PDA

View Full Version : "Revisiting the original, quietly revolutionary Assassin's Creed"



Sushiglutton
10-31-2015, 01:43 PM
Interesting article by Michelle Ehrhardt (http://killscreendaily.com/articles/revisiting-original-quietly-revolutionary-assassins-creed/)



I thought this was an unusually intelligent article about AC that I think you'll enjoy! It's about the unique and courageous tone of the first game. Here are some quotes, but I recomend reading the full article of course!


Released during the height of the so-called War on Terror, the first Assassin’s Creed chose not to cast the player in the familiar role of a Western white soldier invading the Middle East, as seen in titles such as Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, but rather had the player act as part of a Syrian rebel group with the distinct goal of pushing back European invaders during the Crusades. The allegory is clear, and with it comes a radical tone that more recent entries in the series have backed away from. (...)

After all, whereas titles such as Call of Duty 4 and Battlefield 2 had the player fighting to take down local rebel groups, Assassin’s Creed arguably casts the player as a member of one of said groups. In this way, it switches the perspective usually seen in games about the War on Terror to one hardly explored—that of the local militia members which are the equivalent of goombas in so many other titles.

This alone is perhaps the game’s boldest choice, as it sympathizes with and humanizes people that the news media at the time portrayed as inherently violent and beyond help. With this in mind, it could be easy to read Assassin’s Creed as a pro-terrorist game, essentially having the player kill Western soldiers as part of a terrorist cell. But to do so would be to ignore the game’s most subversive element: that is, a wider message of de-escalation.



With the final confrontation in the game being with the Assassin leader himself, it’s only natural that the Assassins get their fair bit of criticism from the game’s narrative. This is seen as Altair begins to doubt the Assassin ways as each new kill weighs more and more on his conscience, causing him to debate with Al Mualim after every mission. Even if killing is restrained and treated as a burden, is it still right to use violence to end violence? The game does not answer this directly, but rather allows the player to consider where they stand on it by introducing a complex moral question with no easy solution. (...)

In this way, the game manages to humanize members of local rebel groups without condoning extremist actions. By having the narrative show empathy without acceptance, the Assassins are fairly criticized and yet also have an equal chance to have their arguments heard. The message that Altair simply wants his homeland to be free is valiant, but Al Mualim’s callousness towards killing and manipulative fervor are soundly dismissed as having no place in a peaceful society.



In comparison to the scope of the first game, new stories in the series can’t help but come across to me as smaller and less radical, making me question if the disclaimer at the opening of each new title is even necessary at this point. Whereas Altair Ibn La’Ahad was a man who some might claim to be a terrorist, Ezio Auditore da Firenze came across more as Italian Batman, fighting to avenge his fallen family members. (...)

When Assassin’s Creed 2 was released, it did much to bring the series into line with standard open-world game development. A less experimental mission structure replaced the former routine of investigation followed by assassination, vehicle segments and side activities were added to give the game variety, and the game sported a robust economy. The protagonist was switched for more of a pulp hero type, and his story took a far more personal tone. All of this made for engaging entertainment, but with it came a sense of amnesia over the first game’s themes. Though Ezio still spoke with targets after killing them, these were perfunctory conversations in which he did not show much remorse. Whereas Altair questioned Western conceptions of who could serve as a hero, Ezio drew from classic Western hero archetypes such as Zorro, the Scarlet Pimpernel, and even Batman. And whereas the Assassins were originally presented as a local rebel group, they more and more began to take on the appearance of a Dan Brown-esque secret society, with their methods no longer being called into question but rather celebrated. And of course, very few of the main characters in Assassin’s Creed 2 were of color.

ze_topazio
10-31-2015, 02:29 PM
Some interesting points, but part of the article comes across as yet another "how dare westerners make entertainment products about themselves and from their point of view", and another "How dare entertainment products not pander to the socio-political beliefs I have and want to hear about" and another "How dare videogames play like videogames instead of being some pretentious artsy stuff to fulfill my pretentious needs".

SixKeys
10-31-2015, 02:47 PM
Some interesting points, but part of the article comes across as yet another "how dare westerners make entertainment products about themselves and from their point of view", and another "How dare entertainment products not pander to the socio-political beliefs I have and want to hear about" and another "How dare videogames play like videogames instead of being some pretentious artsy stuff to fulfill my pretentious needs".

How dare developers make games with characters that more accurately reflect the real world and its nuances? How dare video games aspire to be art? :rolleyes:

RaggedTyper
10-31-2015, 03:00 PM
Some interesting points, but part of the article comes across as yet another "how dare westerners make entertainment products about themselves and from their point of view"

Yeah, except they don't. They often take stories and settings that belong to other cultures and force themselves in it when they have no business being there - it's called white washing.

RADAR__4077
10-31-2015, 03:12 PM
It's so sad to see all of those white Italians... Because we all know the people of power were a very diverse group at the time...

VestigialLlama4
10-31-2015, 03:12 PM
Some interesting points, but part of the article comes across as yet another "how dare westerners make entertainment products about themselves and from their point of view", and another "How dare entertainment products not pander to the socio-political beliefs I have and want to hear about" and another "How dare videogames play like videogames instead of being some pretentious artsy stuff to fulfill my pretentious needs".

I agree. I mean the article is looking at AC solely through the prism of the War on Terror and after 9/11 when AC as a series, at its best, is about taking an older, deeper view than that. The conflict in the Middle East today has absolutely nothing to do with the original Asasiyun, those guys were Nizari Shi'a Twelvers, minority of minorities and hated by other Sunnis and Shias. The tactics are different, the methods are different and the scale of violence is different. Today's terrorists resemble Guy Fawkes, he who tried to blow up the English Parliament, but then because Fawkes is Catholic, White and English, everyone wears these cool masks and joke about him being "The last man to walk into Parliament with honorable intentions", but then nobody compares Fawkes, or the Ku Klux Klan and others to Arab terrorists. The Ku Klux Klan were the ISIS of their day but the one time the President tried to bring history and compare Christian violence to other religious violence, boy did the media go after him.

It's a credit to the writers and Patrice Desilets that we actually looked at Altair and his merry men generally as being different from contemporary terrorist red-baiting. We see them as individuals and see them sympathetically. Which brings to specific objections.

Specific objections:
- It calls Alamut a "classic", no it isn't a classic. It's a minor cult novel, slightly arty pulp historical fiction, but not something that's worthy of special respect or designation. Likewise, Assassin's Creed the game ultimately criticizes and deconstructs the ideas from that book, Patrice Desilets also drew from other sources, most notably A history of secret societies by Arkon Daraul (Idries Shah, the Sufi occult scholar who was the first to say that Baphomet meant "Father of Understanding). It's attitude to the Assassins as proto-existentialists comes from Friedrich Nietzsche who had a major man-crush on the historical Assassins. AC the game is actually, surprisingly enough, the most historically correct look at the Assassins, since it doesn't see them as hashish-addled fanatics which is the famous misconception of them and correctly calls them the Asasiyun. The main historical changes however is removing the religious angle but then the game would not have sold well if it did that.

- "Meanwhile, Black Flag tells a fairly generic pirate story with no radical teeth whatsoever." This all by itself discredits the entire article. If she says Black Flag is a "generic pirate story" and not a deconstruction of the same, if she doesn't get that Black Flag is one of the very few pirate stories to discuss slavery (famously unmentioned in Sid Meier's Pirates, despite the famous creator's appetite for background detail, leave alone Pirates of the Carribean). Likewise the game deals with class, about how pirates were mostly poor sailors oppressed by their navies.


Yeah, except they don't. They often take stories and settings that belong to other cultures and force themselves in it when they have no business being there - it's called white washing.

The only game you can call "white-washing" is Unity, go to France tell a story about French nationalism and identity and have the hero speak in posh BBC-speak. The other games generally feature accurate to setting figures in styles and addressing befitting the story and setting.

Of course the fact is that the games generally take place in areas where Europeans interact and clash with other cultures. So you have Altair in the Crusades when the European chivalry arrived there to prove their devotion to God by slaughtering the heathens, you have Connor during the American revolution, Adewale and Aveline are descendants of African slaves so their narratives are tied to European history. Likewise what we see of India is set during the time when the Raj arrived. Only Chronicles China truly tells a Chinese story and Chinese setting without European references at all.


It's so sad to see all of those white Italians... Because we all know the people of power were a very diverse group at the time...

Actually it was a diverse area. A major blind spot in the Ezio games, and also AC1, and even Unity to some extent is the fact that there are no Jews. Each of these three periods -- Crusades, Renaissance, French Revolution -- are important to Jewish history. The Rome we see in Brotherhood has architecture from the Baroque era which means we don't see the famous Jewish ghetto in Rome that existed there at the time Ezio arrived and was moreover known since under Pope Alexander VI, it became a haven for refugees from Spain, Portugal and Provence.

Likewise, UNITY doesn't mention once that Jewish Emancipation was one of the achievements of the events, undoubtedly because the man who prominently lent his name and support to give citizenship rights to Jews was Robespierre, in the game shown as a Templar and so a bad guy. SYNDICATE is the first game to feature Jewish characters - Disraeli and Marx.

It's a little sad that people think that Jewish history begins and ends with World War II when that is far from the case.

SixKeys
10-31-2015, 03:40 PM
- "Meanwhile, Black Flag tells a fairly generic pirate story with no radical teeth whatsoever." This all by itself discredits the entire article. If she says Black Flag is a "generic pirate story" and not a deconstruction of the same, if she doesn't get that Black Flag is one of the very few pirate stories to discuss slavery (famously unmentioned in Sid Meier's Pirates, despite the famous creator's appetite for background detail, leave alone Pirates of the Carribean). Likewise the game deals with class, about how pirates were mostly poor sailors oppressed by their navies.

Excluding Freedom Cry since it was its own DLC (later released as a separate game) with its own protagonist, how exactly did Black Flag tackle slavery in any meaningful way?

