PDA

View Full Version : How Should AC handle its Historical Settings?



Sigma 1313
05-21-2017, 12:45 AM
So throughout the games, we've seen 3 main styles adopted within the story in regards to history and the setting.

The first is 50:50 where 50% of the game is history and 50% is fantasy. I'd say this is best represented by AC2, a fairly accurate game overall in regards to the warring Italian states, but not centered around it.

The second is the Forrest Gump where the plot seems to revolve around the history and setting even when it doesn't make sense. The best example of this is AC3 where Connor is at every major battle, often is behind the victory, even when it doesn't make sense any more (Signing of Declaration of Independence).

Finally we have the non existent history, where it is only briefly mentioned. The best example of this is Unity where most historical segments are in side missions, and I can count on one hand where we interact with real characters.

For the poll, please answer which style you like best and want to see more of in games.

EDIT: I initially chose Syndicate over Unity for the non existent due to lack of historical characters, but was reminded of Florence Nightingale, D-ckens, Darwin, and Marx.Furthermore all games do deal with the Forrest Gump issue, and I'm not saying that's bad, but some have more than others. If anyone has a suggestion for a better name, I'm open to hear it.

Megas_Doux
05-21-2017, 01:51 AM
AC I is my ideal approach, but in the end it depends of how the story and gameplay are integrated what determines your experience.

For example, In AC III the problem is not that you ARE in the Midnight Ride per se, but the fact you play as Paul Revere's chauffeur resulting in one of the most cringe-worthy moments in the series up to this day and boy there's many of them.

Now, imagine instead a mission in which you have to swiftly use all those brand new navigation elements in the likes of tree running and stalking zones to prevent some mercenaries hired by the templars can kill Revere. With that been done, it's time to introduce a cutscene in which he sees Connor leaving or even thank him...That's an ideal approach to me.

PS I really LOVE a good linear, action packed epic mission once in a while in the likes of the siege of Viana and the battle of Arsuf.

LoyalACFan
05-21-2017, 02:41 AM
For example, In AC III the problem is not that you ARE in the Midnight Ride per se, but the fact you play as Paul Revere's chauffeur resulting in one of the most cringe-worthy moments in the series up to this day and boy there's many of them.

An important distinction that often gets overlooked. IMO having the protagonist get all buddy-buddy with every historical character in the era is way worse than just placing them at the scene of famous events. Syndicate was the worst offender in this regard, with the twins becoming BFFs with every celebrity of the age for precisely zero real reason other than that they wanted to stick some famous peeps in there for the trailers (okay, I'll grant you Bell since he was an inventor, but it was still a really ham-fisted attempt at making a new Da Vinci for the Victorian era). It's fine to have Assassins and Templars acting behind the scenes at certain important, chaotic, or poorly understood historical events, since it strengthens the idea that the two groups have been manipulating society from the shadows for centuries, but they can't just happen across a bunch of famous people and become friends just because.

Like, for instance, AC2 and AC4 did it right, despite having their fair share of famous faces. Ezio knew Lorenzo de'Medici because his father once saved Lorenzo's life, and he was friends with Leonardo because Maria was one of Leo's benefactors. Edward was friends with Thatch, Hornigold, et. al. because they served together in the Royal Navy and started the Nassau colony together. On the other hand, the Fryes knew Dic-kens, Darwin, Disraeli, Nightingale, Marx, and (good Lord) Queen f*cking Victoria because... the devs wanted them to.

(AC4 is exempt from this because all of the legendary 18th-century Caribbean pirates really did hang out with each other at Nassau, and a lot of them actually sailed with one another at various times. Edward being a part of that seems perfectly believable, especially when you consider how poorly documented everything was in that society. We still don't even know Blackbeard's real name, for example, so it's not too much of a stretch that an Assassin in that era managed to stay out of the history books.)

VestigialLlama4
05-21-2017, 02:44 AM
I think different historical periods and settings provide their own approach and style and method to represent it. Some historical events and periods are automatically more dramatic than others. Victorian England in Syndicate is not as dramatic a setting as the Renaissance and the Crusades or the Pirate Era.

The important thing is to keep in mind the gameplay you want to develop and the kind of experience you want to provide. AC3 for instance provided you maps of wide open spaces, countryside, and small early city settlements with low buildings that are barely more than shantytowns. I like the game a lot but it's clear in retrospect that the developers didn't find the right way to harmonize and build gameplay to make that setting and period fun. BLACK FLAG managed that.

AC games are primarily about settings rather than events and periods. REVELATIONS for instance is not set in any great period of history but it has a setting, Istanbul, that for its era and time is just amazing. So the balance is key. New York City is a brilliant setting but so far Ubisoft have made the incredibly stupid decision to set it in the mid-1700s and the late-1700s when a better era would have been the late 19th Century or early 20th Century. Settings don't have to be about architecture and tourism, Black Flag does not have touristy buildings but its got a brilliant setting and gameplay that makes it work.


The second is the Forrest Gump...

Listen I will apologize for the capslock...ALL ASSASSINS CREED GAMES WITHOUT EXCEPTION ARE FORREST GUMP. AC1 was AC2 was, Black Flag was. So saying that AC3 had it more than other games is 1) Incorrect, 2) Ignorant, 3) Asinine.

The thing is Ubisoft uses the Forrest Gump primarily to hook audiences in to some element of familarity. Assassin's Creed I is set in the Third Crusade even if it makes no sense because the Asasiyun saw more action before that period. The reason for the Third Crusade is because mainstream audiences know Richard I and Saladin (thanks to Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood) and because they can have Westerners there because they didn't want an all Arab cast even if historically Asasiyun targeted and killed more Arabs and rarely attacked Crusaders.

In AC2, they put in Ezio in Florence, and had him singlehandedly kickstart the Renaissance buying artworks and displaying it in his mansion. That is Forrest Gump. Even Black Flag, Edward Kenway is on first name terms with every famous and pop-culturally well known pirate. SYNDICATE has Jacob and Evie pal with Alexander Graham Bell, D-ckens, Darwin, Florence Nightingale and get a knighthood from Queen Victoria. That's even more Gump than AC3.

The Gump-factor is part of AC's appeal. It's not going away. UNITY is a game that tried to do that and even then Arno is buddies with Napoleon (or more precisely Arno is Napoleon's little b--ch). Unity had a great period (French Revolution) that is super-dramatic, a great setting (Paris during that time) and it blew it because of terrible gameplay design, reprehensibly terrible storytelling and poor use of setting. UNITY is the worst AC game by far and the one that Ubisoft have openly apologized for.

