PDA

View Full Version : 'We Need Assassin's Creed Back' Forbes Article



Mr.Black24
01-28-2016, 12:22 AM
So I was reading this article right here, and I got to say, he is pretty much speaking out the majority of the fan's cries, like the deterioration of the Modern Day lore, the struggle of the Assassin-Templar war reduced to just chasing objects, no more excitement for both MD and Historical time periods. Its just ebbing away.

Not to mention, he did get my point on how I feel about Ancient Egypt:

"One last thought. As cool as it will be to travel to ancient Egypt, which is rumored to be the setting of the next big game, there’s a massive, massive issue with that. There were no Templars in ancient Egypt. After the first Crusade in 1099, the order of knights began to rise. But it wasn’t for another twenty years before the Catholic Church officially recognized the organization. Which explains the setting of the first game. Who then could the Assassins possibly be facing off against in ancient Egypt?"

Since historically, the Assassins and Templars weren't a founded thing until the First Crusaders, so how will Ubisoft explore this period of time and not screw up the lore? They were proto-Assassins and Templars, but then what were they? I mean I'm for it, but very cautious about it at the same time.

Anyway, read the article here, and tell me if the guy is wrong or not on the status of the series: http://www.forbes.com/sites/archenemy/2016/01/25/we-need-assassins-creed-back/#7342f7f4621c

EDIT: I wrote this in a rush, but basically I kind of agree with him only 25%, just want to be clear on that part

Farlander1991
01-28-2016, 12:32 AM
Nah. Well, maybe he's not wrong, but his arguments are shaky. I mean, he says the usual fluff of 'Edward didn't become an assassin until the end of the game' (which is the point of the whole story and arc, and if you don't like it well then you don't like it but it does not mean a decline of anything), 'Desmond is proactive not reactive' when it's most of the time quite the opposite, and the issue of protagonist and antagonist group is the smallest issue one could find. Honestly, it's a bunch of ramblings, there's a lot of argumented and more global things you can say if you want to explore how the series is in decline or stagnation or what you want to call it, and he didn't touch on any of those points.

Assassin_M
01-28-2016, 12:35 AM
Wow, so the author talks about the lore of the series and how it's "detoriorated" but then asks who we'll fight in Ancient Egypt because Templars only appeared in 1099? Clearly he did not pay attention then to the lore that said Templars have been there since the dawn of mankind. Yeah, ever since Forbes started having a gaming section, it's just been one facepalm after the other.

The guy said nothing new. He's simply parroting what other people say without actually going into depth about any of the points he addresses (Which are vague and general on their own anyway). On modern day, I've gone into that at length. Modern day was always sub-par ever since AC II. Just for the little gem above, though, I wouldnt recommend reading articles about gaming from forbes.

ze_topazio
01-28-2016, 12:51 AM
>Claims to be a fan.
>Misses the good old days.
>Misses the emphasis on the series lore.
>Doesn't even know Assassins and Templars in the series mythos have existed since the stone age.
>confirmed casual.

Mr.Black24
01-28-2016, 01:33 AM
Wow, so the author talks about the lore of the series and how it's "detoriorated" but then asks who we'll fight in Ancient Egypt because Templars only appeared in 1099? Clearly he did not pay attention then to the lore that said Templars have been there since the dawn of mankind. Yeah, ever since Forbes started having a gaming section, it's just been one facepalm after the other.
Thats one thing I hope that they explore more if they go into Ancient Egypt. Especially since the Templars themselves believe that they were founded during the First Crusades, shown by Warren Vidic in Brotherhood's multiplayer. And the Glyphs prove them wrong otherwise. My concern is that they explain it, but leave more questions and holes than fully answering questions. Kind of like how the Assassins believed that Connor was the first native to become an Assassin, then two games later, they were proven wrong. Or the fact that the Box that was in possession of Ezio, was never explained at all, and why he has it.


Nah. Well, maybe he's not wrong, but his arguments are shaky. I mean, he says the usual fluff of 'Edward didn't become an assassin until the end of the game' (which is the point of the whole story and arc, and if you don't like it well then you don't like it but it does not mean a decline of anything), 'Desmond is proactive not reactive' when it's most of the time quite the opposite, and the issue of protagonist and antagonist group is the smallest issue one could find. Honestly, it's a bunch of ramblings, there's a lot of argumented and more global things you can say if you want to explore how the series is in decline or stagnation or what you want to call it, and he didn't touch on any of those points.
I sort of understand him on that part. They keep talking about "A Pirate, trained by Assassins" and it was just everywhere. And I believed that until the game itself came out and I played it. I loved the story, but hated the ideas they were putting in my head.

