PDA

View Full Version : A Brief Analysis/Theory about the Fryes (Possible Spoilers)



AnExplodingDodo
11-02-2015, 12:34 AM
So I was thinking earlier; the Frye twins can't be as shallow as the game lets on. There are perfectly reasonable causes for their personalities. Many of you say they're too bland or don't have interesting personalities by themselves. One thing the game obviously failed to deliver on was their back story. The first few sequences could have set this up for us, or even a prologue scene, but what is done can't be undone.

Jacob's character is described as being un-assassin like, but why was that?. He has a very childish air about him. He seems to solve things in an almost juvenile way. I too was a little miffed by this at first, but thinking about it, it's obvious I guess.

It is evident from the game that Evie was a daddy's girl, but why? Their mother died in childbirth. Ethan Frye had a void in his life; a lack of female presence. In Evie he probably saw his late wife. It was almost like he wanted to bring her up to be her. Evie was also born first, so maybe she was loved more from the start. Then came Jacob. His birth 4 minutes after Evie inevitably killed his mother and thus Ethan could have felt animosity toward him for that. There is a combination of reasons.

I get the feeling Jacob was almost left to fend for himself growing up. Children like to be rewarded and noticed. Evie was getting all of daddy's attention whilst he brought her up to be like her mother. Ethan likely ignored Jacob to bring Evie up. Jacob clearly resented this, but still wanted to be loved and to make him proud. He probably saw Evie training to be an assassin, and he probably tried to copy her, but not necessarily wanted to be an assassin (Look at their clothes in the beginning of Seq 1. It's like Jacob doesn't even want to look like an assassin). Being considered on the same level as Evie would make Jacob feel like he was someone and valued the same as his sister; something he clearly never got from his father. He didn't want to be a true assassin but felt like that was what he had to do to be like Evie.

He wasn't nurtured to be a man of tact or reason. He seems to have brought himself up a lot. This would explain his thugish, reckless behavior. He cried out to be noticed, and this would justify his aim to start a gang. He wanted people to notice him; to fear him; to idolise him. He wanted to be the underworld ruler over London so that he could be somebody. He likely felt off about Henry Green because he was probably yet another person who was going to see Evie as the better of the two. He didn't want anyone else giving them a challenge whereby Evie would prove herself more capable than him. It didn't help that Evie always belittled him, but maybe that was just to keep him in line. She cared about him - mothered him almost. He probably saw her when he tried to imagine his mother. He grew dependent on her but wanted to be better than her at the same time.

I think by the end of the game, we see him realising that there was 'evil' out there, and he was just as capable at stopping it as Evie. Killing Starrick alongside her, as well as controlling all boroughs, probably made him feel a sense of self importance at last. I think he realises as the story goes on that he has his own part to play, and that it isnt all about competing with his sister, but doing what HE can.

So that's a brief analysis of Jacob's behaviour. Let me know what yo think.

As for other theories, what happens after the story?

We'll have to work backwards on this.

1916. Lydia Frye was keeping London under control. She was born in 1893 which'd make her 23 in the Helix Rift. We know that the Jack the Ripper DLC occurs in 1888. This would mean that during the time of the DLC, Jacob's daughter, or daughter in law would be of sufficient age. (Oh, and Jacob and Evie trained Lydia whilst her parents were away on missions, so that, and the fact Jacob was a father by this point pretty much rules out him as Jack).

If we presume she was at least as young as 18 in 1893, that means she was born in 1875 - 7 years after syndicate potnentally. So we see Jacob, shortly after the game, finding himself a woman to settle down with. He doesn't seem like the sort who'd be good at courting, but maybe he changed after the game. Evie and Henry went away to India for a while. Jacob, much like his father, would be devoid of that female presence in his life. He would look like someone to fill it - someone he could depend on and love him. Realising that he was a mature person, being granted into the Sacred Garter, he would likely have matured somewhat, and that childish sense of competition would be eliminated when Evie goes away. He would have to fend for himself again, but now he would know his purpose.