Sigma 1313
05-21-2017, 03:51 AM
I think different historical periods and settings provide their own approach and style and method to represent it. Some historical events and periods are automatically more dramatic than others. Victorian England in Syndicate is not as dramatic a setting as the Renaissance and the Crusades or the Pirate Era.

The important thing is to keep in mind the gameplay you want to develop and the kind of experience you want to provide. AC3 for instance provided you maps of wide open spaces, countryside, and small early city settlements with low buildings that are barely more than shantytowns. I like the game a lot but it's clear in retrospect that the developers didn't find the right way to harmonize and build gameplay to make that setting and period fun. BLACK FLAG managed that.

AC games are primarily about settings rather than events and periods. REVELATIONS for instance is not set in any great period of history but it has a setting, Istanbul, that for its era and time is just amazing. So the balance is key. New York City is a brilliant setting but so far Ubisoft have made the incredibly stupid decision to set it in the mid-1700s and the late-1700s when a better era would have been the late 19th Century or early 20th Century. Settings don't have to be about architecture and tourism, Black Flag does not have touristy buildings but its got a brilliant setting and gameplay that makes it work.



Listen I will apologize for the capslock...ALL ASSASSINS CREED GAMES WITHOUT EXCEPTION ARE FORREST GUMP. AC1 was AC2 was, Black Flag was. So saying that AC3 had it more than other games is 1) Incorrect, 2) Ignorant, 3) Asinine.

The thing is Ubisoft uses the Forrest Gump primarily to hook audiences in to some element of familarity. Assassin's Creed I is set in the Third Crusade even if it makes no sense because the Asasiyun saw more action before that period. The reason for the Third Crusade is because mainstream audiences know Richard I and Saladin (thanks to Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood) and because they can have Westerners there because they didn't want an all Arab cast even if historically Asasiyun targeted and killed more Arabs and rarely attacked Crusaders.

In AC2, they put in Ezio in Florence, and had him singlehandedly kickstart the Renaissance buying artworks and displaying it in his mansion. That is Forrest Gump. Even Black Flag, Edward Kenway is on first name terms with every famous and pop-culturally well known pirate. SYNDICATE has Jacob and Evie pal with Alexander Graham Bell, D-ckens, Darwin, Florence Nightingale and get a knighthood from Queen Victoria. That's even more Gump than AC3.

The Gump-factor is part of AC's appeal. It's not going away. UNITY is a game that tried to do that and even then Arno is buddies with Napoleon (or more precisely Arno is Napoleon's little b--ch). Unity had a great period (French Revolution) that is super-dramatic, a great setting (Paris during that time) and it blew it because of terrible gameplay design, reprehensibly terrible storytelling and poor use of setting. UNITY is the worst AC game by far and the one that Ubisoft have openly apologized for.

That's a good point about all games needing their own style, but it is certainly over done and under done in some games, such as 3 and Unity. I don't deny that all games gump it up a bit, but the question is really how much they should. Within my definition of the Forrest Gump, I was specifically speaking about the player being a central figure in events, whereas you focus more on the player meeting historical characters. I suppose both are an integral part of the Forrest Gump. Within the realm of events, AC3 does have the most. Looking at interactions with people, Syndicate would probably have the most, and the least realistic, (but at the same time ignores much of the real politics and events that occurred in 1868 London). Do you think there is a better name for the way that AC3 goes about it's story telling? I don't disagree that AC4 would be apart of this line, but it was done well. ACUnity over-corrected, and I agree that it's one of the worst games in the series, and completely wasted the potential of the French Revolution. I've often said that the story of Unity would have been much better suited for a less bloody period, like Victorian London.

If you have the time, I suggest skimming through the timeline I put together of events in the series where you can see which games have more events, though this obviously doesn't cover characters, like you mentioned. I think that every game really falls in a spectrum on the gump line rather than neatly fitting in any of the 3 categories.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_wz25dQyQRtNH-TlJ_curDXoyXKNkwWuaLXCWfNTy6o/edit?usp=sharing



AC I is my ideal approach, but in the end it depends of how the story and gameplay are integrated what determines your experience.

For example, In AC III the problem is not that you ARE in the Midnight Ride per se, but the fact you play as Paul Revere's chauffeur resulting in one of the most cringe-worthy moments in the series up to this day and boy there's many of them.

Now, imagine instead a mission in which you have to swiftly use all those brand new navigation elements in the likes of tree running and stalking zones to prevent some mercenaries hired by the templars can kill Revere. With that been done, it's time to introduce a cutscene in which he sees Connor leaving or even thank him...That's an ideal approach to me.

PS I really LOVE a good linear, action packed epic mission once in a while in the likes of the siege of Viana and the battle of Arsuf.

I actually feel like one of the largest failures of AC1 was not showing Richard have the prisoners of Are beheaded. I think that would have provided context for why he was suddenly besieging Arsuf and why Saladin was so angry. All game we hear about how evil Richard and the crusaders are, but can only assume it's due to them being infidels rather than acts of war committed. We also hear about Saladin and Richard marching for Jaffa, so why do we meet Richard at Arsuf? Even if the beheaded bodies were just outside the walls when we first enter Acre it would provide more context than the game did.

Helforsite
05-21-2017, 06:30 AM
For me the Gump factor is not that you are a part of these historical events themselves, but that you are doing it all in public and are best friends with these historical personalities.
I wouldnt have batted an eye if you had killed every General of the British Army in AC3, but dont have these killings all be public and still not recorded as you being their in the history books.

I think the story of AC actually necitates us being at most major historical events, but behind the scenes. Interacting with historical figures should be us saving their lives without them knowing it or foiling their plans in secret, not shaking their hands in broad daylight in public places.

VestigialLlama4
05-21-2017, 03:30 PM
I don't deny that all games gump it up a bit, but the question is really how much they should.

See for me those kind of questions don't have anything to do with the games themselves. It has to do with the content and your feelings about the story/character/setting. If you are a person who dislikes American history, or believes that Americans don't have a history, like a lot of Ubisoft forum posters here, or if you dislike having non-white protagonists like most gamers, then AC3 is a game that will offend you on an instinctive level. In terms of gameplay and level design, AC3 can be and has been criticized for linear level design and having a bunch of incredible features that never quite work cohesively but on its own is satisfying. But that has nothing to do with the content itself and most AC3's criticism has been about that non-white Connor being "Boring" and so on to which I say, "racist".


Within my definition of the Forrest Gump, I was specifically speaking about the player being a central figure in events, whereas you focus more on the player meeting historical characters. I suppose both are an integral part of the Forrest Gump.