But I mean 1-3 was a race against time story, and 4 was the closing of that saga, and now we are just playing keep away with the Templars. It looks like we are going to fight Juno and her minions, but is it an actual thing or just another dead end. I know some say that the MD story was never there, but I had to disagree with that part.

I-Like-Pie45
01-28-2016, 02:26 AM
And I want my money back but not everything has a happy ending

dxsxhxcx
01-28-2016, 02:34 AM
People are too attached to names, the Orders' names mean nothing, it's what they stand for that counts, the names are just there for convenience.

about the MD, up until AC3 the MD was good for me, could it have been executed better? Yes, a 1000x better, (especially from ACB onwards, a lot of missed opportunities there, ACB and ACR being the worst offenders) but at least what we used to have was good enough to keep my interest in the franchise as a whole and create expectation about the next game, now, I just wish Ubisoft had the balls to drop it entirely because IMO it has become an anchor to the series where they are just purposely dragging out the story to put out more games.

If that's the whole reason why the MD exists nowadays I don't think it's needed anymore since the Assassin x Templar conflict happening through time is good enough to stand on its own. They should either tell a story with a beginning, a middle and an ending or drop it.

SixKeys
01-28-2016, 02:59 AM
>Claims to be a fan.
>Misses the good old days.
>Misses the emphasis on the series lore.
>Doesn't even know Assassins and Templars in the series mythos have existed since the stone age.
>confirmed casual.

To be fair, you would only know that if you played AC2's Truth puzzles, which a lot of people apparently didn't. In the main storyline they barely touch on this. Every time someone in the story has to explain the Assassins vs. Templars war, they basically say it all started with Alta´r.

Assassin_M
01-28-2016, 03:13 AM
To be fair, you would only know that if you played AC2's Truth puzzles,
> Casual

so point proven :p


Thats one thing I hope that they explore more if they go into Ancient Egypt. Especially since the Templars themselves believe that they were founded during the First Crusades, shown by Warren Vidic in Brotherhood's multiplayer.
I watched the cutscenes for the MP again and no where does Vidic imply ignorance on the origin of the Templars. The inner sanctum simply reveres the first grand master of the order because he was the one who took them public and gave them an official presence.


My concern is that they explain it, but leave more questions and holes than fully answering questions. Kind of like how the Assassins believed that Connor was the first native to become an Assassin, then two games later, they were proven wrong. Or the fact that the Box that was in possession of Ezio, was never explained at all, and why he has it.
That's really more up to retcon and/or oversight. Really, Ubisoft have dropped the ball with keeping the mythos consistent. It's been that way since AC II. Lots of inconsistencies and mistakes even when it was just 2 games.

Mr.Black24
01-28-2016, 03:15 AM
People are too attached to names, the Orders' names mean nothing, it's what they stand for that counts, the names are just there for convenience.

about the MD, up until AC3 the MD was good for me, could it have been executed better? Yes, a 1000x better, (especially from ACB onwards, a lot of missed opportunities there, ACB and ACR being the worst offenders) but at least what we used to have was good enough to keep my interest in the franchise as a whole and create expectation about the next game, now, I just wish Ubisoft had the balls to drop it entirely because IMO it has become an anchor to the series where they are just purposely dragging out the story to put out more games.

If that's the whole reason why the MD exists nowadays I don't think it's needed anymore since the Assassin x Templar conflict happening through time is good enough to stand on its own.
My question for those who want to get rid of modern day, is that how will you explain the sudden disappearance of this part of the lore. Like everything we have up to this point so far, just dropped in the next game? How will that work out? Not to mention there are those like myself who are still clinging to the story that you got to explain to why it makes sense. Like the reason we go back to these time periods is because of what is happening in the now. Remove that, at its just random stories of people fighting each other in time, no interconnection whatsoever. I mean I thought the entire game was about the fact that the stories are connected in some way or form, that the events that happened then has great effect to the now, which makes those events even much more important.

Some might disagree with me and well thats ok, I guess.



