PDA

View Full Version : So, the Subject 16 glyphs...



joshoolhorst
05-25-2017, 07:33 PM
The hole glyphs made me really interested in the AC universe when the series was just a few years old and made me explore way more of the lore.

But I just wonder why did Clay put this in it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_okIA8iI5Tw

Even if he did not do it on purpose what was the point of putting this in the game? I like the lore they give us but why did he do all of that?
Why go through all that trouble just to do that and talk about ''find Eve her DNA'' if he doesn't talk about it in Revelations yeah I know that not the ''real'' Clay but why never solve it?

EDIT: I original thought once YEARS AGO that 16 lost his mind so bad that he wanted to reveal the hole world this information in anyway possible!

Xangr8
05-25-2017, 09:18 PM
I'm thinking that they're going to tackle this in the upcoming comics/game. They've been tying up all the mysterious loose ends one by one. First they had the exposition about Desmond's son (The sun. Your son) and then how they'd consistently been pointing out Eve's importance, even as late as Liberation (Eve will lead us) which I feel is somehow going to tie into the grand scheme of things with Juno and her master plan of total world domination. I'm guessing Charlotte turns out to be the one to lead them :>

VestigialLlama4
05-25-2017, 09:35 PM
The Watsonian answer is that Subject 16 wanted to present the Assassins hard intel about the stuff he dug up and make them understand the First Civ/Abstergo/Templars better.

The Doylist answer is that Jeffrey Yohalem who wrote the content of the Glyphs independently of editorial oversight was doing some cool world-building and spinning threads without quite worrying about how it would pan out or if it would pan out.

In short, treat the Glyphs as "guidelines" or "suggestions" rather than Canon. Not how it is, but how it could be or might be.

Xangr8
05-25-2017, 09:57 PM
The Doylist answer is that Jeffrey Yohalem who wrote the content of the Glyphs independently of editorial oversight was doing some cool world-building and spinning threads without quite worrying about how it would pan out or if it would pan out.

In short, treat the Glyphs as "guidelines" or "suggestions" rather than Canon. Not how it is, but how it could be or might be.


I'm pretty sure glyphs are as much canon as any other piece of lore in the AC media. Just the assertion that Jeffrey Yohalem didn't think these through and all the gylphs were just the product of a writer excited about conspiracy theories wouldn't really be justified since Yohalem wasn't the only writer on the AC2 team. Most of the gylphs have been effectively integrated and expanded into the lore (Napoleon's Apple, Washington's Apple, Joan of Arc's Sword, Tsar's Staff, and I could just go on). In fact, I'd say that these glyphs laid the groundwork for a lot of events with the potential of forming a compelling narrative.

SixKeys
05-25-2017, 10:28 PM
To share with the assassins what Templars already knew, to give them an edge and to show how much bigger the whole war is than Desmond could have possibly imagined.

S16 may in fact have wanted the assassins to eventually tell the whole world about their discovery. After all, in one of his glyphs he emphasizes that all humans have the potential to unlock their dormant skills, like Eagle Vision. Most of them just don't know how since they've never been trained. S16 knew he was going to die after leaving his message, and some of the information he divulged may have been in the hopes that the assassins would liberate all humans and show everyone the truth. Thus far, of course, that hasn't happened.

VestigialLlama4
05-25-2017, 10:34 PM
I'm pretty sure glyphs are as much canon as any other piece of lore in the AC media.

Winston Churchill is a bad guy in the glyphs and a good guy in SYNDICATE and the database in Syndicate makes no mention whatsoever of the glyphs. The reason; obviously more people have played Syndicate's mission than have read the glyphs.

So in AC Media some canon is more equal than others. What people play, see and interact with their hands/eyes/ears will always be more canonical than some content locked behind a database or puzzle that most gamers would have to go to the internet to solve, for the obvious reason that many of them require skills entirely separate from the AC2 game, like knowledge of ciphers and puzzle mechanics...BLACK FLAG's Modern Day fixed that with its more simplistic but accessible puzzle mechanic that made it a fun activity rather than a chore.


Just the assertion that Jeffrey Yohalem didn't think these through and all the gylphs were just the product of a writer excited about conspiracy theories wouldn't really be justified since Yohalem wasn't the only writer on the AC2 team.

He was the only writer of the AC2 Glyphs. The AC2 team compartmentalizes and divides writing duties so different writers handle different stuff. And the game is set up and made so quickly in such a short window there's often not enough integrational editorial oversight to make it all stitch and flow together. Corey May wrote AC2's main story but the side content was done by different writers. One of them was Yohalem. And by the way the content diverges from the main game repeatedly. Compare Eseosa's Letters in AC INITATES which makes Robespierre into a hero and Napoleon a bad guy to their portrayal in UNITY.

