PDA

View Full Version : I hate the treatment of Daniel Cross in AC 3



M4ke_Off
05-22-2017, 03:58 AM
Daniel Cross is suppose to be this beast of a character, the man that almost, single handily, brought the Assassin's Order to it's knees
and yet in AC 3

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/assassinscreed/images/6/64/DanielCross.png/revision/latest?cb=20120130152110

they make him some stoner looking character, that's pretty much useless and is killed by desmond without much of a fight. I was expecting him to be on an equal or even superior level to Desmond, like the beginning of an arch rivalry between them that would happen throughout many games, but no


just a complete waste of a character

VestigialLlama4
05-22-2017, 04:18 AM
Well you could have avoided reading the comics altogether. It's MD what do you expect?

joshoolhorst
05-22-2017, 07:18 AM
Well you could have avoided reading the comics altogether. It's MD what do you expect?

Yeah the worst part is this is true XD

Helforsite
05-22-2017, 01:52 PM
In the comics and other media its mentioned that Cross is very fragile mentally and that his mental state actuallly takes a dive after the eradication of the Assassins and Cross elects/wants to spend almost all of his time in the Animus and all.

cawatrooper9
05-22-2017, 02:41 PM
Cross is one of those moments where the issues multi-media handling of MD really start becoming more apparent than they probably intended. I get what they were trying to do- feature a villain in the game who was more fleshed out in the comics, and honestly, that would've been cool.

The problem was, they relied far too heavily on the comics for literally any information on him- and his depiction differed from the comics, as M4ke points out. So, non-comic readers basically had no idea who this underdeveloped villain was, and comic readers were disappointed in the portrayal. It was alienating to everyone.

Locopells
05-22-2017, 05:12 PM
Daniel Cross...just a complete waste of a character

You and pretty much everyone else, buddy. There was supposed to be a white room scene, but it got cut (on YouTube, if you're interested).




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

M4ke_Off
05-22-2017, 07:05 PM
it's a shame cause i was expecting a arch rivalry between Desmond and Daniel

pirate1802
05-24-2017, 06:25 AM
Well, that's what you get when you use a primarily comicbook character in the games. Give him too much importance and those who didn't read the comics (which a lot of people outside us the hardcore fanbase haven't) would wonder where the heck did this guy come from. Give him too less importance and comicbook fans rage. I think more than everything else this shows the problem with transmedia stuff. I didn't follow the initiates stuff and I was scratching my head trying to figure out who this Russian assassin girl is and why is she so important.

SixKeys
05-24-2017, 05:58 PM
Well, that's what you get when you use a primarily comicbook character in the games. Give him too much importance and those who didn't read the comics (which a lot of people outside us the hardcore fanbase haven't) would wonder where the heck did this guy come from. Give him too less importance and comicbook fans rage. I think more than everything else this shows the problem with transmedia stuff. I didn't follow the initiates stuff and I was scratching my head trying to figure out who this Russian assassin girl is and why is she so important.

The problem wasn't the introduction of a transmedia character per se - Otso Berg has become an interesting character in his own right. Cross was just poorly handled in the game. His introduction was rushed and the idea of him instantly being some sort of arch nemesis to Desmond was laughable when there was no buildup. He could have been much better had he not been such a nervous wreck. It just made non-comics-fans wonder how such a fragile guy was supposed to have single-handedly brought down the modern assassin brotherhood. Instead of making him run away at every turn like a coward, the bleeding effect should have made him more aggressive and efficient, creating a much more threatening mini-boss.

LoyalACFan
05-24-2017, 11:10 PM
Desmond knocked him the f**k out with one punch the first time he showed his face in AC3. That alone was the downfall of Daniel Cross. Mental breakdowns and terrible aim aside, there's no way he could have felt like a legitimate threat after getting punk'd that hard in his freaking debut appearance.

cawatrooper9
05-25-2017, 04:42 PM
As someone who didn't know Cross going into the game, for me it wasn't his breakdowns (which I thought were interesting) or his TKO by Desmond (which I barely even took note of).
In fact, I was pretty excited for him as a villain halfway through the game.

