PDA

View Full Version : Playable Character Fates



Bipolar Matt
01-19-2016, 05:19 PM
We're missing closure for a few characters we've gotten to play as:

Altair: Passed away in his vault.
Ezio: Passed away in Florence from a heart attack.
Haytham: Killed by Connor.
Edward: Killed in his home by Birch's mercenaries.
Adewale: Killed by Shay.

We still don't know ultimately what happened to:
Connor: We need more details than his blonde wife took his children and left. When? Where? How old was he? What happened after that?
Aveline: No idea beyond Patience Gibbs (I know many don't consider her a main character).
Shay: No idea after he assassinated Charles Dorian and took back the Precursor Box.
Arno: No idea beyond 1808 when he went into the Templar vault with Napoleon (age 40 or so).
Jacob, Evie or Lydia Frye: All were alive as of World War I. Nothing more than that.

It would be nice to get some endings for these characters. Find out what ultimately happened to them.

Mr.Black24
01-19-2016, 05:28 PM
We're missing closure for a few characters we've gotten to play as:

Altair: Passed away in his vault.
Ezio: Passed away in Florence from a heart attack.
Haytham: Killed by Connor.
Edward: Killed in his home by Birch's mercenaries.
Adewale: Killed by Shay.

We still don't know ultimately what happened to:
Connor: We need more details than his blonde wife took his children and left. When? Where? How old was he? What happened after that?
Aveline: No idea beyond Patience Gibbs (I know many don't consider her a main character).
Shay: No idea after he assassinated Charles Dorian and took back the Precursor Box.
Arno: No idea beyond 1808 when he went into the Templar vault with Napoleon (age 40 or so).
Jacob, Evie or Lydia Frye: All were alive as of World War I. Nothing more than that.

It would be nice to get some endings for these characters. Find out what ultimately happened to them.

I would kindly say 4, seeing that the Frye twins had retired to the country side when WWI began. When we saw Lydia Frye in Syndicate, the memory took place in 1916. The Twins would be 69 years old by then. I don't think they would be doing much other than training other new Assassins. Unless Ubisoft gives them something big that they were working on, I don't think they were doing anything else of in the scale of the other 4.

Oh and its Abstergo just talking twisted venom when mentioning Connor's family. He has a blonde white woman as a wife and kids, but that's the only substantial thing after that.

cawatrooper9
01-19-2016, 05:38 PM
This discussion has popped up a few times before, and one thing that I generally agree with is that "closure" should not necessarily mean death. For instance, compare Shay with the twins. The twins are last seen running through a park in London, after happily defeating their Templar enemy and deciding to keep the POE hidden. Depending on what side missions or DLC you do, you may also see them working for the queen, or fighting Jack the Ripper years later. Either way, we know that they are doing Assassiny things still, but there are no specific Assassiny things that we know about that they were working on that haven't been wrapped up yet.

Shay is a little different. He's a wildcard. He's out to kill Assassins and find the box- and as far as I know, we never see him get the box (and there are oh so many more Assassins to kill). We have pretty good reason to get closure on Shay, because there are still some HUGE questions regarding his storyline and progression.

Connor is a little more of a controversial figure. While many (including myself, sometimes) think his character needs closure, some think that Connor's storyline is pretty well wrapped up by the end of the game. Again, I don't think that we need to necessarily see his death, but I wouldn't mind seeing his Brotherhood in a more complete form by the end of the game. I guess you get a little bit of this in the tunnels before the Fort George attack, but it might be cool to have some more traditionally Assassin-style missions specifically with your recruits, just to really get the feeling that Connor has truly rebuilt the brotherhood.

VestigialLlama4
01-19-2016, 05:42 PM
It would be nice to get some endings for these characters. Find out what ultimately happened to them.

It would be nice but it wouldn't be in ubisoft's interest.

Ubisoft cares only about spinning and juggling many crystal balls in the air and then hoping that when it crashes on the floor, the glass doesn't fly into their eyes. They want to keep the Lore as "open" as possible...so my advice is don't get too attached.

As for the Fryes, well I think the syndicate DLC gave us a good sense of their fate.

Mr.Black24
01-19-2016, 06:09 PM
This discussion has popped up a few times before, and one thing that I generally agree with is that "closure" should not necessarily mean death. For instance, compare Shay with the twins. The twins are last seen running through a park in London, after happily defeating their Templar enemy and deciding to keep the POE hidden. Depending on what side missions or DLC you do, you may also see them working for the queen, or fighting Jack the Ripper years later. Either way, we know that they are doing Assassiny things still, but there are no specific Assassiny things that we know about that they were working on that haven't been wrapped up yet.

Shay is a little different. He's a wildcard. He's out to kill Assassins and find the box- and as far as I know, we never see him get the box (and there are oh so many more Assassins to kill). We have pretty good reason to get closure on Shay, because there are still some HUGE questions regarding his storyline and progression.

Connor is a little more of a controversial figure. While many (including myself, sometimes) think his character needs closure, some think that Connor's storyline is pretty well wrapped up by the end of the game. Again, I don't think that we need to necessarily see his death, but I wouldn't mind seeing his Brotherhood in a more complete form by the end of the game. I guess you get a little bit of this in the tunnels before the Fort George attack, but it might be cool to have some more traditionally Assassin-style missions specifically with your recruits, just to really get the feeling that Connor has truly rebuilt the brotherhood.

I can say that Syndicate is an actual "self contained" story, as it really told the life and closure of the Frye Twins really well. We know of their beginnings, their accomplishments throughout their adult life, they married to their respective husband/wife, had children which one of their descendants fought in WWI, and that they peacefully retired to the countryside. Not to mention that there is barely any loose ends to consider, other than the fact if Evie did have kids as well as if the marriage with Green was good or not, seeing as we were with her in 1888 at around her 40s. Isn't there debate if she is an ancestor to Monima Das?

Also I think that with Shay around, I don't think Connor's story is wrapped up now that he has an Assassin Hunter as a potential Grand Master to deal with. Especially since Shay declared himself a member of the American Rite of Templars, in addition to full dedication to the cause, its another player to the game. Its these two rebuilding their respective powers and fighting to influence in the new country.



It would be nice but it wouldn't be in ubisoft's interest.

Ubisoft cares only about spinning and juggling many crystal balls in the air and then hoping that when it crashes on the floor, the glass doesn't fly into their eyes. They want to keep the Lore as "open" as possible...so my advice is don't get too attached.
Its this very decision that is gardening so much hate from many fans. Yet Ubisoft ponders why they get so much hate?

VestigialLlama4
01-19-2016, 06:32 PM
Its this very decision that is gardening so much hate from many fans. Yet Ubisoft ponders why they get so much hate?

"So much hate?"...we are a small minority. Most people like Syndicate and the Fryes. That's all ubisoft cares for. For them, the fans of AC3, a game released in 2012, is very much yesterday's news....considering that it was released 4 years back they have a point. AC is targeting "new fans" rather than established fandom.

The thing about how Ubisoft works is that they have some long term plans but they leave a certain window for changes and shifts. If AC3 and Unity was popular across-the-board, Connor and Arno would have gotten a sequel or a saga. Instead of a wretched piece of trash like Rogue, we would have gotten a proper Connor's REVELATIONS. UNITY was intended to be a big breakthrough, and Arno was intended for future use. That game did not do what it was supposed to do and Syndicate is a salvage job, a no-drama low-stakes adventure.