To be fair, you would only know that if you played AC2's Truth puzzles, which a lot of people apparently didn't. In the main storyline they barely touch on this. Every time someone in the story has to explain the Assassins vs. Templars war, they basically say it all started with Alta´r.
Ah yeah, that prologue with Lucy saying "That war that your ancestor started...it never ended".

I-Like-Pie45
01-28-2016, 03:16 AM
All I want back is #TheOriginalAssassin

Cas Anvar is #NotAltair

Mr.Black24
01-28-2016, 03:50 AM
I watched the cutscenes for the MP again and no where does Vidic imply ignorance on the origin of the Templars. The inner sanctum simply reveres the first grand master of the order because he was the one who took them public and gave them an official presence.

Forgive me, it was Revelations, at 0:37


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1akjsLTXX9E

Apparently Vidic says that all of you who thought that the Templar's founding in 1119, decline in the later 12th century, and reassurance as Abstergo, was simply it, are super wrong and no nothing.


That's really more up to retcon and/or oversight. Really, Ubisoft have dropped the ball with keeping the mythos consistent. It's been that way since AC II. Lots of inconsistencies and mistakes even when it was just 2 games. Well that's my point. It can be just two games, but then it can add up to a bigger pile. I mean look at Edward's background story for example. He was supposed to be a simple man who stumbled upon the War during his time as a pirate, but apparently he met the Templars long before when they burned down his farm and apparently his father-in-law was a Templar. And he went back years later as an Assassin, and wanted revenge, and got revenge.

I mean some would say this is personal opinion, but the idea for him is that this was an everyday man, turned pirate, accidently stumbles into the secret war, goes Assassin, and creates a legacy, was it not? But nope, connections! I like connections, but not this way though.

VestigialLlama4
01-28-2016, 04:53 AM
So I was reading this article right here, and I got to say, he is pretty much speaking out the majority of the fan's cries,...

No...he is speaking to the majority of some fans cries.

If by fans, we mean people who pay money to buy the mother----ing games then obviously the number of people wanting More Lore and More MD would have been listened to now. The fact that they are not tells you that they are NOT, and NEVER HAVE BEEN, the majority of the fans. That they are in fact a minority, a loud and vocal one.

First of all, "fandom" is kind of meaningless with AC. We are not large or powerful enough as a group in the market for our voices to make a real difference. The only people who are likely to post online about AC are the people who care about the Lore and stuff and so like to discuss it. But they are a smaller group then the folks who want a new setting (aka the Feudal Japan/Wild West crowd).

Now the reason why Ubisoft doesn't listen to fans is very simple. They don't have to. As focus groups go, and that's what hardcore AC fans are, they are weak compared to comic book fans or Harry Potter fans. And the fact is the Strong don't care about the Weak. Ubisoft has no interest to care about them, their interest is to make these expensive games with some amount of artistic ambition, that unfortunately is declining...but fundamentally the Lore is just there to serve the game. Nothing more.

ubipleya
01-28-2016, 07:45 AM
yea we need it

Civona
01-28-2016, 11:00 AM
forbes contributors are basically random people's blog posts, just so you know.

i don't really care about whatever this article is about, but perhaps consider that 'we' don't 'need' anything? Like, if you ever liked an assassins creed game the one you liked still existed and you enjoyed it when you did.

I don't need assassin's creed back. I would be fine if there were not any more games, and not because I dislike the series, but because there are other cool things and I appreciate what I got out of the series already.

I know no-one really thinks they literally need to have assassin's creed to make life worth living, but it would be nice if people could be fans of something without phrasing every criticism of the thing they like as if the world will explode if it does not improve.

it's so weird to talk so urgently about things like that. I think it's bad for people.

MikeFNY
01-28-2016, 11:15 AM
Maybe the author is not entirely right on all raised points but give him credit for asking what many of us been asking for years: Why the massive change? Why did Ubisoft shift gears so suddenly?

We went from Desmond to a computer.

We went from the beautifully-scripted "The Truth" to nothing or to be fair, to a number of documents inside the database.

We went from an assassin doing what he was actually doing for a reason to two kids in contrast with each other throwing toys out of the pram.

We went from the breathtaking climbing of the Galata tower in Revelations to a one-button-push rope launcher.

We went from the very nice tombs missions to a bunch of always-the-same side missions.

A winning formula is a winning one for a reason, you just don't deviate so much from it. New, fresh elements are always welcome. I didn't like Black Flag that much but today I admit that it was a breath of fresh air. I also didn't like the idea of playing a Templar in Rogue but eventually it was nice to see both sides of the medal.