Well the idea "Forrest Gump" refers to a fictional character in a historical setting, meeting historical figures and playing a part that is crucial but almost entirely hidden and unknown from the public. That's what happens in the Forrest Gump movie. That happens in all AC games without exceptions. The difference is that some of these events are well known to the general public (like AC3's American Revolution) while others don't.

In AC1, Altair participated in actual events during the Battle of Arsuf, and some of his targets were real people he assassinated. In the backstory, he and his family whacked Genghis Khan and he later Marco Polo's dad and uncle. In AC2, Ezio participates in the Pazzi Conspiracy (an actual historical event), he participates in the Siege of Forli (also a historical event), the Bonfire of the Vanities (ditto), In ACB, Ezio topples Cesare Borgia and in the Siege of Viana. Those are pretty gump. The difference is that a general audience doesn't know these events very well unlike the American Revolution.

Black Flag also has Edward Kenway being at the center of many Pirate era events.

Basically, all AC games are Gump-like like you define it. No exceptions.

Rugterwyper32
05-21-2017, 05:17 PM
AC I is my ideal approach, but in the end it depends of how the story and gameplay are integrated what determines your experience.

For example, In AC III the problem is not that you ARE in the Midnight Ride per se, but the fact you play as Paul Revere's chauffeur resulting in one of the most cringe-worthy moments in the series up to this day and boy there's many of them.

Now, imagine instead a mission in which you have to swiftly use all those brand new navigation elements in the likes of tree running and stalking zones to prevent some mercenaries hired by the templars can kill Revere. With that been done, it's time to introduce a cutscene in which he sees Connor leaving or even thank him...That's an ideal approach to me.

PS I really LOVE a good linear, action packed epic mission once in a while in the likes of the siege of Viana and the battle of Arsuf.

Pretty much this. The Gump factor isn't the problem, in fact, I do legit like that, it's a big part of what gives this series the personality it has. But when Paul Revere is turned into an 18th century GPS, there's the problem. It's all about implementation.

SixKeys
05-21-2017, 07:08 PM
It's all in the execution. The problem is about pretending it was the assassin who single-handedly accomplished every great historical deed he was part of. Connor wasn't merely present at Paul Revere's ride, he was his personal chauffeur. He wasn't just BFFs with the founding fathers, he was also present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence for no reason. He wasn't just present at Lexington and Concord, he literally commanded the troops. As if these white colonists would suddenly start taking orders from a random native warrior who just showed up out of nowhere. At least AC1 didn't make you lead Saladin's army to get close to King Richard or something stupid like that.

Make no mistake, the Gump factor in AC2 bugged me at times too, especially Ezio becoming BFFs with Lorenzo de Medici, who even gave him a cape that made the guards turn a blind eye to some of his crimes, yet Ezio still somehow remained entirely anonymous in the city? But the way some of the stuff was implemented was at least less clumsy than in other games. Syndicate basically went with an alternate history of its own altogether, probably since they knew they were already being anachronistic with Evie and Ned Wynert being treated as equals among the (cis) men.

Megas_Doux
05-21-2017, 08:11 PM
Make no mistake, the Gump factor in AC2 bugged me at times too, especially Ezio becoming BFFs with Lorenzo de Medici, who even gave him a cape that made the guards turn a blind eye to some of his crimes, yet Ezio still somehow remained entirely anonymous in the city? But the way some of the stuff was implemented was at least less clumsy than in other games. Syndicate basically went with an alternate history of its own altogether, probably since they knew they were already being anachronistic with Evie and Ned Wynert being treated as equals among the (cis) men.


Ezio was a noble, so it kinda made sense. Connor being BFF's wit all those guys didn't, period. I'm 50/50 with this because one of the premise of AC is the whole "true history" thing. What really happened vs what was told it happened. Under that light I even want it in a certain degree as long as gameplay wise it doesn't become a linear fest with sorry excuses for missions in order to include them (AC III) and story wise doesn't cross the line like -again- in AC III or Syndicate with all its "cameos".

In AC IV it makes ALL the sense of the world because the majority of famous pirates with each other for bad or good. I mean, it is said that Hornigold and Jennings couldn't stand each other and each of them mentored tons of other famous pirates. Edward being a pirate himself, of course he knew many of others.In fact, I would've wanted to see Jennings himself and even Ned low in a DLC :p

Sigma 1313
05-22-2017, 02:58 AM
So I actually decided to create a small document detailing how much each game goes into the gump effect, then rank them based on 4 totals on a number line, then put that on a graph based on the critical success of each game.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oIfW2zJi0OtRzJ4ZNfpgem7k9IL4gRgZ7hKQMbfxOZA/edit?usp=sharing

Based on this, the games that are the most successful seem to actually fall around the middle of the spectrum.

VestigialLlama4
05-22-2017, 03:53 AM
So I actually decided to create a small document detailing how much each game goes into the gump effect, then rank them based on 4 totals on a number line, then put that on a graph based on the critical success of each game.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oIfW2zJi0OtRzJ4ZNfpgem7k9IL4gRgZ7hKQMbfxOZA/edit?usp=sharing

Based on this, the games that are the most successful seem to actually fall around the middle of the spectrum.

Your metrics are seriously flawed. It doesn't take into account commercial success for one. AC3 was the best-selling game of all the Assassin's Creed games albeit last time I checked it was set to be surpassed by Black Flag. But that still means it's one of the most successful titles of these games.And AC3 was critically very well received. It was only among fans and gaming sites that it got downgraded and again mostly for racist reasons.

And "the gump effect" your definition of it is flawed for a variety reasons. You don't mention the fact that Al Mualim in AC1 is actually Rashid ad-din Sinan, an actual historical figure. So that alone makes AC1 go up. You don't measure architecture and also how accurate/inaccurate the game's portrayal of architecture is to the period in question. That's part of the historical fidelity or lack thereof.

Also we can only take a game to task for its Forrest-Gump nature when it portrays and gets the basic facts of the period right. The whole point of Forrest Gump is that rather than historical fiction you are doing magical realism. You are not rewriting a historical event, you are simply putting a fictional character there and letting events play out. So the games which are most accurate, or take efforts for accuracy, can't be judges on the same plane as trash like Unity.

Take it from someone who went through the trouble of fact-checking UNITY (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-**SPOILERS**)

Farlander1991
05-22-2017, 07:39 AM
I think it's a matter of context and how things fit together. Because, for example, people don't call AC4 a 'gumpy' game, however that's the game with probably the most history in it.