Basically, Ubisoft doesn't have some masterplan for its games, it's based on contingent plans, expectations, enthusiasm among fans and developers, marketing and so on. The initial plan was do a Desmond Trilogy of AC1-AC2-AC3. Then Ezio became popular and you had development creep...with Brotherhood going from DLC to full release, then Revelations and then AC3, annualization became a thing. You also have to understand that Ubisoft pretty much have to put out a big AC game every year. It has a huge company in Montreal for which it gets tax breaks and they have to put out products for their stockbrokers, keep their staff employed and justify their existence. This is business realities. In this reality, a bunch of fans who pine for some fictional character from a game that came back in 2012, that only a small bunch of online nerds (myself included) care about...we are so low on their priorities that we don't even qualify for the office rubbish bin. Stuff like Lore doesn't matter at all, MD not going anywhere, plot consistency, loose ends...forget it. From their perspective, given how the video game market changes, given how expensive AAA games are, all this makes sense.

I am saying this for your sake. I think fans need to stop doing Ubisoft's job for them. Stop pining for their products, stop making theories for lore and all that. It's not written in mind with you at all. Yes if a game is written by Darby McDevitt and Corey May, maybe, possibly. But Darby doesn't run AC, he's just one of many writers...the rest of them talk at cross-purposes and do stuff without thinking, not that I blame them, but it's clearly a job for them. No single guy does, and he would most likely prefer to do his own IP and game than "run AC". Yes, ubisoft should care about consistency, they should care for storytelling values but then again if Ubisoft did care for that, it's likely Patrice Desilets would not have walked out to start with, nor would they have shelved 1666.

Civona
01-19-2016, 07:21 PM
I don't want conclusions to stories I've been burning out on, I want a new story that feels different. It seems like they're going to make the next game's protagonist stick around for a few games, so it's fine if they show more of his life, but the idea of everything in the series needing to be 'completed' is insane. It's like the worst possible extension of the mentality endless collectibles inspire. I want that mentality out of AC, the constant breadcrumbing and answers to every vague mystery. I want it to feel more like uncovering a history, and histories leave gaps and unclear situations.

cawatrooper9
01-19-2016, 07:33 PM
I can say that Syndicate is an actual "self contained" story, as it really told the life and closure of the Frye Twins really well. We know of their beginnings, their accomplishments throughout their adult life, they married to their respective husband/wife, had children which one of their descendants fought in WWI, and that they peacefully retired to the countryside. Not to mention that there is barely any loose ends to consider, other than the fact if Evie did have kids as well as if the marriage with Green was good or not, seeing as we were with her in 1888 at around her 40s.

Exactly my point- the Fryes' entire storyline was to kill Starrick and take back London. Not a


Isn't there debate if she is an ancestor to Monima Das?
It's certainly possible, given her Monima's connection to Abbraz.



Also I think that with Shay around, I don't think Connor's story is wrapped up now that he has an Assassin Hunter as a potential Grand Master to deal with. Especially since Shay declared himself a member of the American Rite of Templars, in addition to full dedication to the cause, its another player to the game. Its these two rebuilding their respective powers and fighting to influence in the new country.
That's very true. This is simply begging for a game to be made about it... but I think we all know how unlikely that is. Besides, they've made more than enough games for that time period and geographic setting for a quite a long time.



I don't want conclusions to stories I've been burning out on, I want a new story that feels different. It seems like they're going to make the next game's protagonist stick around for a few games, so it's fine if they show more of his life, but the idea of everything in the series needing to be 'completed' is insane. It's like the worst possible extension of the mentality endless collectibles inspire. I want that mentality out of AC, the constant breadcrumbing and answers to every vague mystery. I want it to feel more like uncovering a history, and histories leave gaps and unclear situations.

Ohhhh man, I don't know about that. Like many here have said, if "completed" means knowing every detail of an Assassin's life unto death, then yeah, sure I agree with you. But, for the most part, I want things at least completed in the traditional sense- I'd prefer not to have non sequitur after non sequitur.

VestigialLlama4
01-19-2016, 07:38 PM
I don't want conclusions to stories I've been burning out on, I want a new story that feels different. It seems like they're going to make the next game's protagonist stick around for a few games, so it's fine if they show more of his life, but the idea of everything in the series needing to be 'completed' is insane.

Understanding why ubisoft makes stories like that is one thing, condoning it is quite another.

Fans absolutely have a right to expect closure to characters especially when the first two characters got that in their superior games and the nature of the Animus is such that we absolutely can know the past. Otherwise, Assassin's Creed is just like any superhero comic book with endless continuities and retcons, and even the Batman Arkham games are well liked because they provided closure across all three games, answering all details.


I want that mentality out of AC, the constant breadcrumbing and answers to every vague mystery.

You mean you don't want quality writing? You don't want details that are followed through and acknowledged, you don't want your immersion into the background to be rewarded. Okay...

The thing is the way Ubisoft makes AC now is far less immersive than ever before. It can only be enjoyed on a surface level engagement and trying to grapple with it on a deeper level will only disappoint you. Which is why I say don't get too attached because in games like Unity and Syndicate, ''what you see is what you get''. This was not true of the games until Black Flag where the value system was different than the one that came with Unity which poisoned the well of the series.


I want it to feel more like uncovering a history, and histories leave gaps and unclear situations.

That's not remotely analogous to this situation at all. What fans want is conclusions, closures and something needing to be "completed", you get that in history all the time. Empires rise and fall, kings die, wars are won and lost...and all of them have consequences which matter. That's how history works, the roads you walk on, the buildings that surround you and the streets you lived in were planted and erected as a result of social and political consquences in the past 100 years, which is connected to something even further back.

The point of the Animus is that we can know the past clearly. That is the hook since AC1, no room for subjectivity. The joke is that the MD characters, at Abstergo and possibly the MD Assassins know all about the historical characters. They know what happened to Connor, Arno and the Fryes. We are in a situation where in-universe protagonists know the backstory but fans are not told. That is awful serial storytelling and frustrating on every level. The fact that Ubisoft let this persist is an example of shocking incompetence and defending that in such pseudo terms is shameful.

Bipolar Matt
01-19-2016, 09:19 PM
"So much hate?"...we are a small minority. Most people like Syndicate and the Fryes. That's all ubisoft cares for. For them, the fans of AC3, a game released in 2012, is very much yesterday's news....considering that it was released 4 years back they have a point. AC is targeting "new fans" rather than established fandom.

The thing about how Ubisoft works is that they have some long term plans but they leave a certain window for changes and shifts. If AC3 and Unity was popular across-the-board, Connor and Arno would have gotten a sequel or a saga. Instead of a wretched piece of trash like Rogue, we would have gotten a proper Connor's REVELATIONS. UNITY was intended to be a big breakthrough, and Arno was intended for future use. That game did not do what it was supposed to do and Syndicate is a salvage job, a no-drama low-stakes adventure.

Basically, Ubisoft doesn't have some masterplan for its games, it's based on contingent plans, expectations, enthusiasm among fans and developers, marketing and so on. The initial plan was do a Desmond Trilogy of AC1-AC2-AC3. Then Ezio became popular and you had development creep...with Brotherhood going from DLC to full release, then Revelations and then AC3, annualization became a thing. You also have to understand that Ubisoft pretty much have to put out a big AC game every year. It has a huge company in Montreal for which it gets tax breaks and they have to put out products for their stockbrokers, keep their staff employed and justify their existence. This is business realities. In this reality, a bunch of fans who pine for some fictional character from a game that came back in 2012, that only a small bunch of online nerds (myself included) care about...we are so low on their priorities that we don't even qualify for the office rubbish bin. Stuff like Lore doesn't matter at all, MD not going anywhere, plot consistency, loose ends...forget it. From their perspective, given how the video game market changes, given how expensive AAA games are, all this makes sense.