Today it seemed the series has hit a wall where all that could be done was done and all newly-introduced elements are pushing the game backwards, rather than forward.

In the end it's all about the individual. I love the series, I love the game and I would be a happy chap if I get a Syndicate-like game every year with no expectations whatsoever. But I would be as equally excited if the rumours are true and the series gets a revamp because in that case there would be many interesting elements that could be introduced.

VestigialLlama4
01-28-2016, 03:00 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-disappointing-reasons-final-fantasy-losing-all-its-fans_p2/

This article is about Final Fantasy (which I never played) but the complaints about the franchise seems to echo what happens with Assassin's Creed.

To my mind, franchises should be like Zelda...basically standalone titles united by a theme. Each game has a beginning-middle-end, but in association it plays like a myth, that keeps being updated in new tellings. So WIND WAKER is different from OCARINA OF TIME but still tells the same kind of story albeit updated with changes and alterations. Wind Waker is more

D.I.D.
01-28-2016, 06:02 PM
Thats one thing I hope that they explore more if they go into Ancient Egypt. Especially since the Templars themselves believe that they were founded during the First Crusades, shown by Warren Vidic in Brotherhood's multiplayer. And the Glyphs prove them wrong otherwise. My concern is that they explain it, but leave more questions and holes than fully answering questions. Kind of like how the Assassins believed that Connor was the first native to become an Assassin, then two games later, they were proven wrong. Or the fact that the Box that was in possession of Ezio, was never explained at all, and why he has it.

I wish they'd never said that, so much. It took something away from Assassin's Creed that the first game wasn't the origin of the Assassin/Templar clash. It would have been great if these mystics had known for a while that there were these weird artifacts and that shady spectral figures occasionally appear to adventurers in forgotten ruins, while the Templars had only just discovered this as a result of English politics bringing them to the Middle East. If they wanted to go earlier, that would have added variety - earlier Asasiyun, or if going before them then their forebears. As long as the basic theme of a mystery cult is preserved, then their opponents will always be somewhat Templar-ish since ambitious authority will naturally make itself the group's enemy, but those pre-Crusades eras would still have some variety against the post-Crusades ones.

But to make an eternal A/T conflict, with those names, with those symbols - that's so restrictive, and it doesn't feel right. I'm not going to say "true" or "believable" since that would invite the hyenas, but you know what I mean. It lacks solidity by being too solid.

dxsxhxcx
01-28-2016, 09:17 PM
My question for those who want to get rid of modern day, is that how will you explain the sudden disappearance of this part of the lore. Like everything we have up to this point so far, just dropped in the next game?

Yes, not a big deal since (IMO) Ubisoft isn't putting much effort in it anyway.




Not to mention there are those like myself who are still clinging to the story that you got to explain to why it makes sense. Like the reason we go back to these time periods is because of what is happening in the now. Remove that, at its just random stories of people fighting each other in time, no interconnection whatsoever. I mean I thought the entire game was about the fact that the stories are connected in some way or form, that the events that happened then has great effect to the now, which makes those events even much more important.

What's the point in having the games interconnected with each other when I don't care about what's happening in the present anymore? Why should I care about what's happening in the present when I, as the protagonist, know that I can't do anything about it? I'm just a powerless (and disposable) person who is, literally, watching all the action happening through a screen, I can't even put myself in someone else' shoes like I did with Desmond because I, the viewer, exist in the game. The expectation about what will happen next is nonexistent because I know that I won't do something meaningful, and even if they come up with something, I doubt it will be enjoyable being a 1st person mute character.

I-Like-Pie45
01-28-2016, 09:29 PM
Yes, not a big deal since (IMO) Ubisoft isn't putting much effort in it anyway.




What's the point in having the games interconnected with each other when I don't care about what's happening in the present anymore? Why should I care about what's happening in the present when I, as the protagonist, know that I can't do anything about it? I'm just a powerless (and disposable) person who is, literally, watching all the action happening through a screen, I can't even put myself in someone else' shoes like I did with Desmond because I, the viewer, exist in the game. Random stories of people fighting each other in time looks good enough to me compared to the alternative.

well Ubisoft wants Tumblr to pick up where they left off regarding modern day and other plot threads

ze_topazio
01-28-2016, 09:29 PM
All I want back is #TheOriginalAssassin

Cas Anvar is #NotAltair

Preach it brother!

