s life and death were shown in-game
Edward Kenway’s life was shown in-game and his death detailed in the Forsaken novel
Haytham Kenway’s childhood and early life were detailed in Forsaken, and his life and death shown in-game
Desmond Miles’ childhood, life, and death were all shown in-game
Connor’s story had an unhappy ending that breaks off at age 30
lmfao
consider what historical setting could there be for a Connor game.
yo, were you hiding in the janitor’s closet smoking weed during this chapter of wold history class?
French Revolution
Haitian Revolution
War of 1812
This is the Enlightenment Era, ****er:
racism
racism
sexism and racism
slavery and more racism
genocide of native american/first nations peoples
formation of Underground Railroad
All this was going on during Connor’s lifetime immediately after the game cuts off, and all takes place within the US (with the exception of the French and Haitian Revolutions, both of which took place in their respective countries, were intimately linked to each other and the American Revolution in that the American Revolution inspired these movements for overthrow of the power hierarchy, and Connor could have conceivably gotten in on the ground floor of the French Revolution given Connor’s friendship with Lafayette AND Jefferson’s and Franklin’s huge *****s for France and their aid in the French Revolution, which would have invariably led to Connor becoming disgusted by the way the Revolution was going near the end and led either him or Aveline to help out the Haitian Revolution).
I also like the absolutely overt sexism and misogyny dripping from this confession. “Fangirl’s feelings, wants, and desires aren’t valid and are inherently vapid in nature, and as such do not deserve thought or attention, and do not mean anything.” As opposed to the Glorious Fanboys or Gamer Dudes, who because they wished and worked hard enough, they were able to influence the Mass Effect creators!!
****ing wow.
I like how if it was just a bunch of boys screaming about how they want something changed, it would be considered “popular opinion.” But when it’s “only girls,” (you’re wrong about the gender balance of this btw) the inclusion of men (or, “mixed genders,” as you call it) are needed to validate this movement.
What I’m trying to say here, in case it wasn’t clear enough, is for you to eat ****. *********************************** Needless to say, people are very strong about this. So in the end, why not? Why is it wrong to revisit other characters and see what they've been doing later in life? Why is that so wrong. Don't buy his game if you don't want to so bad, but don't beat down others for it too. Plus to add to their anger, you got Shay, Arno, Aveline, and the Precursor Trees which are perfect elements to use in the next story, who's stories got the same treatment, thrown away like nothing, so yeah why in the hell not? Why not close them in one epic 4 way story game? Not to mention that their "endings" seem to heavily hint towards this final conflict, so yeah lets see it through. Don't buy it if you don't want to. Note: I'm typing this on mobile so sorry if it came out messy mods.

I-Like-Pie45
10-06-2015, 09:37 PM
The same people who think Altair's accent in ACR is more authentic are probably the same people who think all people from the Middle East are Muslims

VestigialLlama4
10-06-2015, 09:47 PM
And Connor's reception didn't have anything to do with him not being a white dude. He was just dull and annoying for most.

If he was truly dull there wouldn't be such passionate statements for and against him, or say million Connor Yay-Or-Nay Posts. Objectively Connor can't possibly be a dull character or nobody would care about him this much.

As for Connor's reception having nothing to do with "him being white"...look at the shelf of games and count the number of titles with non-white protagonists, and then the number of games which are AAA titles with non-white protagonists. You will find that before AC3 there was San Andreas and after AC3...maybe Sleeping Dogs. It's totally naive and irresponsible to make a statement that it had nothing to do with it, especially since we know for a fact that what with Gamergate and all that a large portion of the gaming community is objectively evil.

Ubisoft more or less admit that it does with the Black Flag's Abstergo videos, where Abstergo basically says that Connor's story is "too foreign for their target audience". So they are pretty much shrugging their shoulders and going that it's DLC and Side games from now on.


If Connor had gotten a sequel, he would be less whiny and naive too, since he developed towards the end(as the epilogue shows).

Connor isn't whiny at all. He is stoic and persevering, that's at least what most of the critics said.

Journey93
10-06-2015, 09:58 PM
The same people who think Altair's accent in ACR is more authentic are probably the same people who think all people from the Middle East are Muslims

Its better than his silly American one in every way. I hated it when Unity went with British accents in a game set in freaking Paris

Journey93
10-06-2015, 10:14 PM
If he was truly dull there wouldn't be such passionate statements for and against him, or say million Connor Yay-Or-Nay Posts. Objectively Connor can't possibly be a dull character or nobody would care about him this much.

