PDA

View Full Version : New podcast with Jeffrey Yohalem (AC Syndicate Lead Writer)



loomer979
11-28-2015, 03:12 AM
Note that this podcast had way more questions submitted than any others before. Apologies if yours didn't get asked. Hope you all enjoy, and beware of spoilers!


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


Timestamps below (these are clickable in the video's description):
0:00 - Intro / Did Brotherhood influence Syndicate? / Wrecking London
14:30 - Crawford Starrick’s character and inspiration
20:40 - Playable vs Non-Playable Modern Day
25:04 - Favorite and most challenging mission to write?
32:35 - Jacob & Evie inspirations, missions, Paul & Victoria
45:40 - Where has the Creed gone?
49:49 - Were there ever any plans to kill Jacob / Evie / Henry?
51:04 - Evie and Henry’s relationship
52:58 - Did Unity’s reception affect Syndicate’s story?
56:05 - Why was Connor not mentioned in the game?
58:48 - Lydia Frye / World War I / Keeping secrets secret
1:08:40 - Were there originally more plans for George Westhouse?
1:11:22 - Are some of these characters related to others in the series?
1:12:42 - Jacob / Roth / Ned / How to best represent women & LGBT characters in AC?
1:29:12 - Lantern of Saint Denis / Lucy’s lip scar
1:30:00 - “Reconstructed Data #10” / Desmond’s Son?
1:42:30 - The role of lore in Assassin’s Creed
2:00:54 - How to get a job writing for Assassin’s Creed
2:09:36 - What’s next for Jeffrey / Outro / Goodbyes
This was one of the longer episodes I've done but I had a great time and I think you all will really enjoy it. Have a listen to find out why Jacob is the Channing Tatum of Syndicate, why the series is more Monopoly than Jumanji, and Juno's opinion on lore :)

ze_topazio
11-28-2015, 04:00 AM
Nice work as always Loomer!

I skimmed through it since it's so long and I don't have time right now, but the among the things that stand out, Lydia will be important in the future, Evie is not related to the Indian lady from the comics, Connor is not mentioned because the lady who wrote the Kenway manor segment either forgot or he simply wasn't relevant to the story, the present day was going to be, at least, partially playable but they run out of time so they were forced to stick to videos, it was either that or sacrificing stuff in the historical story.

RA503
11-28-2015, 05:31 AM
watching this left me with the impression that the series plot is in total chaos :(

only Desmond Son can safe this series from Oblivion now...

RVSage
11-28-2015, 08:48 AM
Around 20:00 he speaks about lack of time , to make the MD playable, he kind off , came out with one of the problems of yearly releases, But I do appreciate the fact they did try do it, Lot of wonderful answers overall. great prodcast loomer

BUMCFKSZY
11-28-2015, 09:06 AM
So why they can't say ,,Nothing is true......" anymore?

RaggedTyper
11-28-2015, 10:11 AM
Around 20:00 he speaks about lack of time , to make the MD playable, he kind off , came out with one of the problems of yearly releases, But I do appreciate the fact they did try do it, Lot of wonderful answers overall. great prodcast loomer

Oh please, do you honestly believe that? Lol the "ran out of time" excuse is just so they don't look like liars for saying that "modern day is back!"

RaggedTyper
11-28-2015, 10:15 AM
I really wanna watch but the video will drain my phone data. Can anyone kindly do a summary of the answers?

RVSage
11-28-2015, 10:32 AM
Oh please, do you honestly believe that? Lol the "ran out of time" excuse is just so they don't look like liars for saying that "modern day is back!"

I cannot be as pessimistic as you, I try to be optimistic about things, If you think it is a lie, it can be a lie. Well that is me, it was a open conversation and I believe, it. You are not going to change that. And I have not seen a single positive , post from you ever, in this forum. So I would rather not have a conversation with you, because I cannot find common ground with negativity.

harsab
11-28-2015, 11:42 AM
It's very worrying too see Jeffrey implying that AC now shouldn't be too lore heavy. I was very shocked to hear that since he was a pivotal part of the franchise. I loved his work in Syndicate but i will be extremely worried if future writers go down the same path.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2015, 12:06 PM
...

Good interview, very self-revealing I think.

Is there any chance of you interviewing Corey May? Or if not him, then some of the other writers for Syndicate?

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2015, 12:11 PM
watching this left me with the impression that the series plot is in total chaos :(

Well at least he's being honest and clear about things. It's been clear for some time that there's not a lot of overall direction in the series or any editorial consistency and while there are advantages with that as Mr. Yohalem says, I think eventually it will produce diminishing results if the games don't have that consistency anymore.

I think Black Flag is pretty much the end of the AC games for people who care about the deeper things. From now on, it's just standalone titles that are "in the style of Assassin's Creed" more than actual AC games.

harsab
11-28-2015, 12:41 PM
Well at least he's being honest and clear about things. It's been clear for some time that there's not a lot of overall direction in the series or any editorial consistency and while there are advantages with that as Mr. Yohalem says, I think eventually it will produce diminishing results if the games don't have that consistency anymore.

I think Black Flag is pretty much the end of the AC games for people who care about the deeper things. From now on, it's just standalone titles that are "in the style of Assassin's Creed" more than actual AC games.

I fully understand & accept that. But why tease us then? Why mention things like "lady eve" in dead kings which has been teasing us since AC2.

I could go on with the teasers but my point is don't tease us if you're not willing to explain it. Just completely remove it.

RaggedTyper
11-28-2015, 12:49 PM
I fully understand & accept that. But why tease us then? Why mention things like "lady eve" in dead kings which has been teasing us since AC2.

I could go on with the teasers but my point is don't tease us if you're not willing to explain it. Just completely remove it.

Because they want your money. It's about stringing the hardcore fans along whilst appealing to the dumb masses at the same time. I must admit there is still a pathetic part of me that believes the series will explore the lore again one day.

RaggedTyper
11-28-2015, 12:50 PM
I cannot be as pessimistic as you, I try to be optimistic about things, If you think it is a lie, it can be a lie. Well that is me, it was a open conversation and I believe, it. You are not going to change that. And I have not seen a single positive , post from you ever, in this forum. So I would rather not have a conversation with you, because I cannot find common ground with negativity.

Not true at all. I am one of the few that loved syndicate and thinks Evie ans jacob are the best protagonists since Ezio. You only hear what you want to. You must accept that people disagree with you.

RA503
11-28-2015, 01:16 PM
I love Syndicate as well,but this podcast left me a bit with... lack of confidence in them... if the next game have a setting that people dislike...the lore exist to connect the games and made games still interesting even if the fan dislike the setting...

I think eventually they will do like Mortal Kombat and Reboot the series using a in-universe explanation for that,as AC 3 was planned to be in a alternate universe...

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2015, 01:36 PM
I love Syndicate as well,but this podcast left me a bit with... lack of confidence in them... if the next game have a setting that people dislike...the lore exist to connect the games and made games still interesting even if the fan dislike the setting...

I think eventually they will do like Mortal Kombat and Reboot the series using a in-universe explanation for that,as AC 3 was planned to be in a alternate universe...

The reboot will happen eventually that is for sure.


I fully understand & accept that. But why tease us then? Why mention things like "lady eve" in dead kings which has been teasing us since AC2.

I could go on with the teasers but my point is don't tease us if you're not willing to explain it. Just completely remove it.

The point is the only thing that matters is stuff like Jacob and Evie, Roth and Starrick. Nothing else matters not Juno, not MD, not Lore.

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2015, 02:21 PM
I love Syndicate as well,but this podcast left me a bit with... lack of confidence in them... if the next game have a setting that people dislike...the lore exist to connect the games and made games still interesting even if the fan dislike the setting...

I think eventually they will do like Mortal Kombat and Reboot the series using a in-universe explanation for that,as AC 3 was planned to be in a alternate universe...

All they need to do is stop creating excuses and deal with Juno once and for all, then they should release the games as Abstergo Entertainment products and leave the MD out of it (no need for MD interaction if it's just a product, we are the consumer playing the product, that's all we need to know), this way they will have more time and less pressure to write a decent story that (in theory) won't need to be dragged to release more games if they ever bring the MD back.

People were more willing to give them a pass during Desmond time because the franchise was still new back then, now, god knows how many games later, all they are doing is alienating long term fans by stretching out the story unnecessarily, the MD only exist nowadays because Ubisoft doesn't have the balls to completely remove it, and because of it the only thing we'll continue getting is this crap they've been feeding us since AC4..

RA503
11-28-2015, 02:26 PM
Completly kill the MD will be a Nail in the coffin for the series...I already explain Why.

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2015, 02:50 PM
Completly kill the MD will be a Nail in the coffin for the series...I already explain Why.

I disagree, will some people be upset by it? Yes, of course. Will some people (a few IMO, not enough to worry about) stop playing the franchise? Yes, of course. But I'm certain that the remaining people (and you can put A LOT of people here, much more than the ones leaving) will "survive" the removal of the MD, because IMHO (and I don't mean to offend you or anyone here), anyone who still think they have a clue about what they're doing with the MD is in denial, the MD is being dragged left and right, it's just there as to be used as an excuse (and a poor one, Unity proved that) to relive the past (ourselves playing an Abstergo product also is an excuse, you know? So I fail to understand the resistance here..), and the recent changes in style (3rd person, 1st person, cutscenes) only show that they also don't have a clue about which approach to take anymore, they aren't changing it because this was their plan all along, they've been testing the field with it and at the moment they think one of these styles is good enough they'll stick with it and the people who don't like it can go to hell..


The franchise is already hated as it is, for a myriad of different reasons, remove the MD and end all the problems it brings (due to their lack of commitment towards it) once and for all IMO seems to be the correct path to take here, as someone who used to love the MD (and I still do, I just don't like what they've been doing with it now, it's just there for the sake of being there), I would feel more respect for Ubisoft if they completely removed it than continue treating it as they are now

Sorrosyss
11-28-2015, 03:00 PM
interesting interview. Was a bit sad to hear the revelations about Ubisoft's philosophy on gameplay versus cohesive story. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

The revelation about the modern day section (escape sequence) was intriguing, but again we hear about the lack of time and resources to do it. "Doing so would have been of detriment to the historical sections blah blah". This again reinforces my belief that they need to move the modern day over to the DLC (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1327086-The-Modern-Day-Problem-What-is-the-solution) budget. I'd happily take a playable modern day over Jack The Ripper, especially if it is given the care and lore that the writers appear to imply that they want to give it.

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2015, 03:07 PM
interesting interview. Was a bit sad to hear the revelations about Ubisoft's philosophy on gameplay versus cohesive story. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

The revelation about the modern day section (escape sequence) was intriguing, but again we hear about the lack of time and resources to do it. "Doing so would have been of detriment to the historical sections blah blah". This again reinforces my belief that they need to move the modern day over to the DLC (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1327086-The-Modern-Day-Problem-What-is-the-solution) budget. I'd happily take a playable modern day over Jack The Ripper, especially if it is given the care and lore that the writers appear to imply that they want to give it.

I would rather see it gone than pay for something I believe should be in the game, IMO you're basically giving them a pass to purposely cut content from the game and sell it as DLC, an approach I'm certain most people here would be heavily against if we were talking about (meaningful) historical content.

Sorrosyss
11-28-2015, 03:18 PM
There will always be that DLC though. Well they already have cut the modern day pretty much, save for a few cutscenes. My argument is if they don't want to affect the historical gameplay as the franchise is known for its "historical tourism", and for those who don't like the modern day at all, moving it as an optional DLC makes the most sense. Those of us who like the modern day end up buying the expanded stuff like the comics anyway. I'd much rather spend the same money on a playable DLC than a comic.

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2015, 03:34 PM
There will always be that DLC though. Well they already have cut the modern day pretty much, save for a few cutscenes. My argument is if they don't want to affect the historical gameplay as the franchise is known for its "historical tourism", and for those who don't like the modern day at all, moving it as an optional DLC makes the most sense. Those of us who like the modern day end up buying the expanded stuff like the comics anyway. I'd much rather spend the same money on a playable DLC than a comic.

The thing is, the only reason why we are in the situation we are today is because the Modern Days doesn't "sell" as well as the historical portion of the game, that's why they don't spend much resources on it, with that in mind, why would they spend said resources by delegating something that doesn't sell (the MD) to something that is meant to be sold (DLC)?

RA503
11-28-2015, 03:45 PM
That mean that next year we will can have a Right Wing writter again...

Sorrosyss
11-28-2015, 03:56 PM
The thing is, the only reason why we are in the situation we are today is because the Modern Days doesn't "sell" as well as the historical portion of the game, that's why they don't spend much resources on it, with that in mind, why would they spend said resources by delegating something that doesn't sell (the MD) to something that is meant to be sold (DLC)?

I see your point, but I suppose the answer is we don't really know. There are obviously groups of different fans with differing opinions on the modern day. Ubisoft can take surveys, but without actually producing a full DLC we can only speculate on its success. Admittedly we had a modern day dlc before for Revelations, but that was in the strange platform gameplay rather that the traditional parkour gameplay.

