PDA

View Full Version : Historical Figures As Antagonists



Abelzorus-Prime
05-25-2016, 06:00 PM
I've always wanted a game where either Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser, One of the Great Khans or Napoleon as the main antagonist in a similar style to Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Assassin's Creed Syndicate in which you know who the Grand Master is from the get go. Then work to cripple his power by assassinating his subordinates while still having glimpses of the main antagonist to build tension until you finally face them towards the end. I'm also surprised that Ubisoft hasn't had any of the historical figures I mentioned as antagonists as it would have instant name recognition thus making the game much easier for marketing.

What historical figures would you like to see as Grand Master or just main antagonist of a game who have not one already?

Do you think it's better when we know who the main antagonist from the begining of the game like in Brotherhood and Syndicate, or do prefer it if it's revealed towards the end like in Assassin's Creed Revelations and Unity?

cawatrooper9
05-26-2016, 08:50 PM
Honestly, I like the mix, but I prefer knowing the villain the whole time. It lets the villain actually become built up as a character in the story, rather than rushed in and tried to be built up as a thread late in Act III.

Sigma 1313
05-26-2016, 10:34 PM
I really want to see more napoleon. I think Unity really failed in bringing us to care about him, and his relationship with Arno. By dead kings, it also seems like there's a disconnect between Napoleon and Arno, and I'd be interested in seeing that escalate through the Napoleonic wars for sure. I'd like to see the Templar Alliance of Hitler, Churchill, and Roosevelt in game, perhaps in a helix rift, or at least in a comic, because that has always interested me (but I understand the likely failures of a WW2 period). I'd have loved to see Rasputin as a templar, and eventually assassinating him. The decay of the Edo period in Japan, or any number of dynasties in China would be great. I've thought for a while that Ubi will revisit sailing to see the vikings. Maybe Cortez's conquest of the mayans and aztecs? My favorite idea is that egypt will show Darius, the assassin who killed Xerxes 1 using the first ever recorded use of the hidden blade.
Based on the rumor, we'll be seeing a game set before the crusades, set in Egypt with a possible future game set in Greece and Rome. If that rumor is true, then I believe I figured out a possible time and location just based on history.

In 525 BC the Persian EMPIRE took over Egypt. After the Battle of Marathon in 490BCE (the Greeks won), the Egyptians revolted from the rule over the Empire. They failed. They tried again in 484BCE and in 460BCE. They were only able to break loose in 404BC.

Xerxes 1 ruled the Persian Empire from 486 to 465 when he was assassinated and usurped by Artabanus. In Assassin's Creed Lore Darius uses the Hidden Blade for the first time to assassinate Xerxes. It would make sense that Artabanus was a friend of Darius and used the murder as a way to gain power and do whatever he wished to aid the Assassins before he died in 464BCE.

By 460BCE, the Egyptians are revolting again under the Egyptian Leader Inaros. At the same time, Rome's slaves revolt, which is eventually quelled by the arrival of an army from Tusculum.

All we know about Darius is that he assassinated Xerxes with the first hidden blade. I think it is perfectly possible for him to have been a slave in Egypt and he eventually rebels by joining the Assassins and attempting to emancipate Egypt from Persia. Upon his failure, he travels to Greece and assassinates Xerxes. After his death, Darius goes to Rome to find the vault and aids in the revolt, finds the vault, or apple and transports it to Cyprus, or something like that. So a basic timeline of this story-arc would be something like:

~500BCE - Darius Born
484BCE - Darius helps Egyptian Revolt in - EMPIRE/EGYPT
480BCE - After the failure, Darius travel to Greece and fights persians in Battle of Thermopylae (perhaps in the naval war (I know no naval warfare in Empire, but maybe Greece?)) - GREECE
465BCE - Darius Assassinates Xerxes
460BCE - Darius Travels to Rome and aids in Slave Revolt - ROME

Due to the large naval power of the Persian empire, naval warfare would make a return, and we have the potential to meet a lot of cool people like Xerxes, Inaros, or Herodotus. It also have the possibility of making Darius face his own friends from when he was a slave because they were forced into battle by the Persians.