VestigialLlama4
10-31-2015, 04:23 PM
Excluding Freedom Cry since it was its own DLC (later released as a separate game) with its own protagonist, how exactly did Black Flag tackle slavery in any meaningful way?

Well it's mentioned repeatedly for one thing. Adewale is an escaped slave (and 25% of all sailors who worked on pirate crews were runaway slaves so that's absolutely true), one of our targets Laurens Prins is a slaveowner, Woodes Rogers, the guy who persecutes the pirates owns slave-galleys, and one mission has you chasing a slave ship with Adewale telling you not tof fire at the sides.

It's in the background but by bringing this up it's making a subversive point. Most pirate stories like the Johnny Depp ones aren't truly pro-pirate, they are basically pro-law and the one pirate we like still fights worse pirates, like Jack Sparrow, and doesn't do actual pirating itself. Black Flag says that the law and society is corrupt in itself. In Pirates of the Caribbean we think Kiera Knightley is such a nice lady and the daughter of a nice father when both of them by virtue of their birth and station in relation to time and place, profited off of slave labor and oppression. We see black guys serving the crew of Geoffrey Rush's skeleton pirates, you know bad guys, but basically the slave trade and slave run colonies are not mentioned anywhere.

Black Flag is telling the opposite message, that its more honorable to be a pirate than someone like Laurens Prins who retired from piracy and became a honest businessman in the legal trade of slaves. That mission where Edward attacks him is about how Edward is the good guy since even if he wants money he'd never be a slaver to build a fortune even if it is legal and more lucrative than piracy, and it achieves by the fact that Edward isn't a good pirate, he's just as bloodthirsty and robbing people as everyone else. So it's a much more sophisticated and political perspective, that is to say up to a point, in essence it's converting these bloodthirsty pirates without dialing down the violence, into social-justice-warriors.

RADAR__4077
10-31-2015, 04:55 PM
@llama
I meant the people of power, not the general population, were white. So it makes sense that the Templars and people around them would be white, and that the assassin trying to "hide in plain sight" would be white.
And let's be honest. Unity completely wasted the French revolution setting.

Now in response to this thread as a whole.

For the record.
I am white (though I do have some native American in me that makes people question that), Altiar is my favorite character followed by Connor.
I like Ezio, but his whole vendetta vibe didn't appeal to me as much.

I am all for history being shown for a different perspective in both a fictional and non-fictional way.

However, I get more annoyed by the day by people making or asking for entertainment in movies, video games, etc to be made one way or another, for the sole purpose of advancing some political agenda or being politically correct.

I will use the Avengers and Star Wars as contrasting examples.

The Avengers cast Samuel L Jackson for what was originally a white character, but he is a great actor and fit the part very well.

In the upcoming Star Wars movie the director outright said that he went out of his way to make the cast more diverse simply because he felt there are too many white men in Hollywood. This is where I get annoyed.

Let the people make their own story. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I never complained as a Catholic about the pope being a villain. I don't get offended by stuff like that, and even if I did, I would simply look to other sources for entertainment.

This applies to everything, not just AC.

VestigialLlama4
10-31-2015, 05:09 PM
However, I get more annoyed by the day by people making or asking for entertainment in movies, video games, etc to be made one way or another, for the sole purpose of advancing some political agenda or being politically correct.

Well, the truth is if Hollywood and general culture was more diverse by default, there wouldn't be a need for these levels of complaint. The fact is Hollywood and other mass media isn't innocent, it has this hegemonic command of the market place, if you are an African-American film-maker or a woman or gay film-maker, and you made a small but beautiful independent movie that's fair and humanistic, well that's good but at the end of the day, more people will have seen say, Bad Boys than have seen your movie because that's how distribution works. Heck, more people will have played Call of Duty or Gears of War than have seen your movie. That's how unfair things are, so either Hollywood allows outsiders who know outsider perspectives into the mainstream or they start making entertainments more reflective of reality.


The Avengers cast Samuel L Jackson for what was originally a white character, but he is a great actor and fit the part very well.

In the upcoming Star Wars movie the director outright said that he went out of his way to make the cast more diverse simply because he felt there are too many white men in Hollywood. This is where I get annoyed.

That's not really the same thing as AC. Those are fantasy fiction while Assassin's Creed is at least 50-60% straight historical fiction and generally gets facts right.

In the case of Star Wars, it's aliens and stuff so there you have to wonder why is it that homo sapiens is the dominant alien species several lightyears away from our solar system. As for the original movies, well it was sort-of diverse for its time. One of the supporting characters, Billy Dee Williams, is African-American and Darth Vader is obviously voiced by James Earl Jones, and Princess Leia is basically the team leader. That was the case of a movie made in the progressive 70s, in the 21st Century, obviously things have advanced far enough that you can be even more diverse.

In the case of comic books, well those original comics tend to change a lot, bring the dead back all the time, and they were originally written as per racist conventions of that time. So when updating and modernizing today, it makes sense to change things.

RADAR__4077
10-31-2015, 05:37 PM
To clarify about the star wars bit. I believe in hiring people based on how well they are able to do the job, not just because they are black/female/etc, as JJ Abrams said his motivation was.

This applies for any job.

I am not in anyway opposed to making changes to animated characters, because they are drawn on paper or in a computer. They are not human beings who should be held to the same standards as all human beings. If a black lesbian gets a job over a straight white man I will never complain, provided that they were both held to the same standards.

The only animated character I object to being changed is Thor. I heard that marvel wants to rewrite Thor as a female, which I don't like because that character comes from Norse mythology.

VestigialLlama4
10-31-2015, 05:53 PM
The only animated character I object to being changed is Thor. I heard that marvel wants to rewrite Thor as a female, which I don't like because that character comes from Norse mythology.

Yeah that part is silly. I mean there are some characters where you can't really change them. Like female Thor is one. But then creating a female superhero is hard because the genre at its root is a white male boy fantasy. You can make a good solid case that the most successful female character in comics is Lois Lane and maybe, Catwoman, both of them being essentially male love interests although Catwoman is also a supervillainess sometimes.

The thing is superhero comics are fairly neanderthal compared to movies. And the misogyny and sexism in these movies is pretty much of the kind that used to be part of 40s and 50s Hollywood but which movies went away from in the 70s. Now that these superhero movies are profitable, there's a call to be faithful and respect the sexism that was part of these comics which means that these movies are really dated and retrogade. Like before you had Sigourney Weaver and Alien, you had Jodie Foster in The Silence of the Lambs, Linda Hamilton in The Terminator. But now that these comic movies are making money, everyone is acting like it's a big deal to make a female superhero.

Farlander1991
10-31-2015, 05:58 PM
The Avengers cast Samuel L Jackson for what was originally a white character, but he is a great actor and fit the part very well.

That's a historically incorrect statement, actually. Black Nick Fury was introduced back in 2002 by Marvel in their franchise reboots - the Ultimate one (Ultimate Spider-Man, etc.), and his character was actually designed to look like Samuel L. Jackson (long before the Marvel Universe movies started coming out, and what happened in the movies that take elements from all reimaginings, is that they just hired the person Nick Fury was based on in one of his incarnations). Marvel actually made quite a lot of formerly white characters non-white in their franchise reboots, reimaginings, and what might be based on them (Spectacular Spider-Man animated series, which was technically Sony + Disney, diversified Spider-Man's supporting cast from mostly all-white to a more diverse group).

That said, unless there's a particular story context for the person to have a particular color or race (Connor in AC3, Adewale in FC), then skin color or gender or race largely don't matter for the character as a whole - their character arc, their purpose in the narrative, etc. And there's absolutely no harm in having more diverse cast.

VestigialLlama4
10-31-2015, 06:05 PM
That's a historically incorrect statement, actually. Black Nick Fury was introduced back in 2002 by Marvel in their franchise reboots - the Ultimate one (Ultimate Spider-Man, etc.), and his character was actually designed to look like Samuel L. Jackson (long before the Marvel Universe movies started coming out, and what happened in the movies that take elements from all reimaginings, is that they just hired the person Nick Fury was based on in one of his incarnations).

I actually heard a rumor that Samuel Jackson was asked for permission on whether they can use his likeness for the comic, and Jackson said he wouldn't sue them if he got to play the guy when the movie came out. I can believe that since it's a very Samuel Jackson bad-ss thing to do.

The truth is that Nick Fury in comics barring a few issues in the 60s was a forgettable guy, he mostly served as the William Miles of the comics, telling the X-men, spiderman and others what to do. The character after becoming Samuel L. Jackson became a more important character first in the reboot and then in the movies. So when people talk about the original Fury they liked (who was always a James Bond rip-off anyway) they really don't know what they are talking about.

ze_topazio
11-01-2015, 03:51 AM
How dare developers make games with characters that more accurately reflect the real world and its nuances? How dare video games aspire to be art? :rolleyes:

That's not what I said or meant, and games are already art.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-01-2015, 05:26 AM
The thing I miss most as AC became a franchise, is the idea that the Assassins and Templars are two sides of the same coin. In the first game, the Templars were a lot more nuanced. These days, most often they're just cartoon bad guys who want power for its own sake. Meanwhile, the Assassins are regarded as good guys, even though their sole method for achieving "freedom" is by brutally murdering (and therefore denying freedom to) anyone who stands in their way (apparently, no one at Ubisoft sees the irony in that).

Syndicate did more than most games in the series to bring back a little of the old nuance and complexity, but it still was way too little. Syndicate also did a bit of a better job getting the history right. I wish Ubisoft would get its act together and embrace the idea that this game series is supposed to be about a conflict of ideas, rather than a simplistic kid's tale of good vs. evil. Assassin's Creed is not a kid's game - adults can handle a bit more complexity.

SixKeys
11-01-2015, 09:55 AM
Well it's mentioned repeatedly for one thing. Adewale is an escaped slave (and 25% of all sailors who worked on pirate crews were runaway slaves so that's absolutely true), one of our targets Laurens Prins is a slaveowner, Woodes Rogers, the guy who persecutes the pirates owns slave-galleys, and one mission has you chasing a slave ship with Adewale telling you not tof fire at the sides.