Sequence 2 - Famous 1715 hurricane that destroyed the Treasure Fleet (and we were right in the middle of it, that was awesome!)
Sequence 3 - No 'big' events, but when Vane attacks a spanish ship while we're tailing it, that attack happened.
Sequence 6 - Blackbeard's battle with the British from Boston, and then the whole blockade of Charles-Towne
Sequence 7 - Rogers arriving at Nassau, and Vane escaping with a bunch of grandeur.
Sequence 8 - Blackbeard dying, Vane getting marooned
Sequence 9 - Sinking of several ships near Principe, that lead to destruction of a camp there and Roberts' rise to captain (and his speech is in the game word for word for that)
Sequence 10 - Roberts capturing a big Portugese ship, Hornigold crashing and dying.
Sequence 11 - Anne Bonny, Mary Read, Rackham getting captured; Rackham and Mary Read dying
Sequence 12 - Roberts' final battle.

And that's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I've missed a bunch of stuff. But ACIV is very historical with tons of details :)

cawatrooper9
05-22-2017, 03:14 PM
I agree that the degree that the Assassin is involved with history is huge.

Regarding the "Forrest Gump" syndrome:

Technically, VL4 is right in that any Assassins Creed game that features a protagonist working with historical figures is going to be able to make that comparison. But, I think it's important to not lose track of scale. Assassins Creed is fine with history in it- in fact, it'd be all the more worse off without history! But for all the history, it shouldn't feel like a bucketlist of things to do in an era before moving on to the next game- the Assassin has to have their own personal story that is cohesive and meshes well with everything else going on.

Personally, I think that the two ends of the spectrum are AC3's history-heavy plot and ACU's personal story with a historical backdrop.
Make the character too heavily involved, and you end up with Connor commanding the Continental Army at the Battle of Concord.
Overcorrect too much and you have Arno brooding over Elise for 11 sequences.

Yet, there were times when both of these games still worked really well, when they allowed themselves to meet history and personal stories in a bit of a middle point. I love the personal story of Connor and Haytham set across the war. I love how the turmoil in the Revolution leads to tragedy for Arno and Elise. Those are all some really cool sections.

If I had to choose a game that I think managed this balance the best, I'd say it was Black Flag. Sure, we absolutely see Edward "Forrest Gumping" it up, but he's not interacting with history for the sake of interacting with history. He's not running into de Sade for no reason, or somehow entering Washington's inner circle even though the two didn't get along at all. Rather, you really get the impression that Edward is friends with the pirates, and that the adventures that they have end up being historical stories that we know now, but to them were personal stories of love, greed, and revenge.

TexasCaesar
05-30-2017, 08:22 AM
Dude, I play these games because I love history. I want historical characters. I want historical events.

TexasCaesar
05-30-2017, 08:28 AM
I do wonder if Syndicate might have been more "dangerous" for Ubisoft to make villains for, since there would be a lot more family members who might object to their great-grandpa being turned into a murderer rapist who eats babies (that is, any given Templar).

But they missed some good opportunities. James Mayer de Rothschild would have been an awesome Grandmaster (he died in 1868), and while it wouldn't fit into the same plot, Charles Darwin and Karl Marx both would have made easy villains. With Charles Darwin, all you need is to associate him with Social Darwinism or some kind of mad science. With Karl Marx, well... Communism speaks for itself.

VestigialLlama4
05-30-2017, 09:22 AM
But they missed some good opportunities. James Mayer de Rothschild would have been an awesome Grandmaster (he died in 1868),

It would make the game too obviously anti-semitic, so it would only appeal to those such as yourself.


Dude, I play these games because I love history. I want historical characters. I want historical events.

How do you say that and then write garbage like this...


With Charles Darwin, all you need is to associate him with Social Darwinism or some kind of mad science.

Please don't say you love history ever again.

Helforsite
05-30-2017, 02:43 PM
It would make the game too obviously anti-semitic, so it would only appeal to those such as yourself.

This statement is extremely problematic. I understand that many conspiracy theories around the Rothschild family are heavy with anti-semitism, but that does not mean that anything involving them is automatically anti-semitic. Just by the absolutely enormous wealth that family possessed an involvement and high standing in the Templar Order make sense and them being Jewish or not shouldnt even play into it!

cawatrooper9
05-30-2017, 02:53 PM
I think context is pretty important. The alleged Rothschild conspiracy is a lot bigger than the anti-semitism that may have spawned it. In fact, I know so relatively little about the Rothschilds that I didn't even know their Semitic heritage before this morning, despite having a passing understanding of the crackpot theories surrounding them.

That being said, it's a media outlet (in this case, Ubisoft's) job to make sure that context and connotation are handled responsibly. Just because someone like me may not even make the connection to anti-Semitism, doesn't mean that no one will, nor that it's the right thing to do. So, VL4 has a point that it probably shouldn't have been done.

Frankly, though, I think the Rothschilds would have been kind of a lazy conspiracy to cover in an AC game anyway.

VestigialLlama4
05-30-2017, 05:38 PM
This statement is extremely problematic. I understand that many conspiracy theories around the Rothschild family are heavy with anti-semitism, but that does not mean that anything involving them is automatically anti-semitic.

I am sure the Rothschilds who were persecuted by the Nazis would be quite happy to hear that nuance. The f--hking nazis made movies during the late 30s demonizing the Rothschids and painting them as puppet masters. So what the Nazis are Assassins too.


Just by the absolutely enormous wealth that family possessed an involvement and high standing in the Templar Order make sense and them being Jewish or not shouldnt even play into it!

The Rothschilds were not the only one to possess such wealth nor were they the only banking family in town. The example cited above James Mayer de Rothschild spent most of his life in France and in the Continent and not in England...so the only reason to cite him is pure antisemitic projection.

Furthermore possessing money is not the same thing as having power (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoneyIsNotPower) and being a banker does not make you all powerful by default. There are many aspects and intricacies of the finance industry that general cretins don't fathom.

And lest we forget, we all have played ASSASSIN'S CREED II. Ezio Auditore is a banker's son. His biggest BFF is Lorenzo de'Medici and the primary mode of economy in that game is investment, property development and acquisition. So there's no precedent in the AC games to make any banker a bad guy. And in AC: SYNDICATE, the game is pro-bank, remember what happens when Jacob kills Twopenny and the economy nearly crashes until Evie rushes in and fixes things. The game is not anti-business in the least.


That being said, it's a media outlet (in this case, Ubisoft's) job to make sure that context and connotation are handled responsibly. Just because someone like me may not even make the connection to anti-Semitism, doesn't mean that no one will, nor that it's the right thing to do. So, VL4 has a point that it probably shouldn't have been done.