I'd argue that releasing a modern day DLC is arguably less of a risk than adding a large portion of it to the main release at this point. Alot of people have an aversion to DLC full stop, but I'd like to think that there is larger proportion of the playerbase that want to play a modern day DLC than the standalone story DLCs we get. Dead Kings wasn't that great, nor Freedom Cry in my opinion, so I don't think we'd have much to lose. I'd like to at least see them try one modern day DLC. If it totally flops, I guess we'd all know and never see its likes again. But anything is better than this passive experience frankly.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2015, 04:20 PM
The weirdest part of that interview is him suggesting that Jacob Frye is actually gay/bisexual, which is interesting but it would have been a heck of a lot more interesting if that stuff was actually in the game and addressed directly.

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2015, 04:26 PM
I see your point, but I suppose the answer is we don't really know. There are obviously groups of different fans with differing opinions on the modern day. Ubisoft can take surveys, but without actually producing a full DLC we can only speculate on its success. Admittedly we had a modern day dlc before for Revelations, but that was in the strange platform gameplay rather that the traditional parkour gameplay.

I'd argue that releasing a modern day DLC is arguably less of a risk than adding a large portion of it to the main release at this point. Alot of people have an aversion to DLC full stop, but I'd like to think that there is larger proportion of the playerbase that want to play a modern day DLC than the standalone story DLCs we get. Dead Kings wasn't that great, nor Freedom Cry in my opinion, so I don't think we'd have much to lose. I'd like to at least see them try one modern day DLC. If it totally flops, I guess we'd all know and never see its likes again. But anything is better than this passive experience frankly.

I see your point as well and I believe that if done properly it could sell well, but unfortunately I'm back to square one here, I'm not willing to pay for something that I believe should be part of the game, another thing we need to consider is, by making it a DLC, how detached it would be from the main game?

What makes the MD interesting for me are its connections with the past, different from the majority, I enjoy being interrupted by it and constantly reminded that it exist (be it via voice interaction between the modern crew and the animus user, certain events connected with the MD during the animus sessions like S16 glyphs or leaving the animus to do something), how it being completely optional and a DLC would affect that? Many times I've suggested that the MD should still be part of the game but made optional for those who doesn't like it, when I say that, I don't mean to completely erase its existance from the game, the MD wouldn't cease to exist, but those who choose not be bothered by it would be allowed to skip that part of the game once it arrived and go back to the the historical period as fast as possible.

RaggedTyper
11-28-2015, 05:06 PM
The thing is, the only reason why we are in the situation we are today is because the Modern Days doesn't "sell" as well as the historical portion of the game, that's why they don't spend much resources on it, with that in mind, why would they spend said resources by delegating something that doesn't sell (the MD) to something that is meant to be sold (DLC)?

Yeah but then by that logic why include it all?

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2015, 05:40 PM
Yeah but then by that logic why include it all?

they've come to that conclusion after releasing the game, not before, but instead of fixing what was wrong with it, they kept it to a minimum and continued putting more water in the soup.

IMO the whole historical-MD thing, even with its small screen time could work in cycles, but Ubisoft fails to see that and keep dragging and stretching the story instead of wrapping up everything and starting anew every few games, Juno was introduced in AC Brotherhood and (IMO) we are nowhere near dealing with her and now we have Sages and TWCB clones on the way.

RA503
11-28-2015, 05:49 PM
If you don't like lore you maybe a Michael Bay fan...
ha ha ha Loomer is awesome.

Will explode two birds...

RVSage
11-28-2015, 07:49 PM
Not true at all. I am one of the few that loved syndicate and thinks Evie ans jacob are the best protagonists since Ezio. You only hear what you want to. You must accept that people disagree with you.

Exactly, I understand people can disagree with me, But I do not think you do. Anyway that is why "you" give statements, "you believe that"? I would not be typing If i did not believe them. Anyway, staying on topic so let us move on.


The weirdest part of that interview is him suggesting that Jacob Frye is actually gay/bisexual, which is interesting but it would have been a heck of a lot more interesting if that stuff was actually in the game and addressed directly.

I guess, as he said they left it intentionally ambiguous. Again if they had addressed it, they might have needed to do a deeper dive, which would have not worked well with their target of a fun, entertaining game. It would have gone the other way(I liked his twelve years a slave analogy)

D.I.D.
11-28-2015, 09:00 PM
I like the things he's saying about the idea of Jacob creating a terrible mess which Evie then cleans up, but it doesn't really feel like that to me in the game. Yes, Evie corrects some of the outcomes of Jacob's recklessness, but it never really feels like Jacob's done anything particularly catastrophic (except perhaps the Bank Of England thing). Evie then does her thing, but it feels like a minor irritation for her. The eventual souring of their relationship over these things seems a bit overblown given what we actually saw.

The worst part of that for me is that I was playing as Evie constantly except when I was forced to be Jacob, which only makes Syndicate's role problem even more pronounced. This isn't really a dual-protagonist game. Every single major mission in a major location is for Jacob (and for proof, just look at the Progress Tracker and read the descriptions of the missions: "Jacob did this"; "Jacob did that"; "Jacob Jacob Jacob"). The only one that could be called an exception to the rule is the Tower Of London mission, but that really underlines the issue. It pretends to be a blackbox mission, but it's almost totally on-rails with this giant funnel between you and the target. It's also the mission that Ubisoft sacrificed to the promotion, so they clearly did not value Evie's only big mission enough to keep it under wraps. (I played the final Victoria mission as Evie, which was nice, but I don't count that mission as hers since it was optional.)

I do love Syndicate and I have no problem recommending it to everyone I know, but I still can't ignore this matter. They are still thinking that this is a game about men, even when there's a female protagonist. On paper, Evie gets all the same locations but in fact she's going to the same places for far less time to do something far less interesting on a mission to which the team didn't apply anywhere near as much love. It's interesting to hear that he wrote it this way, because I had assumed that Evie's follow-up missions were supposed to be heading off criticisms about balance by paying lip service to the dual-protag concept. I couldn't help thinking when playing Syndicate that if this was supposed to be equal treatment, then I'd hate to be the daughter of any of the AC designers!

wickywoowoo
11-28-2015, 09:52 PM
I enjoy the games so if the modern day aspect was removed, I imagine I'd still buy the games but if they did that then I have to say that they cease being Assassins Creed games.

To me, the historic tourism thing is a means to an end for the modern day Templar / Assassin / Tools of Juno story. Remove that story then why the hell are we re-living these memories in the first place? It would make no sense.

If Ubisoft really see the modern day thing as a nuisance in the way of them creating old cities then they've lost the whole point of this series. The historic stories aren't even that amazing in and of themselves so why they need to protect these over the actual story that has ran for about 10 games over numerous consoles and generations.

RaggedTyper
11-28-2015, 09:53 PM
I don't recall the "Evie's dancing with Starrick! How embarrassing!" line and can't find it on YT.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 12:00 AM
Lol, he was trying to clear any misunderstanding about the Connor situation but ended up making it worse because he's not even in the writers' heads "Oh......Connor? Who?". At least if they intentionally ignored him, it'd mean that they know he exists, but nope. Ah, well.

The talk about the narrative bits is very disappointing. I can see his point, but I also see that it can be detrimental in the long term. I don't really care for modern day either way at this point, but this outlook can be applied to anything.

Very candid talk from him as always, great guy. Nice podcast, Loomer. Great job once again.

EDIT: Wait, so Evie is not Monima's ancestor? So Evie and Henry don't end up together? Dang...

RVSage
11-29-2015, 01:36 AM
EDIT: Wait, so Evie is not Monima's ancestor? So Evie and Henry don't end up together? Dang...

Or Arbaaz had a second son/daughter???

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 01:38 AM
Or Arbaaz had a second son/daughter???
Maybe, but I think one of the reconstructed data entries implies that Henry was the next ancestor to Monima in Arbaaz' lineage, if I remember correctly.

D.I.D.
11-29-2015, 01:58 AM
Lol, he was trying to clear any misunderstanding about the Connor situation but ended up making it worse because he's not even in the writers' heads "Oh......Connor? Who?". At least if they intentionally ignored him, it'd mean that they know he exists, but nope. Ah, well.

We'd need an interview with the writer responsible for the mansion, but I don't think that's really the case. I don't see why the mansion would mention Connor. The only resident of the mansion connected to Connor was Haytham, and Connor killed him. Short of Connor crossing the Atlantic, breaking into the mansion and planting his own memorabilia on the mantelpiece in the hope that nobody noticed, I don't know why anyone expects to see evidence of him in that house.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 02:02 AM
We'd need an interview with the writer responsible for the mansion, but I don't think that's really the case. I don't see why the mansion would mention Connor. The only resident of the mansion connected to Connor was Haytham, and Connor killed him. Short of Connor crossing the Atlantic, breaking into the mansion and planting his own memorabilia on the mantelpiece in the hope that nobody noticed, I don't know why anyone expects to see evidence of him in that house.
Well, why didn't they write Connor going to the mansion? They can have Altair going to Mongolia, Ezio going to Turkey and Spain, Edward going to Iran and Syria, Haytham going to Egypt, Ethan going to India, but can't have Connor going to London? discovering more about his family? Why is that so far fetched? I just don't comprehend it, honestly. They can slip obscure and funny mentions and nods to Edward, Desmond, Haytham and Ezio, but nothing for Connor? Eh.

D.I.D.
11-29-2015, 02:02 AM
I don't recall the "Evie's dancing with Starrick! How embarrassing!" line and can't find it on YT.

Sounds like it might have been contextual depending on whether you hit a certain route where Jacob sees them both? I don't remember the line either, but the Juno line "Enough lore!" is definitely in the WWI bit, if Loomer reading (last Juno speech, I think).

Apologies to that mod who acts like you stabbed his puppy if you make two posts in a row, but I'm on my phone so I can't really merge them myself

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 02:04 AM
Apologies to that mod who acts like you stabbed his puppy if you make two posts in a row, but I'm on my phone so I can't really merge them myself
Crisis averted.

D.I.D.
11-29-2015, 02:07 AM
Well, why didn't they write Connor going to the mansion? They can have Altair going to Mongolia, Ezio going to Turkey and Spain, Edward going to Iran and Syria, Haytham going to Egypt, Ethan going to India, but can't have Connor going to London? discovering more about his family? Why is that so far fetched, I just don't comprehend it, honestly. They can slip obscure and funny mentions and nods to Edward and Ezio, but nothing for Connor? Eh.

He's only family by birth, not socially. There's nobody to welcome him to that house. I guess they could have created some kind of thing where the Assassin's have inherited control of the property, but then the Templars couldn't be milling around so easily and taking over.

Even if you stretch that idea until it works, you have to add a ton of explanation just to put some souvenir in there. I don't know what they're supposed to do for Connor fans, since I bet there'd be demands for this Connor London game, or griping about how the London game should have been Connor's or something.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 02:20 AM
He's only family by birth, not socially. There's nobody to welcome him to that house. I guess they could have created some kind of thing where the Assassin's have inherited control of the property, but then the Templars couldn't be milling around so easily and taking over.
Birth or social, it's clear by the epilogue of Forsaken that Connor had a new outlook regarding his father and his life. He read Haytham's journal and learned many things about the British Kenways. That'd have to AT LEAST peak the interest of a guy who expressed wishes to visit Ireland and France just from invitations or descriptions from people who lived in these places.

Regarding who'd welcome him there, why Jenny, of course. Jenny remained alive until 1805. Connor could have visited prior to that or at least attended her funeral somehow. No convoluted reason or stretching out needed.


Even if you stretch that idea until it works, you have to add a ton of explanation just to put some souvenir in there.
Not at all. Just add this to the database entry: "The pirate-turned-Assassin Edward Kenway returned to England with his young daughter Jennifer in tow. Upon receiving a pardon from Lord Robert Walpole, he moved to London in order to work with the Assassins there.

Once there, he met Tessa Stevenson-Oakley, the daughter of his landlord. Using her family connections, Tessa helped Edward purchase a manor in Queen Anne's Square. They were married soon after and had a son, Haytham. The Kenways weren't like other well-to-do London families and they were a frequent subject of gossip.


Edward was rarely seen, often travelling about the city, and Europe, on mysterious business. Haytham was schooled inside the mansion, and rarely allowed to speak to anyone outside its walls. There was but one frequent visitor to the house, Edward's business associate Reginald Birch, who began to court Jennifer, much to her dismay.


Jennifer knew the truth about her father's past, and when she discovered that Birch was a Templar who was after his secrets, she tried to warn him. Birch sent mercenaries to the Kenway Mansion. Edward was killed and Jennifer was sold to Turkish slavers.


Oblivious to the truth, Tessa Kenway allowed Birch to become Haytham's legal guardian and take him away, while she remained in London to oversee repairs to the mansion. She died alone twelve years later, allegedly from a fall.


Years passed, and Haytham, now a Templar trained by Birch, found Jennifer in Damascus. The siblings confronted Birch in Troyes, France, and killed him. Jennifer returned to London and took possession of the mansion in Queen Anne's Square. Although she and Haytham kept in touch, she was a bit bitter that her brother chose to remain a Templar, despite learning of Birch's treachery. She became quite the recluse; her only visitors of note were a young Elise de la Serre, who was visiting London on something of a soul-searching trip and her nephew, Connor who came to London to finally make peace with his father's only remaining family (Or whatever)


Out of respect for Haytham Kenway's accomplishments, the Templars made no attempt to claim the property while Jennifer was alive, despite their beliefs that there were many Assassin secrets still hidden inside it. After Jennifer's passing in 1805, the Order quietly purchased the lot. It's not known what, if anything, any of the Kenways hid there, and even its location remained a mystery to the Assassins for many years."