Heck parts of AC2 were not directed by Patrice Desilets. He was responsible only for the main game but the side-content was not him at all, the AC2 Tombs was designed by Ubisoft Singapore and Patrice Desilets more or less signed off on it.

BLACK FLAG and Revelations is exceptional because most of the content, main and side story was done by Darby McDevitt. So it feels more of a piece.


Most of the gylphs have been effectively integrated and expanded into the lore (Napoleon's Apple, Washington's Apple, Joan of Arc's Sword, Tsar's Staff, and I could just go on).

Napoleon and Washington's Apple are subplots only dealt and tackled with in DLC content. In Washington's case, it was an Alternate Universe DLC that had no bearing or relevance on the AC universe and lore aside from giving the team that would make SYNDICATE some training ground (such as the Eagle Traversal mechanic being repurposed for the Grappling Hook).

So I think the evidence points to precisely it not being effectively integrated into the game.


In fact, I'd say that these glyphs laid the groundwork for a lot of events with the potential of forming a compelling narrative.

Well did it? Most people were surprised that AC3 went to the American Revolution and even more were surprised with the Pirate game Black Flag that more or less wasn't even planned or dreamed of until well after the glyphs were written. Black Flag exists because Ubisoft Singapore developed the naval mechanic during the middle of the production of AC3 and it got such good notices that Ubisoft more or less greenlit a pirate naval sequel then and there. It was improvised and not planned a lot.

The glyphs were there to give the illusion of coherent worldbuilding and suggest possibilities but it was not set in stone by any means. Heck AC2 was supposed to lead directly to AC3, but it was so successful they decided to make Brotherhood and Revelations to milk it.

joshoolhorst
05-25-2017, 11:14 PM
To share with the assassins what Templars already knew, to give them an edge and to show how much bigger the whole war is than Desmond could have possibly imagined.

S16 may in fact have wanted the assassins to eventually tell the whole world about their discovery. After all, in one of his glyphs he emphasizes that all humans have the potential to unlock their dormant skills, like Eagle Vision. Most of them just don't know how since they've never been trained. S16 knew he was going to die after leaving his message, and some of the information he divulged may have been in the hopes that the assassins would liberate all humans and show everyone the truth. Thus far, of course, that hasn't happened.

I remember in the Codex Altair was talking about not lying to people and break their illusion or something I have to check that tomorrow in AC2. Maybe Patrice wanted to go their so people could choice to follow how life is now but than AC Modern Day would probably have ended

cawatrooper9
05-26-2017, 02:36 PM
Winston Churchill is a bad guy in the glyphs and a good guy in SYNDICATE and the database in Syndicate makes no mention whatsoever of the glyphs. The reason; obviously more people have played Syndicate's mission than have read the glyphs.

While I agree that was kind of sloppy handling of a character, the Churchill glyphs don't necessarily contradict Syndicate.
Just read the wiki page (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Winston_Churchill) on him.


In 1916, Churchill enlisted the aid of Assassin Lydia Frye to root out a German spy radio calling dirigibles near Tower Bridge in London.

Great, so that's what we see in Syndicate. Then, a few paragraphs down:


Churchill later became one of the Templar-influenced political leaders who were involved in staging World War II, alongside Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt, in an attempt to create a New World Order.

So, was it sloppy and maybe even a little bit tasteless? Sure. But I don't think this is a canon issue. More like how in the old Star Wars Legends continuity, Luke at one point went over to the dark side for a brief point. Obviously, the fact that more people consider Luke to be a Jedi than a Sith doesn't decanonize the media in which he did fall to the dark side (though Disney eventually did in a completely unrelated move, so... you know... maybe not the best example, but you get the idea :p).

SixKeys
05-26-2017, 04:39 PM
So, was it sloppy and maybe even a little bit tasteless? Sure. But I don't think this is a canon issue. More like how in the old Star Wars Legends continuity, Luke at one point went over to the dark side for a brief point. Obviously, the fact that more people consider Luke to be a Jedi than a Sith doesn't decanonize the media in which he did fall to the dark side (though Disney eventually did in a completely unrelated move, so... you know... maybe not the best example, but you get the idea :p).

Why tasteless? Churchill was a massive racist, advocated the use of poison gas against "uncivilized tribes" and was no stranger to accepting bribes, among many other things. He'd fit right in with the Templars.

cawatrooper9
05-26-2017, 04:44 PM
Why tasteless? Churchill was a massive racist, advocated the use of poison gas against "uncivilized tribes" and was no stranger to accepting bribes, among many other things. He'd fit right in with the Templars.