I am saying this for your sake. I think fans need to stop doing Ubisoft's job for them. Stop pining for their products, stop making theories for lore and all that. It's not written in mind with you at all. Yes if a game is written by Darby McDevitt and Corey May, maybe, possibly. But Darby doesn't run AC, he's just one of many writers...the rest of them talk at cross-purposes and do stuff without thinking, not that I blame them, but it's clearly a job for them. No single guy does, and he would most likely prefer to do his own IP and game than "run AC". Yes, ubisoft should care about consistency, they should care for storytelling values but then again if Ubisoft did care for that, it's likely Patrice Desilets would not have walked out to start with, nor would they have shelved 1666.

Very well said, with one exception.

I didn't think Rogue was a wretched piece of trash at all. It's actually in my top 4 AC games. I think you're entirely too harsh on the game, but I can respect different tastes.

Mr.Black24
01-20-2016, 01:50 AM
"So much hate?"...we are a small minority. Most people like Syndicate and the Fryes. That's all ubisoft cares for. For them, the fans of AC3, a game released in 2012, is very much yesterday's news....considering that it was released 4 years back they have a point. AC is targeting "new fans" rather than established fandom.
We are a minority? Have you been on other AC dedicated areas? Like on AC Reddit and AC Tumblr? How many times have I heard many people talk about whats going on in the series in general. The progress of MD? The lore and various things that needs closure? They notice the decline of quality of the series, they ain't dumb. This group isn't the only one that address such things. They liked the game sure, buts because its a better step up from wreaked up Unity. Not to mention it is a good platform to get back on its feet again. I like Syndicate mostly because it proves to me that with more time and effort, the series can be something great again.


The thing about how Ubisoft works is that they have some long term plans but they leave a certain window for changes and shifts. If AC3 and Unity was popular across-the-board, Connor and Arno would have gotten a sequel or a saga. Instead of a wretched piece of trash like Rogue, we would have gotten a proper Connor's REVELATIONS. UNITY was intended to be a big breakthrough, and Arno was intended for future use. That game did not do what it was supposed to do and Syndicate is a salvage job, a no-drama low-stakes adventure. Unfortunately that is true, that I agree with you on.

Although Rogue isn't that bad in my opinion.


Basically, Ubisoft doesn't have some masterplan for its games, it's based on contingent plans, expectations, enthusiasm among fans and developers, marketing and so on. The initial plan was do a Desmond Trilogy of AC1-AC2-AC3. Then Ezio became popular and you had development creep...with Brotherhood going from DLC to full release, then Revelations and then AC3, annualization became a thing. You also have to understand that Ubisoft pretty much have to put out a big AC game every year. It has a huge company in Montreal for which it gets tax breaks and they have to put out products for their stockbrokers, keep their staff employed and justify their existence. This is business realities. In this reality, a bunch of fans who pine for some fictional character from a game that came back in 2012, that only a small bunch of online nerds (myself included) care about...we are so low on their priorities that we don't even qualify for the office rubbish bin. Stuff like Lore doesn't matter at all, MD not going anywhere, plot consistency, loose ends...forget it. From their perspective, given how the video game market changes, given how expensive AAA games are, all this makes sense.


I am saying this for your sake. I think fans need to stop doing Ubisoft's job for them. Stop pining for their products, stop making theories for lore and all that. It's not written in mind with you at all. Yes if a game is written by Darby McDevitt and Corey May, maybe, possibly. But Darby doesn't run AC, he's just one of many writers...the rest of them talk at cross-purposes and do stuff without thinking, not that I blame them, but it's clearly a job for them. No single guy does, and he would most likely prefer to do his own IP and game than "run AC". Yes, ubisoft should care about consistency, they should care for storytelling values but then again if Ubisoft did care for that, it's likely Patrice Desilets would not have walked out to start with, nor would they have shelved 1666.

Obviously I know that Darby, Corey, and co aren't in charge. Hell I understand they want to do their own things too. Hell I understand it all.

Basically I guess what I'm trying to say is, now that AC is all doomed, and now its status is just a mediocre game that will get nowhere in lore or anything, and just pandering to casual gamers, then why bother playing it at all? I play for the exciting story and drama, but now with this weakening and lacking care, there is little reason for me to stick around. And I'm not saying this to be an attention seeker, the very reason I play the games and get involved with the fandom is because the story and lore itself. Its like scaring of the loyal hardcore fans and just bringing in the ones who don't care about anything else but the stabbing and historic places. That is my fear, and a fear that I think is solidifying and now is becoming concrete absolution. I still hope that things could change, but at this rate, just forget about it I guess.

VestigialLlama4
01-20-2016, 05:48 AM
We are a minority? Have you been on other AC dedicated areas? Like on AC Reddit and AC Tumblr? How many times have I heard many people talk about whats going on in the series in general. The progress of MD? The lore and various things that needs closure? They notice the decline of quality of the series, they ain't dumb.

It doesn't matter. The people who post online, not only here but at Reddit, at Access Animus, at Tumblr are a small minority compared to the people who buy the games. Even in terms of online coverage, AC fans don't matter...kotaku/game-informer/outsidexbox and other sites matter a bit more than us. Hence the fact their quasi-racist nerdrage scared Ubisoft into abandoning Connor in the same way Victor Emmanuel succumbed to Mussolini despite his small numbers of upjumped protestors. It's those guys Ubisoft kept in mind when they made Unity...and I guess the upcoming Empire, with all this talk of "Be more like Witcher" and other BS.

UNITY was made to address complaints and critics: hence no MD, hence fewer side missions and "bloat", hence removing the "Gump Factor" and "Charismatic A--hole/Ezioclone" to fit their conception. Now if Unity was a competent product, I think it would have done well with this crowd since very few of the real criticisms had anything to do with its real content and missions. It's a game made to appeal to ignorance. They then settled into a comfortable blandness/don't-rock-the-boat attitude with Syndicate and i think from now on, they will stick to that because it's a comfort zone. You have to understand that Ubisoft have made non-stop Assassin's Creed games since 2009 (AC2 came out), that's 7 years where most of the company, across multiple studios in different parts of the world is employed doing one kind of game. There's a lot of pressure, a lot of scrutiny and a lot at stake. So at some point there is bound to be burnout. So you need to see things from their point of view.


Basically I guess what I'm trying to say is, now that AC is all doomed, and now its status is just a mediocre game that will get nowhere in lore or anything, and just pandering to casual gamers, then why bother playing it at all? I play for the exciting story and drama, but now with this weakening and lacking care, there is little reason for me to stick around.

You can play AC when it comes next year or year after for the same reason you play any AAA title these days...there's not much else. Play the games for the setting, for the box-art, for who the writers may or may not be, buy it used or at a sale if you wish, do all this. But don't fall into LOST syndrome, don't get your hopes up, don't get too immersed. Accept the games for what they are and don't make the mistake, as I once did, of making it into something it isn't. You'll find it's easier and more satisfying that way. And you know, ubisoft's standalone philosophy is not bad...It allows each game to chart its own identity and approach, and some room for innovation.