That didn't take very long, did it? Just a one sentence line. An acknowledgement, anything at this point.



or griping about how the London game should have been Connor's or something.
Like you griping about Evie not getting a larger share of the game? Or someone else griping that the hoods are not permanent? Or griping about the modern day being only cutscenes? All dat griping, right? Sorry you don't think the "griping" of Connor fans to be as worthy of attention or time as your griping. We'll try to gripe about something more to your liking in future:)

ACZanius
11-29-2015, 02:50 AM
Birth or social, it's clear by the epilogue of Forsaken that Connor had a new outlook regarding his father and his life. He read Haytham's journal and learned many things about the British Kenways. That'd have to AT LEAST peak the interest of a guy who expressed wishes to visit Ireland and France just from invitations or descriptions from people who lived in these places.

Regarding who'd welcome him there, why Jenny, of course. Jenny remained alive until 1805. Connor could have visited prior to that or at least attended her funeral somehow. No convoluted reason or stretching out needed.


Not at all. Just add this to the database entry: "The pirate-turned-Assassin Edward Kenway returned to England with his young daughter Jennifer in tow. Upon receiving a pardon from Lord Robert Walpole, he moved to London in order to work with the Assassins there.

Once there, he met Tessa Stevenson-Oakley, the daughter of his landlord. Using her family connections, Tessa helped Edward purchase a manor in Queen Anne's Square. They were married soon after and had a son, Haytham. The Kenways weren't like other well-to-do London families and they were a frequent subject of gossip.


Edward was rarely seen, often travelling about the city, and Europe, on mysterious business. Haytham was schooled inside the mansion, and rarely allowed to speak to anyone outside its walls. There was but one frequent visitor to the house, Edward's business associate Reginald Birch, who began to court Jennifer, much to her dismay.


Jennifer knew the truth about her father's past, and when she discovered that Birch was a Templar who was after his secrets, she tried to warn him. Birch sent mercenaries to the Kenway Mansion. Edward was killed and Jennifer was sold to Turkish slavers.


Oblivious to the truth, Tessa Kenway allowed Birch to become Haytham's legal guardian and take him away, while she remained in London to oversee repairs to the mansion. She died alone twelve years later, allegedly from a fall.


Years passed, and Haytham, now a Templar trained by Birch, found Jennifer in Damascus. The siblings confronted Birch in Troyes, France, and killed him. Jennifer returned to London and took possession of the mansion in Queen Anne's Square. Although she and Haytham kept in touch, she was a bit bitter that her brother chose to remain a Templar, despite learning of Birch's treachery. She became quite the recluse; her only visitors of note were a young Elise de la Serre, who was visiting London on something of a soul-searching trip and her nephew, Connor who came to London to finally make peace with his father's only remaining family (Or whatever)


Out of respect for Haytham Kenway's accomplishments, the Templars made no attempt to claim the property while Jennifer was alive, despite their beliefs that there were many Assassin secrets still hidden inside it. After Jennifer's passing in 1805, the Order quietly purchased the lot. It's not known what, if anything, any of the Kenways hid there, and even its location remained a mystery to the Assassins for many years."

That didn't take very long, did it? Just a one sentence line. An acknowledgement, anything at this point.



Like you griping about Evie not getting a larger share of the game? Or someone else griping that the hoods are not permanent? Or griping about the modern day being only cutscenes? All dat griping, right? Sorry you don't think the "griping" of Connor fans to be as worthy of attention or time as your griping. We'll try to gripe about something more to your liking in future:)


Well said bro, every time i am reminded of what happened to Edward it depresses me, how he died, the way he died also i can't believe like with many but Edward specifically (Darby also said this in one of Loomers interviews) we could literally have another Edward game, he would be totally down for it, if i'm honest i am shocked with how AC4 was popular we did not get last Edward game, set in well...London or all those 10 years of traveling, and the years spanning after AC4, the Assassin he became and the life he lived, wiser older more deadly Edward (like Ezio in revelations) but that would then contradict this London game now but idk maybe set somewhere else, regarding Connor, i am a huge Connor fan, really not happy with how he is treated post AC3, and same example with Eward we could get another game with Connor, i literally was so convinced that when they announced that there will be last gen AC game coming as farewell to last gen that it would be Connor game, was shocked that it was not, i don't know why are they being like this regarding Connor like i really don't :(


I am atm replaying again for about 13th time (lol), AC3 and it's just great to see Connor again.i mean damn i miss him even more, regarding interview of Loomer, still have not watched it but i will soon.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 03:03 AM
regarding Connor, i am a huge Connor fan, really not happy with how he is treated post AC3, and same example with Eward we could get another game with Connor, i literally was so convinced that when they announced that there will be last gen AC game coming as farewell to last gen that it would be Connor game, was shocked that it was not, i don't know why are they being like this regarding Connor like i really don't :(


I am atm replaying again for about 13th time (lol), AC3 and it's just great to see Connor again.i mean damn i miss him even more, regarding interview of Loomer, still have not watched it but i will soon.
I mean, I don't want another Connor game. I just want acknowledgment, a nod. I understand why they view Connor as a risky investment, but surely a line in a database entry, an easter egg, some dialogue, bits of lore can't be THAT expensive. They friggin forgot about the guy. Do you see the problem? They forgot that Connor existed. Holy hell, that's their best selling game's protagonist. Jeffery says he may not have been relevant, well, they sure made Edward relevant to the whole narrative by saying that he traveled all over the world and stumbled upon the shroud, ohohohohohoh. Edward could have been an afterthought but the ENTIRE Macguffen was centered around him. Surely, they could have made it so that Connor would have been relevant as well.

ACZanius
11-29-2015, 03:06 AM
I mean, I don't want another game. I just want acknowledgment, a nod. I understand why they view Connor as a risky investment, but surely a line in a database entry, an easter egg, some dialogue, bits of lore can't be THAT expensive. They friggin forgot about the guy. Do you see the problem? They forgot that Connor existed. Jeffery says he may not have been relevant, well, they sure made Edward relevant to the whole narrative by saying that he traveled all over the world and stumbled upon the shroud, ohohohohohoh. Edward could have been an afterthought but the ENTIRE Macguffen was centered around him. Surely, they could have made it so that Connor would have been relevant as well.


Can you explain to me because i really am lost and confused why Connor is "risky investment" you can PM if you want or here.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 03:15 AM
Can you explain to me because i really am lost and confused why Connor is "risky investment" you can PM if you want or here.
Well, it's because he's not insanely popular like Ezio or Edward. He's more polarizing, but he's not unpopular. At first, I thought he was maybe like 60-40 popularity, but I think he's more popular now. He won an award and his game is the second highest voted AC game for Xbone backwards compatibility.

RVSage
11-29-2015, 04:06 AM
Maybe, but I think one of the reconstructed data entries implies that Henry was the next ancestor to Monima in Arbaaz' lineage, if I remember correctly.

Nope I have just rechecked all database entries and reconstructed data, They do not say jayadeep/henry is the ancestor of monima das anywhere,

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 04:12 AM
Nope I have just rechecked all database entries and reconstructed data, They do not say jayadeep/henry is the ancestor of monima das anywhere,
Well, I did say implied, not directly stated. The one I'm talking about - can't remember the number - has Ardant say that when they sent Berg to India (The events of the Brahman comic), they managed to get their hands Arbaaz Mir's genetic data, which led them to finding Henry. Now as far as I know, the only way they could have gotten this data was through the Brahman VR device that had Monima's genetic data on it, right? So she's the only one who they could've gotten that family's data from, thus it's implied that Henry is her ancestor.

ze_topazio
11-29-2015, 04:18 AM
Arbaaz probably had another child and Monina descends from that child, simple as that.

Just like they gave Ezio a bastard son to explain why Clay was unable to fully synchronize with Ezio memories.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 04:24 AM
Arbaaz probably had another child and Monina descends from that child, simple as that.

Just like they gave Ezio a bastard son to explain why Clay was unable to fully synchronize with Ezio memories.
Well, like I said, it's heavily implied that Henry is Monima's ancestor from the reconstructed entry.

RVSage
11-29-2015, 04:26 AM
Well, I did say implied, not directly stated. The one I'm talking about - can't remember the number - has Ardant say that when they sent Berg to India (The events of the Brahman comic), they managed to get their hands Arbaaz Mir's genetic data, which led them to finding Henry. Now as far as I know, the only way they could have gotten this data was through the Brahman VR device that had Monima's genetic data on it, right? So she's the only one who they could've gotten that family's data from, thus it's implied that Henry is her ancestor.

Valid points, I hope this is not a loose end though

Mr.Black24
11-29-2015, 04:42 AM
Birth or social, it's clear by the epilogue of Forsaken that Connor had a new outlook regarding his father and his life. He read Haytham's journal and learned many things about the British Kenways. That'd have to AT LEAST peak the interest of a guy who expressed wishes to visit Ireland and France just from invitations or descriptions from people who lived in these places.

Regarding who'd welcome him there, why Jenny, of course. Jenny remained alive until 1805. Connor could have visited prior to that or at least attended her funeral somehow. No convoluted reason or stretching out needed.


Not at all. Just add this to the database entry: "The pirate-turned-Assassin Edward Kenway returned to England with his young daughter Jennifer in tow. Upon receiving a pardon from Lord Robert Walpole, he moved to London in order to work with the Assassins there.

Once there, he met Tessa Stevenson-Oakley, the daughter of his landlord. Using her family connections, Tessa helped Edward purchase a manor in Queen Anne's Square. They were married soon after and had a son, Haytham. The Kenways weren't like other well-to-do London families and they were a frequent subject of gossip.


Edward was rarely seen, often travelling about the city, and Europe, on mysterious business. Haytham was schooled inside the mansion, and rarely allowed to speak to anyone outside its walls. There was but one frequent visitor to the house, Edward's business associate Reginald Birch, who began to court Jennifer, much to her dismay.


Jennifer knew the truth about her father's past, and when she discovered that Birch was a Templar who was after his secrets, she tried to warn him. Birch sent mercenaries to the Kenway Mansion. Edward was killed and Jennifer was sold to Turkish slavers.


Oblivious to the truth, Tessa Kenway allowed Birch to become Haytham's legal guardian and take him away, while she remained in London to oversee repairs to the mansion. She died alone twelve years later, allegedly from a fall.


Years passed, and Haytham, now a Templar trained by Birch, found Jennifer in Damascus. The siblings confronted Birch in Troyes, France, and killed him. Jennifer returned to London and took possession of the mansion in Queen Anne's Square. Although she and Haytham kept in touch, she was a bit bitter that her brother chose to remain a Templar, despite learning of Birch's treachery. She became quite the recluse; her only visitors of note were a young Elise de la Serre, who was visiting London on something of a soul-searching trip and her nephew, Connor who came to London to finally make peace with his father's only remaining family (Or whatever)


Out of respect for Haytham Kenway's accomplishments, the Templars made no attempt to claim the property while Jennifer was alive, despite their beliefs that there were many Assassin secrets still hidden inside it. After Jennifer's passing in 1805, the Order quietly purchased the lot. It's not known what, if anything, any of the Kenways hid there, and even its location remained a mystery to the Assassins for many years."

That didn't take very long, did it? Just a one sentence line. An acknowledgement, anything at this point.



Like you griping about Evie not getting a larger share of the game? Or someone else griping that the hoods are not permanent? Or griping about the modern day being only cutscenes? All dat griping, right? Sorry you don't think the "griping" of Connor fans to be as worthy of attention or time as your griping. We'll try to gripe about something more to your liking in future:)

Do you want to know something that really got me more, mentioning Elise? in the Unity novel, Jenny gave Elise the journal of Haytham detailing his own methods on how to unite the Orders, something that should have been given to Connor.

However it is in Arno's hands now, and my hope is that this can lead to something, even at least a footnote that Arno decided to leave them in the hands of Haytham's son, the current Mentor of the American Brotherhood. Some thoughts of Connor regarding the pages, and his attempts and there! Cool!

But nope........

loomer979
11-29-2015, 05:38 AM
I don't recall the "Evie's dancing with Starrick! How embarrassing!" line and can't find it on YT.

Here's where I hit it in my playthrough - https://youtu.be/SqE4S_yxL44?t=3h32m19s

And yeah, seems like it could be contextual and possible to miss if you're not positioned in the right spot.


the Juno line "Enough lore!" is definitely in the WWI bit, if Loomer reading (last Juno speech, I think).

Are you sure? If you or anyone else could find that on YouTube and link it to me that would be super helpful. I didn't remember hearing it and when I went back to look at Juno's speeches I couldn't find it either (the video I looked through was this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McxjHnwWBG8)

Regarding Connor, as I mentioned in the podcast I don't think anybody's intentionally excluding references of him. He got a big shoutout at the end of Rogue last year and I honestly feel like a reference to him in regards to the manor would feel more shoehorned in than anything considering there's never been any hints or data that suggests he ever went to London.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2015, 07:06 AM
Well, I did say implied, not directly stated. The one I'm talking about - can't remember the number - has Ardant say that when they sent Berg to India (The events of the Brahman comic), they managed to get their hands Arbaaz Mir's genetic data, which led them to finding Henry. Now as far as I know, the only way they could have gotten this data was through the Brahman VR device that had Monima's genetic data on it, right? So she's the only one who they could've gotten that family's data from, thus it's implied that Henry is her ancestor.

Here's the link:
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Database:_Reconstructed_Data_009

This is an audio recording mind you.