It's just that he never really went anywhere. What could've been an interesting foil for Desmond ended up being a minor chase scene with almost no context. Also, seeing as this is one of the first big "Assassination targets" for Desmond, I'm really disappointed that his white room didn't make into the game. That, at least, would've given him some more of a semblance of importance.

Megas_Doux
05-29-2017, 04:22 AM
Well, that's what you get when you use a primarily comicbook character in the games. Give him too much importance and those who didn't read the comics (which a lot of people outside us the hardcore fanbase haven't) would wonder where the heck did this guy come from. Give him too less importance and comicbook fans rage. I think more than everything else this shows the problem with transmedia stuff. I didn't follow the initiates stuff and I was scratching my head trying to figure out who this Russian assassin girl is and why is she so important.

A 1000000 times this.......

Since that day I developed an upfront, deep contempt, almost a HATE for modern story, the existence of transmedia and even the "classic" mechanics.. Daniel Cross in the comics was this OP character who not only was supposed to be this "anti-assassin" with assassin skills that rivaled the most skilled of them while commanding a militia capable of taking on assassin strongholds with ease and success. That is, despite his short comings.

Yet in AC III we got a mentally broken man barely capable of fighting anymore and whose militia was a bunch of mall cops with sticks........

VestigialLlama4
05-29-2017, 04:38 PM
The problem wasn't the introduction of a transmedia character per se - Otso Berg has become an interesting character in his own right.

Except Otso Berg isn't transmedia. He was the Multiplayer Character of Brotherhood and Revelations which then flowed into AC INITIATES (which has generally been among the best written transmedia and worldbuilding Ubisoft has done).


A 1000000 times this.......

Since that day I developed an upfront, deep contempt, almost a HATE for modern story, the existence of transmedia and even the "classic" mechanics.. Daniel Cross in the comics was this OP character who not only was supposed to be this "anti-assassin" with assassin skills that rivaled the most skilled of them while commanding a militia capable of taking assassin on strongholds with ease and success. That is, despite his short comings.

Yet in AC III we got a mentally broken man barely capable of fighting anymore and whose militia was a bunch of mall cops with sticks........

To be honest, I disliked the comic personally. It's a kind of simplistic and poorly written scenario. So seeing Desmond putting Daniel Cross in his place in AC3 was satisfying. Daniel Cross' downfall is not any more unsatisfying than his rise to power. I mean the way he infiltrated and destroyed the Modern Day Assassins in the comics was simplistic, absurd and pathetic. Very much Mary Sue-ish. His downfall came from the same situation with Desmond pulling rank on him.

And from the viewpoint of the creators, I don't see how they could have done differently. They invested more in Modern Day for AC3 than any other game before and after, to the point of creating original assets for it, and it made it pretty expensive. Investing more time and effort in Daniel Cross would have distracted from the real game...which is Connor and his story in AC3.

joshoolhorst
05-29-2017, 05:48 PM
Except Otso Berg isn't transmedia. He was the Multiplayer Character of Brotherhood and Revelations which then flowed into AC INITIATES (which has generally been among the best written transmedia and worldbuilding Ubisoft has done).



To be honest, I disliked the comic personally. It's a kind of simplistic and poorly written scenario. So seeing Desmond putting Daniel Cross in his place in AC3 was satisfying. Daniel Cross' downfall is not any more unsatisfying than his rise to power. I mean the way he infiltrated and destroyed the Modern Day Assassins in the comics was simplistic, absurd and pathetic. Very much Mary Sue-ish. His downfall came from the same situation with Desmond pulling rank on him.

And from the viewpoint of the creators, I don't see how they could have done differently. They invested more in Modern Day for AC3 than any other game before and after, to the point of creating original assets for it, and it made it pretty expensive. Investing more time and effort in Daniel Cross would have distracted from the real game...which is Connor and his story in AC3.

I understand but it made the Modern Day look laughable in comparison to the historical part. Now to one of my friends he thinks the Modern Day Assassin's are defeated by a addict ******ed person with a army of Abstergo guards of wielding sticks. They could've made a mention in the game for Desmonds story which was optional getting out after each sequence so he can have his own fights or something like that.