#TeamPhilipShahbaz

I-Like-Pie45
01-28-2016, 10:17 PM
Preach it brother!

#TeamPhilipShahbaz

Philip Shahbaz is: #TheRealAltair

SixKeys
01-28-2016, 11:18 PM
What's the point in having the games interconnected with each other when I don't care about what's happening in the present anymore? Why should I care about what's happening in the present when I, as the protagonist, know that I can't do anything about it? I'm just a powerless (and disposable) person who is, literally, watching all the action happening through a screen, I can't even put myself in someone else' shoes like I did with Desmond because I, the viewer, exist in the game. The expectation about what will happen next is nonexistent because I know that I won't do something meaningful, and even if they come up with something, I doubt it will be enjoyable being a 1st person mute character.

Hear, hear. The current state of modern day isn't really a good compromise. People who hate MD want it gone completely, even the cut scenes and floating tablets. The people who are invested in MD have no reason to care since there is no consistent arc to follow.

cawatrooper9
01-28-2016, 11:45 PM
Regarding the Templars origins...

Even if we were to think that the Templars weren't founded until the Crusades (which is not entirely true), we have to ask ourselved- do we really need Templars? Personally, I think it might be interesting to see an entity that opposes the Assassins that isn't the Templar Order in a fully fledged game. Ancient Egypt is perfect for this, because it could feature such a cabal, but still be something that would eventually be part of the evolution into what we eventually come to know as the Templars.


Oh yeah, and MD could use a revamp, obviously, just to throw my two cents into that topic for the umpteenth time.

Farlander1991
01-28-2016, 11:52 PM
Personally, I think it might be interesting to see an entity that opposes the Assassins that isn't the Templar Order in a fully fledged game.

Speaking of which, I think AC2 would've been much more interesting if Savanarola would be the main antagonist. The single Bonfire of the Vanities sequence in terms of themes and questions asked and explored, about the nature of control, power and free will, does more than the entirety rest of AC2 combined.

But then there would be a big group of people that would hate it. Cause fans hate change, and fans hate when things don't change (different fans, though), so there's always gonna be smth that people hate. :p

cawatrooper9
01-28-2016, 11:53 PM
Speaking of which, I think AC2 would've been much more interesting if Savanarola would be the main antagonist. The single Bonfire of the Vanities sequence in terms of themes and questions asked and explored, about the nature of control, power and free will, does more than the entirety rest of AC2 combined.

But then there would be a big group of people that would hate it. Cause fans hate change, and fans hate when things don't change (different fans, though), so there's always gonna be smth that people hate. :p

More of a focus on him as AC2's main villain, with Rodrigo as the "big bad" tying together the AC2-ACB arc would have probably been wise- but alas, he didn't even make it into the main release.

le sigh.

BATISTABUS
01-29-2016, 12:12 AM
Uh...okay.

[Collapsed to save space.]

-Dislikes Black Flag because it tells a different kind of Assassin's origin story. He doesn't even say it was done poorly, he just hates it because it wasn't what he expected.

-Edward didn't ruin the Colonial Brotherhood, Achilles/Shay did.

-Complains there's a gap in time between Ezio's time and AC4...okay. What about the gap between AC1 and AC2? There are countless gaps that have not been covered by the games, and most of these had aspects touched on by Initiates. Chronicals: China covers this 300 year gap the author is talking about.

-Nolan North complains his character was killed off, therefore AC is ruined.

-Questions about the modern story that prove he doesn't actually know what's happening.

-I would definitely describe Desmond as more reactive than proactive...his story begins with him running away from his destiny, and he is almost never "in the know".

-The Assassin/Templar struggle, right form the VERY FIRST LEVEL OF AC1 has been about the race to obtain artifacts.

-Complains about the Abstergo presence in the menus as if it is a sudden change...hello?

-Finds Desmond's story compelling, which is fine. Most reviewers expressed distaste in the modern story, so it seems that in response the modern portion was downplayed. Different strokes.

-"Assassins were never insurgents."

-Complains about the Assassins being less influential than the Templars, something that has always been the case in the modern story.

-Says "[the Assassins have] lost the war. They just don't want to admit it." Yes...and?

-Didn't play Syndicate yet, so I can't comment on this part.

-Everyone else has already addressed the pre-Crusader Templars comment.