Ardant: Don't look so glum. Let me tell you what I've been working on lately. We sent Berg to India last year to chase a lead involving Koh-i-Noor. It was a dead end, but we did manage to find some data on an Assassin from the eighteen-hundreds. Arbaaz Mir.
Gramática: And?
Ardant: And... while that's all very interesting, when we looked further into his genetic line, we found this.
Gramática: Arbaaz Mir's son was in London. So what?
Ardant: Look closer.
Gramática: Bla bla... assumed name, Henry Green... Bla bla... Seems he and the Assassins were searching for... Oh my god! You found another one!

It's clearly implied based on what we see and hear that Henry and Evie marry, her notebook mentions that she's going to India. So all of that is clearly pointing in that specific direction.

Most likely this is just something that Jeffrey Yohalem thought but the other writers have contradicted him? That seems to be what happens lately. As Mr. Yohalem says, "We will always choose gameplay over story continuity" or you know they are trying to keep the Frye Twins open for another sequel or something and they might break the two up or whatnot. Maybe now that the game came out and Evie is popular they might decide to retcon her marriage. We will know in the Jack the Ripper DLC at either rate.

The weird part is he says it's too much like a soap opera if Monima was Evie's ancestor. Actually it's too much like a soap opera to spend an entire game seeing a relationship build up and then have it hinted by a writer that it's not set in stone is the very definition of "soap opera".


Regarding Connor, as I mentioned in the podcast I don't think anybody's intentionally excluding references of him. He got a big shoutout at the end of Rogue last year and I honestly feel like a reference to him in regards to the manor would feel more shoehorned in than anything considering there's never been any hints or data that suggests he ever went to London.

The whole Edward Kenway mansion is the defintion of shoehorning in. The point of Black Flag was that Edward was a minor Assassin figure, he's not Altair or Edward, the fact that he gets killed in Forsaken in a totally ignominous fashion highlights that. He's on the low end of the order but now in SYNDICATE he's retconned into being one of the all-time greats why...because of popularity. Sheesh. I mean in Unity, Pierre Bellec sees Altair, Ezio and Connor as the Holy Trinity of the Brotherhood. So at least maintain some consistency.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter ultimately.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 07:29 AM
Regarding Connor, as I mentioned in the podcast I don't think anybody's intentionally excluding references of him.

Well, yeah, not intentional, no disputing that. I mean, they don't even remember the guy, lol. You know? I now wish it was intentional. At least then we'd know that they still know he exists.


He got a big shoutout at the end of Rogue last year
Man, that obscure name drop was as big as Achilles name dropping Ezio when he first met Connor. It really wasn't big at all. It feels big because we're like the starved children. A bare bone would satisfy that type of hunger.


and I honestly feel like a reference to him in regards to the manor would feel more shoehorned in than anything considering there's never been any hints or data that suggests he ever went to London.

I dunno, man. Everyone is fine with far fetched, crazy stuff like Shao Jun going to Italy but mentioning Connor in a conversation about his family is suddenly shoehorned. I'm just gonna disagree there. Honestly, Edward is the one who felt shoehorned into all this. The whole plot about the shroud could have had nothing to do with Edward and the mansion could have just been a nice little easter egg or a side mission. That's what everyone expected anyway, no one ever thought that Edward would be this super important dude who suddenly became leader of the British Assassins. This just makes him look more like a dud because he got killed by two obscure mercenaries. It just makes it even worse. Okay, Edward wasn't THAT great, so it's KIND of understandable that he gets taken out by these two...mercenaries, sure. Oh.....wait....Edward was the co-leader of the Assassins? And he was the one maintaining the whole operation alongside Miko? He also traveled the world? And found the shroud? Well...then.


Here's the link:
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Database:_Reconstructed_Data_009

This is an audio recording mind you.

Ardant: Don't look so glum. Let me tell you what I've been working on lately. We sent Berg to India last year to chase a lead involving Koh-i-Noor. It was a dead end, but we did manage to find some data on an Assassin from the eighteen-hundreds. Arbaaz Mir.
Gramática: And?
Ardant: And... while that's all very interesting, when we looked further into his genetic line, we found this.
Gramática: Arbaaz Mir's son was in London. So what?
Ardant: Look closer.
Gramática: Bla bla... assumed name, Henry Green... Bla bla... Seems he and the Assassins were searching for... Oh my god! You found another one!

It's clearly implied based on what we see and hear that Henry and Evie marry, her notebook mentions that she's going to India. So all of that is clearly pointing in that specific direction.

Most likely this is just something that Jeffrey Yohalem thought but the other writers have contradicted him? That seems to be what happens lately. As Mr. Yohalem says, "We will always choose gameplay over story continuity" or you know they are trying to keep the Frye Twins open for another sequel or something and they might break the two up or whatnot. Maybe now that the game came out and Evie is popular they might decide to retcon her marriage. We will know in the Jack the Ripper DLC at either rate.

The weird part is he says it's too much like a soap opera if Monima was Evie's ancestor. Actually it's too much like a soap opera to spend an entire game seeing a relationship build up and then have it hinted by a writer that it's not set in stone is the very definition of "soap opera".
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Why bother building all of this just to have it not workout for some reason? Evie's ENTIRE arc is built on this relationship, as much as I dislike it. Wrecking it would be undoing an entire game of character progression for absolutely no reason at all.


Do you want to know something that really got me more, mentioning Elise? in the Unity novel, Jenny gave Elise the journal of Haytham detailing his own methods on how to unite the Orders, something that should have been given to Connor.

However it is in Arno's hands now, and my hope is that this can lead to something, even at least a footnote that Arno decided to leave them in the hands of Haytham's son, the current Mentor of the American Brotherhood. Some thoughts of Connor regarding the pages, and his attempts and there! Cool!

But nope........
Just gives it more of a bitter taste.

I-Like-Pie45
11-29-2015, 07:45 AM
Henry Green took Evie's children from her and left her alone with a lock of his hair pondering where everything went wrong and knowing she should've returned Jacob's unrequited love

She then died all alone and horribly and lonely

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2015, 08:02 AM
Well, yeah, not intentional, no disputing that. I mean, they don't even remember the guy, lol. You know? I now wish it was intentional. At least then we'd know that they still know he exists.

Man, that obscure name drop was as big as Achilles name dropping Ezio when he first met Connor. It really wasn't big at all. It feels big because we're like the starved children. A bare bone would satisfy that type of hunger.

Let's face it, Ubisoft has changed. It just struck me that for a franchise that used to be regarded as multi-cultural, they have now put 9 major games and 5 (out of 9) player protagonists are white and British (Edward, Haytham, Shay, Jacob and Evie) and you can add Arno-the-Falsely-French to that and it becomes 6 out of 9 . The other minority protagonists, Adewale, Shao Jun, Aveline, Arbaaz Mir, are side games. The only real minority leads are Altair and Connor, and even then Altair's the only one who got the Royal Protagonist Treatment : he got a full game, he got huge mentions and references in the sequel, utterly pointless playable side missions in Revelations, two side games on minor ports. Connor is basically treated by the franchise like a second-class citizen. None of this is intentional of course but ignorant and unconscious actions speak for themselves.


That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Why bother building all of this just to have it not workout for some reason? Evie's ENTIRE arc is built on this relationship, as much as I dislike it. Wrecking it would be undoing an entire game of character progression for absolutely no reason at all.

Bear in mind that the game has multiple writers. I was surprised when Yohalem said that the Roth sequence was written by Melissa McCaffrey (was that the name) and that he didn't write that. Which means that it's no longer one person in charge. So ultimately we need to see if Mr. Nadiger agrees with Mr. Yohalem or whatnot.

I mean Jacob being gay for Roth which Mr. Yohalem implies is just not there in the game. Roth kissing Jacob is Roth being Roth, and Jacob's animation is clearly creeped out by that. And they have dealt with homosexuality before, with Leonardo da Vinci and Abu'l Nuqoud.

Basically I don't think interviews with writers, except for Darby, has any value anymore in terms of canon. It's more interesting in telling us how the games were developed and characters were made, but the Lore is officially non-existent.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2015, 08:04 AM
Henry Green took Evie's children from her and left her alone with a lock of his hair pondering where everything went wrong and knowing she should've returned Jacob's unrequited love

She then died all alone and horribly and lonely

Yep, that's what happened.

RaggedTyper
11-29-2015, 08:42 AM
Here's where I hit it in my playthrough - https://youtu.be/SqE4S_yxL44?t=3h32m19s

And yeah, seems like it could be contextual and possible to miss if you're not positioned in the right spot.

Ok, so he didn't actually say "how embarrassing" and he didn't even seem to say it in a gloating way:

'Dancing. And with Starrick no less, how awkward." If anything, the way he said it seemed like he felt bad for her that she was having to smooze with the smarmy villain.
You have a weird way of interpreting things that actually happened in order to fit a pre-set opinion you have and then acting as if it's a general fanbase opinion. Like Roth kissing Jacob - that was not to "prove a point". It couldn't be more obvious that Roth was clearly obsessed with Jacob and there were hints throughout their relationship he was.

Some additional points:

Commenting that it's immersion breaking for no one to acknowledge Ned's gender and making out that was how we felt as a fanbase was embarrassing. I hope the writer doesn't go away thinking that fans have such a narrow minded view set because that's not how I think at all and most people on the forums IIRC were very open to it.

How about the way no one seems to have issue with Henry Green's skin colour? The same way no one seems to have issues with the 'leap of faith'? This is proof that people pick and choose what they want to be realistic inconsistently and it makes it difficult for creators to take fans seriously. Sexism, racism and transgenderism would have been entirely against the tone of the story and inappropriate - you didn't need to hear that from the writer. We seem to be able to suspend reality for most things except when it comes to giving power to minority groups that would have necessarily had no power back then. Is an accepted transgendered character and female gang leaders really any more ridiculous than a leap of faith, eagle vision, pre-human beings, the shroud, the queen knighting Henry Green etc etc?

Now another issue i have with the podcast - it demonstrates why this Jeff guy is a really bad writer. How is the audience supposed to know that Ethan meant that Assassins should not marry Assassins? That whole arc with Evie could have been explored in much more depth. The game acts as if we're just supposed to know these things without doing any of the work to communicate it. And I think it's cowardly to have Jacob be bisexual but not have the balls to make that more explicit.

Ubisoft's work ethic is crap. R* and Rocksteady push their games back when they need more time to focus on getting the best results possible. Ubisoft's solution to not meeting a deadline? CUT OUT the innovative ideas. What?! Why would they think it's ever ok to admit that? And R* made Trevor do something so game changing in GTA V you couldn't go into to Los Angeles (Los Santos, whatever) until things had blown over. This rubbish that Naughty Dog would destroy their own game play in order to further the narrative is not true since most people's favourite sequence in Last of Us are the Ellie missions - which is a true test of your stealth skills, makes the game more challenging all because it depowers you. Yet it was done to explore Ellie as a character more, her relationship with Joel and why they're stronger together rather than apart. Ubisoft seem to have forgotten that the narrative ENCHANCES the gameplay not restricts it. This is why they will never make an ACII.

Oh, and Ubisoft continue to treat Connor like trash.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 08:54 AM
^ EmptyCrustacean?

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2015, 09:35 AM
^ EmptyCrustacean?

Mais oui, c'était l'homme derrière la voile.

RaggedTyper always struck me as being empty of things to type and too crusty to be ragged.

RaggedTyper
11-29-2015, 09:43 AM
Mais oui, c'était l'homme derrière la voile.

RaggedTyper always struck me as being empty of things to type and too crusty to be ragged.

What? You talk absolute pretentious crap sometimes.

AdrianJacek
11-29-2015, 10:08 AM
I am atm replaying again for about 13th time (lol), AC3

Jaysus! I think I have only beaten AC3 six or so times since 2012. (but each time with 98-99%, so there's that)

RA503
11-29-2015, 12:48 PM
I can imagine some Annonymous Ubisoft start to put RaggedTyper posts in this site : http://clientsfromhell.net/

RaggedTyper
11-29-2015, 01:30 PM
I can imagine some Annonymous Ubisoft start to put RaggedTyper posts in this site : http://clientsfromhell.net/

Terrible analogy and all to jump on a bandwagon lol.
It's not unreasonable to ask that Ubisoft take their time with games to make them better.

RA503
11-29-2015, 01:58 PM
Terrible analogy and all to jump on a bandwagon lol.
It's not unreasonable to ask that Ubisoft take their time with games to make them better.

But for something be better first we need a ''Standard'' without a ''Standard'' is only this : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrumpyOldMan

ModernWaffle
11-29-2015, 02:17 PM
The only real minority leads are Altair and Connor, and even then Altair's the only one who got the Royal Protagonist Treatment : he got a full game, he got huge mentions and references in the sequel, utterly pointless playable side missions in Revelations, two side games on minor ports. Connor is basically treated by the franchise like a second-class citizen. None of this is intentional of course but ignorant and unconscious actions speak for themselves.

So (disappointingly) true and it’s not surprising, every protagonist and storyline given from the instalments after Black Flag has only been mediocre at best. Ubisoft hastily pumped out Unity, Rogue and Chronicles in 2014 but it’s clear that each are severely lacking in substance in one place or another. Syndicate is an improvement, but that’s not saying much when you compare it with last year’s games.

Forget about minority leads, they don’t even cover the majority well anymore. Unity was smothered with British accents and acted as if the idea of using French accents was unnecessary. Syndicate shows they’re still not prepared to give a female protagonist equal attention to that of a male one.