The fact is most franchises and serial storytelling eventually will disappoint you. The only gaming franchise that is actually satisfying in terms of story and lore is the Batman Arkham games where across three games, you have a sustained build-up, escalation and a satisfying payoff, where each individual game is satisfying-on-its-own but gains richness in association, making a product that is far superior to the wretched comic books it derives from. But that's an exception. This is also probably the main reason why Valve doesn't do Half-Life 3. The Original Half Life 1 was a sophisticated shooter, the second game and its episodes made it into a rich, layered sci-fi adventure story...aka classic development creep. It became something it was not intended to be at its onset and Valve can probably never fully provide a satisfying payoff to what they set up. Instead they moved on to Portal and Portal 2, two games that are richly satisfying and interconnected and provide a sustained pay-off. This is true for movies and books as well...Return of the Jedi is a classic example.

Basically, don't bother thinking too much about the Lore or thinking things through. Do that for the games until Black Flag. Just pretend Unity was a continuity reboot. Have No Expectations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rIqBeMZAMc

MikeFNY
01-20-2016, 08:43 AM
Accept the games for what they are and don't make the mistake, as I once did, of making it into something it isn't. You'll find it's easier and more satisfying that way.
So, so, so true.

I called it a day with AC after the third one, the buggy controls made me hate the game I once loved and also the same friend who introduced me to the series, back then, already warned me that the series has become an over-milked cow.

When Unity came out with all the bugs and what not, I knew I was right in abandoning the series but at one stage I missed the series so much that I gave Black Flag and Rogue a try. I didn't like Black Flag that much, mostly because I sucked in maneuvering the ship. With Rogue that was improved and as someone else said earlier, it's up there with the best in the series for me.

Then came the patched version of Unity, I remember buying it before even buying the console. I sincerely though that the special feeling I once felt for the game would be back, mostly because Rogue made me love the series again and the cliffhanger ending, if so can be called, gave me hopes over Unity.

Back then I used to play the games without reading anything online so I expected Unity to feature some sort of story where Arno goes after Shay.

But it wasn't to be, I loved the graphics, I loved Paris but the story was not as interesting as I hoped.

Which is when I told myself, "Stop being a fool, the series will never be special or epic again." For example when I saw clips of Syndicate I was like, "What? A rope launcher? Really?" or else, "What? They are marketing the game by saying that there will be a new feature where you can take an enemy back out of the haystack?" How many of you used the latter by the way?

Anyway, that is when I told myself, "Hey, remember, no expectations. If there is a rope launcher, use it, if there is a silly chameleon skill, use it, else you will not enjoy the game." Granted, I didn't use these two features and still enjoyed the game but you know what I'm trying to say here.

If you believe the series will again feel special then I'm afraid you will not enjoy the game for what it is. Today, I play AC for what it is, a fun game, nothing more, nothing less.

Ultimately, in a perfect world, such a long series would use the first three-four games to attract a crowd and then stick to the original story in future games, ideally a continuous story. This was rarely the case with AC, Ubisoft always played it safe, keeping in mind new players who never played the series before and in a way I cannot blame especially because of the new-gen consoles. How many of you own both a PS3 and a PS4? So how can you expect someone new to the game to understand what is going on if they never played the first games of the series?

That is why a remastered version of old games for the PS4 this year and a revamped version next year makes sense, a lot of sense. Those who never played the game will be introduced to the series this year and if Ubisoft opts for a revamp in 2017, a game where the player needs to have a solid knowledge of the history of the series, the remastered version would do the trick for them.

Heck, sometimes even I struggle to remember who is who. is that Juno? Is that Minerva? What's a sage? I wouldn't mind re-playing all the most important games in the series with an interactive encyclopedia along the way explaining who is who, his/her role and so on.

You will probably say that there is always YouTube or Wikias to understand the story of the series but does it work? I tried it with The Witcher before playing Wild Hunt and I'm still as confused as I was before starting the game. Could be that I'm just plain lazy.

Just to conclude and go back to the original concern of the thread, well, I'm a dreamer and my dream for the series is to end with an epic game where you get to play one mission with all the assassins featured in the series, where all of them go after a piece of eden and in case of some of them we get a well-deserved closer.

Now that would be special.

PS: I know, I should stop talking to myself :)

itsamea-mario
01-20-2016, 09:20 AM
Altair: Syphilis
Ezio: Syphilis
Connor: Syphilis
Aveline: Syphilis
Edward: Syphilis
Adewale: Syphilis
Shay: Syphilis
Arno: Syphilis
Jacob: Syphilis
Evie: Syphilis

warriorpoet23
01-20-2016, 11:50 AM
Excuse my rambling here but I actually had an idea for a game that would be able to give closure to the characters.

It has a new historic assassin and a new modern day one (in third person), but has bits similar to the Altair missions in revelations/ Lydia Frye's storyline in syndicate... You have to find 'something' that gives you access to the previous characters memories. Have the modern character & the historic one both having to find this 'key' so that it doesn't matter when the historic game is set. Could have a long lived Lydia Frye (precursor genes?) be the one who finds the new modern day character and then dies at the end of the game from old age (a changing of the guard sort of thing)

Maybe there's a piece of Eden that they all had access to so you have to track it through history to find where it ended up. Maybe they all travelled to the same location at some point (so Ubisoft doesn't have to create new settings for each character plus there should be vocal tracks from the previous games that could be reused to reduce the cost a little) & there's something hidden there that each character gets one step closer to finding than the previous character did.

One mission per character (maybe combined for Connor/ Shay & the Frye's), you could have Shay kill Connor and then have Arno kill Shay etc. Don't have to include their death's in the missions (could just have it mentioned in a database or in a cutscene or shown during the credits). Could even give Desmond a mission (he went to the new location before he ran away from the farm?). The missions only need to be 10-15 minutes long.

This would be a way to give closure to the previous characters without giving them new games as well as introducing new players to the history of the franchise without them having to play the previous games.

MikeFNY
01-20-2016, 02:39 PM
You're not rumbling, it's very close to what I have in mind, in fact.

The Frye twins would go on a mission to find a piece of eden, they hide it somewhere, not necessarily in London, it could be close, Scotland.

That's a mission, an epic 45-minute mission.

Fast-forward to the modern day, Rebecca, Shaun or whoever goes after this piece, always in the same location, Scotland. It could be easily retrievable or be held in a heavily-guarded area.

And that's another mission. Same setting, different time, different weapons.

Multiply the two missions by the number of assassins we played with and you have an epic finale :)

Ezio in Naples, Arno in Marseille, etc. New settings but same characters.

I might open a thread with what I have in mind, I just need to find the time to write it properly.

VestigialLlama4
01-20-2016, 03:00 PM
Ezio in Naples, Arno in Marseille, etc. New settings but same characters.

Suggestions like these neglect production realities. Assets. Every new city, with distinct architecture, especially for "an epic 45 minute mission" would ask Ubisoft to create a giant amount of expensive assets for brief missions. Asset production is the reason why MD was downplayed after AC3, those Desmond missions, slight as they are were expensive for the team to do, since it was basically separate from the historical portion of the game. The MD settings of earlier games were single interior settings that were easier to create, for AC3 they had to basically create assets that constituted a separate game by itself for throwaway missions.

Asking for an Epic Finale, where different playable assassins appear "in their element" in "Separate cities" is also impossible. You have to understand by and large, ubisoft are clever at faking stuff. Time Anomalies in UNITY are basically Assassination Tombs, i.e. linear levels involving platform and climbing around a single section. Even then it was a lot of effort to do but they did it. It was relatively easier to do Lydia Frye in SYNDICATE since that was one era, not too far from 1868 and involved only a few elements.