As for Connor's reception having nothing to do with "him being white"...look at the shelf of games and count the number of titles with non-white protagonists, and then the number of games which are AAA titles with non-white protagonists. You will find that before AC3 there was San Andreas and after AC3...maybe Sleeping Dogs. It's totally naive and irresponsible to make a statement that it had nothing to do with it, especially since we know for a fact that what with Gamergate and all that a large portion of the gaming community is objectively evil.

Ubisoft more or less admit that it does with the Black Flag's Abstergo videos, where Abstergo basically says that Connor's story is "too foreign for their target audience". So they are pretty much shrugging their shoulders and going that it's DLC and Side games from now on.



Connor isn't whiny at all. He is stoic and persevering, that's at least what most of the critics said.

People just dislike him for various reasons, "dull" (because he lacks charisma apparently), "whiny", "angsty", "annoying" are all words many people use to describe Connor.

I'm not the biggest fan of the character either but he is definitely not the worst AC protag we had so far.

I still don't think that him being a non white protag had a major impact on his reception, for some maybe but not for most. Its his personality that people dislike + the story of AC3 and the game in general. Arno won't get another game either even though he had an even worse ending than Connor.

Most games (and also movies + tv shows etc.) have straight white dude's as protags thats true, I do wish we had more diversity. Then again just shoehorning a character for that isn't good either (felt that way about GTA V where Franklin was basically the token black character who was bland as hell and only there to appease the SA fans)

LieutenantRex
10-06-2015, 10:15 PM
We might get a few references but thats it. Arno is as much finished as Connor is, he is less polarizing but most people just give zero ****s about him.

And Connor's reception didn't have anything to do with him not being a white dude. He was just dull and annoying for most.

Typical naiveté.

Journey93
10-06-2015, 10:20 PM
Typical naiveté.

Nah I think Connor fans just can't accept that people dislike him as a character. It doesn't mean they are racists, that they are Ezio fanboys, that they are stupid or whatever

LieutenantRex
10-06-2015, 10:27 PM
Nah I think Connor fans just can't accept that people dislike him as a character. It doesn't mean they are racists, that they are Ezio fanboys, that they are stupid or whatever

Don't do that. Don't partition off individuals to certain groups so that the credibility of their opinions is somehow lessened. I like Connor. I also like Ezio, and Altair, and Aveline, and Haytham, and even, and it pains me to say, Edward. Blind devotion isn't driving this argument, friend, analytical thinking is. You expressed naiveté in your statement. Dull and boring are traits that an ignoramus would use when they have little to no knowledge of Mohawk culture. But perhaps that's the problem. The white male audience's scope is so esoteric that it cannot conceive different characteristics other than the suave and, pardon the colloquial diction, badass. Although, it could be argued, Connor was badass.

Smithies89
10-06-2015, 11:04 PM
I wouldn't necessarily ask for sequels with these characters tho I would happily play it.

I just want to know more, we know Connor lived and died at some point

I would happily take information on them in any form books, comics, database entries, short films. I'm just that kind of person that always likes to know what happens next

Mr.Black24
10-06-2015, 11:53 PM
Don't do that. Don't partition off individuals to certain groups so that the credibility of their opinions is somehow lessened. I like Connor. I also like Ezio, and Altair, and Aveline, and Haytham, and even, and it pains me to say, Edward. Blind devotion isn't driving this argument, friend, analytical thinking is. You expressed naiveté in your statement. Dull and boring are traits that an ignoramus would use when they have little to no knowledge of Mohawk culture. But perhaps that's the problem. The white male audience's scope is so esoteric that it cannot conceive different characteristics other than the suave and, pardon the colloquial diction, badass. Although, it could be argued, Connor was badass. I kind of feel the same way about this admitably. See a white kid have his the male front of his family executed in front of him, throw some women in, a few laughs, generic vengeance, and he is the crown gem of the series.

Have a native kid who seen his beloved village and mother burned alive and into the ground, wants to protect his people from harm, joins and rebuilds the Assassin Order, like the idea of Revolution as he believes that everyone of all races should be free, builds a Homestead and takes in people that ranges from those who are abused by the British to abused housewives, stigmatized for being part native, the second Assassin who wanted a union of Assassin and Templar so that a better future can be built AND THE FIRST TO ATTEMPT SO, tries to reconcile with father, calls out the ******** hypocrisy of the Founding Fathers who want freedom, and yet still keeps slaves and harassing natives, fails to save his best friend from lies of his worst enemy and forced to kill him, forced to kill his father, and loses almost everything in the process, learns that his father wasn't dark as he thought he was, felt more of a failure than he ever felt he did, yet still has hope that he and the Assassins will fight on to make a world a better place for future generations.