The closer we get to modern day, the more difficult it is to deal with real life figures. Heck, imagine if an AC game made implications on a politician in the last 20 years. Not only would that be controversial and potentially inappropriate, but it could possibly even have an effect on some voters in the future.

It's one thing to say Cesare Borgia was a secret Templar. It might even be okay to show some of Churchill's less than appealing qualities. But implying that he was a secret Nazi goes a little too far, I think.

Regardless, even that doesn't have anything to do with the continuity of the glyphs, anyway. Fact is, the continuity is fine.

SixKeys
05-26-2017, 04:50 PM
The closer we get to modern day, the more difficult it is to deal with real life figures. It's one thing to say Cesare Borgia was a secret Templar. It might even be okay to show some of Churchill's less than appealing qualities. But implying that he was a secret Nazi goes a little too far, I think.

Is it more acceptable to imply for Roosevelt, then? As far as I can recall, the conspirators weren't actually rooting for the Nazis, they simply "allowed H. to have his little war", as if the distraction would serve the Templars' ultimate goals. They may have had a falling out once they realized Hitler was going to lose, so they stepped in to make themselves look like the good guys. (All this in game lore, naturally.)

cawatrooper9
05-26-2017, 05:01 PM
Is it more acceptable to imply for Roosevelt, then? As far as I can recall, the conspirators weren't actually rooting for the Nazis, they simply "allowed H. to have his little war", as if the distraction would serve the Templars' ultimate goals. They may have had a falling out once they realized Hitler was going to lose, so they stepped in to make themselves look like the good guys. (All this in game lore, naturally.)

No, of course not.

And of course, something like this is going to have a different effect on different people. You might not see it as problematic, and on my own I am not really all that offended by it either- so you're preaching to the choir.

I'm just saying that Ubisoft is a public company, and they have to make calculated decisions about stuff like this.

Anyway, back on topic...

VestigialLlama4
05-26-2017, 05:14 PM
Is it more acceptable to imply for Roosevelt, then? As far as I can recall, the conspirators weren't actually rooting for the Nazis, they simply "allowed H. to have his little war", as if the distraction would serve the Templars' ultimate goals. They may have had a falling out once they realized Hitler was going to lose, so they stepped in to make themselves look like the good guys. (All this in game lore, naturally.)

It's not even acceptable to make Stalin a "secret Nazi" and it has nothing to do with the personal qualities and foibles of these men themselves. There are actual real-world consequences, deadly consequences, to spreading crap like that, especially in the last two years. Believe me Ubisoft made the best decision not to make a game in 2016 because I can only imagine the negative publicity its conspiracy-addled lore would have when a new title put itself on the market during the year of the Alt-Right whose online blather is more or less the same as the Subject 16 glyphs.

Making them a Templar "During World War II" and letting Hitler have his war is as good as accusing them of enabling and okaying the Holocaust. Because in the AC-Lore, Hitler is a Templar and the Nazis are Templar which means the MD-Templars are responsible and culpable for the Holocaust. That's clear in the AC-Lore...and I think the only way out for them is to simply get rid of whole chunks of the Lore, including the Subject 16 Glyphs because it's toxic and useless.


The closer we get to modern day, the more difficult it is to deal with real life figures.

It's always difficult provided you have a good story and know what you are doing. There are stories to tell with Churchill as a bad guy, and even during World War II like say during the Greek Resistance, where he and the British and Americans stabbed the latter in the back at the end of the war and reinstated pre-war fascists and Nazi collaborators making Greece the only European nation to never experience postwar trials of collaborators and war criminals and the only one to never receive reparations from Nazi Germany. But nobody is going to play an AC game during World War II set in Greece: No shareholder will greenlight it, no producer will accept it...

But saying, Churchill was a Templar alongside Hitler before the war, that the whole war was a conspiracy and a lie, is something no reasonable person can accept. Even Quentin Tarantino in his Inglourious Basterds never went that far.


It's one thing to say Cesare Borgia was a secret Templar.

I don't think Cesare in Brotherhood is a "Secret" Templar. He's rather out loud and proud is he not. But in any case, the whole concept of making Templars into total bad guys which all of them are without exception in the AC-Lore, and making some historical figures into Templars even if it makes zero sense (Robespierre for instance) is plainly bad storytelling.

cawatrooper9
05-26-2017, 05:40 PM
Anyway...



Even if he did not do it on purpose what was the point of putting this in the game? I like the lore they give us but why did he do all of that?
Why go through all that trouble just to do that and talk about ''find Eve her DNA'' if he doesn't talk about it in Revelations yeah I know that not the ''real'' Clay but why never solve it?