Talk is cheap. I mean, it's nice that they acknowledge it, but the story still centers around mostly white men and we don't see actual slavery happening, nor its consequences. I seem to recall they were originally planning to show slaves rowing the ships below deck, but thought it would be inappropriate to show it in a light-hearted context. Even in AC3 they bring up slavery but don't actually show it. Any deeper exploration of these themes is shuffled off to separate DLCs like ToKW and Freedom Cry.


It's in the background but by bringing this up it's making a subversive point. Most pirate stories like the Johnny Depp ones aren't truly pro-pirate, they are basically pro-law and the one pirate we like still fights worse pirates, like Jack Sparrow, and doesn't do actual pirating itself. Black Flag says that the law and society is corrupt in itself. In Pirates of the Caribbean we think Kiera Knightley is such a nice lady and the daughter of a nice father when both of them by virtue of their birth and station in relation to time and place, profited off of slave labor and oppression. We see black guys serving the crew of Geoffrey Rush's skeleton pirates, you know bad guys, but basically the slave trade and slave run colonies are not mentioned anywhere.

Do keep in mind PotC is a Disney production.

http://new1.fjcdn.com/pictures/Disney_4ccd68_5414839.jpg

VestigialLlama4
11-01-2015, 01:06 PM
Talk is cheap. I mean, it's nice that they acknowledge it, but the story still centers around mostly white men and we don't see actual slavery happening...

Well in some ways it's actually bolder to do it the way Black Flag does it, where it's in the background. That way you can see slavery not as a discrete thing that just happened to black people but as a cog to the colonialist engine of these Empires. I mean that's actually a problem with movies like 12 Years A Slave and Amistad, where so much is focused on the injustice of slavery and the suffering inflicted on them, now I am not saying that's not important or worth telling, but the fact that goes unmentioned is "the why of slavery", the fact that it was profitable and human plunder, that ultimately England, Spain, France and America became wealthy off of free labour and exploitation (and that basically they owe their descendants reparations). Black Flag actually puts that across repeatedly. You hear repeatedly in unskippable dialogues and main cutscenes, i.e. not side missions or special DLC content. Like Adewale worked for the Sugar plantations, he tells you that "boiling sugar is damn near the hottest thing in the world". Black Flag makes it clear repeatedly that all the plantations, the empire and everything was built on slavery, it's around you and people are defined by their attitudes towards slavery. The bad guys like Black Bart worked for a slave ship, Woodes Rogers owns a slave ship, Hornigold is okay serving on one of it, Laurens Prins is a slaveowner, Charles Vane is okay recklessly firing at a slave ship and Jack Rackham wants to sell Adewale back to slavery. These are all cutscenes and unskippable dialogue you know.


Even in AC3 they bring up slavery but don't actually show it.

You don't always have to directly show things to make a critique or take a stand. I mean I am an out-and-out social justice warrior myself but even I think that there's room for nuance, suggestion and allowing people to think rather than bludgeon them directly with say, "White Phosphorus" missions a la Spec Ops the Line. Black Flag is a pirate game and an adventure story but yes that has a background and context that is identifable and sensible and it helps us to understand that world to better relate to these characters. Without the actual context and background, removed in disney movies, the pirates are criminals who threaten the property of middle-class people, but with a heavy dose of reality, we realize that the pirates are closer to who we are in the 21st Century, they are less racist though not perfect. We have women pirates and the pirates have this idea of rankings and meritocracy.

That's actually very close to the revisionist ethos of AC1, the idea that what was considered normal and correct in the past was actually awful and evil. That stuff we take for granted was once considered illegal and that it was only practised by outlaws. In the time of the Crusades, the Asasiyun, who killed people on both sides of the conflict, as per Friedrich Nietzsche seem like the guys we can best relate to. In the time of the pirate era, you can say in retrospect that these band of bucaneers, scalawags and losers are on the right side of history.

RaggedTyper
11-01-2015, 01:45 PM
@llama However, I get more annoyed by the day by people making or asking for entertainment in movies, video games, etc to be made one way or another, for the sole purpose of advancing some political agenda or being politically correct. In the upcoming Star Wars movie the director outright said that he went out of his way to make the cast more diverse simply because he felt there are too many white men in Hollywood. This is where I get annoyed.

Oh God, not the "waaaah! Black stormtrooper! Waaaah!" complaint from so-called Star Wars fans. I haven't read his original quote but even so who cares? News flash: every casting call starts with a description the physical attributes the character should have. For instance "Looking for tall, white male with strawberry blonde hair, aged 20-23" The casting call would never state that it's looking for "the best actor for the job" because that's a given. A casting director looks for the best person for the job within the *physical descriptions specified*. So if 95% of movies are white male dominated that means they have put out casting descriptions looking specifically for white men which is in itself discriminatory and is no different to what Abrams did - except that it's on a much larger scale.

And regarding race bending, did you know that Universal put out a casting call for white women ONLY to play Katniss in Hunger Games even though the character in the book is clearly a POC? White washing is far more practiced in Hollywood and you don't even realise it.


Let the people make their own story.

Yeah, this is the usual cliched line at the end of every thinly veiled bigoted rant. People said the same thing about Ubisoft and Ned Wynert. It's also quite ironic - nobody forced him to cast a black actor; he did it by choice because he wanted diversity. So the only person here not allowing the man to tell his story is you.


The only game you can call "white-washing" is Unity, go to France tell a story about French nationalism and identity and have the hero speak in posh BBC-speak. The other games generally feature accurate to setting figures in styles and addressing befitting the story and setting.

I was talking in more general entertainment media; not necessarily Assassin's Creed Syndicate.

RaggedTyper
11-01-2015, 01:51 PM
Well in some ways it's actually bolder to do it the way Black Flag does it, where it's in the background. That way you can see slavery not as a discrete thing that just happened to black people but as a cog to the colonialist engine of these Empires. I mean that's actually a problem with movies like 12 Years A Slave and Amistad, where so much is focused on the injustice of slavery and the suffering inflicted on them, now I am not saying that's not important or worth telling, but the fact that goes unmentioned is "the why of slavery", the fact that it was profitable and human plunder, that ultimately England, Spain, France and America became wealthy off of free labour and exploitation (and that basically they owe their descendants reparations).

That tells us why slavery exists, it doesn't tell us why black slavery existed - and it comes down to one simple answer: people are afraid of what they don't understand. White people wanted to be on top - and not together - with other races because they were worried they would be the ones in chains if they didn't. It was about racial power, profit was the bonus. If it was purely about profit then racism would have died out ages ago. Additionally, your point about 12 Years a Slave not establishing why slavery happened ultimately it does not matter - this is from the perspective of the slave. We are in his head. It's a story of one man's struggle to live and so the 'why' of slavery is irrelevant.

VestigialLlama4
11-01-2015, 02:51 PM
That tells us why slavery exists, it doesn't tell us why black slavery existed - and it comes down to one simple answer: people are afraid of what they don't understand. White people wanted to be on top - and not together - with other races because they were worried they would be the ones in chains if they didn't. It was about racial power, profit was the bonus. If it was purely about profit then racism would have died out ages ago.

You got this all wrong. Skin-based racism was invented to justify slavery and not the other way around.

This wonderful video explains it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NXC4Q_4JVg

It's a fact after all, that slaves were bought by white people from African tribal chiefs themselves. The latter sold them in exchange for money and guns to fight local wars. It was from the beginning a profit-based transaction. The reason why slaves were bought and made to work is obviously these New World colonies lacked the population to work on these farms and the like, and God forbid anything crazy like working with local tribes(many of whom died via European diseases) to collaborate and work on these plantations. So slavery came into being to provide free and easy labour, all so that the Kingdoms and Empires of Europe could compete and build profits out of trade of New World goods and crops, chiefly sugar. Something as sweet and succulent of sugar was created out of unimaginable suffering and hardship all so to make some people really rich. The fact is that America and Latin America for that matter could not build its cities, its ports and its wealth without slave labour.

All of this comes out in BLACK FLAG.


...t's a story of one man's struggle to live and so the 'why' of slavery is irrelevant.

The fact that slaves couldn't percieve the "why" does not make it irrelevant at all. The truth is that slavery still happens in the world today, human trafficking and the like, and the reasons are still the same.

EmbodyingSeven5
11-01-2015, 07:23 PM
ACs story was decent. but the bland and extremely repetitive missions tore the game down. The only fun missions were the assassinations. AC 2 made the whole game enjoyable. The story in 2 was still satisfying too.

Also, I'm not trying to be rude but Altair was still a Caucasian protag. It was kind of weird, especially when his allies look more like they are from the area.

SixKeys
11-02-2015, 03:04 AM
Well in some ways it's actually bolder to do it the way Black Flag does it, where it's in the background. That way you can see slavery not as a discrete thing that just happened to black people but as a cog to the colonialist engine of these Empires. I mean that's actually a problem with movies like 12 Years A Slave and Amistad, where so much is focused on the injustice of slavery and the suffering inflicted on them, now I am not saying that's not important or worth telling, but the fact that goes unmentioned is "the why of slavery", the fact that it was profitable and human plunder, that ultimately England, Spain, France and America became wealthy off of free labour and exploitation (and that basically they owe their descendants reparations). Black Flag actually puts that across repeatedly. You hear repeatedly in unskippable dialogues and main cutscenes, i.e. not side missions or special DLC content. Like Adewale worked for the Sugar plantations, he tells you that "boiling sugar is damn near the hottest thing in the world". Black Flag makes it clear repeatedly that all the plantations, the empire and everything was built on slavery, it's around you and people are defined by their attitudes towards slavery. The bad guys like Black Bart worked for a slave ship, Woodes Rogers owns a slave ship, Hornigold is okay serving on one of it, Laurens Prins is a slaveowner, Charles Vane is okay recklessly firing at a slave ship and Jack Rackham wants to sell Adewale back to slavery. These are all cutscenes and unskippable dialogue you know.