Yet he is boring...

No seriously, explain to me how his character is boring. Justify to me all of you on how this guy is boring. Out of so many generic, gruff, stubbled anti heroes today, we got a true hero that wants a good thing, but screws up like a normal human being does from time to time, who has more substance than Superman, who by the way, is the most OP AND BORING CHARACTER EVER, HE LITERALLY DOES NOTHING WRONG.

Just try.....

Journey93
10-07-2015, 12:06 AM
I kind of feel the same way about this admitably. See a white kid have his the male front of his family executed in front of him, throw some women in, a few laughs, generic vengeance, and he is the crown gem of the series.

Have a native kid who seen his beloved village and mother burned alive and into the ground, wants to protect his people from harm, joins and rebuilds the Assassin Order, like the idea of Revolution as he believes that everyone of all races should be free, builds a Homestead and takes in people that ranges from those who are abused by the British to abused housewives, stigmatized for being part native, the second Assassin who wanted a union of Assassin and Templar so that a better future can be built AND THE FIRST TO ATTEMPT SO, tries to reconcile with father, calls out the ******** hypocrisy of the Founding Fathers who want freedom, and yet still keeps slaves and harassing natives, fails to save his best friend from lies of his worst enemy and forced to kill him, forced to kill his father, and loses almost everything in the process, learns that his father wasn't dark as he thought he was, felt more of a failure than he ever felt he did, yet still has hope that he and the Assassins will fight on to make a world a better place for future generations.

Yet he is boring...

No seriously, explain to me how his character is boring. Justify to me all of you on how this guy is boring. Out of so many generic, gruff, stubbled anti heroes today, we got a true hero that wants a good thing, but screws up like a normal human being does from time to time, who has more substance than Superman, who by the way, is the most OP AND BORING CHARACTER EVER, HE LITERALLY DOES NOTHING WRONG.

Just try.....

I think he is annoying but not boring (I have more problem with the story of AC3 than with Connor anyway). Just said that some think that way about Connor.
Though I must say the bias is strong in your post. Ezio's revenge was somehow generic and Connor's wasn't?
And interestingly you went into great detail about Connor, what he accomplished etc. but you reduced Ezio to two sentences, lol

ACZanius
10-07-2015, 12:25 AM
I don't know man, i don't think we will ever see any Connor sequel at this point, at least not in full AAA game, probably some chronicles or novel.

idk we will see what happens

Mr.Black24
10-07-2015, 12:27 AM
I think he is annoying but not boring (I have more problem with the story of AC3 than with Connor anyway). Just said that some think that way about Connor.
Though I must say the bias is strong in your post. Ezio's revenge was somehow generic and Connor's wasn't?
Revenge is a selfish motive, while Justice isn't:

See 0:09 to 1:17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQqj9CYOHn8

Connor claws his way to Lee as he is a threat to not only his people, but also the entire Nation as a whole.


And interestingly you went into great detail about Connor, what he accomplished etc. but you reduced Ezio to two sentences, lol

I compared them by the story arc of their first game. It is not fair to compare a whole character with three games with one who has just one. And with a character who has only one game, he has a lot more going on then Ezio did in his first.

Plus why is he annoying? Is it not a legitimate reason to be angry at what happened to him and his people, what the Templars might do if he does not take action? Thats like saying the Black Lives Matter movement are annoying because they keep talking about how cops have a harmful bias towards them that gets their own people dead. Or the Natives today that protest as oil companies dump their waste into their water supplies or try to force themselves unto their land.

Please, if you are going to talk, have some substance beneath your feet.

Journey93
10-07-2015, 12:49 AM
Revenge is a selfish motive, while Justice isn't:

See 0:09 to 1:17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQqj9CYOHn8

Connor claws his way to Lee as he is a threat to not only his people, but also the entire Nation as a whole.



I compared them by the story arc of their first game. It is not fair to compare a whole character with three games with one who has just one. And with a character who has only one game, he has a lot more going on then Ezio did in his first.

Plus why is he annoying? Is it not a legitimate reason to be angry at what happened to him and his people, what the Templars might do if he does not take action? Thats like saying the Black Lives Matter movement are annoying because they keep talking about how cops have a harmful bias towards them that gets their own people dead. Or the Natives today that protest as oil companies dump their waste into their water supplies or try to force themselves unto their land.