I mean Jacob being gay for Roth which Mr. Yohalem implies is just not there in the game. Roth kissing Jacob is Roth being Roth, and Jacob's animation is clearly creeped out by that. And they have dealt with homosexuality before, with Leonardo da Vinci and Abu'l Nuqoud.

I could see where Yohalem was coming from but the way he was talking suggests that he thought it was an obvious point to those who played Syndicate but I for one was surprised when he said that. Think Loomer had a better interpretation when he said that Jacob saw in Roth the father or mentor figure that he wanted but shouldn’t have as he had the kind of character that was ambitious, but needed to be kept in check to prevent disaster from happening.




Ok, so he didn't actually say "how embarrassing"

You have a weird way of interpreting things that actually happened in order to fit a pre-set opinion you have and then acting as if it's a general fanbase opinion.

Commenting that it's immersion breaking for no one to acknowledge Ned's gender and making out that was how we felt as a fanbase was embarrassing. I hope the writer doesn't go away thinking that fans have such a narrow minded view set because that's not how I think at all and most people on the forums IIRC were very open to it.

Well Loomer does lots of these interviews, I think it wouldn’t be surprising if he made a genuine accident in conveying his own opinion as that given by the fanbase - I certainly don’t think he does it intentionally with a personal motive. Plus he’s doing an interview on the spot and therefore it’s more than fair that he can’t remember all the details of the game in a specific manner there and there. Perhaps I’m misreading, but your tone seems a bit harsh to Loomer given how much he does for this fanbase in his own time.

You raise a lot of interesting and valid points in your posts (hence why I find them rather insightful) but even if you might not intend to, your assertions sometimes come off too strongly and hence I think it’s easy to misinterpret them as something more personal when that wasn’t the original intention – just my two cents…



Now another issue i have with the podcast - it demonstrates why this Jeff guy is a really bad writer. How is the audience supposed to know that Ethan meant that Assassins should not marry Assassins? That whole arc with Evie could have been explored in much more depth. The game acts as if we're just supposed to know these things without doing any of the work to communicate it. And I think it's cowardly to have Jacob be bisexual but not have the balls to make that more explicit.

I agree with most of your points; pacing is too fast in Syndicate and lots of interesting plot areas are completely neglected so that the overall story became inconsistent and unconvincing. On that note, didn’t mind the light tone they had in the game, but not happy with how the Templars were of no threat this time – Jacob unrealistically takes down one Templar to the next with no issues. Also, Jacob and Evie’s ‘rift’ and subsequent mending was handled horribly along with the ending itself.

However, the writers have a lot of demands to meet due to Ubisoft’s schedule and hence although there is some bad writing here and there, that doesn’t immediately mean the writers have no talent and are bad overall. Creating a good story in itself is obviously hard - but when writing a story for an AC game you’ve also got time restrictions, a need to keep consistency with past AC stories, requirements of a narrative that suits the appropriate gameplay etc. and therefore I give a lot of leeway to the writers and what mistakes they might make as it’s one of those things that’s easy to criticise but harder to do better when you actually imagine the position they have.



Oh, and Ubisoft continue to treat Connor like trash.

This I completely agree. A noteworthy amount of this fanbase places Connor as a good protagonist but it’s clear Ubisoft wants to avoid referencing him too much (as opposed to Ezio or Edward) showing that they are too ready to follow the opinion of the general public and admit that AC3 and its protagonist were confirmed failures.

Crazy_Horse95
11-29-2015, 02:17 PM
Let's face it, Ubisoft has changed. It just struck me that for a franchise that used to be regarded as multi-cultural, they have now put 9 major games and 5 (out of 9) player protagonists are white and British (Edward, Haytham, Shay, Jacob and Evie) and you can add Arno-the-Falsely-French to that and it becomes 6 out of 9 . The other minority protagonists, Adewale, Shao Jun, Aveline, Arbaaz Mir, are side games. The only real minority leads are Altair and Connor, and even then Altair's the only one who got the Royal Protagonist Treatment : he got a full game, he got huge mentions and references in the sequel, utterly pointless playable side missions in Revelations, two side games on minor ports. Connor is basically treated by the franchise like a second-class citizen. None of this is intentional of course but ignorant and unconscious actions speak for themselves.

Exactly, imo Ubisoft just don't have balls to make a proper Connor's ending, because it would also show the end of all Native Americans. This topic is just too serious for game and they dont wan't to risk poor sale. Instead they'll make another "safe" game because no one cares (or don't want to) about the slaughter of Native Americans. Isn't it a shame?




[/QUOTE]

Dazfeeder
11-29-2015, 03:21 PM
Another great podcast Loomer mate.

RaggedTyper
11-29-2015, 03:21 PM
But for something be better first we need a ''Standard'' without a ''Standard'' is only this : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrumpyOldMan

Again, a bad example to use and has nothing to do with the subect matter at hand.

Let's look at the facts: Ubisoft said there were ideas they wanted to explore but didn't due to time - not due to thinking idea was bad after all but TIME.
To discard innovation of something the creator thought would have been good just to meet a dead line is not acceptable. As a creator they should be more ambitious and keep pushing themselves and to me it feels like the AC devs lack the drive and are incredibly short sighted.

RaggedTyper
11-29-2015, 04:00 PM
Forget about minority leads, they don’t even cover the majority well anymore. Unity was smothered with British accents and acted as if the idea of using French accents was unnecessary. Syndicate shows they’re still not prepared to give a female protagonist equal attention to that of a male one.

And I'm nervous that comments like Loomer's are a motivating factor. I think it's important that Ubisoft know they did a great job with the women in Syndicate and I would like to see more of them, perhaps as a sole protagonist. But they're not going to do that if they think their fanbase would find this 'too immersion breaking'. Remember, nothing is true, everything is permitted.


Well Loomer does lots of these interviews, I think it wouldn’t be surprising if he made a genuine accident in conveying his own opinion as that given by the fanbase - I certainly don’t think he does it intentionally with a personal motive. Plus he’s doing an interview on the spot and therefore it’s more than fair that he can’t remember all the details of the game in a specific manner there and there. Perhaps I’m misreading, but your tone seems a bit harsh to Loomer given how much he does for this fanbase in his own time.

I can't comment on whether it was intentional or not but I do appreciate that he does these videos for us. However, he needs to be very careful when communicating his opinions as if they reflect the majority when they do not. I already feel like Ubisoft takes fan response too much to heart to the detriment of their games. The last thing I want is Ubisoft being made to feel like they shouldn't be treating minority characters equally in stories because they think that's what the fanbase wants.


I agree with most of your points; pacing is too fast in Syndicate and lots of interesting plot areas are completely neglected so that the overall story became inconsistent and unconvincing. On that note, didn’t mind the light tone they had in the game, but not happy with how the Templars were of no threat this time – Jacob unrealistically takes down one Templar to the next with no issues.

Well, again, how that was dealt with was an example of a good idea that didn't really go anywhere and therefore lost its resonance. What Syndicate does quite well is show just how embedded the Templars are into society that without them the city literally collapses. Jacob was obsessed with taking out Templars and not thinking about how he was going to actually deal with London once they were gone. The game's solution to this is a couple of missions with Evie fixing his mistakes and therefore it kind of makes it look like Evie is unecessarily whining at him at an error so minor. Of course, it's not minor - what he did was ill thought but the ame doesn't feel like that because there are no consequences to the player. Raising the price in shops, disabling fast travel until you fixed it would have been fantastic. But that's just not Ubisoft.

There was that guy from Gamespot recently who said that Syndicate is game that feels afraid of offending its player and I have to agree. Ubisoft are afraid to take risks and its making AC feel repetitive and stale. Syndicate is a very good game and had Unity not come out I think people would have appreciated it even more. But after you have a game like Unity it's no longer acceptable to have something so formulaic. You need to shake it up entirely the way ACII and Black Flag did.


Also, Jacob and Evie’s ‘rift’ and subsequent mending was handled horribly along with the ending itself. However, the writers have a lot of demands to meet due to Ubisoft’s schedule and hence although there is some bad writing here and there, that doesn’t immediately mean the writers have no talent and are bad overall. Creating a good story in itself is obviously hard - but when writing a story for an AC game you’ve also got time restrictions, a need to keep consistency with past AC stories, requirements of a narrative that suits the appropriate gameplay etc. and therefore I give a lot of leeway to the writers and what mistakes they might make as it’s one of those things that’s easy to criticise but harder to do better when you actually imagine the position they have.

It's difficult to tell how much of the flaws within the script can be attributed to Jeff and how much can be attributed to the time factor - especially when it seemed to me that the part about the father he seemed happy with... leaving me to believe it's the former. But if it is the latter then I'm afraid that pretty much sums up my point about Ubisoft's work ethic.


This I completely agree. A noteworthy amount of this fanbase places Connor as a good protagonist but it’s clear Ubisoft wants to avoid referencing him too much (as opposed to Ezio or Edward) showing that they are too ready to follow the opinion of the general public and admit that AC3 and its protagonist were confirmed failures.

The thing is, Ubisoft forget that before Revelations fans weren't crazy about Altair either but they made him a more memorable chatracter with an epic wrap up to his story. Connor needed the same thing but tbh I think the devs went in with a defeatist attitude from the start when creating him because he was Native America. So it's almost like a self fufilling prophecy.

Farlander1991
11-29-2015, 04:04 PM
When I was watching Syndicate story (when it was out on consoles) and subsequently after PC release playing it, I thought to myself, damn, it would've been so much better if consequences of Jacob's actions weren't just narrative shown in Evie missions, but we'd actually see it in the game world (because that's how game narrative works, it isn't separate from gameplay, everything's connected), so when we'd kill Elliotson there'd be more sick or crazy people on the streets and medicine was more expensive and less readily available, and stuff like that.

And I just started listening to the podcast, and almost immediately hear that's the kind of thing they wanted to do! And it baffles me that they didn't, because it's not like they're forcing the player a particular worse state of the world for all rest of the game, they're also giving him the opportunity to fix it whenever he wants.

That's much more powerful from an experience standpoint than the way it's there currently.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2015, 04:52 PM
When I was watching Syndicate story (when it was out on consoles) and subsequently after PC release playing it, I thought to myself, damn, it would've been so much better if consequences of Jacob's actions weren't just narrative shown in Evie missions, but we'd actually see it in the game world (because that's how game narrative works, it isn't separate from gameplay, everything's connected), so when we'd kill Elliotson there'd be more sick or crazy people on the streets and medicine was more expensive and less readily available, and stuff like that.

And I just started listening to the podcast, and almost immediately hear that's the kind of thing they wanted to do! And it baffles me that they didn't, because it's not like they're forcing the player a particular worse state of the world for all rest of the game, they're also giving him the opportunity to fix it whenever he wants.

That's much more powerful from an experience standpoint than the way it's there currently.

And the thing is they did stuff like that back in AC1. The Lunatic Harasser archetype starts coming in all three cities after you take out Talal and Garnier de Naplouse.

In Revelations, Ezio's gunpowder plot in Cappadocia causes the entire cavern to be filled with smoke and people start dying as he escapes.

Farlander1991
11-29-2015, 05:40 PM
And the thing is they did stuff like that back in AC1. The Lunatic Harasser archetype starts coming in all three cities after you take out Talal and Garnier de Naplouse.

Technically they didn't, AC1 doesn't have a dynamic world. However it does have an unlockable world, most of those lunatics are just beyond memory walls for the duration of the first three memory groups. In a sense it provides the feeling of that, but it's also not that effective for most people because there's no clear 'before' state. Syndicate though has the whole world open from the get go, so there are more opportunities for that.


In Revelations, Ezio's gunpowder plot in Cappadocia causes the entire cavern to be filled with smoke and people start dying as he escapes.

Well that's a temporary one-time scripted effect and Syndicate has those as well. Cappadocia is fine if you go to free roam into it after.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2015, 05:46 PM
Technically they didn't, AC1 doesn't have a dynamic world. However it does have an unlockable world, most of those lunatics are just beyond memory walls for the duration of the first three memory groups. In a sense it provides the feeling of that, but it's also not that effective for most people because there's no clear 'before' state. Syndicate though has the whole world open from the get go, so there are more opportunities for that.

You are right that it's not emergent. It's unlockable, but it is still something that registers on gameplay which is still more than Syndicate (where it's on plot level rather than gameplay).

Farlander1991
11-29-2015, 06:43 PM
The 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted' question kinda... kinda annoyed me, to be honest. There's too much importance put in actually saying that, and it's not what matters. Assassin's Creed 1 has the Creed said 2 times, and the game was all about exploration of the Creed, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood has the Creed mentioned a lot of times (partially due to the nature of it being mentioned in every Assassin initiation), probably the most out of any game, and yet it's the one that explores it or its nature the least.

And the way the question was put how the marketing was a bit misleading because it was said that Evie is all about the Creed and Jacob doesn't really care about it and that it actually isn't like that in the game is also weird, considering the game and the characters are entirely about it (and it was talked about the nature of the characters in the interview itself), yet just because it wasn't mentioned... I sound a bit mean I think, I'm just frustrated to hear this kind of thing ever since Assassin's Creed III. It just feels like you can make the plot that has nothing to do with the nature of the Creed, but as long as the maxim is mentioned, then everything's fine and it's a good Creed-based plot, but if the plot explores the Creed but isn't mentioned? Then many deem it as a disaster.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2015, 08:00 PM
The 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted' question kinda... kinda annoyed me, to be honest. There's too much importance put in actually saying that, and it's not what matters. Assassin's Creed 1 has the Creed said 2 times, and the game was all about exploration of the Creed, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood has the Creed mentioned a lot of times (partially due to the nature of it being mentioned in every Assassin initiation), probably the most out of any game, and yet it's the one that explores it or its nature the least.