Now you might say they should simply take the Connor assets from AC3 and port that into a new game but the engines are different, and Next-Gen is not the same as 7th Gen. The same applies to Ezio which was an even older Generation than the AC3-Black Flag games.

Asking them to port Marseilles, Naples, Connor and Shay in America...aka multiple cities, different architecture, different traversals, protagonists from multiple eras in one game, for basically throwaway side missions is not realistic.

MikeFNY
01-20-2016, 03:06 PM
I never said it would be easy, which is why I called it a dream of mine :)

Rioz22222
01-20-2016, 11:22 PM
LONG DEAD
(expect for arno he became one with the force and traveled through time in my imaginations :) best character ever )

warriorpoet23
01-21-2016, 07:36 AM
If they designed the game so that the modern day/ historic setting were in the same location and at some point in there lives each assassin had gone to that location to find a piece of Eden or something (like the remains of a precursor city) then they wouldn't need to create different cities for each assassin (for some like Connor/ Arno/ Shay/ Haytham/ the Frye's they wouldn't even need to change many of the period specific decorations etc).
Each assassin would be in the same location (masyaf?) just in different time periods. Only thing they might have to change are flags, plant growth etc. Could even have each assassin go past the same thing (door, tree, view etc) and we would see how it has changed over the centuries.

VestigialLlama4
01-21-2016, 07:43 AM
If they designed the game so that the modern day/ historic setting were in the same location and at some point in there lives each assassin had gone to that location to find a piece of Eden or something (like the remains of a precursor city) then they wouldn't need to create different cities for each assassin (for some like Connor/ Arno/ Shay/ Haytham/ the Frye's they wouldn't even need to change many of the period specific decorations etc).

This could work. This was the philosophy of Revelations, where they repurposed Masyaf from AC1, added abstract platforms for MD sequences that were low-intensity and provided two maps (Cappadoccia and Istanbul) and some discreet sections.

The only thing is you need to find a location where realistically Connor/Arno/Shay/Haytham/Fryes were all in one place. Otherwise it could feel very contrived.


Could even have each assassin go past the same thing (door, tree, view etc) and we would see how it has changed over the centuries.

That is very literary, potentially quite poignant and absolutely out of Ubisoft's depth.

Mr.Black24
01-21-2016, 08:17 AM
This could work. This was the philosophy of Revelations, where they repurposed Masyaf from AC1, added abstract platforms for MD sequences that were low-intensity and provided two maps (Cappadoccia and Istanbul) and some discreet sections.

The only thing is you need to find a location where realistically Connor/Arno/Shay/Haytham/Fryes were all in one place. Otherwise it could feel very contrived. I'm pretty sure that is the general idea if they were going for a Arno/Aveline/Connor/Shay sequel. Repurpose New York, a portion of the Frontier, North Atlantic, and the River Valley for the game. I mean, unless if they take them to a new section in America, I thought those were the settings they would use as the stage. I mean look at the Aveline DLC for Black Flag, they mostly used assets of the Frontier from AC3 and amped it up with the upgraded Anvil Engine, and it looked good.

And I'm not saying, A to B and done! Just thought that's how it was going to be to save time and money.

MikeFNY
01-21-2016, 08:25 AM
If they designed the game so that the modern day/ historic setting were in the same location and at some point in there lives each assassin had gone to that location to find a piece of Eden or something (like the remains of a precursor city) then they wouldn't need to create different cities for each assassin (for some like Connor/ Arno/ Shay/ Haytham/ the Frye's they wouldn't even need to change many of the period specific decorations etc).
Each assassin would be in the same location (masyaf?) just in different time periods. Only thing they might have to change are flags, plant growth etc. Could even have each assassin go past the same thing (door, tree, view etc) and we would see how it has changed over the centuries.

Yes, that's more or less what I would like to see, I wouldn't expect them to create a 1:1 Napoli or Marseille, just part of it, very similar to what they did in Rogue with the great Lisbon mission.

I would be extremely disappointed if the series ends with a 100% modern day story with guns and cars, it would however be very nostalgic if we give one last farewell to our heroes.

But it's too early to even think about that, isn't it? :)

VestigialLlama4
01-21-2016, 09:12 AM
And I'm not saying, A to B and done! Just thought that's how it was going to be to save time and money.

Ideally they should have done this in a Story DLC for Black Flag or Rogue, or alternatively just made this game you wanted instead of Rogue with Shay's story...there was absolutely no need for Shay's existence in the first place. I mean the point of Rogue in terms of market utility was to target fans of AC3 and Black Flag, basically give the Kenway Saga its AC:Revelations. Revelations made in 11 months essentially served to wrap up the Altair-Ezio era in time for AC3. Rogue should have wrapped up the Kenways in the same way in time for Unity. Instead it just added more loose threads and one more crystal ball in the air and furthermore did not even wrap up the Kenway saga since it didn't tell us about Connor's later life which is the only reason fans care about the Kenway saga. We know what happened to Haytham and Edward, we actually wanted to learn about the non-Aryan in the family.

The incompetence of Rogue as a product is also evidenced by its total lack of contribution. Revelations after all gave us a brand new city unlike anything in AC1 and AC2, indeed it was the biggest and densest urban area for any game until Unity and Syndicate. It also introduced new form of traversal and a bomb mechanic. Rogue just repurposes AC3 and Black Flag and nothing else. The weather of AC3 becomes simple ice levels in the Arctic, we have New York with Havana colours, little in the way of aesthetic and geographical difference, topographical layers, natural world design, all of them gone, when they are all features of the jaw-dropping natural world in AC3. But now, they just missed the boat and I think the best thing for Ubisoft is to wash their hands, put a compendium some time later that discusses all the details and leftovers, and forget about it and move forward. I don't want to see Shay's face ever again.

To me Mr. I-Don't-Actually-Make-My-Own-Luck is the jump-the-shark moment for the franchise, the Lisbon earthquake is the worst creative decision taken in the series and the game is an embarassment. William Faulkner said between grief and nothing I will choose grief. That's why I choose Unity over Rogue. Unity is disappointing because it had potential and it was governed by a vision, misinformed and misguided as it was and it could have been salvaged even with the approach they had taken. Rogue on the other hand, is a nihilistic piece of garbage, unworthy of the material used to print the disc and box-art.


I would be extremely disappointed if the series ends with a 100% modern day story with guns and cars, it would however be very nostalgic if we give one last farewell to our heroes.

The problem is that AC is fundamentally different from other games in that it doesn't really have a single cast. It has multiple casts. That nostalgia appeal you wanted is possible in titles like Metal Gear Solid where it's basically about elaborate and overwritten backstories involving a small group of characters. In AC, because it's historical fiction, it has multiple stories across different eras. That "last farewell" you want is there for Altair and Ezio in Revelations for instance. Revelations marked the end of the original AC Era, it was the first main title without Patrice Desilets' involvement. AC3 was the start of the new era. Unity was intended to be a fresh start, a stylistic reboot and a clean slate.

Nostalgia is kind of lame and unsatisfying anyway. The only real nostalgia is replaying AC1 and all the old games.

cawatrooper9
01-21-2016, 03:45 PM
That is very literary, potentially quite poignant and absolutely out of Ubisoft's depth.

Jeez, when did you get so jaded?

VestigialLlama4
01-21-2016, 04:22 PM
Jeez, when did you get so jaded?