In the grand scheme of things, I think that the video "The Truth" was most important exactly where it was placed- in Assassins Creed 2. What "The Truth" represents in Assassins Creed is, at its most simple, the fact that history and theology are not as we know them to be true. This is not the point that Clay is trying to make, but rather a jumping off point to delve into other subjects.

I guess an analogy could be with the (often over-used analogy of) The Matrix. Imagine if Neo had been so preoccupied with the notion of his consciousness being inside of the simulation that he never really expanded on trying to do anything about it, rather just say with philosophical musings on the nature of epistemology and reality. While that's very interesting stuff, it's more of an essay than a story. Same goes for the Isu- their existence isn't necessarily the important part. It's what they've done, and (perhaps most important of all) what they're going to do.

Xangr8
05-26-2017, 06:40 PM
Winston Churchill is a bad guy in the glyphs and a good guy in SYNDICATE and the database in Syndicate makes no mention whatsoever of the glyphs. The reason; obviously more people have played Syndicate's mission than have read the glyphs.

Well, the WW1 section in Syndicate takes place in 1916 when Churchill requested Lydia's help. He had a clear window of 23 years to consider the Templars. Heck, we don't even know if Churchill was fully aware of Lydia's affiliations with the Assassins then. It would make no sense lore-wise to reveal this information to the Initiate when it's got nothing to do with the timeline.



And by the way the content diverges from the main game repeatedly. Compare Eseosa's Letters in AC INITATES which makes Robespierre into a hero and Napoleon a bad guy to their portrayal in UNITY.

I don't see what exactly you're trying to imply here but from what I can infer, you're pointing out the inconsistency in Eseosa's and Arno's views regarding certain people. Exactly, their views, which are their personal opinions on it. Eseosa sees Robespierre as an effective leader for abolishing slavery - the thing that he's working towards eradicating - with whom his intended goals align. Robespierre was a weak Templar relying on rhetorics to create control through terror and Eseosa may or may not be aware of this.



Napoleon and Washington's Apple are subplots only dealt and tackled with in DLC content. In Washington's case, it was an Alternate Universe DLC that had no bearing or relevance on the AC universe and lore...So I think the evidence points to precisely it not being effectively integrated into the game.

My point stands that the writers are consistent. Their integration into the game's main storyline is not really what the central argument is about. In fact, these preestablished groundwork help them portray engaging and compelling narratives. The main point being that they at least consider the preexisting lore and make efforts to expand upon it.




Well did it? Most people were surprised that AC3 went to the American Revolution and even more were surprised with the Pirate game Black Flag that more or less wasn't even planned or dreamed of until well after the glyphs were written. Black Flag exists because Ubisoft Singapore developed the naval mechanic during the middle of the production of AC3 and it got such good notices that Ubisoft more or less greenlit a pirate naval sequel then and there. It was improvised and not planned a lot.


I meant that gylphs had kept things open-ended with an initial direction if the future writers ever intend to take up that era. Take a story set during the Second World War, for example: now they cannot just ignore Churchill's involvement with the Templars during the War, they will have to set up a storyline to explain the reasons for his involvement which, I believe, could turn out to be rather interesting if executed correctly.





The closer we get to modern day, the more difficult it is to deal with real life figures. Heck, imagine if an AC game made implications on a politician in the last 20 years.

Well, they've sort of implied that George W. Bush was a Templar puppet, so they've already been there and done that :P

SixKeys
05-26-2017, 06:49 PM
It's not even acceptable to make Stalin a "secret Nazi" and it has nothing to do with the personal qualities and foibles of these men themselves. There are actual real-world consequences, deadly consequences, to spreading crap like that, especially in the last two years. Believe me Ubisoft made the best decision not to make a game in 2016 because I can only imagine the negative publicity its conspiracy-addled lore would have when a new title put itself on the market during the year of the Alt-Right whose online blather is more or less the same as the Subject 16 glyphs.

Making them a Templar "During World War II" and letting Hitler have his war is as good as accusing them of enabling and okaying the Holocaust. Because in the AC-Lore, Hitler is a Templar and the Nazis are Templar which means the MD-Templars are responsible and culpable for the Holocaust. That's clear in the AC-Lore...and I think the only way out for them is to simply get rid of whole chunks of the Lore, including the Subject 16 Glyphs because it's toxic and useless.