But it's not part of the world. Yes, you see black workers on sugar cane fields, but you also see white workers, so the contrast becomes less obvious. Plantations don't have overseers wielding a whip, just standard British soldiers. This contrast is even more obvious when you consider that in Freedom Cry the field workers were singing traditional slave songs. In Black Flag, even these voices aren't heard. We never walk past slave auctions. We never see black people treated poorly the same way that oppression is everywhere in Freedom Cry. Ade is the only black crew mate Edward ever hires. No-one ever gives Ade crap for his skin color in the main game. His story and the stories of all black slaves are neatly tucked away out of sight, in a safe "yeah, we know it happened but it's too depressing to make it a part of the game". Adewale's joining the assassins before Edward would have made more sense had we seen all the injustice he keeps talking about. Like maybe Ade would see a slave ship in the distance and ask Edward to go after it, but Edward would have refused for his own reasons, driving a further wedge between them. Or Ade would have seen a slave running from his master like in Freedom Cry and gotten angry at the master, but Edward would have told him to stay out of it.


You don't always have to directly show things to make a critique or take a stand.

No, except when your portrayal of a "good" character leaves the less savory bits out so as not to make players uncomfortable. Sam Adams gives a half-hearted excuse when inquired about his slaves, and the matter is promptly dropped (never to be brought up again) when they run into Stephane. This is because we, the player, need to believe we're doing the right thing by helping Adams who has acted like our ally from the beginning. George Washington had slaves too, yet this is never pointed out. Not even Connor, who gives Sam Adams crap about it, calls George out for it. Even after Connor sees George for the manipulator he is, they maintain a post-game partner/friendship because we need to show the first POTUS as a sympathetic guy. How about showing black workers at George's camp or at the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Makes as much sense for them to be there in the background as a random native American and his black mentor.

SixKeys
11-02-2015, 03:24 AM
Also, I'm not trying to be rude but Altair was still a Caucasian protag. It was kind of weird, especially when his allies look more like they are from the area.

He was Caucasian because he and Desmond shared the same character model. In ACR they made him look more Middle-Eastern.

VestigialLlama4
11-02-2015, 04:38 AM
But it's not part of the world.

It is part of the world and will remain so even if you don't get to interact with it. The same way things like early industry, naval shipbuilding and the nations of France, England and Spain exist on the other side of the Caribbean.


Ade is the only black crew mate Edward ever hires.

Not true, quite a few pirates Edward rescues and members of the ship which Edward adds to his fleet are black. Which by the way is true, 25% of all pirate crews in this time were escaped slaves.


No-one ever gives Ade crap for his skin color in the main game.

Huh...did you not see Benjamin Hornigold's reaction on first meeting Adewale. He tells Edward "You let him carry a weapon?". Later, at Kingston, there's a cutscene where Adewale gets into an argument with a trader who thinks he's an escaped slave. Jack Rackham actually says he's going to sell him back into slavery. These are all cutscenes in the game. Not something you have to go out of the way to find out. Heck Edward and Adewale's first conversation is basically the latter lamenting how he'll never get to be captain since he's black. You also have him give his big speech about "the country called Jackdaw" (featured in pre-game trailers) because "With this skin and this voice, where can I go in this world and find peace".

That is literally everywhere in the game with Adewale. Did you basically skip all the cutscenes?


Like maybe Ade would see a slave ship in the distance and ask Edward to go after it, but Edward would have refused for his own reasons, driving a further wedge between them.

That actually happens in the main mission where you chase the slave ship, right before Vane and Edward get mutinied. Adewale tells Edward not to fire on the sides (which anticipates Freedom Cry's naval gameplay by the way). Likewise, the game's side missions you have Edward helping Anto the Maroon Revolutionary in Kingston. So the game doesn't even do the token thing, since you have two ex-slave Assassins, albeit the second is tucked inside a side mission and there you have Edward being the selfish guy initially out for the key to the Templar cross but while he doesn't convert fully, he still respects Anto's cause. And Anto does appear in the main game near the end.


No, except when your portrayal of a "good" character leaves the less savory bits out so as not to make players uncomfortable. Sam Adams gives a half-hearted excuse when inquired about his slaves, and the matter is promptly dropped (never to be brought up again) when they run into Stephane.

He says that he has personally freed all his slaves, so he isn't a slaveowner when he and Connor meet, "Hey I practise what I preach, friend!". It's just that slavery is not an issue he wants to press at that time. In any case, I was discussing how Black Flag puts these issues in the background, how AC3 tackled issues has nothing to do with what we've been discussing.

EmbodyingSeven5
11-02-2015, 12:37 PM
He was Caucasian because he and Desmond shared the same character model. In ACR they made him look more Middle-Eastern.

Still felt a bit forced regardless in my opinion. And if this is the case, why didn't Connor or Haytham look like desmond?

Locopells
11-02-2015, 01:03 PM
Because they were onto the Animus 3.0 by that stage, as opposed to the Abstergo (1.0) and original Assassin (2.0) models, which put the users' face on the ancestor.

ze_topazio
11-02-2015, 02:20 PM
Revelations was the first to show the ancestors true faces, although for obvious reasons they didn't change Altair and Ezios faces too much, Connor and Haytham, specially Connor still look a lot like Desmond.

cawatrooper9
11-02-2015, 07:59 PM
@llama

The Avengers cast Samuel L Jackson for what was originally a white character, but he is a great actor and fit the part very well.


Not to be too big of a comic book nerd, but technically, there was precedence for an African American Nick Fury, as is evident from the Ultimate universe.

SixKeys
11-02-2015, 09:38 PM
It is part of the world and will remain so even if you don't get to interact with it. The same way things like early industry, naval shipbuilding and the nations of France, England and Spain exist on the other side of the Caribbean.

I meant it's not an immersive part of the world, something that actually affects gameplay, but whatever.



Not true, quite a few pirates Edward rescues and members of the ship which Edward adds to his fleet are black. Which by the way is true, 25% of all pirate crews in this time were escaped slaves.

Huh...did you not see Benjamin Hornigold's reaction on first meeting Adewale. He tells Edward "You let him carry a weapon?". Later, at Kingston, there's a cutscene where Adewale gets into an argument with a trader who thinks he's an escaped slave. Jack Rackham actually says he's going to sell him back into slavery. These are all cutscenes in the game. Not something you have to go out of the way to find out. Heck Edward and Adewale's first conversation is basically the latter lamenting how he'll never get to be captain since he's black. You also have him give his big speech about "the country called Jackdaw" (featured in pre-game trailers) because "With this skin and this voice, where can I go in this world and find peace".

That is literally everywhere in the game with Adewale. Did you basically skip all the cutscenes?

I didn't skip any scenes, but admittedly my memory of the game is a little fuzzy since I only finished it once. I also play with subtitles off so I tend to miss stuff. I was more thinking along the lines of the slave traders in Freedom Cry who are on constant patrol, forcing Ade to hide all the time.

RA503
11-03-2015, 01:37 AM
the text start interesting and after that he said that BF is a generic pirate history,the guy even don't know the meaning of the word generic.

The first AC as a game is highly overrated,everytime I want to do a series marathon,AC 1 made me think seriously if my freetime is being good invested,I only don't give up because I remember,that Al mualin final confrontation is one of the best moments of the entire series, I even feel that Unity's and Syndicate's climaxes try to capture the same mood...

VestigialLlama4
11-03-2015, 06:32 AM
I didn't skip any scenes, but admittedly my memory of the game is a little fuzzy since I only finished it once. I also play with subtitles off so I tend to miss stuff. I was more thinking along the lines of the slave traders in Freedom Cry who are on constant patrol, forcing Ade to hide all the time.

Well I guess how we play a game affects how we percieve the story, in any case all I'm saying is that Black Flag is a pretty detailed and well constructed game and there's a lot of stuff you can pick up on later replays and it's a game where the characters are deep enough that you know more about it on second replays.

The fact that on surface and the artcover it looks like the classic pirate landscape doesn't mean that the game itself is that, which is what the original article said and what I am arguing against by citing all the deeper elements in the game. Black Flag is the most well constructed and best structured game in terms of characters, plot, story and historical context. It's really the game where all these many layers comes together in a way that even the Ezio games don't manage. I mean yeah AC1 also has that, but it doesn't have as much structural weight as other games do.


The first AC as a game is highly overrated,everytime I want to do a series marathon,AC 1 made me think seriously if my freetime is being good invested,I only don't give up because I remember,that Al mualin final confrontation is one of the best moments of the entire series, I even feel that Unity's and Syndicate's climaxes try to capture the same mood...

AC1 is a really complex game that paradoxically is really underrated by many people. Everyone thinks that AC2 fixed AC1, when that's not really what happened. AC1 didn't have the open world activities and it was kind of more focused, its hero was unsympathetic. It's the most philosophical of the games, where you can't really say there's a clear right and wrong. I think the main thing why people don't like it is the reason it's so interesting, it puts you in the shoes of an Arab guy in the Middle East, so you don't have that cliche'd exoticism that people want, the Middle East always feels more exotic when you are playing an European or a Christian, white culture in short, so it's not like Prince of Persia or Disney's Aladdin, even REVELATIONS. It is from the perspective of the people living there and maybe if AC1 had a Christian who becomes an Assassin or something, it would have been more popular.

In general, the problem is that so much of games depends on first impressions. I mean this isn't the case with movies and books, where a movie is good if it has deeper stuff on second viewing and likewise with books. In games, you are expected to put everything on the surface and most people don't bother revisiting opinions or changing their minds. This is what happened in AC3 as well since a lot of the game is pretty interesting, even in the stuff it fails (mostly because it's the first to really tackle these problems in games), but because people still judge it based on their first impression which most just don't want to correct or go back to, so nobody really gets how interesting that game is. Black Flag likewise gets underrated to the naval, most people don't know how the stealth in that game influenced Unity and Syndicate, or that the game is incredibly sophisticated in many ways.