Ubisoft's games have generally not dealt with Jewish history and anti-semitism well as it is. Putting the Rothschilds in the game would simply make their fascist right-wing sympathies clearer than it already was in UNITY. I mean in UNITY, their backstory makes Guilaume de Nogaret, Philip the Bel's lackey and the guy who whacked Jacques de Molay into an Assassin...not an ally, but an actual Assassin. The real Nogaret was a guy who persecuted Jews and took their property. So already we have that whitewashing in the game itself. And that's not getting into its portrayal of the Revolution itself which is pure tinfoil right-wing.

cawatrooper9
05-30-2017, 08:15 PM
.
Ubisoft's games have generally not dealt with Jewish history and anti-semitism well as it is. Putting the Rothschilds in the game would simply make their fascist right-wing sympathies clearer than it already was in UNITY. I mean in UNITY, their backstory makes Guilaume de Nogaret, Philip the Bel's lackey and the guy who whacked Jacques de Molay into an Assassin...not an ally, but an actual Assassin. The real Nogaret was a guy who persecuted Jews and took their property. So already we have that whitewashing in the game itself. And that's not getting into its portrayal of the Revolution itself which is pure tinfoil right-wing.

Let's try to think critically about this. Nogaret may have some incredibly serious character flaws, but is it really all that surprising that in a series based firmly in a fictional war between Templars and Assassins, the guy who actually led the charge against the Templars in real life might be remembered as an Assassin? Of course, that in no way excuses him of his real life crimes or makes him a hero, but Assassins Creed is a fictional work trying to tell a story and... well, that kind of writes itself. And honestly, he had a pretty minor role in the game. I didn't even recognize him.

Obviously, people are complex beings. You could really take anyone from history and paint them as a hero or a villain, because no one has ever been so one dimensional as to adhere strictly and flawlessly to a moral code. Some people are much better or worse at it, to be sure. And that's why I think that modern history has to be dealt with very carefully. It'd be far too easy to fall into the trap of accidentally demonizing or hero worshipping someone undeserving.

So like I've said, this kind of thing should be handled delicately, but to say that the company has "fascist right-wing sympathies" based on them making a character who actually brought down the Templars into an Assassin is just silly. I've had some pretty good talks with you on here, and you seem pretty smart. I think you probably know that your claim is quite an exaggeration..

VestigialLlama4
05-30-2017, 08:53 PM
...but is it really all that surprising that in a series based firmly in a fictional war between Templars and Assassins, the guy who actually led the charge against the Templars in real life might be remembered as an Assassin?

See I have played these games for a while myself. It is very clear to me that in the original games, the whole conspiracy theory nonsense was just an excuse to create a video-game bridge towards telling legitimate historical fiction. That was certainly the spirit in which Patrice Desilets approached it as does Darby McDevitt and others.They were careful and considerate on balancing historical representation with allegories. Like Corey May in the interviews for AC3 was asked about the Freemasons and all he said was "The Freemasons are boring people who met in clubs and talked". That's it. You are not supposed to actually take the Lore of the series seriously, the developers never did. It's just an excuse for the historical representation. From the very beginning, AC was about portraying history in a more accurate way than videogames had done and was about challenging some conventional views of the past.

So there's no reason at all for them to ally or make a guy serving the French King an assassin mentor.


So like I've said, this kind of thing should be handled delicately, but to say that the company has "fascist right-wing sympathies" based on them making a character who actually brought down the Templars into an Assassin is just silly. I've had some pretty good talks with you on here, and you seem pretty smart. I think you probably know that your claim is quite an exaggeration..

Well no, I am actually quite serious. The danger with using any kind of conspiracy theory as part of your narrative is that you are going to attract and flirt with "fascist right-wing sympathies". Because conspiracy theories have historically been invented and tend to be associated with far-right groups.So it has be to handled delicately. Someone like Thomas Pynchon does that wonderfully and Darby McDevitt admires Pynchon so he knows the score but in lesser hands, the weaknesses show. The modern conspiracy theory began after The French Revolution where a loony priest called Barruel wrote a book saying the French Revolution was the work of The Illuminati and that the people didn't want democracy and freedom. Edmund Burke then chimed in and said that the Revolution was the work of "Jew brokers" and from that you have the Jewish Banking Conspiracy that led to other conspiracies that resulted in the Holocaust. Hitler and his Nazi scum were all believers in conspiracy theory as are their online brigade in the modern times who swallow lies and do stupid things like Brexit.

Now what does UNITY Show, it says that the French Revolution was a meaningless event masterminded by a boring dull freak in a hood, that the King was innocent and that the mob were manipulated from behind the scenes. The hero and heroines are aristocrats and the people are shown as beasts. From UNITY you get no sense of the real importance and achievements of the Revolution, all you have is conspiracy fabrications. So yes, it is a fascist right-wing story. It was made unintentionally certainly and clearly not made with a lot of thought and competence, but as Pynchon says, "If they have you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about your answers".

And also bear in mind that Ubisoft generally does not have a good record showing Jewish history. Like in AC2 and Brotherhood, we don't have the famous Jewish Quarter in either Rome or Venice when historically this was one of the high points of European Jewish history.The Jewish quarter in Rome absolutely existed in the time that Ezio was there and the only reason I think they removed it is because they didn't think that Jews were part of "Italian history" or because it complicated their narrative about Rodrigo Borgia being a bad guy since he was the Pope who was most religiously tolerant in that era. In Brotherhood, Ezio topples the Borgia and paves the way for the antisemitic Julius II so that definitely means that things became worse for Rome's Jews because of Ezio. The only alternative is that in AC-Verse, Jews didn't exist in Italy in that time. Also they demonize Robespierre in UNITY when the real life guy defended the rights of French Jews, and demanded they get equal citizenship. It's kind of telling that the people who were nice and friendly to Jews are made into villains in the AC games.

cawatrooper9
05-30-2017, 09:34 PM
See I have played these games for a while myself. It is very clear to me that in the original games, the whole conspiracy theory nonsense was just an excuse to create a video-game bridge towards telling legitimate historical fiction. That was certainly the spirit in which Patrice Desilets approached it as does Darby McDevitt and others.They were careful and considerate on balancing historical representation with allegories. Like Corey May in the interviews for AC3 was asked about the Freemasons and all he said was "The Freemasons are boring people who met in clubs and talked". That's it. You are not supposed to actually take the Lore of the series seriously, the developers never did. It's just an excuse for the historical representation. From the very beginning, AC was about portraying history in a more accurate way than videogames had done and was about challenging some conventional views of the past.


I don't really see how that quote supports the idea that the lore is to be entirely disregarded. I'll agree that history has always been an important part of the series (obviously) but the fact that May acknowledges the lack of Masonic conspiracy in reality does not necessarily diminish the importance it has in the story.