I am actually not being jaded at all. I am respectful and understanding of Ubisoft. I actually feel bad for them since they are under a lot of pressure and a great deal is riding on these products. They get very little enthusiasm and respect for their real achievements, and instead get saddled by a bunch of talentless worms across the internet who would be incapable of making a product like Liberation, leave alone their really good games, are plagued by vultures like Kotaku who leak their products and embarass them. This makes Ubisoft so paranoid and henpecked that they make genuine gaffes like "Women are too hard to animate" and this scares them from doing interviews after launch, only lending their voice to Loomer.

The one time they really did try and challenge themselves, with AC3, they didn't get enough support within the industry and the gaming public, while a safe, conventional product with bland characters like Syndicate gets really overpraised. Given the gaming culture with their fan requests, their racism and misogyny, and the stranglehold they have on opinion and demands, Ubisoft has compromised and sold out far less than other companies have. That they have compromised and sold out is not a surprise because anybody else in their position would do the same.

Ubisoft is staying alive by following trends. Today's trends is systems-based, and mini campaigns and an open narrative. Basically Shadow of Mordor, with it's empty Tabula Rasa protagonist, self-regenerating campaigns and absolute lack of meaningful story. In games like this, the less developed and interesting your character is the better, the simpler and less compelling the story the better and the more open-ended and unresolved the conclusion, the better. That way, people can enter and play these games at a drop, with very little baggage and it's easier to self-reproduce future installments without stuff like "Lore" and "Continuity" to worry about. Serial storytelling is inherently frustrating and rarely satisfying and given the angry nature of the public and the industry, Ubisoft is fairly disillusioned about doing these kind of games and I can't blame them.

If I were coming into the franchise today, with no expectations, I would like Syndicate and Rogue more than I do. Unity would still offend me since the French Revolution is my all time favorite period in history and I cannot be expected to be objective on that front. I can be a cranky old guy and invoke the first games, and I have done that in the past (and I do that today) but the truth is, I have those games with me and I can play them anytime and I should be pretty grateful for Ubisoft for having gotten further than anybody expected. If you want a compelling serial narrative, then the Batman Arkham games are the last of their kind. They have proper beginning-middle-end, loose ends tied and tell a satisfying story that rewards immersion and committment. These games are able to do this because they have a huge license that is independent of them. Ubisoft has no such luxury. AC is their own IP, their own brand and it's up to them to maintain that license by any means necessary.

cawatrooper9
01-21-2016, 04:30 PM
I am actually not being jaded at all. I am respectful and understanding of Ubisoft. I actually feel bad for them since they are under a lot of pressure and a great deal is riding on these products. They get very little enthusiasm and respect for their real achievements, and instead get saddled by a bunch of talentless worms across the internet who would be incapable of making a product like Liberation, leave alone their really good games, are plagued by vultures like Kotaku who leak their products and embarass them. This makes Ubisoft so paranoid and henpecked that they make genuine gaffes like "Women are too hard to animate" and this scares them from doing interviews after launch, only lending their voice to Loomer.

The one time they really did try and challenge themselves, with AC3, they didn't get enough support within the industry and the gaming public, while a safe, conventional product with bland characters like Syndicate gets really overpraised. Given the gaming culture with their fan requests, their racism and misogyny, and the stranglehold they have on opinion and demands, Ubisoft has compromised and sold out far less than other companies have. That they have compromised and sold out is not a surprise because anybody else in their position would do the same.

Ubisoft is staying alive by following trends. Today's trends is systems-based, and mini campaigns and an open narrative. Basically Shadow of Mordor, with it's empty Tabula Rasa protagonist, self-regenerating campaigns and absolute lack of meaningful story. In games like this, the less developed and interesting your character is the better, the simpler and less compelling the story the better and the more open-ended and unresolved the conclusion, the better. That way, people can enter and play these games at a drop, with very little baggage and it's easier to self-reproduce future installments without stuff like "Lore" and "Continuity" to worry about. Serial storytelling is inherently frustrating and rarely satisfying and given the angry nature of the public and the industry, Ubisoft is fairly disillusioned about doing these kind of games and I can't blame them.

If I were coming into the franchise today, with no expectations, I would like Syndicate and Rogue more than I do. Unity would still offend me since the French Revolution is my all time favorite period in history and I cannot be expected to be objective on that front. I can be a cranky old guy and invoke the first games, and I have done that in the past (and I do that today) but the truth is, I have those games with me and I can play them anytime and I should be pretty grateful for Ubisoft for having gotten further than anybody expected. If you want a compelling serial narrative, then the Batman Arkham games are the last of their kind. They have proper beginning-middle-end, loose ends tied and tell a satisfying story that rewards immersion and committment. These games are able to do this because they have a huge license that is independent of them. Ubisoft has no such luxury. AC is their own IP, their own brand and it's up to them to maintain that license by any means necessary.

You're a pretty smart guy, as far as I've seen. That's why I ask, when you say something like "absolutely out of Ubisoft's depth", I can't help but cringe. Is it far more literary than what we've seen in the past few games? Sure, I'd probably agree with that. But such a claim is quite arrogant, otherwise, and is also harmful to this franchise that we both presumably enjoy.

I agree that it's a shame that some of Ubisoft's more complex games (AC1, AC3, and I'd even perhaps argue ACRo, though I already well know how you feel on that matter) are generally not well received by the public. That being said, that doesn't mean that Ubisoft has to drop all pretenses of art. Rather than whining that Ubisoft cannot do something, why not champion the cause that they do do it? Otherwise, you're basically just crying and screaming at a wall.

VestigialLlama4
01-21-2016, 05:05 PM
That's why I ask, when you say something like "absolutely out of Ubisoft's depth", I can't help but cringe. Is it far more literary than what we've seen in the past few games? Sure, I'd probably agree with that. But such a claim is quite arrogant, otherwise, and is also harmful to this franchise that we both presumably enjoy.

The truth is, I am not entirely sure if "literariness" is even a thing worth aspiring to in games. I mean I am kind of cheesed off by the whole "Games as Art" movement because a lot of the arty games (Limbo, Braid, Brothers Tale of 2 Sons) are fairly disappointing outside of a particular concept, and even that concept is hardly more than a gimmick. Games like these are "literary". I mean yeah it's "all about the gameplay" but basically the core emotion and conceit of these games is riffing off of literary ideas. They are totally humorless products and are not so much gaming's equivalent of Citizen Kane as the endless student films made in film school with clever ideas. I feel the same way about The Last of Us (a pretentious overdressed zombie game), Bioshock (pretentious overdressed First Person Shooter) and Bioshock Infinite (genuinely interesting ideas and situation betrayed by its choice of being a Shooter). These games are overpraised not so much for being complex but for seeming complex while remaining in traditional genres and familiar conventions. If they try to change that a little bit they will get burnt.

I mean take Syndicate. Evie is personality wise quite a bit like Connor. She is serious, sincere and a little naive. But most of her content is optional. The only missions the player really has to play are story missions (and the DLC), and she gets 2 of the game's 7 Assassination missions. Because the player has to choice to dial up her presence, Evie has a positive reception since misogynists aren't forced to play as a woman and so they don't complain that Evie is schoolmarmish, immature and too nice to be a killer. By making her option, we mostly listen to the people who choose to play as Evie, and as such they are predisposed to being favorable to her. In AC3, if Ubisoft had made Connor and Haytham like a buddy cop show and made it optional to play as either, i am sure Connor would have gotten a positive reception. You always need to have the Aryan Male as a backup to sell your product. So long as games refuse to challenge the basic commercial enterprise that underpins the industry, a whole set of assumptions of (dos and donts), you can forget about literariness, forget about art or any such things.