SixKeys
11-03-2015, 02:09 PM
AC1 is a really complex game that paradoxically is really underrated by many people. Everyone thinks that AC2 fixed AC1, when that's not really what happened. AC1 didn't have the open world activities and it was kind of more focused, its hero was unsympathetic. It's the most philosophical of the games, where you can't really say there's a clear right and wrong. I think the main thing why people don't like it is the reason it's so interesting, it puts you in the shoes of an Arab guy in the Middle East, so you don't have that cliche'd exoticism that people want, the Middle East always feels more exotic when you are playing an European or a Christian, white culture in short, so it's not like Prince of Persia or Disney's Aladdin, even REVELATIONS. It is from the perspective of the people living there and maybe if AC1 had a Christian who becomes an Assassin or something, it would have been more popular.

I mostly agree, but I don't buy that it was Alta´r's character that turned so many people off. Most of the complaints leveled against him are based on his voice actor and his American accent. The most oft-cited criticisms about the game are that there wasn't enough stuff to do, that the Kingdom was boring and that the investigation missions were repetitive. I happen to disagree with all of those, but I can understand people who see it that way, especially if they started with any of the sequels.

I really miss the philosophical, ponderous tone of AC1. None of the other games have even attempted anything similar. The dialogue still gives me chills whenever I replay the game.

VestigialLlama4
11-03-2015, 09:55 PM
I mostly agree, but I don't buy that it was Alta´r's character that turned so many people off. Most of the complaints leveled against him are based on his voice actor and his American accent. The most oft-cited criticisms about the game are that there wasn't enough stuff to do, that the Kingdom was boring and that the investigation missions were repetitive. I happen to disagree with all of those, but I can understand people who see it that way, especially if they started with any of the sequels.

I really miss the philosophical, ponderous tone of AC1. None of the other games have even attempted anything similar. The dialogue still gives me chills whenever I replay the game.

Absolutely. I am replaying it now and it holds up well. The games that came after, even AC3 with its more complicated Templars deliberately worked the game to make you unquestioningly support the heroes and their actions. Syndicate goes back to AC1 to some extent in that the Templars, like Garnier, however bad their actions are, keep things from being worse.

I actually find AC1 less repetitive than other games. For one thing you don't have the famous tailing missions in this game (and actually I like tailing missions in general but if you played one you played them all). The tailing bits you do have are shorter and are basic puzzles for blending and social stealth, and you have a mechanic to hide that isn't frustrating so you have an incentive and room to improve timing and speed. You also have it be totally optional.

The Kingdom being a waste I generally agree with. I feel there should have been an Assassination mission there. Like say tailing with a horse behind a caravan, speeding and blending, using byways and then getting close enough and assassinating a target. You dont have mobile assassinations generally (Jubair in AC1 is one exception). Likewise flags as collectibles? I think it would be better if they went with no collectibles instead of doing that. I feel the same way about feathers in AC2 and AC3, I mean yeah in AC2 it has a cutscene and everything and that's nice but seriously...collecting hundred feathers when birds exist everywhere makes zero sense.

ze_topazio
11-03-2015, 10:47 PM
^ Curiously I'm replaying AC1 too.

Sushiglutton
11-03-2015, 11:25 PM
I wanna get in on this discussion, but for once in my life I'm actually really busy :D!

just posting to let everyone know that I'm busy

Farlander1991
11-03-2015, 11:54 PM
I think it would be better if they went with no collectibles instead of doing that.

Yeah, and I never liked the 'irony' angle of AC1 either. To me it's quite frankly ********. If you disagree with a trend or a trope, then either:
a) Fix it
or
b) Don't ****ing use it.

AC1 does neither of those things, and in the end, it does a disservice to itself (especially considering that the XBox 360 version has achievements for collecting all flags anyway, so it's not like it goes full on to show how collectibles are pointless and still keeps the fuel in the fire, and the only reason PS3 doesn't have trophies for that either is because at the time of AC1's release there was no trophy system in the first place).

If you want to prove that open world games or games in general are better off without collectibles or pointless achievements or any kind of stuff like that, then make a game with those principles in mind, and if the game's great, it will be compared to, - 'man, this open world game has so much collectibles, they ruin this open world. Remember AC? That didn't have any collectibles at all and it was so amazing and atmospheric'.

But if you add a collectible system to show how bad these systems are by keeping it purposefully bad with ****tons of collectibles, nothing to amount to it for collecting them all, and having them ruining the view of the area (i.e. doing all the things that you're trying to say are bad), then you're still part of the problem, ironic intent doesn't save it. So we get, 'man, remember AC? That game had 420 pointless ****ing flags, what a joke'

And what we have now, is that when it comes to collectibles in future AC games, people are comparing it to AC1 in a way, 'well, at least it's better than AC1, there's some rewards for this stuff, not like in AC1 where it's totally pointless'. Feathers from AC2 are still a ****ing bore, still exist just for padding, and were really hard to collect without a guide, and yet the general reception was 'oh it's a lot better than AC1, there's 100 instead of 420, you get them on the map when you're close with eagle vision, and there's a story element to it and you get a couple of rewards for them'. And yes, the irony of AC1 went over the head of pretty much everyone, but that's what you get when you use what's a very often-used convention by now and just do it badly on purpose without anything else to it. Because it's a **** way to try and promote change.

Anyway, yeah, that's once again my 'AC1 collectible rant'. Wish they'd just keep them out of the game.

RaggedTyper
11-04-2015, 12:15 AM
And what we have now, is that when it comes to collectibles in future AC games, people are comparing it to AC1 in a way, 'well, at least it's better than AC1, there's some rewards for this stuff, not like in AC1 where it's totally pointless'. Feathers from AC2 are still a ****ing bore, still exist just for padding, and were really hard to collect without a guide, and yet the general reception was 'oh it's a lot better than AC1, there's 100 instead of 420, you get them on the map when you're close with eagle vision, and there's a story element to it and you get a couple of rewards for them'.

You've glossed over and dismissed a very important aspect of that feather collecting that shouldn't be disregarded. It's an example of just how AC2 did such a fantastic job of incorporating character/story through game play and never letting you forget why Ezio is fighting. The feathers are his last connection to his little brother, the races are his last connection to his older brother and I for one enjoyed collecting them because it allowed me to explore the city more.

RA503
11-04-2015, 12:23 AM
I have a theory that themes of some AC as made base on real life happenings and this reflex in the first civ plot as well.

AC - War on Terror
Black Flag - spionage and information leak
Syndicate - Feminism,and the relationship between rationality and violence(in some sort a theme on the novel From Hell )

Farlander1991
11-04-2015, 12:52 AM
You've glossed over and dismissed a very important aspect of that feather collecting that shouldn't be disregarded. It's an example of just how AC2 did such a fantastic job of incorporating character/story through game play and never letting you forget why Ezio is fighting.

I'm not disregarding, I'm saying that just because the bar has become set higher than the previous installment, doesn't mean that it was actually set high.

Now, imagine the next scenario. I'm not saying, btw, that it is THE best way to do it, but what I am saying is that would be something much more immersive, memorable, and even more connected between gameplay and narrative than what we have.

We already know that AC2 does a good job of taking you through pretty much all parts of every city via missions as evidenced here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1259896-Assassin-s-Creed-world-usage-in-missions-analysis). So, instead of going around every nook and cranny looking for those 100 feathers, imagine that there's only five in the whole game, one per city (plus the introductory one in the main storyline). Let's say it's some feathers of rare birds that Petruccio wanted to collect. So, every time when we're between missions, going to our next marker, organically, at different parts of the city (i.e. there's no strict point or location), there would be a rare bird sighting (it would fly near Ezio and there would be some voice maybe from citizens nearby or Ezio himself, to bring attention to it). Maybe followed by a little Eagle Visioning to try and get to it as it flies away in a certain direction. And then with each this kind of bird sighting, you would define the area of where its nest is, and it would become smaller and smaller until you actually find it and get that feather and bring it to your mother.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the best idea ever, or that when implemented it's going to be great (not every great idea on paper turns out to be great), but what I am saying, is that there's a way to make this whole side-plot unique, memorable, organic in the game world (with all the narrative benefits you speak of, no less), people would care more about it because it would be implemented better, and it would lead to memorable moments to tell, like 'I was going to Leonardo when one of these rare birds that Petruccio was looking for flew nearby, and it was actually near its nest already, and the music that sounds in these particular moments is amazing, and oh my god it's a little thing but it's so atmospheric, and it was so nice to bring it to Ezio's mother', and then it would be used as an example of how to do things. Positive reinforcement.

Instead, we have something that most of the time leads to situation like this for a lot of people: 'So I found 9 out of 10 feathers in this district of a large city. Where's the last one? Is it here? No. Is it here? No. Maybe here? Wasn't there a feather here already? ****, I don't remember. I'll go check on guide, and wtf, it was in this obscure place, how the heck were you supposed to find it? Ok, got it. Oh great, there's 30 more to go, all placed in some arbitrary spots. Yay. But it's certainly better than 420 pointless flags!' Yes, for you, for example, this allows to explore the undoubtedly beautifully done AC cities more, but there are other ways to promote that which would be great for everybody, and much better than 100 feathers.

EmbodyingSeven5
11-04-2015, 03:34 AM
I mostly agree, but I don't buy that it was Alta´r's character that turned so many people off. Most of the complaints leveled against him are based on his voice actor and his American accent. The most oft-cited criticisms about the game are that there wasn't enough stuff to do, that the Kingdom was boring and that the investigation missions were repetitive. I happen to disagree with all of those, but I can understand people who see it that way, especially if they started with any of the sequels.

I really miss the philosophical, ponderous tone of AC1. None of the other games have even attempted anything similar. The dialogue still gives me chills whenever I replay the game.

I do agree that the writing in AC was top notch. Its just the repetitive investigation missions that turned me off.

VestigialLlama4
11-04-2015, 05:19 AM
I have a theory that themes of some AC as made base on real life happenings and this reflex in the first civ plot as well.