So there's no reason at all for them to ally or make a guy serving the French King an assassin mentor.
Oh, come now VL. That was real history, about as real as you can get to high profile conspiracy surrounding the Knights Templar. It'd be surprising if they didn't include it. The thing about the lore is that, hackneyed excuse to why it should be discarded or not, it is part of the series now. As such, it's enmeshed with the historical and historical fiction parts of the series. Imagine a retelling of the Friday the 13th arrests in lore, but not led by the Assassins. Sure, it could be done, but it would be quite strange for the Assassins to not at least have some hand in it, wouldn't it?



Well no, I am actually quite serious. The danger with using any kind of conspiracy theory as part of your narrative is that you are going to attract and flirt with "fascist right-wing sympathies". Because conspiracy theories have historically been invented and tend to be associated with far-right groups.So it has be to handled delicately. Someone like Thomas Pynchon does that wonderfully and Darby McDevitt admires Pynchon so he knows the score but in lesser hands, the weaknesses show. The modern conspiracy theory began after The French Revolution where a loony priest called Barruel wrote a book saying the French Revolution was the work of The Illuminati and that the people didn't want democracy and freedom. Edmund Burke then chimed in and said that the Revolution was the work of "Jew brokers" and from that you have the Jewish Banking Conspiracy that led to other conspiracies that resulted in the Holocaust. Hitler and his Nazi scum were all believers in conspiracy theory as are their online brigade in the modern times who swallow lies and do stupid things like Brexit.

Now what does UNITY Show, it says that the French Revolution was a meaningless event masterminded by a boring dull freak in a hood, that the King was innocent and that the mob were manipulated from behind the scenes. The hero and heroines are aristocrats and the people are shown as beasts. From UNITY you get no sense of the real importance and achievements of the Revolution, all you have is conspiracy fabrications. So yes, it is a fascist right-wing story. It was made unintentionally certainly and clearly not made with a lot of thought and competence, but as Pynchon says, "If they have you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about your answers".

I'm sure you and I would see eye to eye politically on this sort of thing. Trust me, when it comes to real life conspiracy theories, I think they're a joke at best and mortally dangerous at worst. But good lord, these are works of fiction (as very clearly evident in the disclaimer in every game in the series). Ubisoft is certainly not trying to make these events seem truthful, nor would any sane gamer find them to be so.

Regarding Unity- I simply disagree. Sure, Arno and Elise are aristocratic. Sure, the King is made to be just kind of a bystander. But the entire game suffers from a rather weak take on its history- nothing is really all that well fleshed out in it.

That being said, what the game shows is a different story. The people, according to you, are "shown as beasts". I honestly can't place what you're trying to refer to, and I hate to imply this, but I can't help but wonder if you're projecting. Unity has a lot going on, and maybe the people aren't made out to be the True Force Of All That Is Right And Good In The World for the entirety of the game, but Arno works alongside them and it's made pretty clear that while the Revolution is kind of messy business, the people clearly are hurting.



And also bear in mind that Ubisoft generally does not have a good record showing Jewish history. Like in AC2 and Brotherhood, we don't have the famous Jewish Quarter in either Rome or Venice when historically this was one of the high points of European Jewish history.The Jewish quarter in Rome absolutely existed in the time that Ezio was there and the only reason I think they removed it is because they didn't think that Jews were part of "Italian history" or because it complicated their narrative about Rodrigo Borgia being a bad guy since he was the Pope who was most religiously tolerant in that era. In Brotherhood, Ezio topples the Borgia and paves the way for the antisemitic Julius II so that definitely means that things became worse for Rome's Jews because of Ezio. The only alternative is that in AC-Verse, Jews didn't exist in Italy in that time.

Look, I can't say for certain why they aren't included. I could make excuses all day (after all, unless the cities were otherwise 1:1 recreations, then there are certainly other differences) but regardless, I'm not gonna be one to complain for more historical accuracy. And maybe this doesn't stem from an active bias, but a passive one- they didn't actively cut out that corner, but simply focused on other areas. Point is, while I totally appreciate the striving for more accuracy (and even better, accurate diversity), it doesn't necessarily denote any sort of maliciousness.


Also they demonize Robespierre in UNITY when the real life guy defended the rights of French Jews, and demanded they get equal citizenship. It's kind of telling that the people who were nice and friendly to Jews are made into villains in the AC games.
Surely this nuanced look at historical figures who were used for rather one-dimensional roles isn't coming from the same person who complained about the series trying to make Templars sympathetic... Surely not... :p

Helforsite
05-30-2017, 09:53 PM
I am sure the Rothschilds who were persecuted by the Nazis would be quite happy to hear that nuance. The f--hking nazis made movies during the late 30s demonizing the Rothschids and painting them as puppet masters. So what the Nazis are Assassins too.

And while that behaviour is inexcusable, I am sure the average Jew in Germany would have loved do be demonized in propaganda films and escape mostly unscathed instead of dying or losing part of their family to the concentration camps.
The Nazis were ****ed up and their ideoloy devoid of logic or common sense, but also: ROTHSCHILDS MAKING GOOD TEMPLARS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BEING JEWS!!! You seem really fixated on connecting them being Jews with them being Templars and thats just not how it works. The Rothschilds were and are still more than just Jews, but you keep suggesting thats the ony thing that matters, which is extremely discriminating of you. People are more than their faith or their race or their sex or their country of origin. I choose to see them as persons and not just Jews and thats why I think they could make good Templars.

Plus, both the Assassin Brotherhood and the Templar Order mostly free from religion, most of them being atheists.


The Rothschilds were not the only one to possess such wealth nor were they the only banking family in town. The example cited above James Mayer de Rothschild spent most of his life in France and in the Continent and not in England...so the only reason to cite him is pure antisemitic projection.

Furthermore possessing money is not the same thing as having power (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoneyIsNotPower) and being a banker does not make you all powerful by default. There are many aspects and intricacies of the finance industry that general cretins don't fathom.

While the above mentioned Rothschild may not be a good example - despite majorly influencing a country/city not equating to having to be their all the time eg. Vatican, Medici-. the Rothschilds would still make good Templars, being that they at one point possessed the largest private fortune in the world, whichI think sets them apart from other banking families.
And while money doesnt not equate power, there is certainly a close relationship between the two. Plus, tvtropes are a bad way to support an argument here, being that fiction is not the same as reality and they describe how things are in fiction, no matter how inspired by reality they may or may not be.


And lest we forget, we all have played ASSASSIN'S CREED II. Ezio Auditore is a banker's son. His biggest BFF is Lorenzo de'Medici and the primary mode of economy in that game is investment, property development and acquisition. So there's no precedent in the AC games to make any banker a bad guy. And in AC: SYNDICATE, the game is pro-bank, remember what happens when Jacob kills Twopenny and the economy nearly crashes until Evie rushes in and fixes things. The game is not anti-business in the least.