That being said, that doesn't mean that Ubisoft has to drop all pretenses of art. Rather than whining that Ubisoft cannot do something, why not champion the cause that they do do it?

I am helping Ubisoft by dialing down my expectations, that way when they do something a little unexpected (like the Jack the Ripper DLC) I am more pleased and impressed than the product warrants. I also think Ubisoft should try and do new settings and make standalone games. I say do 20s Berlin, do more Time Anomalies and so on. I would still be an AC fan I think because nobody else does what these games do. And I don't think anyone else will. If Darby McDevitt writes another AC game, I will totally play that because he and people like him (Patrice Desilets, Corey May) give these games it's meaning and special flavour. Yet, if Darby McDevitt works on a new IP or does any new game, I will be equally excited for that.

And you know dropping pretenses of art is a good thing. After all Shakespeare never thought his plays were high art. In games, my favorite games are Psychonauts and Portal (essentially video game comedies). I think Super Mario 64 is one of very few masterpieces worth preservation in a museum because it's joyous and ingenious design.

cawatrooper9
01-21-2016, 05:20 PM
The truth is, I am not entirely sure if "literariness" is even a thing worth aspiring to in games. I mean I am kind of cheesed off by the whole "Games as Art" movement because a lot of the arty games (Limbo, Braid, Brothers Tale of 2 Sons) are fairly disappointing outside of a particular concept, and even that concept is hardly more than a gimmick. Games like these are "literary". I mean yeah it's "all about the gameplay" but basically the core emotion and conceit of these games is riffing off of literary ideas. They are totally humorless products and are not so much gaming's equivalent of Citizen Kane as the endless student films made in film school with clever ideas. I feel the same way about The Last of Us (a pretentious overdressed zombie game), Bioshock (pretentious overdressed First Person Shooter) and Bioshock Infinite (genuinely interesting ideas and situation betrayed by its choice of being a Shooter). These games are overpraised not so much for being complex but for seeming complex while remaining in traditional genres and familiar conventions. If they try to change that a little bit they will get burnt.

Artsy video games can be pretty hit and miss. They're by no means a surefire hit- and, like most art, is evaluated by the eye of the beholder. For instance, I'd argue that a game like Portal is artsy in many ways, and I think it works.


I mean take Syndicate. Evie is personality wise quite a bit like Connor. She is serious, sincere and a little naive. But most of her content is optional. The only missions the player really has to play are story missions (and the DLC), and she gets 2 of the game's 7 Assassination missions. Because the player has to choice to dial up her presence, Evie has a positive reception since misogynists aren't forced to play as a woman and so they don't complain that Evie is schoolmarmish, immature and too nice to be a killer. By making her option, we mostly listen to the people who choose to play as Evie, and as such they are predisposed to being favorable to her. In AC3, if Ubisoft had made Connor and Haytham like a buddy cop show and made it optional to play as either, i am sure Connor would have gotten a positive reception. You always need to have the Aryan Male as a backup to sell your product. So long as games refuse to challenge the basic commercial enterprise that underpins the industry, a whole set of assumptions of (dos and donts), you can forget about literariness, forget about art or any such things.
This is one of those cases where I really hope someone's wrong about humanity or pop culture, but I have to admit that the argument has some value.
While 2016 in particular showed that female-led films could do exceedingly well, I can't help but think that the state of gaming is a little different. Stuff like Gamergate (oh look, I think I just summoned a demon just by typing that word) show that the gaming community as a whole may not be ready to tackle complex social issues yet. It's a shame, to be sure.

So I guess that's a valid point, much as I hate to admit it.




I am helping Ubisoft by dialing down my expectations, that way when they do something a little unexpected (like the Jack the Ripper DLC) I am more pleased and impressed than the product warrants. I also think Ubisoft should try and do new settings and make standalone games. I say do 20s Berlin, do more Time Anomalies and so on. I would still be an AC fan I think because nobody else does what these games do. And I don't think anyone else will. If Darby McDevitt writes another AC game, I will totally play that because he and people like him (Patrice Desilets, Corey May) give these games it's meaning and special flavour. Yet, if Darby McDevitt works on a new IP or does any new game, I will be equally excited for that.
We all have our own ways of showing support, I suppose. Personally, I think the best way to support Ubisoft is to be critical of their products, but to also be well informed. For instance, I don't think the past few games have been perfect, not by any means. But I also do not think that annualization is the central issue here- at most it's a symptom as well, rather than the cause. So, me arguing against anti-annualization is by no means an apologetic stance for Ubisoft- I still expect more from them, I just think there is a better strategy than simply slowing down the release cycle. Again, if they do need to take a year off, that's fine- but I'd rather they do it because it was needed for development, rather than because they're pandering to the uneducated masses. Also, if that's the case, they probably need to take additional actions, as well.

That being said, I think "lowering your expectations" is really only fair if you now believe your past expectations were unattainable. If you're merely lowering them because you are unhappy with the past few games and don't want to be disappointed again- well, I personally don't really see that as being what's best for the series. You can still enjoy games for what they are, while also criticizing them and wishing for what they could have been.

VestigialLlama4
01-21-2016, 06:02 PM
For instance, I'd argue that a game like Portal is artsy in many ways, and I think it works.

It is but fundamentally the game is rooted in the 2D Prince of Persia, an Escape-Narrative and a twist on realistic platforming. It's quite funny and has cool original songs. Artsy is Bioshock, taking influences from a range of mediums, invoking classy references (art deco, period music, film noir). Portal does none of that yet it covers a lot of the same issues, of railroading, manipulation, of listening to instructions. I mean Portal 2 has Cave Johnson, a similar eccentric visionary as Andrew Ryan but someone whose personality is equally monstrous and evil, yet framed as a goofy cartoon mad scientist. And Glados is more impressive than Frank Fontaine.


This is one of those cases where I really hope someone's wrong about humanity or pop culture...

Pop culture is mostly about fads and what we see is just another one, i.e. this interest in gender issues. It would be nice if it brings a permanent sea change but mostly you will see maybe, more decent and interesting attempts at representation for a few years and then the market changes/becomes expensive and the reset button brings everyone back down a peg. At present, the conventional AAA market is eroding. So who knows where things will go from here. Syndicate still plays things safe with Evie but I doubt that Ubisoft will ever release a main AAA title with a headlining woman protagonist. The aryan race will remain the norm as it has been for the last twenty years.


That being said, I think "lowering your expectations" is really only fair if you now believe your past expectations were unattainable.

In terms of AC fulfilling its potential of historical immersion, its ability to tell narratives about place and change, narrate history across cultures and place...yes those are unattainable now. Because the market and interest for that has gone. AC was a novelty and at the time when the novelty was at its freshest, that should have been the moment when ubisoft went guns a-blazing and dedicating itself to its craziest/densest and most ambitious idea. After AC2 basically, or maybe even after Black Flag but now that novelty has gone.

Today open world gaming in other games is about emergent agency/choice mechanics and breadcrumbs rather than a prolonged climax at the Vatican. It's no longer about campaigns with a single sprawling story and telling a single character experience. All these people want AC to be like Witcher, to be like Mordor, be like Phantom Pain. Even Arkham Knight, the most traditional open world game last year, essentially has a structure of main campaign placed beside separate story quests you can pursue and integrate at your leisure and it got criticism because it put in the new style alongside the traditional sprawling story. Basically, earlier people wanted games to be like movies, now they want games to be like TV shows.

phoenix-force411
01-21-2016, 07:49 PM
Did Ubisoft discard the fact that ancestor memories stop recording after the ancestor's first child is conceived?

cawatrooper9
01-21-2016, 08:09 PM
Did Ubisoft discard the fact that ancestor memories stop recording after the ancestor's first child is conceived?