Well the games are made over several years and the world is so porous with information and weekly news updates that it's hard to keep track, so I don't think that's there much in common. The games do have some sort of hook to keep it contemporary but it's not there too much.


AC - War on Terror

Wow! What does Assassin's Creed I have to do with the War on Terror on...any concievable level? Is it really that hard for people to accept that Syria-Palestina is 1000s of years old with many cultures, socieites and kingdoms ruling there. That any depiction of Syria-Palestina in the past does not have to find traces of today's conflict there. The Crusades and the War on Terror are entirely different conflicts with different motivations and stuff.

The fact is that Asasiyun aren't terrorists. Not as we identify them today. They are closer to the 19th Century anarchists and the "Propaganda of the Deed" (they also believed in assassinating corrupt leaders but tended to spare civilians). They don't target civilians, they don't do suicide attacks or anything. Which by the way is anachronistic anyway since terrorism is a product of modern society, it can't exist without a large urbanized population, huge city centers and mass media to disseminate information and images of these attacks. The thing is AC's Modern Day generally avoids today's controversies. Like we don't get a single mention of 9/11 once in any of these games, we don't hear about the Arab Spring, we don't hear about the death of Bin Laden. The reasons are pretty obvious, having a game with Assassins and Templars and having them involved in these controversial events of recent memory will stir up emotions anyway. It's also the main reason why you won't really have an AC modern day.


Black Flag - spionage and information leak

If you mean the Observatory and the NSA, then maybe. But the games are actually more about invidivual freedom and liberty.


Syndicate - Feminism,and the relationship between rationality and violence(in some sort a theme on the novel From Hell )

Those are universal themes. Just because feminism has gotten some mainstream currency recently doesn't mean that it's not a theme since forever..

VestigialLlama4
11-04-2015, 05:34 AM
If you want to prove that open world games or games in general are better off without collectibles or pointless achievements or any kind of stuff like that, then make a game with those principles in mind,

I am thinking of Shadow of the Colossus. Zero collectibles, a vast open world to ride around in, just empty but beautiful, yet it's also strangely immersive because of that emptiness. In fact this is true of AC1 as well, the cities of that game is emptier and has fewer stuff like you do in other games, no Tombs, no special character-specific side missions. But because of that, the city itself gets special focus as this vast playground of stuff that is just "there".


But if you add a collectible system to show how bad these systems are by keeping it purposefully bad with ****tons of collectibles, nothing to amount to it for collecting them all, and having them ruining the view of the area (i.e. doing all the things that you're trying to say are bad), then you're still part of the problem, ironic intent doesn't save it.

I don't think there was any ironic intent with AC1. I remember Desilets saying that they added the flags in later in development and he actually said that he would be surprised if anyone actually collects all of it. My favorite collectibles are the Sea Shanties in Black Flag, it takes some skill to get it, there aren't too many of them and once you get them it becomes a song you can hear on your ship and somehow that's a lot more valuable than simply having "Achievement" pop up. It's a permanent part of the gameplay and you can hear many songs at the end thanks to it.

AC2 you have the Codex robbing missions, which unlike the Flags are totally necessary for completing the game, are even more repetitive than flag collecting and makes even less gameplay sense. If you have these rare codexes, why put it on the ground floor and station three guards in front. If AC2 was made today, they would make it into heist missions since that mechanic had not yet been pioneered at the time. The Codexes are fewer in number compared to the flags and they are kind of essential for upgrades (except the upgrades all happen in story and cutscene anyway, there's no special pay-off for collecting the side codexes).

cawatrooper9
11-04-2015, 04:16 PM
Well the games are made over several years and the world is so porous with information and weekly news updates that it's hard to keep track, so I don't think that's there much in common. The games do have some sort of hook to keep it contemporary but it's not there too much.

I have had similar thoughts, so let me play devil's advocate. Obviously, the game are indeed made over a period of time, so any themes would have had to been decided on long in advance (presumably two to three years before release). However, the analytical side of me sometimes cannot be suppressed, so bear with me here.


Wow! What does Assassin's Creed I have to do with the War on Terror on...any concievable level? Is it really that hard for people to accept that Syria-Palestina is 1000s of years old with many cultures, socieites and kingdoms ruling there. That any depiction of Syria-Palestina in the past does not have to find traces of today's conflict there. The Crusades and the War on Terror are entirely different conflicts with different motivations and stuff.

The fact is that Asasiyun aren't terrorists. Not as we identify them today. They are closer to the 19th Century anarchists and the "Propaganda of the Deed" (they also believed in assassinating corrupt leaders but tended to spare civilians). They don't target civilians, they don't do suicide attacks or anything. Which by the way is anachronistic anyway since terrorism is a product of modern society, it can't exist without a large urbanized population, huge city centers and mass media to disseminate information and images of these attacks. The thing is AC's Modern Day generally avoids today's controversies. Like we don't get a single mention of 9/11 once in any of these games, we don't hear about the Arab Spring, we don't hear about the death of Bin Laden. The reasons are pretty obvious, having a game with Assassins and Templars and having them involved in these controversial events of recent memory will stir up emotions anyway. It's also the main reason why you won't really have an AC modern day.

Of course the Crusades and the War on Terror are entirely different conflicts, but RA503 would be far from the first person to draw an analogy there. In fact, the "Christian" nation (note: I do not necessarily agree with that assessment, but it's an oft cited phrase) verses an Islamic group in the War on Terror does have a fairly thematic connection to the wars during the previous turn of the millennia.

Another thing that comes to mind in this context is the movie 300. When that movie came out (roughly a year before AC1, if I remember correctly) I read a lot of reviews drawing parallels that one factor of the film's success was due to a sort of vindictive attitude Western audiences had to watching... well, essentially more Western styled armies them beat up on Eastern troops. Note that I do not find this assessment to be one that is significantly accurate in history, nor anywhere near culturally appropriate or sensitive, but it nonetheless is a possible theory for how it was viewed in its time.

The same can be said for AC1. Even if the intention from the developers was not to piggyback a bit on the germane topic of war in the Middle East, it's highly likely that many players experienced the game with that sort of background. People do not exist in a vacuum, and a historical interpretation on the making of the series would certainly examine the possible influences from the War on Terror.


If you mean the Observatory and the NSA, then maybe. But the games are actually more about invidivual freedom and liberty.
It's funny- the parallels are actually much stronger here- yet I find it all the less likely. The Snowden case exploded the summer before Black Flag was released. That's not a lot of time to shoe horn in the whole Observatory plot. Then again, seeing how relatively weak that plot was, and how little the game focused on it, perhaps it was possible.


Those are universal themes. Just because feminism has gotten some mainstream currency recently doesn't mean that it's not a theme since forever..
Yeah, if anything, the "feminist" themes in Syndicate are more of a knee-jerk reaction to the Unity scandal last year. Syndicate has a lot of other themes, too: industrialization, colonialism, Marxist criticism (in a much more literal sense than most pieces, I might add). Like you said, these are more universal themes- Syndicate set out to be appealing and bring people back to the series, but its messsage isn't overwhelmingly poignant.

I might suggest (and please, no one take this as a cue to begin a flame war on religion), however, that Unity showcases the general and more accepting attitude toward atheism (especially considering Arno's speech in the end). Of course, this has been a theme in all the games for the most part, but I really found it to be particularly strong in Unity, especially considering the abundance of religious iconography in the game (though this could just be a callback to the Ezio trilogy, which did something similar.)

LieutenantRex
11-04-2015, 05:28 PM
I have had similar thoughts, so let me play devil's advocate. Obviously, the game are indeed made over a period of time, so any themes would have had to been decided on long in advance (presumably two to three years before release). However, the analytical side of me sometimes cannot be suppressed, so bear with me here.


Of course the Crusades and the War on Terror are entirely different conflicts, but RA503 would be far from the first person to draw an analogy there. In fact, the "Christian" nation (note: I do not necessarily agree with that assessment, but it's an oft cited phrase) verses an Islamic group in the War on Terror does have a fairly thematic connection to the wars during the previous turn of the millennia.

Another thing that comes to mind in this context is the movie 300. When that movie came out (roughly a year before AC1, if I remember correctly) I read a lot of reviews drawing parallels that one factor of the film's success was due to a sort of vindictive attitude Western audiences had to watching... well, essentially more Western styled armies them beat up on Eastern troops. Note that I do not find this assessment to be one that is significantly accurate in history, nor anywhere near culturally appropriate or sensitive, but it nonetheless is a possible theory for how it was viewed in its time.

The same can be said for AC1. Even if the intention from the developers was not to piggyback a bit on the germane topic of war in the Middle East, it's highly likely that many players experienced the game with that sort of background. People do not exist in a vacuum, and a historical interpretation on the making of the series would certainly examine the possible influences from the War on Terror.


It's funny- the parallels are actually much stronger here- yet I find it all the less likely. The Snowden case exploded the summer before Black Flag was released. That's not a lot of time to shoe horn in the whole Observatory plot. Then again, seeing how relatively weak that plot was, and how little the game focused on it, perhaps it was possible.


Yeah, if anything, the "feminist" themes in Syndicate are more of a knee-jerk reaction to the Unity scandal last year. Syndicate has a lot of other themes, too: industrialization, colonialism, Marxist criticism (in a much more literal sense than most pieces, I might add). Like you said, these are more universal themes- Syndicate set out to be appealing and bring people back to the series, but its messsage isn't overwhelmingly poignant.

I might suggest (and please, no one take this as a cue to begin a flame war on religion), however, that Unity showcases the general and more accepting attitude toward atheism (especially considering Arno's speech in the end). Of course, this has been a theme in all the games for the most part, but I really found it to be particularly strong in Unity, especially considering the abundance of religious iconography in the game (though this could just be a callback to the Ezio trilogy, which did something similar.)