10/10.


Philip Shahbaz is: #TheRealAltair

He has a cool voice. Who knows, maybe he's even learned to act within the last 9 years.

VestigialLlama4
01-29-2016, 04:41 AM
Speaking of which, I think AC2 would've been much more interesting if Savanarola would be the main antagonist. The single Bonfire of the Vanities sequence in terms of themes and questions asked and explored, about the nature of control, power and free will, does more than the entirety rest of AC2 combined.

But then there would be a big group of people that would hate it. Cause fans hate change, and fans hate when things don't change (different fans, though), so there's always gonna be smth that people hate. :p

The problem is purely the vocal contingent. The only presses Ubisoft seems to get and has an effect are the gaming public and the majority of them are supremely dumb, people like zero punctuation and other self-satisfied guys. These guys decided that Modern Day was somehow important, which always struck me as weird given that AC1 had them optional pieces and didn't clue you in to its importance in any way. They are also beholden to conventions, so the Assassins actually being Assassins and simply engaging without a consistent enemy faction would offend their minds. They also don't like the fact that the games can be multi-genre so transform into a pirate game (and apparently not a true AC Game).

I-Like-Pie45
01-29-2016, 05:46 AM
He has a cool voice. Who knows, maybe he's even learned to act within the last 9 years.

That's racist

ROCKnROLLA74u
01-30-2016, 04:41 AM
I do miss the story background from the AC games. Unity and Syndicate have no meat. I have not and will not read the Forbes article but based off what you have said, i can agree on that part. The "new" AC's are just not the same. AC 2 - AC III were all really good. Revelations was a great wrap up to ezio's story. It was short but i was very happy with it. Black Flag I absolutely loved. I love it just as much as the previous titles but in its own way. I actually just finished Syndicate, haven't started Jack the Ripper dlc but will soon, and have now started Black Flag again on the One. Beat it on the 360 and loved it and so far playing it on the One has been amazing. If only Rogue was on the One. I loved Rogue, the story was ehhh but alot better than Unity and Syndicate. Rogues gameplay was a literal continuation of Black Flag. Alot more exploring in Rogue than Black Flag. Rogue was huge. Unity and Syndicate has lost AC feeling. I love the running in it but the combat, not a big fan. Syndicate brought back the combat to the original way, almost. I hate not being able to fight with the hidden blades. I hate not having my weapons available on the D Pad. So dumb they took that out. Although its convenient to be able to change your equipment and outfits in the start menu.... it takes away from the suspension of disbelief. Granted you can still access it in your hideout, both Unity and Syndicate, but why would you. So now i find the only reason i go to my hideout is for money. The next issue, where the hell is the interactive present day story line. SO DUMB that they replaced it with little cut scenes here and there. All it shows is Laziness. CLEARLY BOTH Unity and Syndicate were RUSHED. CLEARLY!!! But really pisses me off and i mean really pisses me off. WHERE THE HELL ARE THE PUZZLES!!!!! There was one in Syndicate, i believe with Darwin Conspiracy and the quest with the gas. If that was even considered a puzzle. Unity was just so buggy that it was hard to see past that, and after 80% of em were fixed, you were left with a short and flawed story and whats sad is it had so much promise. Syndicate was slightly better but not by much. I did have more fun with Syndicate than Unity but neither compares to the previous. Rogue was better than both em. The one really cool thing with next gen AC is the FREE RUNNING. I really like the amount of control you have now. If all the AC games had that aspect, they would have been unstoppable. The environments were both made very well, the amount of detail put into Paris and London was excellent. If i was one of the environment developers I would have been pissed at what the rest of the team did with it. I bet they are too. Long story short, UBISOFT get your **** together, go back and play the originals and see what made them so appealing. Most players, play Unity and Syndicate and see a half *** rushed product, in other words " MADE FOR A QUICK BUCK." Shame on you UBISOFT.

Jessigirl2013
01-30-2016, 11:28 AM
People are too attached to names, the Orders' names mean nothing, it's what they stand for that counts, the names are just there for convenience.

about the MD, up until AC3 the MD was good for me, could it have been executed better? Yes, a 1000x better, (especially from ACB onwards, a lot of missed opportunities there, ACB and ACR being the worst offenders) but at least what we used to have was good enough to keep my interest in the franchise as a whole and create expectation about the next game, now, I just wish Ubisoft had the balls to drop it entirely because IMO it has become an anchor to the series where they are just purposely dragging out the story to put out more games.