Even if it doesn't happen like this, having Darius would greatly expand the lore with a character we already know, in a great time period

Goxxi
05-27-2016, 01:47 AM
For me the perfect antagonists for AC game would be : Albert Pike, Leopold II, Cecil Rhodes , Francisco Pizaro, Hernan Cortes.

Megas_Doux
05-27-2016, 02:41 AM
Cecil Rhodes.
Sargon of Akkad, aka The great. My dreamed pick 'first modern templar'.
Ramesses II.
Akhenaten.
Francisco Pizarro.
Nebuchadnezzar II.
Cardinal Richelieu

For now.....

VestigialLlama4
05-27-2016, 03:02 PM
I'm also surprised that Ubisoft hasn't had any of the historical figures I mentioned as antagonists as it would have instant name recognition thus making the game much easier for marketing.

Well AC markets the game on setting, gameplay and protagonist. That's why the games sold well. This isn't Batman or whatever, where the bad guys are big enough characters to appear in promos. Setting/Gameplay/Protagonist is also what people think of before making a game. To do a game with Alexander the Great as a bad guy you would have to set the action in Ancient Persia, around the central area of his conquests, which means a really really big map and since this is an ancient world setting, not too many big buildings, lots of natural environments and small villages/settlements, i.e. AC3.That's a huge map to render. Anyway, I don't think Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or Napoleon would make good bad guys for an AC game. The kind of stuff they got up to right until and before their defeat makes any idea of heroism embodied by an Assassin and his actions ring hollow. Like if you make a game with Napoleon, you make him a bad guy, and he what gets captured and deposed and sent to Helena and you maybe assassinate him when he's old and feeble and having stomach cancer...wow amazing work hero. Thou art truly a badass. The historical reality doesn't really allow for any heroic story there.

AC has had problems making historical figures into bad guys before, like Rodrigo Borgia in AC2...Ezio is supposed to assassinate him at the end but since it didn't happen historically there had to be a reason why Ezio spared him. Now that was okay with me but some players found it unsatisfying. Then Cesare Borgia, dramatically that confrontation at Rome at the end should have been his death, but then he died in Spain so Ezio has to find a reason to chase him in Spain, and then we get a scripted scene set in Viana. They had related if somewhat different problems with Charles Lee. They had better luck in Black Flag with Black Bart and Governor Torres, but Woodes Rogers is again an example of the problem coming up. And I think it worked okay in Revelations too, but that's a fairly small and short game.


What historical figures would you like to see as Grand Master or just main antagonist of a game who have not one already?

If they did the French Revolution all over again, I can see Marie Antoinette as the Grand Master of the Templars since she would have fit perfectly. And the final boss fight would be ex-Assassin turned Revolutionary Saint-Just. Saint-Just was one of the few historical figures of that era who you could have seen in a fight and he would have held out. He was 27 years old, cold and ruthless, a good politician and writer, and a military organizer who fought with his troops in battle. There's a report that in one fight he held out and fought the enemy but did it so well and flawlessly that his hat didn't fall out...isn't that just like a video game. So he was a real fighter. Of course I can't imagine Saint-Just being a Templar, he would have to be a renegade Assassin. Some of his quotes include, "I am not for any faction, I will fight them all." If they did Thirty Years War, Gustavus Adolphus and Wallenstein would be pretty ripe for boss fights. But generally a lot of the cool historical figures we think of wouldn't really work as Grand Master of Templars or effective AC antagonists. Certainly not your conqueror types.


Do you think it's better when we know who the main antagonist from the begining of the game like in Brotherhood and Syndicate, or do prefer it if it's revealed towards the end like in Assassin's Creed Revelations and Unity?

It's revealed in the middle in Unity and not the end. Revelations was close to the end. I prefer the approach of Black Flag, where you spend most of the game with multiple factions, sometimes allying with Templars, then with Assassins and then with Pirates. Then you briefly partner with Black Bart, he betrays you and then he becomes your enemy. Then you sign up with the Assassins and Templars become your enemy. So it's more meaningful and emotional there.I generally think that AC should think of different kinds of stories: Move beyond Templars as Bad Guys, move beyond conventional ideas. They should change and alter their approach as per the setting and historical conditions demanded. Like in AC2, there was no real reason for Rodrigo Borgia to be the bad guy. He wasn't prominent at that time in history. Within that game, Girolamo Savonarola is a far more effective villain, since he's the guy who converts Ezio's hometown into a theocracy, he has better motivations and he has a tangible defeat and endpoint.