Stop being a ***** and just state your opinion. Why would you cite these arguments if you're unsure in whether you agree with them or not? There's no point, and all you do is damage your own credibility by engendering this perception for the reader that you are unnecessarily equivocal and unreliable whence compared to Vestigial's concise and direct assessments and assertions. He doesn't wish to cow you from discourse, so do not allow his solid opinion to render you diffident in yours.

cawatrooper9
11-04-2015, 05:38 PM
Stop being a ***** and just state your opinion. Why would you cite these arguments if you're unsure in whether you agree with them or not? There's no point, and all you do is damage your own credibility by engendering this perception for the reader that you are unnecessarily equivocal and unreliable whence compared to Vestigial's concise and direct assessments and assertions. He doesn't wish to cow you from discourse, so do not allow his solid opinion to render you diffident in yours.

Sorry, what? I feel like that's an awful lot of hostility coming from you for reasons that I honestly cannot fathom. I cannot help but feel that you've severely misunderstood what I'm trying to convey here.

Could you cite some of my arguments here that you take issue with? For all of your apparent anger at my argumentative skills, you've really given me little to work with here.

VestigialLlama4
11-04-2015, 06:03 PM
...

I found cawatrooper's post quite concise and cogent myself. You are right that I don't want to cow anyone down with my arguments but I equally do not want anyone else cowing other people down either.


I have had similar thoughts, so let me play devil's advocate.

Go ahead.


Of course the Crusades and the War on Terror are entirely different conflicts, but RA503 would be far from the first person to draw an analogy there. In fact, the "Christian" nation (note: I do not necessarily agree with that assessment, but it's an oft cited phrase) verses an Islamic group in the War on Terror does have a fairly thematic connection to the wars during the previous turn of the millennia.

Another thing that comes to mind in this context is the movie 300. When that movie came out (roughly a year before AC1, if I remember correctly) I read a lot of reviews drawing parallels that one factor of the film's success was due to a sort of vindictive attitude Western audiences had to watching... well, essentially more Western styled armies them beat up on Eastern troops. Note that I do not find this assessment to be one that is significantly accurate in history, nor anywhere near culturally appropriate or sensitive, but it nonetheless is a possible theory for how it was viewed in its time.

The same can be said for AC1. Even if the intention from the developers was not to piggyback a bit on the germane topic of war in the Middle East, it's highly likely that many players experienced the game with that sort of background. People do not exist in a vacuum, and a historical interpretation on the making of the series would certainly examine the possible influences from the War on Terror.

That kind of broad analysis, that is to say describing the context in which AC1 came in and the role that the War on Terror played in that context, is quite different from what RA503 was saying, that is reducing AC1 to be about the War on Terror. One of the consequences of this prolonged American engagement with the Middle East is, paradoxically, the positive side of the fact that many Western artists and creators want to know and learn more about the Middle East. Even the liberals, so I think the Asasiyun came out of that fascination perhaps. It can be said that Americans of a certain age know more about, and are more curious about, the Middle East these days than they were before. Whether that was because of the attacks, Bush's Wars or the rise of Social Media and Internet connectivity is a different and unanswerable question. Especially since AC1 goes out of its way to correct many of the myths and misconceptions people had about them, it never calls them Hashashin and Patrice Desilets despite being inspired by Arkon Daraul and Alamut went even further than those two books. The main historical license is the anachronistic reimagining of the Assassins and Templars as secular humanists and removing the religious dimension which makes commercial sense as much as it does artistic sense.

AC1 is still the most diverse game of the series, most of the characters are Arab -- Altair, Malik, Al Mualim, the Two Rafiqs, Five of the Templars -- and you have multiple different types none of them fitting a single stereotype. It was pretty daring to have made it at that time and the amazing thing is that Ubisoft and Desilets never made a big deal about it, they just went and did it. That's why people generally think of AC1 and Altair as AC1 and Altair whereas with AC3, people still see Connor as a Mohawk Native American guy, he doesn't gain that independent agency fully.


I might suggest (and please, no one take this as a cue to begin a flame war on religion), however, that Unity showcases the general and more accepting attitude toward atheism (especially considering Arno's speech in the end). Of course, this has been a theme in all the games for the most part, but I really found it to be particularly strong in Unity, especially considering the abundance of religious iconography in the game (though this could just be a callback to the Ezio trilogy, which did something similar.)

I don't think UNITY was making anything about atheism there. Arno talks about the Supreme Being, that is the name of Robespierre's festival earlier. Arno's speech is essentially a classic Ubisoft Cover-Your-A__ move. In the game, Arno is a psychopathic right-wing royalist who essentially rallies against the French Revolution itself. Royalists believed in Divine Right of Kings and the Church by default, eventually Ubisoft realized, quite by accident (since they drew from Anglophone accounts) that they made a game that was pretty righ-wing so they did some A__ covering disavowals here and there to say that Arno is still revolutionary or something. He isn't.

cawatrooper9
11-04-2015, 06:18 PM
That kind of broad analysis, that is to say describing the context in which AC1 came in and the role that the War on Terror played in that context, is quite different from what RA503 was saying, that is reducing AC1 to be about the War on Terror. One of the consequences of this prolonged American engagement with the Middle East is, paradoxically, the positive side of the fact that many Western artists and creators want to know and learn more about the Middle East. Even the liberals, so I think the Asasiyun came out of that fascination perhaps. It can be said that Americans of a certain age know more about, and are more curious about, the Middle East these days than they were before. Whether that was because of the attacks, Bush's Wars or the rise of Social Media and Internet connectivity is a different and unanswerable question. Especially since AC1 goes out of its way to correct many of the myths and misconceptions people had about them, it never calls them Hashashin and Patrice Desilets despite being inspired by Arkon Daraul and Alamut went even further than those two books. The main historical license is the anachronistic reimagining of the Assassins and Templars as secular humanists and removing the religious dimension which makes commercial sense as much as it does artistic sense.


I guess that depends largely on how we read into it. After all, RA503 only wrote, and I quote:


I have a theory that themes of some AC as made base on real life happenings and this reflex in the first civ plot as well.

AC - War on Terror
Black Flag - spionage and information leak
Syndicate - Feminism,and the relationship between rationality and violence(in some sort a theme on the novel From Hell )


So, to say that they're "reducing" AC1 to be about the War on terror may be a stretch, but perhaps so is my interpretation of it. If RA503 ends up reading this, would you mind clarifying more on what you've meant by this!



AC1 is still the most diverse game of the series, most of the characters are Arab -- Altair, Malik, Al Mualim, the Two Rafiqs, Five of the Templars -- and you have multiple different types none of them fitting a single stereotype. It was pretty daring to have made it at that time and the amazing thing is that Ubisoft and Desilets never made a big deal about it, they just went and did it. That's why people generally think of AC1 and Altair as AC1 and Altair whereas with AC3, people still see Connor as a Mohawk Native American guy, he doesn't gain that independent agency fully.
Possibly- though I can also see how Altair is not only the "OG" Assassin of the series, but he also has little identity (at least in the first game) outside of being an Assassin. AC3 did a lot to reinforce the idea of Connor's dual identities as both an Assassin and a Mohawk- not that I view that to be a bad thing either, I think multiple identities have worked well for the series so far.



I don't think UNITY was making anything about atheism there. Arno talks about the Supreme Being, that is the name of Robespierre's festival earlier. Arno's speech is essentially a classic Ubisoft Cover-Your-A__ move. In the game, Arno is a psychopathic right-wing royalist who essentially rallies against the French Revolution itself. Royalists believed in Divine Right of Kings and the Church by default, eventually Ubisoft realized, quite by accident (since they drew from Anglophone accounts) that they made a game that was pretty righ-wing so they did some A__ covering disavowals here and there to say that Arno is still revolutionary or something. He isn't.
I'll have to listen to that speech again. I've only played through Unity three times, and I think I didn't even finish it on my second and third playthroughs, so I don't remember it that well. I just remember that my gut reaction was that Arno was dissing the church for some reason.



I found cawatrooper's post quite concise and cogent myself. You are right that I don't want to cow anyone down with my arguments but I equally do not want anyone else cowing other people down either.
Yeah, not sure who that was or why he felt the need to be so aggressively offended at my post. Thought that was kind of strange.
Oh well... :nonchalance:

ze_topazio
11-04-2015, 06:19 PM
LieutenantRex is kinda just trolling most of the time.

VestigialLlama4
11-04-2015, 07:34 PM
I'll have to listen to that speech again. I've only played through Unity three times, and I think I didn't even finish it on my second and third playthroughs, so I don't remember it that well. I just remember that my gut reaction was that Arno was dissing the church for some reason.

A lot of people thought that way. The Supreme Being is a specific reference to Robespierre since one of the missions is titled "The Supreme Being".

During the French Revolution, there was this philosophy called Deism which also inspired the American Revolutionaries (Thomas Jefferson for instance). Deism is kind of like atheism except instead of siding with the laws of science and nature they say that nature is God and should be worshipped as such. During the French Revolution, Robespierre was fed up with how the Catholic Church still held sway over people and how militant atheism was giving the Revolution bad publicity, so he called Deism the "Cult of the Supreme Being". His justification was "If God does not exist, it is necessary to invent him." In UNITY, they kind of dismiss that cult as some silliness which it seems from today's perspective but that kind of religious devotion to Deism was common. Thomas Paine, anti-Christian philosopher attended and worshipped many Deist temples for instance. So Arno saying "No supreme being" is being anti-Deist, technically speaking. If he was anti-Christian he'd say "there's no God above us".

The thing is that within Assassin's Creed, the Templars tend to be more openly anti-religious and anti-Christian than the Assassins. Altair is strongly implied to be an atheist but he never outright voices it and he even defends religious faith on principle against Al Mualim. Al Mualim wants to use the Apple to give people a new illusion to believe in, since its no different from their religious beliefs but Altair says "At least they choose to believe those illusions", he's making a distinction between genuine religious belief and the forced belief that Al Mualim wants to put. Ezio in AC2 says stuff like "There's no book to guide you" at the Bonfire which probably implies that "The Bible isn't right". He also tells Savonarola to go to "his God" (which suggests that Ezio doesn't identify as a Christian). But when Ezio punches the Pope at the end of AC2, he gets upset over Borgia calling the Bible a pack of lies and dismissing it saying stuff like, "You're the Pope and you insult the Book of your own faith". Connor essentially says stuff like "Great Spirit" and he builds a Church in the Homestead for the people who live there.