There is precedent for making a banker a bad guy: the Medicis in AC2 prove that bankers are involved in the Assassin-Templar conflict, because they tend to also influence thinks quite a bit because of their job.
One game of the series being pro-bank doesnt mean the whole series is or has to be and I would then argue that making one banker or banking family a bad guy doesnt not make a game pro-bank, for not all bankers are alike. But from your frequent use of generalizations, I guess the concept of individuality seems hard for you to grasp.


Ubisoft's games have generally not dealt with Jewish history and anti-semitism well as it is. Putting the Rothschilds in the game would simply make their fascist right-wing sympathies clearer than it already was in UNITY. I mean in UNITY, their backstory makes Guilaume de Nogaret, Philip the Bel's lackey and the guy who whacked Jacques de Molay into an Assassin...not an ally, but an actual Assassin. The real Nogaret was a guy who persecuted Jews and took their property. So already we have that whitewashing in the game itself. And that's not getting into its portrayal of the Revolution itself which is pure tinfoil right-wing.

Ubisoft have not dealt well with Jewish history and anti-semitism well, because they have hardly dealt with those issues at all.

Ubisoft being right-wing... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahah... hardly have I heard a better joke! Have you seen the AC comics, Watch Dogs 2, AC: Syndicate, the antagonists of FC5 etc.? Those are all extremely liberal, progressive and left-wing with a lot of diversity in race and gender, not to mention a notable presence of homosexuals and transsexuals. If anything Ubisoft is left-wing.

EDIT: Ubisoft has also had Aisha Tyler, a black woman, as their E3 conference moderator for the last few years, how right-wing of them, right? /s

Locopells
05-30-2017, 10:28 PM
Ahem.

Topic, guys?





http://i.imgur.com/8kKFfrZ.jpg (https://support.ubi.com)
Thanks to strigoi1958 for the sig!

cawatrooper9
05-30-2017, 10:45 PM
Ahem.

Topic, guys?



Sorry!... :p

Just to try to jumpstart conversation back in the right direction- what do we think of this fourth possibility, that AC games have somewhat dabbled with in the past: "Multiple Gumps?" That is, multiple protagonists, deeply involved in the history. That way, by using a few protagonists (either in the era of the game, across "Lydia"-like rifts, or both) players can experience more historically significant events without having a single character being the crux of them. For instance, if the Egypt game does have Cleopatra's killing at the hands of Amunet, gamers could control the female Assassin for that mission.

Kinda funky for Animus rules (though certainly doable) but I do think it would address the sort of dissonance that happens when a single character just seems to be too conveniently present at all things.

Sigma 1313
05-31-2017, 05:47 AM
I partially agree with VL. I wouldn't say Ubi is right wing, or anything of the sort, but they have done a very poor job with Jewish History. That said, they ignore a lot of bad stuff. I could take examples from every game where Ubi ignores details of racism, war crimes, and general poor quality of life that are never shown. They seem to be very bad at showing the actual sh!+tiness of something (like slavery), but are perfectly fine with morally grandstanding by saying it's wrong in game.


Sorry!... :p

Just to try to jumpstart conversation back in the right direction- what do we think of this fourth possibility, that AC games have somewhat dabbled with in the past: "Multiple Gumps?" That is, multiple protagonists, deeply involved in the history. That way, by using a few protagonists (either in the era of the game, across "Lydia"-like rifts, or both) players can experience more historically significant events without having a single character being the crux of them. For instance, if the Egypt game does have Cleopatra's killing at the hands of Amunet, gamers could control the female Assassin for that mission.

Kinda funky for Animus rules (though certainly doable) but I do think it would address the sort of dissonance that happens when a single character just seems to be too conveniently present at all things.


I do think it would be interesting to see Amunet kill Cleopatra. I figured that we would actually have a pet in every rift sequence. Amunet killed cleopatra with an Asp, so maybe like the eagle in the main game, we'd control a snake in the rift. I also think that this time of rift movement is more conducive for a large number of historical events. We can see Cleopatra's Assassination, Inaros' Rebellion, the old Kingdom, story that would become the Exodus, etc. while still allowing the core game to take place in a time period that allows a good amount of freedom while also providing for sequels (Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt)

SixKeys
05-31-2017, 01:38 PM
I partially agree with VL. I wouldn't say Ubi is right wing, or anything of the sort, but they have done a very poor job with Jewish History. That said, they ignore a lot of bad stuff. I could take examples from every game where Ubi ignores details of racism, war crimes, and general poor quality of life that are never shown. They seem to be very bad at showing the actual sh!+tiness of something (like slavery), but are perfectly fine with morally grandstanding by saying it's wrong in game.

I don't know. I thought Freedom Cry was probably the best DLC the series has had to date and certainly one of, if not THE the most thought-provoking handling of slavery in video games, period.

I think the best that can be said is that AC has inconsistent writing from title to title, sometimes succeeding at tackling social issues, sometimes failing. The important thing is that Ubi not abandon heavier themes for mere mindless entertainment but that they keep trying despite the setbacks and controversies.

crusader_prophet
05-31-2017, 02:20 PM
The most recent example would be Far Cry 5. Ubi ain't afraid to deal with sensitive subjects, if they will get it right or wrong? That's a different question. I liked how they handled the Maoist revolution in Nepal in Far Cry 4.

VestigialLlama4
05-31-2017, 04:09 PM
The most recent example would be Far Cry 5. Ubi ain't afraid to deal with sensitive subjects, if they will get it right or wrong? That's a different question. I liked how they handled the Maoist revolution in Nepal in Far Cry 4.

Considering the Nepalese Maoist Party has after consistent popular demonstrations won democratic elections and is currently part of a Parliamentary coalition...I would disagree with every part of that sentence. Far Cry 4 is an Orientalist fantasy for white people with more hypocritical self-justifications (like having a fictional Kyrat nation that is not Nepal or North-East India). It's maybe better than Spielberg's Temple of Doom but that's about it. Nothing to pat themselves on the back over. As for Far Cry 5, I see it as refined clickbait, at least that's how the advertisements are angling it but I am sure that it will have enough to placate Ubisoft's investors.

Ubisoft is doing what any would-be trendy company wants to do, they want to have their cake and eat it too. The Far Cry games are more or less a franchise of ambulance chasers since Far Cry 3. They aren't creative enough to do something brilliant like Spec Ops: The Line nor are they capable of putting something original like Bioshock so instead they pick-and-choose and put bits from both games. I like Blood Dragon better than any other Far Cry title.