Heck ideally, the Borgia should have been a neutral third party who both Assassins and Templars manipulate and work with, since the historical Rodrigo Borgia was not as evil, he was a man of great religious tolerance who settled Jews in Rome's Jewish Quarter (which doesn't appear in the game). In the game, the Assassins would be anti-semites, so they had to caricaturize and demonize him. Basically I think AC should take care before making any historical figure into a bad guy or worse, a Templar. It works with some, doesn't work with others, and there are more missed opportunities and roads not taken in the games they have already made.

JamesFaith007
05-27-2016, 07:14 PM
What historical figures would you like to see as Grand Master or just main antagonist of a game who have not one already?


James Brook, Rajah of Sarawak (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brooke)(1803 - 1868)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Sir_James_Brooke_%281847%29_by_Francis_Grant.jpg

British adventurer, who become ruler over Borneo, led brutal anti-piracy campaigns but also was very interested in science and organized many expedition on local islands.


Maximilian Hapsburg, Emperor of Mexico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico)(1832 - 1867)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Emperador_Maximiliano_I_de_Mexico.jpg/250px-Emperador_Maximiliano_I_de_Mexico.jpg

Noble man from Hapsburg dynasty who become Mexican emperor for 3 years. On one side he upheld some liberal policies like religious freedom, land reforms and extension of vote right, on other he issued so-called Black decree in which he order executions of more then 11 000 supporters of opposition.


Ernst Johann von Biron, Regent of Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Johann_von_Biron) (1690 - 1772)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Ernst_Johann_von_Biron_111.PNG/220px-Ernst_Johann_von_Biron_111.PNG

Man who practically controlled Russia for 3 years in era called German Yoke when about thousand people were executed and ten thousands exiled to Siberia. He become lover of Empress Anna, was regent of her son Ivan IV.(for 3 weeks), exiled to Siberia for 22 years, pardoned by Peter III. and re-established as duke by Catherine II.

Abelzorus-Prime
05-31-2016, 07:31 PM
Well AC markets the game on setting, gameplay and protagonist. That's why the games sold well. This isn't Batman or whatever, where the bad guys are big enough characters to appear in promos. Setting/Gameplay/Protagonist is also what people think of before making a game.

They also market their games on historical characters and events e.g. Blackbeard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_GDeIee6Kc), Victorian characters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08yEh3r35II) and the George Washington (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVUMPrv8oRw) and the have heavily marketed on the antagonist before in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood with Cesare (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmNn5jfoUH0) Borgia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzNs4-kRLaE) but he isn't as well known as someone like Napoleon or Genghis Khan. It would just be the merging of these two methods.


I don't think Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or Napoleon would make good bad guys for an AC game. The kind of stuff they got up to right until and before their defeat makes any idea of heroism embodied by an Assassin and his actions ring hollow. Like if you make a game with Napoleon, you make him a bad guy, and he what gets captured and deposed and sent to Helena and you maybe assassinate him when he's old and feeble and having stomach cancer...wow amazing work hero. Thou art truly a badass. The historical reality doesn't really allow for any heroic story there.


It's a still a fictional game series they are not beholden to historical facts, they could have you assassinate Napoleon at the battle of Bakerloo. Even within the AC series the Templars manipulate and hide historical information from the public. Charles Lee died way before he died in reality, as long as it's a good story and makes sense within the AC world then it's fine. I loved the Viana mission where you kill Cesare and is probably the best end showdown of the series.


It's revealed in the middle in Unity and not the end. Revelations was close to the end.

It is revealed towards the end. TOWARDS the end. It was revealed in Sequence 10 and there are 12 sequences m8.

"AC2, there was no real reason for Rodrigo Borgia to be the bad guy. He wasn't prominent at that time in history. Within that game, Girolamo Savonarola is a far more effective villain, since he's the guy who converts Ezio's hometown into a theocracy, he has better motivations and he has a tangible defeat and endpoint."

I heard once that AC2 and ACB were originally meant to be the same game even if not I just think of them as one story.