SixKeys
05-29-2017, 08:07 PM
Except Otso Berg isn't transmedia. He was the Multiplayer Character of Brotherhood and Revelations which then flowed into AC INITIATES (which has generally been among the best written transmedia and worldbuilding Ubisoft has done).

The multiplayer "character" in ACB and ACR was a test run for the "modern day character is You" idea. It wasn't Otso Berg until Initiates retroactively decided that's who it was. The actual multiplayer cut scenes never refer to Berg/the player by name. He started out in transmedia, then was retconned into the games.

VestigialLlama4
05-29-2017, 09:14 PM
It wasn't Otso Berg until Initiates retroactively decided that's who it was. The actual multiplayer cut scenes never refer to Berg/the player by name. He started out in transmedia, then was retconned into the games.

Daniel Cross wasn't even mentioned in the games until AC3. So it's not quite the same thing remotely.

The multiplayer character is clearly a specific person and individual, a Templar who enters the Inner Sanctum, attains the rank of Master Templar and is appointed to extract William Miles. There's no way that kind of character can be "You" he has to be a person known and familiar in the world of the game. Not everyone attains the rank of Master Templar and enters the Inner Sanctum, so that individual does not have any general experience.

So they might not have decided on Otso Berg from the start, but there's no way that person was ever going to be some nobody cog in the wheel.

SixKeys
05-29-2017, 09:45 PM
Daniel Cross wasn't even mentioned in the games until AC3. So it's not quite the same thing remotely.

The multiplayer character is clearly a specific person and individual, a Templar who enters the Inner Sanctum, attains the rank of Master Templar and is appointed to extract William Miles. There's no way that kind of character can be "You" he has to be a person known and familiar in the world of the game. Not everyone attains the rank of Master Templar and enters the Inner Sanctum, so that individual does not have any general experience.

So they might not have decided on Otso Berg from the start, but there's no way that person was ever going to be some nobody cog in the wheel.

The multiplayer started off as supposedly Abstergo training Templar recruits. ACB had no protagonist at all (hence "You", the player, assumed the role of nameless Abstergo trainee). ACR continued this idea by having Vidic pop up congratulating you on your progress. They had selected you out of all the recruits as showing the most promise. If it were meant to be Berg from the start, it would go against canon, as AC4's recordings show that he was never just a random trainee, Vidic very specifically sought him out due to his skills as a soldier. The idea behind the first two multiplayers was simply that Abstergo was luring young recruits into their ranks by promising them all kinds of privileges, and once suitable recruits were found, they would reveal more about your ultimate purpose.

cawatrooper9
05-30-2017, 03:08 PM
The multiplayer character is clearly a specific person and individual, a Templar who enters the Inner Sanctum, attains the rank of Master Templar and is appointed to extract William Miles. There's no way that kind of character can be "You" he has to be a person known and familiar in the world of the game. Not everyone attains the rank of Master Templar and enters the Inner Sanctum, so that individual does not have any general experience.


Maybe I missed a big detail, but at the very least, I'd say that it's not "clearly" done. I totally got "generic Templar Joe" vibes from the multiplayer character.

Obviously Berg was created retroactively, but it would've been cool if he hadn't and they had referred to him by name in the multiplayer. Then, maybe it would have been more clear.

Cody2819
05-30-2017, 09:05 PM
AC3 is my fave in the series (first game I 100%ed in a long time) but even I'll admit it feels unfinished, even a bit rushed. One of the biggest hints at this is one area in the game that had like 1 viewpoint, yet is so huge it barely gets cleared and you gotta run across it on every pixal for 100%. With Cross I was surprised, I mean I played 3 before Revelations and in 3 you hear about him like there was an huge fight and his betrayal was very recent. However....well I don't want to spoiler ACR but he is a waste of a character.

I think if they hadn't killed Desmond off (I have yet to play any game pass 4, and I will be unable to for the Xbox One/PS4 titles as I can't afford those consoles) Cross would have had an larger roll. I was hoping Desmond would be brought back as I'm one of the few that didn't mean the present segments as, well like it or not their the main factor that drives the games. Would be awesome if it turns out Desmond didn't die but they faked the footage somehow.