And the way the question was put how the marketing was a bit misleading because it was said that Evie is all about the Creed and Jacob doesn't really care about it and that it actually isn't like that in the game is also weird, considering the game and the characters are entirely about it (and it was talked about the nature of the characters in the interview itself), yet just because it wasn't mentioned... I sound a bit mean I think, I'm just frustrated to hear this kind of thing ever since Assassin's Creed III. It just feels like you can make the plot that has nothing to do with the nature of the Creed, but as long as the maxim is mentioned, then everything's fine and it's a good Creed-based plot, but if the plot explores the Creed but isn't mentioned? Then many deem it as a disaster.

I generaly had the same issue with that. I mean I play the games for the historical settings and to me, the AvT plot, Assassins Templars First Civ, are not what makes the game work. What makes it work is the historical realization of the setting and time period. To me the other stuff is there just to supply gameplay tools to interact with that.

I do agree with loomer about it not being mentioned in UNITY though. I have a whole separate issue with the French Assassins being all cult like which Loomer mentions. To me that just feels like pretentious nonsense since I'd rather feel like a Frenchman in 1790s France than be assured that I am member of the universal brotherhood of conspicuous hoods. But having done all that bargain basement ritualization, to not mention the Creed does stick out a great deal because the French Assassins were into the whole symbology, where the absence of that does make sense. In AC3, you had the Brotherhood destroyed and all the rituals and traditions gone with that so it made sense in that game not to mention it.

RVSage
11-29-2015, 08:41 PM
^ EmptyCrustacean?

Twins???


The 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted' question kinda... kinda annoyed me, to be honest. There's too much importance put in actually saying that, and it's not what matters. Assassin's Creed 1 has the Creed said 2 times, and the game was all about exploration of the Creed, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood has the Creed mentioned a lot of times (partially due to the nature of it being mentioned in every Assassin initiation), probably the most out of any game, and yet it's the one that explores it or its nature the least.

And the way the question was put how the marketing was a bit misleading because it was said that Evie is all about the Creed and Jacob doesn't really care about it and that it actually isn't like that in the game is also weird, considering the game and the characters are entirely about it (and it was talked about the nature of the characters in the interview itself), yet just because it wasn't mentioned... I sound a bit mean I think, I'm just frustrated to hear this kind of thing ever since Assassin's Creed III. It just feels like you can make the plot that has nothing to do with the nature of the Creed, but as long as the maxim is mentioned, then everything's fine and it's a good Creed-based plot, but if the plot explores the Creed but isn't mentioned? Then many deem it as a disaster.

I feel, It has always been implied, Arno does mention the creed in the end, And every game has had it's own interpretation of the creed. Whether they say it or not. And these are really different teams working on the project. Perhaps they should have a central review team for each game, to ensure consistency, with lore , characters. For Jeff, lore may be secondary, But for age old fans like me, the lore /story is an integral part of the series, and lore helps their idea of annual release. That is why the ezio trilogy succeded

loomer979
11-29-2015, 10:56 PM
Ok, so he didn't actually say "how embarrassing" and he didn't even seem to say it in a gloating way:


'Dancing. And with Starrick no less, how awkward." If anything, the way he said it seemed like he felt bad for her that she was having to smooze with the smarmy villain.
You have a weird way of interpreting things that actually happened in order to fit a pre-set opinion you have and then acting as if it's a general fanbase opinion. Like Roth kissing Jacob - that was not to "prove a point". It couldn't be more obvious that Roth was clearly obsessed with Jacob and there were hints throughout their relationship he was.
Commenting that it's immersion breaking for no one to acknowledge Ned's gender and making out that was how we felt as a fanbase was embarrassing. I hope the writer doesn't go away thinking that fans have such a narrow minded view set because that's not how I think at all and most people on the forums IIRC were very open to it.

How about the way no one seems to have issue with Henry Green's skin colour? The same way no one seems to have issues with the 'leap of faith'? This is proof that people pick and choose what they want to be realistic inconsistently and it makes it difficult for creators to take fans seriously. Sexism, racism and transgenderism would have been entirely against the tone of the story and inappropriate - you didn't need to hear that from the writer. We seem to be able to suspend reality for most things except when it comes to giving power to minority groups that would have necessarily had no power back then. Is an accepted transgendered character and female gang leaders really any more ridiculous than a leap of faith, eagle vision, pre-human beings, the shroud, the queen knighting Henry Green etc etc?

Now another issue i have with the podcast - it demonstrates why this Jeff guy is a really bad writer. How is the audience supposed to know that Ethan meant that Assassins should not marry Assassins? That whole arc with Evie could have been explored in much more depth. The game acts as if we're just supposed to know these things without doing any of the work to communicate it. And I think it's cowardly to have Jacob be bisexual but not have the balls to make that more explicit.


Holy crap dude, get over yourself. I slightly misquoted Jacob because it was off the top of my head but my points and OPINION about it still stands. The Jacob/Roth question and "to prove a point" stuff wasn't even my question, it was a question that was submitted from someone in the community that I was clearly quoting. I also never said I speak for the community, did you hear me say "the community thought it was a little immersion breaking" when I was talking about Ned? I'm only speaking for myself, and pretty much everyone in those situations (including Jeffrey, who I've interviewed 4 times now) knows that. If you want to make your opinion known there's nothing stopping you from putting your own question in for the podcast, or starting your own podcast, or tweeting at Jeffrey, or anything else. And if you think I'm the sole source of community feedback to Ubisoft you are very deluded.

I wanted to hear the story behind the how they represented Ned and some of the women in London, and it was an interesting one. The decision came after a long debate, and I don't disagree with the choice they made. The idea that Jeffrey or anyone from Ubi would come away from this podcast going "oh man, we better cut down on representing women and LGBT people cause of what Loomer said" is HILARIOUS and wrong on so many levels. As Jeffrey pointed out, Anita Sarkeesian raised the same question that I did, and do you also think ANITA is advocating that Ubisoft cut down on representing these groups of people? Given all of this plus the fact that you think Jacob is definitely bisexual and that Jeffrey thought we were supposed to know about what Ethan said (both of these assertions are false if you actually listen to what Jeffrey says), you'll forgive me if I don't put much stock in your sense of judgement and what you think of the podcast. It is pretty hilarious though.

loomer979
11-29-2015, 11:08 PM
The 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted' question kinda... kinda annoyed me, to be honest. There's too much importance put in actually saying that, and it's not what matters. Assassin's Creed 1 has the Creed said 2 times, and the game was all about exploration of the Creed, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood has the Creed mentioned a lot of times (partially due to the nature of it being mentioned in every Assassin initiation), probably the most out of any game, and yet it's the one that explores it or its nature the least.

I never said I just wanted to hear the words without a discussion, that's not what I was trying to say. In the case of Unity it just seemed weird since they were basically doing the ceremony wrong by not telling Arno the maxim.

Some of my favorite philosophical moments in the game have been when characters discuss the maxim of the Creed (e.g. Ezio explaining it to Sofia in ACR, Edward and Mary and Ah Tabai in AC4). How Edward progresses in viewing the maxim of the creed in AC4 is a big part of his character arc IMO. So yes, what I really like are the discussions that come out of the different interpretations of the maxim, and part of my point was that this won't happen anymore if characters aren't even allowed to say those words anymore. That's why I'm actually sad about the maxim not being spoken anymore. Though honestly, hearing the words is also comforting as the Creed and its philosophy is one of only a few things that actually ties and unites all the Assassins together in this series.

I'm also going to be really sad if "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." isn't the tagline on the AC movie poster. :(

loomer979
11-29-2015, 11:24 PM
Well, yeah, not intentional, no disputing that. I mean, they don't even remember the guy, lol. You know? I now wish it was intentional. At least then we'd know that they still know he exists.


Man, that obscure name drop was as big as Achilles name dropping Ezio when he first met Connor. It really wasn't big at all. It feels big because we're like the starved children. A bare bone would satisfy that type of hunger.



I dunno, man. Everyone is fine with far fetched, crazy stuff like Shao Jun going to Italy but mentioning Connor in a conversation about his family is suddenly shoehorned. I'm just gonna disagree there. Honestly, Edward is the one who felt shoehorned into all this. The whole plot about the shroud could have had nothing to do with Edward and the mansion could have just been a nice little easter egg or a side mission. That's what everyone expected anyway, no one ever thought that Edward would be this super important dude who suddenly became leader of the British Assassins. This just makes him look more like a dud because he got killed by two obscure mercenaries. It just makes it even worse. Okay, Edward wasn't THAT great, so it's KIND of understandable that he gets taken out by these two...mercenaries, sure. Oh.....wait....Edward was the co-leader of the Assassins? And he was the one maintaining the whole operation alongside Miko? He also traveled the world? And found the shroud? Well...then.


To say that the writers don't remember Connor is flat out wrong, and honestly kind of mean spirited to the writers.

In 2012 AC3 was released.

In 2013 they brought back Noah to voice some Connor lines for Aveline's DLC in AC4. They didn't have to do that! They could have easily had it as a note, or had Aveline have a conversation about it with Prudence. It's certainly better than they treated Ezio's recent voice acting in Chronicles China and Toy Soldiers.

In 2014, Charles Dorian taunts Shay with how well Connor took out the Templars in the colonies. My point in bringing this up earlier is that any reference to Connor in London (even if you shoehorn him into London somehow) would have honestly been about as substantial as Rogue's mention was, nothing more.

In 2015 Connor was not mentioned because he has nothing to do with London! You think Edward feels shoehorned into the story and you want to shoehorn Connor in on top of that?

I know a lot of people (myself included) would like to see and hear MORE about Connor. That's a fair point. But to say that Ubisoft is ignoring or forgetting Connor is just flat out false.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 11:51 PM
To say that the writers don't remember Connor is flat out wrong, and honestly kind of mean spirited to the writers.

I'm really not trying to be mean spirited. I was one of the people who defended Darby's comments about how the community should continue Connor's story because Ubisoft wont make more games with him. It's just frustrating to see the direction that Syndicate seems to be taking. We have easter eggs for ONLY Ezio and Edward. We have Legacy outfits for ONLY Ezio and Edward. Is it a coincidence that these two happen to be the most popular?

As a side note, did you read the article that accompanied AC III's video about the retrospect series of videos leading up to Syndicate? This is the author's description of Connor: "Sure, Connor’s uneasy mix of earnestness and petulance didn’t make him the most charming hero, especially after I’d spent so much time with the effortlessly debonair Ezio, but he more than made up for any personality flaws with what he could do"

Petulance. Wow. His description was no different from those of any other person on the internet. He basically took Connor and said "Well...he's a dud...but he can climb trees and tomahawk dudes? Yay?". I could take these comments from the AC IV analysis videos where all the characters are poked fun at, given the context of it being from Abstergo. But on an official blog article? I honestly didn't like it. It's like they have no pride in their character.


In 2013 they brought back Noah to voice some Connor lines for Aveline's DLC. They didn't have to do that! They could have easily had it as a note, or had Aveline have a conversation about it with Prudence.
Or they could have made Connor the playable character in that mission. At least it'd make sense given that this is a Kenway game. The whole thing ends up going nowhere anyway since we don't know what happens after that, so having Connor there instead of Aveline would have made more sense.


It's certainly better than they treated Ezio's recent voice acting in Chronicles China and Toy Soldiers.
Man....come now....Ezio got 3 main games, 1 hand held game and a short movie. For all we know, this could have been an entirely budget issue from Ubisoft's perspective. I don't know what the problem was, but certainly you could see how you saying Ezio had it worse is kind of confusing, at the least.


My point in bringing this up earlier is that any reference to Connor in London (even if you shoehorn him into London somehow) would have honestly been about as substantial as Rogue's mention was, nothing more.
Which I wouldn't really have minded. Rogue's mention of Connor is not substantial enough because this is a game about his prologue. A game where his mentor and father appear. A game set in a time frame where his mother could have appeared, or even he himself as a child could have appeared, but that doesn't happen. You could bet your money that if we get a game set in a timeframe comparable to that as a prologue to Ezio, we'd get MUCH more substantial nods and references to him.

I wouldn't have had a problem with this level of substance for Syndicate because, like you said, the London part of the family is not integral to Connor.


In 2015 Connor was not mentioned because he has nothing to do with London! You think Edward feels shoehorned into the story and you want to shoehorn Connor in on top of that?
I'm just saying that the whole set up of the game could have gone completely the same without putting Edward as the center of the whole thing. Connor wouldn't feel shoehorned because this is a conversation about his family. I really couldn't care less that he didn't visit London, it's the way it is because the writers made it so. Why can't he go to London? Why can't he meet his aunt, his last living blood relative? Why can't he think "Hmm....I really want to know more about my father's family"? Ezio thought "Hmm....I want to learn more about my Order" and so traveled to Syria. That's not shoe horned but Connor going to London to learn more about his family is shoehorned? I just don't agree with that logic, honestly.