Was that specifically with the first child, or just the child through the bloodline? For instance, Jenny would've been Edward's first child, but it makes more sense that his memories would continue (at least those collected by Desmond) up until Haytham's conception, since that was how the bloodline flowed.

I-Like-Pie45
01-21-2016, 08:14 PM
It's too much of you to expect that Ubisoft remember some minute details like canon

phoenix-force411
01-21-2016, 08:47 PM
Was that specifically with the first child, or just the child through the bloodline? For instance, Jenny would've been Edward's first child, but it makes more sense that his memories would continue (at least those collected by Desmond) up until Haytham's conception, since that was how the bloodline flowed.

I believe it's with the first child like what happened in ACII with Altair and Maria up in that tower in Acre. Desmond stopped following Altair, because their first son was conceived which marked the end of Altair's recorded memories. This was kept up until ACIV. In ACIII, you didn't follow Haytham anymore due to Connor being conceived.

cawatrooper9
01-21-2016, 09:11 PM
I believe it's with the first child like what happened in ACII with Altair and Maria up in that tower in Acre. Desmond stopped following Altair, because their first son was conceived which marked the end of Altair's recorded memories. This was kept up until ACIV. In ACIII, you didn't follow Haytham anymore due to Connor being conceived.

Perhaps. But that doesn't necessarily disprove my theory, either.

We know that Connor is Desmond's descendant, so it makes sense that the bloodline would flow that way. It's just coincidental that he's also the firstborn (as far as we even know- Haytham seemed like he could be a lady killer... and not in a creepy Jack the Ripper way).

Darim/Sef is a little bit of a different story. You're right, we do see the Animus follow Maria and Altiar's son after their... intimate moment (well, hopefully it was more than a moment).

I'm about to get a little nerdy, but here's what we know:
1. Sef, rather than Darim, is part of Desmond's bloodline.

2. After fighting the Templars in Cyprus in 1193, Altair and Maria kind of fall off my radar for a year. Maybe some fan knows where they were, but for the life of me, I can't find anything.

3. In 1195, Darim is born in Masyaf.

4. About two years later, after "a visit to Acre", Sef is born.

Here's the actual text regarding that, from the AC Wiki article on Altair:

After returning from Cyprus, Alta´r began to put the Apple to use, peering into it often and gaining extensive knowledge of the world. In 1195, he and Maria married in Limassol with Markos as a guest of honor, out of respect to the Cypriots who offered the island to the Assassins as a base. They then returned to Masyaf, where their first son Darim was born. Two years later, after a visit to Acre, the couple had a second son, Sef.


So it's kind of muddy. Could the flashback-y event in Acre in ACII have actually been Darim's conception, and occurred during the off-the-radar year month of 1194? Possibly. But I don't see it as being all that likely.

I think that the "visit to Acre" is pretty blatant in its purpose in that sentence- it's basically a euphemism for saying that's where Maria got knocked up, thus getting pregnant with Desmond's ancestor Sef... thus, why the perspective follows him.


Again, this is just me trying to put the scattered pieces of AC lore together- I could totally be wrong. However, unless Ubisoft specifically said that the Animus stops "recording" after the birth of a first child (which they totally could have, I just am not aware of it), then I don't really see why anyone would think that. Given that the memories in AC are transmitted by DNA, wouldn't it just make more sense that they follow the other rules of DNA as well?

phoenix-force411
01-21-2016, 09:42 PM
Yes, it would make more sense if they just followed DNA which is probably why Ubisoft ignored this entirely after ACIII. But wouldn't this disapprove of the fact that you cannot relive an ancestor's death? I mean, memories are still recording if we throw away the whole "recording stops after first child is conceived" theory or lore. There has to be a limitation to how far the memories record.

Farlander1991
01-21-2016, 09:48 PM
Yeah, it's not about the first child (and never was, to be fair), it's about the child who passes on the ancestry. So only those from Haytham's bloodline can see events of AC4, for example, because Haytham wasn't born yet, but for those who are from Jenny's bloodline - they can see only until shortly before Edward leaves for Caribbean (which was when she was conceived).

Subject 16 for example was the descendant of Ezio's earlier illegitemate child, which is why he couldn't view all his memories (it was mentioned in one of the databases or smth), Desmond on the other hand was a descendant of Ezio's child from Sofia.

And yeah, if you find the dead body itself, you can view all the recorded memories from the DNA until death.

cawatrooper9
01-21-2016, 09:57 PM
Yes, it would make more sense if they just followed DNA which is probably why Ubisoft ignored this entirely after ACIII. But wouldn't this disapprove of the fact that you cannot relive an ancestor's death? I mean, memories are still recording if we throw away the whole "recording stops after first child is conceived" theory or lore. There has to be a limitation to how far the memories record.

Well yeah, but whose deaths have we seen?

Altair's, but that was through First Civ technology (which was then, in turn, viewed through Ezio's eyes in the Animus).

Then there's Haytham, but we see his death through Connor's eyes.

Outside of that, there are some deaths (Like Ezio in Embers, Edward in Forsaken, etc) but those aren't necessarily told via Animus, at least not as far as I know.

And yeah, Farlander is correct- much like how Desmond's DNA allowed viewing of his ancestors lives, so does it allow viewing of an individual's life until death.

warriorpoet23
01-22-2016, 10:30 AM
Isn't it only possible to view an ancestors memories upto the moment the next direct ancestor is conceived (Desmond could relive Edwards memories upto haythams conception, and could relive haythams upto Connors conception), however when you are using blood samples, then it would work the same but you could only view the memories of that blood samples 'donor' upto the point when the blood sample is taken.

You would only be able to view the death of a character if the blood sample is taken at the point of death or shortly after (dna begins to break down shortly after death so the genetic memories would break down as well).

This is why I suggested showing the characters deaths during the credits, that way they could be viewed as out-of-animus memories like embers, lineage and the novels. They could frame it as a fictional computer generated re-telling of the characters deaths based on historic evidence... Anyone whose played liberation will know that memories have been created before by abstergo, which would've had to be something similar to cgi, so it's not impossible for the deaths to be recreated.

Who's to say that Juno can't recreate the memories based on her knowledge of events. I'd prefer if they brought Minerva and maybe Jupiter back to full this role, how they get brought back I don't know... Juno's 'essence' survived so maybe other precursors did, if the plot of my game concept was based around finding a precursor city then that could make it possible for them to survive in some form of relic

cawatrooper9
01-22-2016, 05:35 PM
Who's to say that Juno can't recreate the memories based on her knowledge of events. I'd prefer if they brought Minerva and maybe Jupiter back to full this role, how they get brought back I don't know... Juno's 'essence' survived so maybe other precursors did, if the plot of my game concept was based around finding a precursor city then that could make it possible for them to survive in some form of relic

Well, sure. ACR used First Civ technology to allow us to see Altair's death. Juno probably is at least familiar with this process.

Nerdman3000
01-22-2016, 09:05 PM
Honestly, my headcanon for Shay's fate is and always will be Sunsetagain's comic on Deviantart.

cawatrooper9
01-22-2016, 10:43 PM
Honestly, my headcanon for Shay's fate is and always will be Sunsetagain's comic on Deviantart.

Link? I'd like to read it. :D