The reason I liked the glyphs (or early AC in general) is that they cast even some historical "heroes" in a bad or questionable light. Whether or not they made sense if you thought about it for more than 5 minutes wasn't the point, it just played nicely into the moral greyness that was still at least nominally present in the games back then. The glyphs made a bunch of other nonsensical accusations, like the idea that the Templars invented capitalism and television to control the masses, or that Abstergo were the first people on the Moon. If someone playing the game were to seriously believe these kind of fictional conspiracies, that's their problem, not Ubi's. To claim that it's dangerous and harmful to weave political commentary into entertainment is the same kind of fear-mongering that certain conservative news media cry about whenever they see a sex scene in a video game.

Xangr8
05-26-2017, 07:14 PM
Making them a Templar "During World War II" and letting Hitler have his war is as good as accusing them of enabling and okaying the Holocaust. Because in the AC-Lore, Hitler is a Templar and the Nazis are Templar which means the MD-Templars are responsible and culpable for the Holocaust. That's clear in the AC-Lore...and I think the only way out for them is to simply get rid of whole chunks of the Lore, including the Subject 16 Glyphs because it's toxic and useless...But saying, Churchill was a Templar alongside Hitler before the war, that the whole war was a conspiracy and a lie, is something no reasonable person can accept. Even Quentin Tarantino in his Inglourious Basterds never went that far.

Hitler and Stalin were just Templar puppets and not actual members of the Order. They were just another cog in the system, working for the Templars who were on the path to a New World Order. They wanted to achieve this by instilling a sense of fear and control.

Never has the series mentioned or even vaguely implied that the Holocaust was a Templar plot and all the Templars are equally culpable for it, An entire Order cannot be held responsible for his actions of which he was never a part of.

All this sounds just as plausible as a highly advanced ancient being looking for a body to rule over the world. It's Assassin's Creed, after all. Conspiracy and abetment are at the heart of the series' storytelling.

VestigialLlama4
05-26-2017, 09:01 PM
Never has the series mentioned or even vaguely implied that the Holocaust was a Templar plot and all the Templars are equally culpable for it,

Read the glyphs #12. Henry Ford or Edison says they are going to let Hitler have his fun and "That kind of purge would be good for Europe". So yes they are culpable and guilty. The glyphs also mention that Churchill and FDR exchange letters saying that they expected to meet Hitler but someone got to him in his bunker. That implies they were in AC universe Nazi collaborators and by that time, the first camps were liberated and known to the world. So yes in AC universe Templars knew about it and participated in the holocaust. That's what the glyphs state.


All this sounds just as plausible as a highly advanced ancient being looking for a body to rule over the world. It's Assassin's Creed, after all. Conspiracy and abetment are at the heart of the series' storytelling.

Well then why take it or any of it seriously? Why defend it or pretend it's canonical. Why do the job of Ubisoft's writers for them and paper over and explain away these inconsistencies? Why should it matter that the only logical explanation for this is slapdash improvisation that can't be taken literally?

When the lore says one thing and the game shows another and we don't get any acknowledgement by characters on this then the burden falls on the creators and not the fans to fill in the blanks.

My argument is precisely that the only thing that matters is the game and it's cutscenes. The setting is what counts. All the rest, the lore, the database, that doesn't count. Ubisoft have shown that attitude and it's past time we do the same.

Xangr8
05-26-2017, 10:05 PM
Read the glyphs #12. Henry Ford or Edison says they are going to let Hitler have his fun and "That kind of purge would be good for Europe". So yes they are culpable and guilty.

Ford was a known antisemite, as evident from his work The International Jew, so it'd be just natural for him to express his support for Hitler's intentions. If I like apple pie and I'm a Templar, that doesn't mean that all Templars are supposed to like apple pie and approve of it.


The glyphs also mention that Churchill and FDR exchange letters saying that they expected to meet Hitler but someone got to him in his bunker. That implies they were in AC universe Nazi collaborators and by that time, the first camps were liberated and known to the world. So yes in AC universe Templars knew about it and participated in the holocaust. That's what the glyphs state.

Hitler was their puppet and he had the Apple which Churchill was supposed to retrieve from him after the War ended but he didn't show up. This in no way indicates that the Templars were Nazi sympathizers and supported their cause. Hitler just played into their grand plan of total world domination and the New World Order.


My argument is precisely that the only thing that matters is the game and it's cutscenes. The setting is what counts. All the rest, the lore, the database, that doesn't count. Ubisoft have shown that attitude and it's past time we do the same.

So you're just going to downright dismiss the canonicity of the comics and the rest of the transmedia and all the lore that they've crafted over the years? Nice thinking.

The point being that they've carefully constructed all the backstory and lore over a decade and have not really done anything that would point towards them breaking the lore or ignoring their previous work. They've always taken it into consideration whenever they tread into a new era/place.