I know a lot of people (myself included) would like to see and hear MORE about Connor.
I know, I know and I'm not fighting nor arguing with you, I'm just expressing new-founded frustrations. Previously, I didnt think Ubisoft were ignoring Connor because as you mentioned, we got some stuff for him in the years following AC III, but this year has been especially strange.


But to say that Ubisoft is ignoring or forgetting Connor is just flat out false.
I disagree.

BUMCFKSZY
11-30-2015, 12:13 AM
But why are the characters not allowed to say the Assassin's maxim anymore, Loomer?

VoXngola
11-30-2015, 12:20 AM
I still can't believe people can't get over Connor. No, before you get the wrong idea, I don't hate him. But at this point, you're just hurting yourself.

Move on, people. It's about time.

Thank you for the podcast loomer, as always.

RaggedTyper
11-30-2015, 12:20 AM
I wanted to hear the story behind the how they represented Ned and some of the women in London, and it was an interesting one. The decision came after a long debate, and I don't disagree with the choice they made. The idea that Jeffrey or anyone from Ubi would come away from this podcast going "oh man, we better cut down on representing women and LGBT people cause of what Loomer said" is HILARIOUS and wrong on so many levels.

I hope you're right.


As Jeffrey pointed out, Anita Sarkeesian raised the same question that I did, and do you also think ANITA is advocating that Ubisoft cut down on representing these groups of people?

Actually, she said that the game works because it treats women like they're normal and made a point that in such a myth based world "realism" doesn't really factor into it.


Given all of this plus the fact that you think Jacob is definitely bisexual and that Jeffrey thought we were supposed to know about what Ethan said (both of these assertions are false if you actually listen to what Jeffrey says), you'll forgive me if I don't put much stock in your sense of judgement and what you think of the podcast. It is pretty hilarious though.

That's very interesting considering you've spent your entire post trying to make me forget all the cringe that came out of your mouth on that podcast. Jesus.


ETA: I don't actually think Jacob is bisexual but if Jeff says he's supposed to be then making that barely visible in the game seems like a lack of balls or just terrible writing.

I-Like-Pie45
11-30-2015, 12:51 AM
Ubisofts reason for not bringing back RCS for chronicles and Toy Story is very reasonable

if he cannot do motion capture much less facial capture, how is he expected to be able to reprise his role as Ezio in games that make extensive usage of the tools

besides why is it such a heartbreaker than RCS can't reprise his role for some bit games and cameos? You people weren't heartbroken when the original Assassin got replaced by not-the-real-altair in revelations

Assassin_M
11-30-2015, 01:32 AM
I still can't believe people can't get over Connor.
I still can't believe people can't get over the Modern Day and the Creed being mentioned.

I-Like-Pie45
11-30-2015, 01:33 AM
Mentioning the Creed is important.

How else will you know that this is Assassins game??

You can't tell that Conner is Assassin, 'cause he never says Assassins is true and permitted, but you can tell that Enzo and Altaik are because they do.

D.I.D.
11-30-2015, 01:39 AM
ETA: I don't actually think Jacob is bisexual but if Jeff says he's supposed to be then making that barely visible in the game seems like a lack of balls or just terrible writing.

It could also be that his intentions were not carried into the scene by the director, actors and animators because they were not aware of the implication. If it's Jeffrey's intention that Jacob's sexuality is somewhat fluid and that the event hits him oddly, fair enough, and perhaps that should be canon.

To me, the way it was handled was perfect. That kiss didn't seem remotely sexual to me and, although I'd be very happy to see the broadest representations of sexuality, I liked it this way. That kiss seemed to me to be like Bugs Bunny laying a smacker on Elmer Fudd, and his "Why not?" was a flourish like "That's All Folks!".

loomer979
11-30-2015, 01:43 AM
That's very interesting considering you've spent your entire post trying to make me forget all the cringe that came out of your mouth on that podcast. Jesus.

The opinions and insults you spew out are made up of fundamental misunderstandings and misinterpretations mixed in with your own arrogance. Just because I don't find them useful as feedback doesn't mean I don't find them useful as comedy.

Of course, the good news for you is that you don't have to listen to the podcasts or think about them at all! Nobody's forcing you, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Go forth, and cringe no more! On the other hand, if you want to keep showing off how little of the podcast you actually understood with gems like this: "I don't actually think Jacob is bisexual but if Jeff says he's supposed to be then making that barely visible in the game seems like a lack of balls or just terrible writing." please feel free because they're amazing.

Megas_Doux
11-30-2015, 01:54 AM
I find unfair that only Edward and Ezio have legacy outfits and easter eggs. And before anyone says that I'm a Connor/AC III 'lover', well it's quite the contrary by the way. Despite the fact I loathe legacy outfits to begin with, either ALL assassins have them, or none at all, anything in between is 'suspicious' to say the least....

PD: Why is that Ezio's outfit ALWAYS has to be ACB's, geez :mad:
PD 2: I would have LOVED ACU long robes in Syndicate, for the first time time a legacy outfit wouldn't have looked super out of place...But if sometimes I think Ubi wants to forget about Connor, Arno will take it to anotehr level. He'll get the Itchy & Scratchy Poochie treatment:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/a/a1/Poochie.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121207211354
https://themultimediamassive.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/65e2a-poochie-slide.jpg

He doesn't even appear on ACS database entrance about the Brotherhood, whereas even Connor does LOL.

D.I.D.
11-30-2015, 02:08 AM
^ Arno isn't significant, though. He's a surprise to the modern day team when they pick him up in the Animus, so they follow his story to see where it leads purely because they want that PoE. Connor has more reason to be remembered in the fictional database lore than Arno.

As far as his history in the fiction is concerned, he's pretty much a no-mark Assassin from the sect that failed to stop the Templars enacting the Revolution (and thus gifting us with modern politics, inclusive democracy, significant representation of workers as a political class, the conceptual expectation of liberty and equality, and... hmmm. To Arno: thank Glob for your incompetence, you self-obsessed clumsy oaf).

Mr.Black24
11-30-2015, 04:54 AM
To say that the writers don't remember Connor is flat out wrong, and honestly kind of mean spirited to the writers. It ain't mean to them. I have no idea how this is perceived. I mean, how the fans feel, me being one of them, as you said so yourself, we were stabbed and had the cold knife twisted on us. Just tired and upset at all this circling around Connor. I hang out at the AC Tumblr side of the fandom a lot, at alot of the Connor fans there are just angry that Connor gets trashed with no respect. Like giving us a strong database entry on how Connor ran the new Brotherhood would be at least something good, ya know. I mean we get this Abstergo detail, which thankfully turned out false, however, we are just back to square one: What happens to Connor? We’ve been asking FOR YEARS about his whereabouts and all they do is take it as a joke by give us an empty bit of detail that isn’t even true.The only new juicy bit we get is that he marries a white woman, but that’s just it.

We're just...tired


In 2014, Charles Dorian taunts Shay with how well Connor took out the Templars in the colonies. My point in bringing this up earlier is that any reference to Connor in London (even if you shoehorn him into London somehow) would have honestly been about as substantial as Rogue's mention was, nothing more.
I have to respectfully disagree. Charles points out the obvious, what we already know, that Connor not only helped ignite the AR, but also undid the Templar's work and revived the newly founded American Brotherhood. We already know, we played AC3 after all. We could have had new information to what Connor was up to, like M said, he could have went to visit his aunt to learn more about the family. Especially since how he laughed with pride when he mentioned his grandfather in the DLC, and was broken to find out that he really didn't know his father and regretted in not trying hard enough.


In 2015 Connor was not mentioned because he has nothing to do with London! You think Edward feels shoehorned into the story and you want to shoehorn Connor in on top of that?

A mere mention is nothing at all. We could have gotten more insight on what Connor had done in his later life, just as we learned about what Edward did, such as something like this for example:

Evie: So what happened to his son, Connor?


Henry: Well he did pass away sometime in the 1820s, none the less, he managed to establish the American Brotherhood that surpassed the former standing of the Colonial Brotherhood. As of now they are struggling against the rising practice of slavery, the displacements of the natives, and the ever presence of the American Rite of the Templar Order. The pact between Grand Master Shay Cormac and Mentor Connor was not meant to be, it seems.

Evie: A pact between Assassins and Templars?

Henry: Yes, but that is a tale for another day, Ms. Frye.

Something like that, I just did in a few minutes. Something like this, or even better. It's not much to ask to get more glimpses of what he'd done later in life.


I know a lot of people (myself included) would like to see and hear MORE about Connor. That's a fair point. But to say that Ubisoft is ignoring or forgetting Connor is just flat out false.

I have a gripe with you saying is that Ubisoft is not ignoring Connor, is that when we talk about the Kenway Family, these three have done a lot for their respective Order, and yet somehow exclude the third player? I mean how can you have a guy who helped ignite the American Revolution, which mind you sparked the French Revolution that is happening in the game itself, tore down the Templar Order almost single handedly, and rebuilt/ reformed the American Brotherhood of the Assassin Order? How can you run away from a guy who accomplished just as much, if not more than Edward and Haytham and not get a mention? Apparently, as proven by Charles, his actions became famously known in France, in turn should have reached the European countries, especially the English Brotherhood, as logically the Brotherhood there would keep tabs with a war that would involve their own countrymen. Rogue proves, by Charles and the War Letters, that the Assassin Branches kept in touch with one another, so excluding Connor was apparently impossible, yet they've done the impossible.

They are literally ignoring the pink elephant in the room.

Megas_Doux
11-30-2015, 05:13 AM
Now that I read that post, there's something that bothers me about the Connor fans that STILL inquire about Connor: Their argument was based, mostly, on equal treatment....However, I've yet to see them fighting for the other protagonist that will, most likely, get an even worse 'oblivion' scenario.

D.I.D.
11-30-2015, 05:26 AM
Now that I read that post, there's something that bothers me about the Connor fans that STILL inquire about Connor: Their argument was based, mostly, on equal treatment....However, I've yet to see them fighting for the other protagonist that will, most likely, get an even worse 'oblivion' scenario.

I agree. I wish people would just let go generally. I'm more interested in Assassins we haven't seen. Remember how powerful those Assassins looked in the Auditore crypt? For a few years, we wondered about getting the opportunity to play those characters stories. Unfortunately those passions have cooled to the point that, if they did eventually appear, people would no longer be as enthused about them as we used to be. I'd rather have more of that, though; characters teased, rather than characters revisited.

I was joking about Arno above, and I'm not a fan of Connor's character. I liked how flawed Arno was, although I can't be sure that what I liked about his failings was really what the writers intended given how arse-about-tit other aspects were. I think we were meant to understand that Arno had selfishly ruined the mission and his own desires in one shot, by breaking his promise to Élise because he wanted her cleaved to him as a wife. Whatever the case, I think it's good that he's not joining some pantheon. Some of these protagonists should be relatively unknown, and they don't all deserve a hat-tip in future games. Their circumstances might have been big enough that we needed to get a game in their era, but it doesn't follow that each of our meat-vehicles has to ascend to sainthood after that.

Assassin_M
11-30-2015, 05:52 AM
Now that I read that post, there's something that bothers me about the Connor fans that STILL inquire about Connor: Their argument was based, mostly, on equal treatment....However, I've yet to see them fighting for the other protagonist that will, most likely, get an even worse 'oblivion' scenario.
Well, if someone asks for a feature or gives input about something they want changed or tweaked, they don't have to talk about everything else. They ask for the stuff you want because they're fans of that stuff. We're fans of Connor so we obviously "whine" about him getting 86'd.

Megas_Doux
11-30-2015, 06:21 AM
I agree. I wish people would just let go generally. I'm more interested in Assassins we haven't seen. Remember how powerful those Assassins looked in the Auditore crypt? For a few years, we wondered about getting the opportunity to play those characters stories. Unfortunately those passions have cooled to the point that, if they did eventually appear, people would no longer be as enthused about them as we used to be. I'd rather have more of that, though; characters teased, rather than characters revisited.

I was joking about Arno above.

You weren't far from the truth, Arno was a casualty of Unity's story and its disaster of a release, as simple as that. Connor, on the other hand, 'suffered' due to being 'the guy after' a character which not only had his story told from cradle to grave throughout three consecutive games and a short movie, but also lots appearances in tons of different media. That is not an easy spot to be, plus the HUGE larger than life expectations created by the overwhelming marketing campaign AC III had, ended up not helping his cause.


Well, if someone asks for a feature or gives input about something they want changed or tweaked, they don't have to talk about everything else. They ask for the stuff you want because they're fans of that stuff. We're fans of Connor so we obviously "whine" about him getting 86'd.

I do understand that, fair enough. However, I remember the times in which the main reason for their fans to plea for a resolution was not the fact they were his fans, but the 'unfairness' of him not having the same treatment as Altair and Ezio. I even remember some of them claiming that if such scenario happens again, they will be arguing about that hypothetical character not getting the same conclusion. I've yet to see that....

Sure, Connor is being sweep under the rug, but it could be worse. I mean, poor Arno doesn't even appear on the image picturing the Assassin brotherhood in the Database haha. First main protagonist EVER to not have a legacy outfit in the sequel LOL.

PD Ezio is not only far from being my favorite character, but I firmly believe that him having THAT much screen time is hurting the franchise.

VestigialLlama4
11-30-2015, 06:28 AM
It could also be that his intentions were not carried into the scene by the director, actors and animators because they were not aware of the implication. If it's Jeffrey's intention that Jacob's sexuality is somewhat fluid and that the event hits him oddly, fair enough, and perhaps that should be canon.