Heck ideally, the Borgia should have been a neutral third party who both Assassins and Templars manipulate and work with, since the historical Rodrigo Borgia was not as evil, he was a man of great religious tolerance who settled Jews in Rome's Jewish Quarter (which doesn't appear in the game). In the game, the Assassins would be anti-semites, so they had to caricaturize and demonize him. Basically I think AC should take care before making any historical figure into a bad guy or worse, a Templar. It works with some, doesn't work with others, and there are more missed opportunities and roads not taken in the games they have already made.

You don't need to be "evil" to be an antagonist in the series, but then again Cesare Borgia was still pretty cruel in real life to get what he wants. You mentioned Girolamo Savonarola but he wasn't evil himself, he believed in Republican freedom instead of the authoritarian Medici.

VestigialLlama4
05-31-2016, 09:16 PM
It's a still a fictional game series they are not beholden to historical facts, they could have you assassinate Napoleon at the battle of Bakerloo. Even within the AC series the Templars manipulate and hide historical information from the public.

Assassin's Creed has taken liberties but it has never gone full-Inglourious Basterds and assassinating Napoleon at Waterloo when it is a well-known fact he died in Saint Helena under captivity is of the same nature. It only takes light liberties and small exaggerations. Even in Unity, Robespierre doesn't get assassinated in a mission.

And you missed my point...Napoleon wouldn't make a good bad guy for an AC game because there is no chance that assassinating him will be heroic in any means. The Assassins are supposed to prove that the most powerful are vulnerable and no one is beyond their reach yet Napoleon and others were clearly beyond their reach when they were at their most powerful and dangerous. There is nothing heroic about assassinating Hitler after the Holocaust especially since the real guy had incredibe luck in surviving assassination attempts.


I loved the Viana mission where you kill Cesare and is probably the best end showdown of the series.

Better than Altair-Al Mualim, Ezio-Rodrigo, or Connor-King Washington in the Tyranny DLC?


You don't need to be "evil" to be an antagonist in the series,

In AC games, the bad guys are genuinely evil most of the times. They don't need to be evil but then they all start eating babies anyway. The moral grayness of these games is more stated than shown.


You mentioned Girolamo Savonarola but he wasn't evil himself, he believed in Republican freedom instead of the authoritarian Medici.

Yes and that's why I said he should be the main villain since he was quite compelling in the limited cutscenes we saw in the Bonfire sequence.

The fact is AC is compromised from achieving that complexity because of the Assassins=Good Templars=Bad schema, attempts to change which such as ROGUE failed miserably since it relied on plot contrivance of the worst sort.

Megas_Doux
06-01-2016, 04:01 AM
In terms of showdowns I can buy almost all of them but one: Ezio vs Rodrigo Borgia.....

A super highly uber skilled Master Assassin vs an OBESE, OLD man??? REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :confused: Plus the soundtrack was not even that great either. Cesare vs Ezio had a MUCH better score

Namikaze_17
06-01-2016, 04:35 AM
^ I'd say part one of their fight was alright with the POE's involved.

Fat man held his own for awhile against five Ezio's like a straight gangsta. :p

LoyalACFan
06-02-2016, 08:39 AM
In terms of showdowns I can buy almost all of them but one: Ezio vs Rodrigo Borgia.....

A super highly uber skilled Master Assassin vs an OBESE, OLD man??? REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :confused: Plus the soundtrack was not even that great either. Cesare vs Ezio had a MUCH better score

Bit of an aside here, but you aren't talking about this theme, are you?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-11s1rWrH9o

'Cuz I think it's friggin' epic. Problem was, that mission is almost impossible to complete without becoming Notorious before the fight, and if that happens, it overrides the final fight music and just plays the Notorious theme, which is cool for stealth, but not necessarily for an action scene. The track I linked above was composed specifically for the Rodrigo fight (note the Catholic prayer motif) and it's actually in the game, but almost no one hears it because it's so hard to get to the Pope's chamber without becoming Notorious. If you die the first time you fight him, though, it'll trigger it to start playing upon reload. Trouble there is, the fight is so easy, almost no one dies :p

Megas_Doux
06-02-2016, 01:51 PM
You're correct loyal fan!! I had notorious in my mind. Which it is not a great track for a boss battle, mostly the second part.

A fist fight between one of the most skilled human beings to ever live vs a fat, old man........