Please, if you are going to talk, have some substance beneath your feet.



So what if Revenge is a selfish motive? You make it seem like one is more valid than the other.
We get it Connor is a better person than Ezio, the question is who cares?

I think Connor was annoying because he was childish & naive (and someone who just got used by everyone) and also erratic. He was angry all the time (never did the Homestead missions, heard he was a bit different there, his attitude in the main story was just tiresome, don't care if its understandable or not) and his voice acting didn't help either. He really doesn't develop apart from the cut epilogue and never felt like part of the Brotherhood even his "Assassin Recruits" felt like random people and not Assassins.
Not to mention his obsession with poor Charles Lee....lol

A sequel with a more experienced Connor could have brought me on his side but Ubisoft dumped him. I was never a big fan of Altair until Revelations either.

That pretty much sums up my feelings towards him (not a fact just my opinion). He isn't the worst AC protag though (that goes to Arno or Shay).


Couple that with a pretty bad side cast (apart from Haytham and Achilles, Adams & Co. sucked), no focus on the Brotherhood at all (even AC4 had more of that), Connor being an Errand boy and Forrest Gump for most of the story and a terribly paced (tutorial after tutorial) story, AC3 is just not exactly a favourite of mine (its not the worst AC game either)

Haytham propably saved it with his awesome character (after reading Forsaken especially).

I-Like-Pie45
10-07-2015, 12:49 AM
I kind of feel the same way about this admitably. See a white kid have his the male front of his family executed in front of him, throw some women in, a few laughs, generic vengeance, and he is the crown gem of the series.

Have a native kid who seen his beloved village and mother burned alive and into the ground, wants to protect his people from harm, joins and rebuilds the Assassin Order, like the idea of Revolution as he believes that everyone of all races should be free, builds a Homestead and takes in people that ranges from those who are abused by the British to abused housewives, stigmatized for being part native, the second Assassin who wanted a union of Assassin and Templar so that a better future can be built AND THE FIRST TO ATTEMPT SO, tries to reconcile with father, calls out the ******** hypocrisy of the Founding Fathers who want freedom, and yet still keeps slaves and harassing natives, fails to save his best friend from lies of his worst enemy and forced to kill him, forced to kill his father, and loses almost everything in the process, learns that his father wasn't dark as he thought he was, felt more of a failure than he ever felt he did, yet still has hope that he and the Assassins will fight on to make a world a better place for future generations.

Yet he is boring...

No seriously, explain to me how his character is boring. Justify to me all of you on how this guy is boring. Out of so many generic, gruff, stubbled anti heroes today, we got a true hero that wants a good thing, but screws up like a normal human being does from time to time, who has more substance than Superman, who by the way, is the most OP AND BORING CHARACTER EVER, HE LITERALLY DOES NOTHING WRONG.

Just try.....

I don't think you've actually read a single Superman comic in your life

Mr.Black24
10-07-2015, 01:32 AM
So what if Revenge is a selfish motive? You make it seem like one is more valid than the other.
We get it Connor is a better person than Ezio, the question is who cares? Many, including myself, do when people keep on insisting as a FACT that Ezio is superior to Connor. To me, they are both equals who had their own battles in life that they would understand and learn from one another if they ever met. However it is beyond irritation when fanboys insist that Ezio is better than all and the best thing there is since sliced bread.


I think Connor was annoying because he was childish & naive (and someone who just got used by everyone) and also erratic. He was angry all the time (never did the Homestead missions, heard he was a bit different there, his attitude in the main story was just tiresome, don't care if its understandable or not) and his voice acting didn't help either. He really doesn't develop apart from the cut epilogue and never felt like part of the Brotherhood even his "Assassin Recruits" felt like random people and not Assassins.
Not to mention his obsession with poor Charles Lee....lol As I mentioned before, is it not a legitimate reason to be angry at what happened to him and his people, what the Templars might do if he does not take action? Thats like saying the Black Lives Matter movement are annoying because they keep talking about how cops have a harmful bias towards them that gets their own people dead. Or the Natives today that protest as oil companies dump their waste into their water supplies or try to force themselves unto their land all in the name for profit.
He has a softer and kinder side on the Homestead missions. It solidified the fact that he is content and happy among his friends, where no one is there to threaten or judge him, while he has a strong cold stoic no nonsense demeanor on the battlefield. Business before pleasure as they say, and even then he can't have that either. The voice acting was monitored by the combination of Mohawk consultants and voice directors of Ubisoft to represent the Mohawk people back in the day. That is just the way on how he talked, its dialect.