The reason of course is Cover-Your-A__, and the kind of dirty tricks Ubisoft uses to get even people who are Catholics to support Ezio punching the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Ezio isn't punching the Pope, he's punching a corrupt hypocrite. To a Catholic this is still supremely blasphemous of course but at least it isn't saying that All Popes Should Be Punched. The only time when someone genuinely religious is shown as a bad guy is Syndicate where you have David Brewster be this fundamentalist who hates Darwin, one of the few Templars who thinks the Apple of Eden is God's Apple.

RA503
11-04-2015, 07:49 PM
I said that AC 1 is based on war on terror, because of the text in first page...:nonchalance:

cawatrooper9
11-04-2015, 08:22 PM
A lot of people thought that way. The Supreme Being is a specific reference to Robespierre since one of the missions is titled "The Supreme Being".

During the French Revolution, there was this philosophy called Deism which also inspired the American Revolutionaries (Thomas Jefferson for instance). Deism is kind of like atheism except instead of siding with the laws of science and nature they say that nature is God and should be worshipped as such. During the French Revolution, Robespierre was fed up with how the Catholic Church still held sway over people and how militant atheism was giving the Revolution bad publicity, so he called Deism the "Cult of the Supreme Being". His justification was "If God does not exist, it is necessary to invent him." In UNITY, they kind of dismiss that cult as some silliness which it seems from today's perspective but that kind of religious devotion to Deism was common. Thomas Paine, anti-Christian philosopher attended and worshipped many Deist temples for instance. So Arno saying "No supreme being" is being anti-Deist, technically speaking. If he was anti-Christian he'd say "there's no God above us".

Right, I was aware of the Cult of the Supreme Being, it just didn't seem like it was all that big of a focus in the game- Robespierre seemed kind of shoehorned in (which is a shame, I suppose, but I'm glad that they at least tried to not pick the obvious villain).

I guess the CotSB just wasn't even a big enough part of the game for me to consider it during the closing monologue, but I guess it makes sense in that context.


I said that AC 1 is based on war on terror, because of the text in first page...:nonchalance:

You mean the "multicultural/ diverse faith" disclosure? I could be wrong, but I think every game they've made has built off of that, still.

RA503
11-04-2015, 08:25 PM
cawatrooper9 I said the text in the first page of this tread,the one who said about war on terror first...

cawatrooper9
11-04-2015, 08:34 PM
cawatrooper9 I said the text in the first page of this tread,the one who said about war on terror first...

Ah, I see, so you're agreeing with the article.

I find this statement to be disheartening among casual fans:


Whereas Altair Ibn La’Ahad was a man who some might claim to be a terrorist, Ezio Auditore da Firenze came across more as Italian Batman, fighting to avenge his fallen family members. (...)

Especially, when I see how it could be supported given this statement:


Whereas Altair questioned Western conceptions of who could serve as a hero, Ezio drew from classic Western hero archetypes such as Zorro, the Scarlet Pimpernel, and even Batman. And whereas the Assassins were originally presented as a local rebel group, they more and more began to take on the appearance of a Dan Brown-esque secret society, with their methods no longer being called into question but rather celebrated.

I suppose this all stems from the fact that the Assassins in AC1 were based on the Ḥashshāshīn, and that the brotherhood in ACII has a less historical background- and while I can certainly see how the parallels between the Ḥashshāshīn and radical religious sects could support the comparison between AC1 and the War on Terror, I think there's a lot more to the game than that.

RA503
11-04-2015, 08:36 PM
The history channel once said that Hashashin is a ancestor for modern radical groups but, the History channel you know... aliens !

Someone more everytime replays this game think that maybe the Garden on Masyaf backdoors(the place of the final battle) is based on Eden ?

cawatrooper9
11-04-2015, 08:52 PM
The history channel once said that Hashashin is a ancestor for modern radical groups but, the History channel you know... aliens !

Someone more everytime replays this game think that maybe the Garden on Masyaf backdoors(the place of the final battle) is based on Eden ?

I haven't read Alamut yet (the book that AC1 is heavily based on) but it's on my list. Anyway, I know some of what happens in it, and this is a big spoiler from this book from this 1938 book (so II assume it's fine to post, but you've been warned):

But the Old Man on the Mountain (who Al Mualim is based on) drugs his assassins (with hashish, I believe, as many people think that's where the word "Ḥashshāshīn" come from) and brings them to the garden in his palace where they have various carnal pleasures. He leads them, in their suggestive state, to believe that their garden is heaven. So, basically, that's how the Mentor really controlled his followers minds, and the Assassins were basically a bunch of stoners :p

RA503
11-04-2015, 09:03 PM
Because of this I love the final battle,the symbolism is perfect,I really hope if we have a battle against Juno in the future that it take things from it...

VestigialLlama4
11-04-2015, 09:06 PM
The history channel once said that Hashashin is a ancestor for modern radical groups but, the History channel you know... aliens !

The History Channel undoubtedly uses the research of the discredited Middle Eastern scholar Bernard Lewis. He was one of the historians who consulted George W. Bush about the Iraq War, which he unquestioningly supported. Lewis isn't taken seriously by serious scholars but he is by American war hawks. He was the one who said that terrorism in the Middle East has its roots in the original Assassins.



I haven't read Alamut yet (the book that AC1 is heavily based on) but it's on my list. Anyway, I know some of what happens in it, and this is a big spoiler from this book from this 1938 book (so II assume it's fine to post, but you've been warned):

But the Old Man on the Mountain (who Al Mualim is based on) drugs his assassins (with hashish, I believe, as many people think that's where the word "Ḥashshāshīn" come from) and brings them to the garden in his palace where they have various carnal pleasures. He leads them, in their suggestive state, to believe that their garden is heaven. So, basically, that's how the Mentor really controlled his followers minds, and the Assassins were basically a bunch of stoners :p

Yeah. In the game, the Assassins are certainly not hashish smokers, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Alamut's relation to AC1 is not as strong as people make it out. The basic plot of the student turning against his master is there, as are some other details but most of AC1 is original. The main thing is that Alamut is about the founding of the Assassins, the first Mentor, Hassan-I-Sabah in Alamut Persia. AC1 deals with Rashid-ad-din-Sinan (aka Al Mualim) and Masyaf at the time of the Third Crusade, a hundred years later.

The reason why they chose the setting update is undoubtedly because it brings the Templars as a threat while Alamut's setting is all about Assassins fighting local threats and obviously the developers did want some Western presence to provide some frame of reference they could use. I don't mean this necessarily in a sell-out way but they obviously wanted the series to appeal to a wide general public, and provide some familiarity to explain the Assassins and how they stand. So they used Richard the Lionheart and the Templars at Solomon's Temple which people know thanks to Robin Hood and Dan Brown. It also removed the religious trappings which was necessary for the games to succeed.

RA503
11-04-2015, 09:21 PM
Talking about hashishs I just rermember that unnamed thing that Arno drink during his initiation in Unity...

VestigialLlama4
11-05-2015, 03:59 AM
Talking about hashishs I just rermember that unnamed thing that Arno drink during his initiation in Unity...

Unity doesn't count. It made a....hash...of the Assassins, going completely against everything they went before.

LoyalACFan
11-05-2015, 04:09 AM
Unity doesn't count. It made a....hash...of the Assassins, going completely against everything they went before.

HAHA PUNS!

But seriously, whatever Arno drank sure as hell wasn't hash-based, unless it was like the dopest strain of all time. You don't get those kind of hallucinations using hash.

But then, AC4's drunken delirium was nothing like being blackout drunk either, so I guess it could be taken as some kind of hybrid of the effects of the drug and the character's own conscience/guilt.

VestigialLlama4
11-05-2015, 04:23 AM
HAHA PUNS!

But seriously, whatever Arno drank sure as hell wasn't hash-based, unless it was like the dopest strain of all time. You don't get those kind of hallucinations using hash.

Probably a special mixture of absinthe. The only reason they included that sequence was because Unity likes to steal ideas rather than come up with its own. This they took from the Demon Trials of Arkham City.

I mean the hallucinations doesn't even make sense as hallucinations. It doesn't tell us nor does it tell the character anything new. What it does is redo the events of the first three sequences in a new spooky style without additional psychological comment. In Batman, the Scarecrow hallucinations in the first game told us something about that guy. In Black Flag, the drunk sequence told us something about Edward. That character defining "Eagle and Jackdaw" story is in there. So it was a moment of realization.


But then, AC4's drunken delirium was nothing like being blackout drunk either, so I guess it could be taken as some kind of hybrid of the effects of the drug and the character's own conscience/guilt.

Probably. These hallucination sequences are a recent cliche in games. I think Max Payne 1 started it with those dream sequences.

cawatrooper9
11-05-2015, 03:50 PM
HAHA PUNS!

But seriously, whatever Arno drank sure as hell wasn't hash-based, unless it was like the dopest strain of all time. You don't get those kind of hallucinations using hash.


Yeah... It just wouldn't be the same seeing Arno giggling while eating onion rings and binge watching Tim and Eric episodes though...

RA503
11-05-2015, 08:01 PM
The drug sequence is not stollen from batman is only a ''influence'',also drug sequences in games are awesome,in Arkhan Knight they even better because some details is subtle,like some publicy and statues changing for joker's face without the player notice(the biggest problem with Horror games I think is that everything is too explicity),will be awesome a AC whem after you kill the final boss you discover that everything was a Apple illusion similar to Bioshock twist will be awesome.

****ens missions are something of it,a guy with a clock is more dangerous tham starrick...

Hope Freud was in london during Jack The Ripper time,I want to see him in the DLC ...