I think Ubi misses a treat with putting in a little exposition with something like this. I doubt Ubi even thought this deep about the backstory, but it would have justified their behaviours in the game a lot. Maybe we'd see them differently...

phoenix-force411
11-02-2015, 12:45 AM
Their backstories are probably going to be told in a novel, I'm assuming. That is if they are going to make a Syndicate Novel. The last time we had a full backstory told in-game was ACIII, which involved Haytham taking a quarter of Connor's game which was unpleasant and probably not even needed.

LoyalACFan
11-02-2015, 08:21 AM
Honestly, I think you're pretty off-base about Jacob's character. I didn't get the sense that he was neglected at all, I rather thought that he was actually brought up by a quite overbearing (though well-meaning) father. Evie loved him more and was a better student, which led Jacob to become jealous and ultimately rebel against their father. And I also don't think he suffered from any lack of self-worth either; the fact that he rolled into town and immediately said "I've always fancied myself a gang leader, let's make our own gang" is evidence enough of that.

I do think there's a decent case to be made for Jacob being the true villain of ACS, but I really don't think it was intentional. I genuinely do think the Frye twins are to be taken at face value. After all, this was written by Jeffrey Yohalem, the man who brought us Cesare Borgia. The man doesn't seem to do "subtle."

Shahkulu101
11-02-2015, 12:20 PM
Honestly, I think you're pretty off-base about Jacob's character. I didn't get the sense that he was neglected at all, I rather thought that he was actually brought up by a quite overbearing (though well-meaning) father. Evie loved him more and was a better student, which led Jacob to become jealous and ultimately rebel against their father. And I also don't think he suffered from any lack of self-worth either; the fact that he rolled into town and immediately said "I've always fancied myself a gang leader, let's make our own gang" is evidence enough of that.

I do think there's a decent case to be made for Jacob being the true villain of ACS, but I really don't think it was intentional. I genuinely do think the Frye twins are to be taken at face value. After all, this was written by Jeffrey Yohalem, the man who brought us Cesare Borgia. The man doesn't seem to do "subtle."

He just realizes, like most people outside the hardcore AC community, that the series is silly as hell and rolls with it. Plus the games with the most simple story and villains are the most well-regarded. So you can't blame Yohalem for his approach, and IMO he made it quite entertaining with his colourful depiction of all the characters - the interaction between the twins too was well-written as it came off pretty naturally (thanks in part to terrific acting) and they really seemed like siblings. Some people would say it's too straightforward, shallow - and I'd have agreed before - but now I have to say I call it errr... not-pretentious.

More pets in handbags named Desmond, less magical glowing objects and space wizards please.

LoyalACFan
11-02-2015, 05:34 PM
He just realizes, like most people outside the hardcore AC community, that the series is silly as hell and rolls with it. Plus the games with the most simple story and villains are the most well-regarded. So you can't blame Yohalem for his approach, and IMO he made it quite entertaining with his colourful depiction of all the characters - the interaction between the twins too was well-written as it came off pretty naturally (thanks in part to terrific acting) and they really seemed like siblings. Some people would say it's too straightforward, shallow - and I'd have agreed before - but now I have to say I call it errr... not-pretentious.

More pets in handbags named Desmond, less magical glowing objects and space wizards please.

But see, it doesn't HAVE to be silly as hell. It SHOULDN'T be. And it isn't as though Syndicate didn't have magical glowing objects and space wizards (it had what was arguably the goofiest and most cringeworthy POE scene in the whole series) and Brotherhood, Yohalem's other baby, had you literally fighting off waves of enemies with the Apple. So I don't really understand the defense here; Jeffrey embraces the stupidest, most illogical parts of the lore without any of the subtlety or restraint that Darby or Corey put into AC1 or AC4 (neither of which could be described as "silly").

Honestly, I think Unity may have scared them away from telling somber stories. Which is unfortunate; it wasn't Unity's tone that turned people off, it was the utter lack of substance (which Syndicate lacks also, but it has funny one-liners so it makes up for it :rolleyes:). If Syndicate's cornball approach is what we have to look forward to in the future, I can pretty much write off my interest in this series' narrative.