That can happen. Darby McDevitt how the animation guys failed to give Jacques de Molay his heterochromia to mark him as a Sage clearly in UNITY.

As for what is canon, at this point my definition is "what we see and hear", everything else is up-for-grabs---transmedia, database entries, glyph entries, Initiates databases, writer interviews. If Ubisoft and its writers don't take this seriously, there's no reason for us to.


To me, the way it was handled was perfect. That kiss didn't seem remotely sexual to me and, although I'd be very happy to see the broadest representations of sexuality, I liked it this way. That kiss seemed to me to be like Bugs Bunny laying a smacker on Elmer Fudd, and his "Why not?" was a flourish like "That's All Folks!".

That's what it seemed to me too. It reminded me of course of this classic short:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jDcWAWRRHo


Now that I read that post, there's something that bothers me about the Connor fans that STILL inquire about Connor: Their argument was based, mostly, on equal treatment....However, I've yet to see them fighting for the other protagonist that will, most likely, get an even worse 'oblivion' scenario.

If you mean Arno Dorian, well Unity was out last year. Connor fans have been at this since Black Flag came out. But speaking for myself, I feel that all plots and stories should be resolved because this is a game based on historical fiction pivoting around a machine that shows us what happened with no room for doubt, so there's no way we can't not know. This was the approach of the first games where we knew all about Altair and Ezio. Likewise, Edward and Haytham got closure. So I feel that every other character should be treated the same especially if the writers feel that there's no more games or stories to be told. So tell us about Shay, Aveline, Connor and Arno.

The other reason, in general, is obviously Connor is a non-white protagonist, which makes him a very rare figure in the gaming community. The only AAA protagonist before Connor who was non-white was probably Carl Johnson in GTA. So obviously Connor despite adorning the box-art of the games and the promotion of the best-selling games in the franchise being treated by Ubisoft as a semi-footnote sticks out far more than others. You would say this should not matter. And it should not matter but the fact is that it does matter...as does the relegating of other non-white protagonists to side missions and DLCs.

From a purely aesthetic level, it means the qualities that defined AC, their guts, their brazen irresponsibility and their curiosity, is not there anymore. It means more focus-group characters, more player-friendly settings, less stepping on toes, and less intelligence basically. You have Jeffrey Yohalem saying that the attitude in Ubisoft is to treat AC, not in so many words, as a big dumb blockbuster but that's not what AC was...not till Black Flag at least. That has become the approach since Unity-Rogue and now even Syndicate and that's lamentable but it's not surprising...once Patrice Desilets and Corey May backed out of being actively involved in the games, writers had greater responsibility to respect the original vision and approach. Darby McDevitt managed to do that, but it seems he's the only and he's probably moving to greener pastures.

Mr.Black24
11-30-2015, 06:37 AM
You weren't far from the truth, Arno was a casualty of Unity's story and its disaster of a release, as simple as that. Connor, on the other hand, 'suffered' due to being 'the guy after' a character which not only had his story told from cradle to grave throughout three consecutive games and a short movie, but also lots appearances in tons of different media. That is not an easy spot to be, plus the HUGE larger than life expectations created by the overwhelming marketing campaign AC III had, ended up not helping his cause.



I do understand that, fair enough. However, I remember the times in which the main reason for their fans to plea for a resolution was not the fact they were his fans, but the 'unfairness' of him not having the same treatment as Altair and Ezio. I even remember some of them claiming that if such scenario happens again, they will be arguing about that hypothetical character not getting the same conclusion. I've yet to see that....

Sure, Connor is being sweep under the rug, but it could be worse. I mean, poor Arno doesn't even appear on the image picturing the Assassin brotherhood in the Database haha. First main protagonist EVER to not have a legacy outfit in the sequel LOL.

PD Ezio is not only far from being my favorite character, but I firmly believe that him having THAT much screen time is hurting the franchise.

I've only brought up Connor here, as it pertains to the Kenway Family issue in Syndicate.

Now if you ask about Aveline, Shay, and Arno...you'll get the same as Connor! A big portion of us fans expects these four to crossover in one massive sequel. I mean the stage is set for it, having Connor and Aveline being the top ranking leaders of the American Brotherhood, Arno with the journal pages of Haytham + Charles' death , Shay running around with the expectation of him reviving the American Rite, as hinted in Rogue. I had mentioned before my theory on how this can all go down, but I rather not go on a tangent here.

Assassin_M
11-30-2015, 06:58 AM
I do understand that, fair enough. However, I remember the times in which the main reason for their fans to plea for a resolution was not the fact they were his fans, but the 'unfairness' of him not having the same treatment as Altair and Ezio. I even remember some of them claiming that if such scenario happens again, they will be arguing about that hypothetical character not getting the same conclusion. I've yet to see that....
Well, as far as I know, it was only a couple of people who argued this. Neither me, nor Mr.Black nor Llama said that we would argue for anyone else not getting fair treatment, so. Although, a lot of Connor fans are actually drooling at the idea of a Shay, Arno, Connor, Aveline crossover because the stage was PERFECTLY set for that confrontation, so in a sense, Connor fans have been doing exactly what you're saying they didn't do.


Sure, Connor is being sweep under the rug, but it could be worse. I mean, poor Arno doesn't even appear on the image picturing the Assassin brotherhood in the Database haha. First main protagonist EVER to not have a legacy outfit in the sequel LOL.
If Arno fans want to argue about it, then they should. Ubisoft has a terrible reaction to things that flop, like Arno. I loved Arno and I made a post about why he's the only good thing from Unity's story. It makes sense for him not to be in the brotherhood database, though and there's nothing relevant for him to be mentioned in in Syndicate.


PD Ezio is not only far from being my favorite character, but I firmly believe that him having THAT much screen time is hurting the franchise.
It already hurt it. It's not HURTING, the damage has already been done.

I-Like-Pie45
11-30-2015, 08:24 AM
i think the real reason people are still talking about connor because that is what happens when new games don't really introduce all that much to talk about beyond the first couple days of release

RVSage
11-30-2015, 08:33 AM
Connor was a good character, I personally liked him, I loved haytham too. AC3 introduced to great characters. As M pointed out, Ubisoft seem to be ignoring anything that has gone wrong in the past with syndicate. (Note: Connor outfit was available in Unity.)

Ezio is mentioned in a funny way in Syndicate (Charles ****ens mission and the outfit ofcourse) , But Altair is not mentioned in Syndicate either. I do not see people complaining about that. Yes Connor could have been mentioned, but it is certainly not the worst thing to happen.

PS: Conor has relatively fewer fans , majority do not like him . I hate to say it being a Connor fan.

Assassin_M
11-30-2015, 08:46 AM
But Altair is not mentioned in Syndicate either. I do not see people complaining about that.
No one talks about Altair because there's nothing relevant for him to be brought up in. No one mentions Altair getting the short end of the stick because we pretty much know everything about him now. On the other hand, we know next to nothing about Connor's life post-AC III and he gets snubbed in a database entry about his family.



PS: Conor has relatively fewer fans , majority do not like him . I hate to say it being a Connor fan.
I would dispute that. He won a user voted award beating Max Payne, Agent 47 and Master Chief for best character. AC III is also the second most voted game for backwards compatibility on Xbone.

RVSage
11-30-2015, 09:17 AM
No one talks about Altair because there's nothing relevant for him to be brought up in. No one mentions Altair getting the short end of the stick because we pretty much know everything about him now. On the other hand, we know next to nothing about Connor's life post-AC III and he gets snubbed in a database entry about his family.



I would dispute that. He won a user voted award beating Max Payne, Agent 47 and Master Chief for best character. AC III is also the second most voted game for backwards compatibility on Xbone.

True, we never got know about connor's life like we did with Altair,Ezio or Edward. Very true. Oh yea I forgot, he got the award , and I remember that acceptance video too

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

I meant the forum people actually, not many like him (That is the impression I got, in my 3 years here)

But I still wonder why Ac3 is being called a failure after all this. Again to me it is not the worst thing(i.e not mentioning him in Syndicate), At this point i.e 3 games later. How would they tell his (Connor's) story. Too much has happened since then

I-Like-Pie45
11-30-2015, 09:37 AM
We don't know everything about Altair

For example, we don't know what he liked to eat most, which shoelace he tied first, or what side he hung the toilet paper on. Where's the closure for that

RaggedTyper
11-30-2015, 09:39 AM
The opinions and insults you spew out are made up of fundamental misunderstandings and misinterpretations mixed in with your own arrogance. Just because I don't find them useful as feedback doesn't mean I don't find them useful as comedy.

Of course, the good news for you is that you don't have to listen to the podcasts or think about them at all! Nobody's forcing you, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Go forth, and cringe no more! On the other hand, if you want to keep showing off how little of the podcast you actually understood with gems like this: "I don't actually think Jacob is bisexual but if Jeff says he's supposed to be then making that barely visible in the game seems like a lack of balls or just terrible writing." please feel free because they're amazing.

Oh please. You're oversensitive so you cannot handle critique (oversensitive people typically interpret critique as insults) and then you have to cover it up with fake laughter even though if that were the case then you wouldn't have spent the entire post panting and panicking and trying to explain yourself with a long rant and thus digging yourself into a deeper hole lol. :D

I misunderstood nothing and you know it. You EMBARRASSED yourself (unlike what Jacob said about Evie) by telling Jeff that you don't want inclusivity and for minority characters to be treated equally because you found it "immersion breaking" lol. What a joke. You made parts of the podcast awkward and whenever there were long pauses of uncomfortable silence you'd laugh it off but Jeff wasn't having any of it lol.

And believe it or not, I don't listen to the podcast for your opinions - even though you keep interjecting and interrupting Jeff with your monologues and you can even hear him getting quite frustrated towards the end of the discussion about inclusivity because you won't shut the hell up. I listen to hear the creators speak, not you. I don't care about you. Get over yourself and let the people with actual talent speak.

I will continue to listen to your podcasts in spite of you in them - your lack of self awareness and lack of emotional intelligence is car crash entertainment.

pineal_gland
11-30-2015, 01:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2NETSIzFr8

AdrianJacek
11-30-2015, 04:44 PM
Ezio is mentioned in a funny way in Syndicate (Charles ****ens mission and the outfit ofcourse)
Mind saying WHICH Charles *****ens mission?


...a lot of Connor fans are actually drooling at the idea of a Shay, Arno, Connor, Aveline crossover because the stage was PERFECTLY set for that confrontation, so in a sense, Connor fans have been doing exactly what you're saying they didn't do.
And Eseosa & Patience Gibbs, don't forget about them. :P
God, so much set up. Drooling here.

D.I.D.
11-30-2015, 05:32 PM
@Loomer - We all know that you didn't mean any of your questions in that way. Don't let it shake you - you do great work and we appreciate all the efforts you make. Turning this situation on its head, imagine living with that much bitterness. It can't be much fun. I feel a bit sorry for him/her, to be honest.


Mind saying WHICH Charles *****ens mission?



I need reminding too - I don't remember this one!

The best references to past Assassins I can remember was in Syndicate: the posters for Roth's other shows, on the stairways of the Alhambra. In the same way that folk tales, legends and traditional plays like Shakespeare's may well have been based on the lives of real people whose names live on but whose existence is disputed, it makes perfect sense that there could be a romantic hero called Ezio still echoing in Syndicate's world. The audience would see Ezio as being no more "real" than we would see Romeo as being real, or perhaps he'd be somewhere between Romeo and Robin Hood: a character based on a person who might have been real, might be fictional, or might be a composite of various people. That's the perfect way to pitch a reference like this. The "Buccaneers!" poster, too: if we had a stage play today about classic pirates it would be 99% certain to include our reality's Blackbeard so it makes perfect sense that the Alhambra would host a play (it's got to be a musical, right?) about the AC universe's Blackbeard and Edward.

Where it makes sense, I'd love to see more of that.

RVSage
11-30-2015, 06:06 PM
Mind saying WHICH Charles *****ens mission?



The hypnotist mission 2 if i remember correctly,

Mr.Black24
12-01-2015, 07:03 AM
Well, as far as I know, it was only a couple of people who argued this. Neither me, nor Mr.Black nor Llama said that we would argue for anyone else not getting fair treatment, so. Although, a lot of Connor fans are actually drooling at the idea of a Shay, Arno, Connor, Aveline crossover because the stage was PERFECTLY set for that confrontation, so in a sense, Connor fans have been doing exactly what you're saying they didn't do.
No lie though, I'm not crazy for thinking that these four would cross paths in the future, whenever a game or novel, or other medium, right? Sometimes I get the feeling that some folks look at me as if I was crazy for suggesting it at times, but them endings though....felt so strongly implied thou....


If Arno fans want to argue about it, then they should. Ubisoft has a terrible reaction to things that flop, like Arno. I loved Arno and I made a post about why he's the only good thing from Unity's story. It makes sense for him not to be in the brotherhood database, though and there's nothing relevant for him to be mentioned in in Syndicate.
Agreed. I adore Arno at the same level as Connor, I just didn't fight for him in Syndicate as there really is nothing relevant for him in the story, unlike say the Kenway Family, as Connor is a Kenway, whenever he took the surname or not. Unless of course Evie uses Arno as a small example of Assassin history on Assassin encounters with Precursor artifacts. Kind of like how she used Ezio as an example that he would use reckless methods as Jacob does for London.