If that's the whole reason why the MD exists nowadays I don't think it's needed anymore since the Assassin x Templar conflict happening through time is good enough to stand on its own. They should either tell a story with a beginning, a middle and an ending or drop it.

On the point of MD I agree, since ACIII the MD has been practically none existent although Syndicate did remedy that (as much as cut scenes can)
The idea of MD being dropped entirely has been floating around the forums forever, but IMO I just don't see that working as what you would have no actual goal and reason for using the animus, in f act you wouldn't even be in a animus anymore you would just be that person in time.
I'll stop now, as I think its a point that can easily be talked to dealth :rolleyes:

I'm just waiting until they revive desmond with the shroud and we have the MD that we know and love back.:rolleyes:

dxsxhxcx
01-30-2016, 01:31 PM
On the point of MD I agree, since ACIII the MD has been practically none existent although Syndicate did remedy that (as much as cut scenes can)
The idea of MD being dropped entirely has been floating around the forums forever, but IMO I just don't see that working as what you would have no actual goal and reason for using the animus, in f act you wouldn't even be in a animus anymore you would just be that person in time.

They've already created the perfect excuse to ditch the Modern Days forever and without the necessity of tying up the loose ends, they just need to add a small cutscene of someone wearing those Helix Glasses at the beginning of the game (in 1st person), maybe a voice-over welcoming us to the emulation and then add a few database entries to their beloved newcomers, explaining what the Animus, Abstergo Entertainment and the product are (without pointing out Abstergo's connection with the Templars), all we would be doing is playing an Abstergo Entertainment product, it's not like (IMO) the excuses given to relive the ancestors memories in the last games have been appealing anyway. At least during Desmond time we had this sense of urgency that I simply can't feel in the later games, detached as I am (as the protagonist, not even myself, the player) from everything that's happening.

People more invested in the MD will complain, but they (Ubisoft) never really cared about that, so they can just continue ignoring them.


I'm just waiting until they revive desmond with the shroud and we have the MD that we know and love back.:rolleyes:

This would be the final nail in the coffin, but I won't be surprised if he end up appearing at some point, S16' style, weakening Juno or helping us find a way to defeat her. (this is what Ubisoft will understand after reading people asking for Desmond to come back, what IMO refers to a more meaningful Modern Days experience than Desmond himself, so when Desmond return in a crappy way and people hate it, they'll have all they need to play dumb and continue with the current MD style, easy road and all that)

Jessigirl2013
01-31-2016, 01:54 PM
They've already created the perfect excuse to ditch the Modern Days forever and without the necessity of tying up the loose ends, they just need to add a small cutscene of someone wearing those Helix Glasses at the beginning of the game (in 1st person), maybe a voice-over welcoming us to the emulation and then add a few database entries to their beloved newcomers, explaining what the Animus, Abstergo Entertainment and the product are (without pointing out Abstergo's connection with the Templars), all we would be doing is playing an Abstergo Entertainment product, it's not like (IMO) the excuses given to relive the ancestors memories in the last games have been appealing anyway. At least during Desmond time we had this sense of urgency that I simply can't feel in the later games, detached as I am (as the protagonist, not even myself, the player) from everything that's happening.

People more invested in the MD will complain, but they (Ubisoft) never really cared about that, so they can just continue ignoring them.



This would be the final nail in the coffin, but I won't be surprised if he end up appearing at some point, S16' style, weakening Juno or helping us find a way to defeat her. (this is what Ubisoft will understand after reading people asking for Desmond to come back, what IMO refers to a more meaningful Modern Days experience than Desmond himself, so when Desmond return in a crappy way and people hate it, they'll have all they need to play dumb and continue with the current MD style, easy road and all that)

I know it would be easier on UBI part to ditch MD, It means they could spend time that they would of spent on MD story and gameplay on the historical story and gameplay.:rolleyes:

The MD in Syndicate wasn't as bad as I had expected after the abysmal Unity excuse.
It would of been cool to play as Shaun and Rebecca in the modern day snippets they showed though (I thought they would as we were playing two assassins in the past, I thought it was a link to S and R in MD.)

I am a fan of assassins creed for the MD as it gives the games an interesting perspective IMO, so im hoping they will bring back a third person protag in the future, but I think it should be a character that we currently know instead of a new character.