I don't know. I thought Freedom Cry was probably the best DLC the series has had to date and certainly one of, if not THE the most thought-provoking handling of slavery in video games, period.

I think the best that can be said is that AC has inconsistent writing from title to title, sometimes succeeding at tackling social issues, sometimes failing. The important thing is that Ubi not abandon heavier themes for mere mindless entertainment but that they keep trying despite the setbacks and controversies.

That is all true. I generally think the New World games: AC3, Black Flag and Freedom Cry are the best in the series at least, in how they handled the historical settings in terms of accuracy and representation. (I do not acknowledge Rogue's existence). There are of course problems, like the fact that Freedom Cry is a DLC and not a main game.

The basic thing is Ubisoft's handling of historical settings is that their approach is "What monuments and cool places we can show" / "What cool gameplay we have" / "What makes an interesting story". Now in the case of the first two...their European games in AC2, Brotherhood and Revelations...they could tell a good story with Setting and Gameplay alone, i.e. the Renaissance Italy is so attractive a setting that a pretty thin story as in the case of Brotherhood can make it work. Even Revelations despite being so light and thin, intentionally so, is a pretty fun game because Istanbul is that awesome a place. So it didn't matter that the gameplay had become easier in both stealth and combat since AC1, the tourism fantasy would attract people alone.

Now if you have a setting where "Monuments and cool places" aren't there, then you have to focus on gameplay and story. In the New World games, there's no monuments and the flat low ceiling buildings so that meant the New World games were more innovative in story and gameplay than the Ezio games. But the thing is what makes an interesting story in that landscape is politics since it's no longer possible to tell a story about American history without dealing with slavery and ethnic cleansing.

The problem is that after making those games, ubisoft got a reputation for making stories about being politically sensitive and daring. So when they made UNITY they shot themselves in the foot.


Surely this nuanced look at historical figures who were used for rather one-dimensional roles isn't coming from the same person who complained about the series trying to make Templars sympathetic... Surely not... :p

Once they arrived at a certain formulation of the Templars...the Modern Templars are scumbag neanderthals who are barely sentient in their hatred and narcissism, that historically they supported Hitler and so on, and consistently make them one-dimensional despots with few redeeming virtues then there's no point making them sympathetic.

I am all for getting rid of the Templars altogether. And Ubisoft's own series has shown that the most interesting villains are non-Templars: Savonarola, Black Bart, King Washington, Abbas Sofian, Pierre Bellec, Jack the Ripper.

cawatrooper9
05-31-2017, 04:23 PM
I do think it would be interesting to see Amunet kill Cleopatra. I figured that we would actually have a pet in every rift sequence. Amunet killed cleopatra with an Asp, so maybe like the eagle in the main game, we'd control a snake in the rift. I also think that this time of rift movement is more conducive for a large number of historical events. We can see Cleopatra's Assassination, Inaros' Rebellion, the old Kingdom, story that would become the Exodus, etc. while still allowing the core game to take place in a time period that allows a good amount of freedom while also providing for sequels (Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt)

That, I think, hits the nail on the head. Rifts are incredibly beneficial because they would allow us to go to these various places and "witness" important historical events, while still letting our main protagonist have his or her own story. I think they could really help with that "Gump" balance in the game by giving us our dose of history while still letting the main story do its thing.


The most recent example would be Far Cry 5. Ubi ain't afraid to deal with sensitive subjects, if they will get it right or wrong? That's a different question. I liked how they handled the Maoist revolution in Nepal in Far Cry 4.

Perhaps this subject deserves its own thread, since I think Loco was right in that we're veering off a bit from the "Gump or not to Gump" question originally posed, but for now: One big difference with Far Cry 5 is that it seems to be far more hypothetical than dealing with specific real world people and events. It's easy to say, yeah cannibalistic cults are bad. Once you start pointing fingers, people get a little more touchy.




The problem is that after making those games, ubisoft got a reputation for making stories about being politically sensitive and daring. So when they made UNITY they shot themselves in the foot.



Once they arrived at a certain formulation of the Templars...the Modern Templars are scumbag neanderthals who are barely sentient in their hatred and narcissism, that historically they supported Hitler and so on, and consistently make them one-dimensional despots with few redeeming virtues then there's no point making them sympathetic.

I am all for getting rid of the Templars altogether. And Ubisoft's own series has shown that the most interesting villains are non-Templars: Savonarola, Black Bart, King Washington, Abbas Sofian, Pierre Bellec, Jack the Ripper.

Once again, I'm gonna bite the bullet and go off topic for a second (though this is totally an interesting topic, and I'd be willing to participate in a new thread if there's interest) but I definitely don't see complexity as a bad thing. Still, I'd totally agree that some of the best villains in the series have been outside of the Templars.

Helforsite
06-01-2017, 04:29 PM
That, I think, hits the nail on the head. Rifts are incredibly beneficial because they would allow us to go to these various places and "witness" important historical events, while still letting our main protagonist have his or her own story. I think they could really help with that "Gump" balance in the game by giving us our dose of history while still letting the main story do its thing.

You would really have to anchor those rifts in the modern day story though and be careful to have them at fitting moments in the historical story. Otherwise its gonna be like Syndicate where you meeting all these important historical figures has almost no connection to the main story and their subsequent story line have no real relevance to the games plot either, making it feel extra forced.
If they dont explain the rifts well enough in the story its just gonna be: why are you showing us these things? Having all these rifts be kind of milestones in the developement of the Brotherhood would fit very well with the rumoured title of Origins and the rumoured theme of the game being the origin of the Assassins.


Perhaps this subject deserves its own thread, since I think Loco was right in that we're veering off a bit from the "Gump or not to Gump" question originally posed, but for now: One big difference with Far Cry 5 is that it seems to be far more hypothetical than dealing with specific real world people and events. It's easy to say, yeah cannibalistic cults are bad. Once you start pointing fingers, people get a little more touchy.

Far Cry 5 seems to be not hypothetical enough if you go by the massive amount of offended Christians and right-wingers on the Far Cry forums. I personally think its frightening how bad people are at differentiating fiction from reality and then making an @ss out of themselves by *****ing about Christians being singled out as if they hadvent played a (shooter) game in the last 15-20 years.


Once again, I'm gonna bite the bullet and go off topic for a second (though this is totally an interesting topic, and I'd be willing to participate in a new thread if there's interest) but I definitely don't see complexity as a bad thing. Still, I'd totally agree that some of the best villains in the series have been outside of the Templars.
I agree that some of the best villains in the series have been outside of the Templars.
Complexity is a good thing in my opinion and having read AC: Heresy and AC: Templars really makes the Templars so much more interesting and I would love for that to translate back into the games.