As for Charles Lee, the ******** threatened him as a young boy, 5 years old, and pretty much said some racist ****, that his people are living on dirt like animals. After being called things like "savage" and comments like "What is that, a forest dance?" its no wonder his rage is all pointed at that trash.


A sequel with a more experienced Connor could have brought me on his side but Ubisoft dumped him. I was never a big fan of Altair until Revelations either.

That pretty much sums up my feelings towards him (not a fact just my opinion). He isn't the worst AC protag though (that goes to Arno or Shay). Is a struggle for all to live a good life, to unite the Templar Order to make it so, but for it to all fail just because he wants things to be right not enough? But a guy making jokes and screwing around is all good?



Couple that with a pretty bad side cast (apart from Haytham and Achilles, Adams & Co. sucked), no focus on the Brotherhood at all (even AC4 had more of that), Connor being an Errand boy and Forrest Gump for most of the story and a terribly paced (tutorial after tutorial) story, AC3 is just not exactly a favourite of mine (its not the worst AC game either)

Haytham propably saved it with his awesome character (after reading Forsaken especially). No focus on the Brotherhood at all......no. Nah I'm stopping right here. I'm really tired of this. **** this.


I don't think you've actually read a single Superman comic in your lifeI really hate how ridiculously OP they make him. Its not a struggle no more. Just not interested.

Journey93
10-07-2015, 01:43 AM
Many, including myself, do when people keep on insisting as a FACT that Ezio is superior to Connor. To me, they are both equals who had their own battles in life that they would understand and learn from one another if they ever met. However it is beyond irritation when fanboys insist that Ezio is better than all and the best thing there is since sliced bread.

As I mentioned before, is it not a legitimate reason to be angry at what happened to him and his people, what the Templars might do if he does not take action? Thats like saying the Black Lives Matter movement are annoying because they keep talking about how cops have a harmful bias towards them that gets their own people dead. Or the Natives today that protest as oil companies dump their waste into their water supplies or try to force themselves unto their land all in the name for profit.
He has a softer and kinder side on the Homestead missions. It solidified the fact that he is content and happy among his friends, where no one is there to threaten or judge him, while he has a strong cold stoic no nonsense demeanor on the battlefield. Business before pleasure as they say, and even then he can't have that either. The voice acting was monitored by the combination of Mohawk consultants and voice directors of Ubisoft to represent the Mohawk people back in the day. That is just the way on how he talked, its dialect.

As for Charles Lee, the ******** threatened him as a young boy, 5 years old, and pretty much said some racist ****, that his people are living on dirt like animals. After being called things like "savage" and comments like "What is that, a forest dance?" its no wonder his rage is all pointed at that trash.

Is a struggle for all to live a good life, to unite the Templar Order to make it so, but for it to all fail just because he wants things to be right not enough? But a guy making jokes and screwing around is all good?


No focus on the Brotherhood at all......no. Nah I'm stopping right here. I'm really tired of this. **** this.

I really hate how ridiculously OP they make him. Its not a struggle no more. Just not interested.

Calm down
Yep I guess Connor and his story is just 2deep4me (lol, in reality its not that meaningful)

Classic Connor fans. I wonder who the fanboy here is.

VestigialLlama4
10-07-2015, 04:48 AM
Classic Connor fans. I wonder who the fanboy here is.

Look if you don't care so much for Connor, and didn't even play the Homestead missions, why get in huff to argue with people who did do those things. Why waste such energy on a character you apparently find "dull".

terroAssassin
10-07-2015, 06:29 AM
I'm an old school AC fan
I liked Altair when I played AC
I liked Ezio when I played AC 2 it was clear the developers fell in love with ezio and made more games with him giving him a complete story
I liked Connor when I played AC3 somehow the best selling game of the franchise got split into his father and grandfathers saga with little focus for him. All because people didn't like the fact that connor was naive or "boring" In any case his story isn't finished

I liked AC4 didn't care for Edward but loved the setting
I hated AC:RO and wanted Shay to die from the start
I hated Unity but have no issue with arno besides being unimpressive

I wonder if the real problem is that the Templars keep encroaching more and more away from their evil empire beginnings because people like characters like haytham or shay when its irreconcilable with the modern day storyline.

In any case a lot of Assassins deserve better hopefully Jacob and Evie get a proper trilogy