PDA

View Full Version : How intelligent are the Isu?



Elder-Kalakta
05-30-2017, 01:36 AM
This video really reminded me of the Precursors.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izp7q6OXXS4

Dr. Michio Kaku states that intelligence may come in the ability to predict the future accurately. We can predict days and weeks in advance but some beings with higher intelligence could run circles around us due to seeing the future in far better clarity than we.

The further you go, the less accurate the future prediction gets.

However, the Isu are able to see the future with such marvellous accuracy that it really does corroborate their claims of having a superior mind to us. They can predict several outcomes thousands of years ahead and then deduce correctly the most probable outcome as we have seen with Minerva, Jupiter and Juno.

Even Consus did this and unlike the others, he did this while trapped in a cloth. He predicted that at one point, Charlotte De La Cruz would be watching the memories of a certain ancestor, and so he picked the exact moments to contact her through the two occasions that he did so far through different ancestors. All without using "The Eye" as the Capitoline Triad did.

They clearly have the ability to learn languages quickly as well as I doubt Minerva would've taken years to learn Medieval Italian to communicate with Ezio and then English to commune with Desmond. Even if it's an A.I., someone would've had to have programmed the language into it/them computers.

But despite all of their wisdom, they did make some mistakes that do stand out like sore thumbs... and that's especially because they were made by such an intelligent species.

First, the creation of man and the ability to inter-breed with man. I don't know if they've considered the consequences this could've had on their gene-pool. Especially if we outnumbered them which we eventually did. They did not foresee the danger of us absorbing them into our population like we might have done to the Neanderthals in real life.

In fact, a lot of their mistakes are from them underestimating us which I think lead to their downfall. I'm sure there's some more errors and mistakes that we'd expect humans to make but I can't think of them at the moment as it's quite late. :p

Another thing to note is that some like Juno were so arrogant as to deny the fact that they're animals. Juno insulted us and likened us to animals and listed in bullet points why we're animals... forgetting the fact that the same exact bullet points sum up her people perfectly as well.

So, what do fellow fans think? How smart are the Isu?

cawatrooper9
05-30-2017, 03:05 PM
That's a tough one

. Obviously, they had advanced in areas that humanity has not yet. However, I'd imagine that humanity has developed in ways that the Isu had not considered, either. That being said, I'd say the Isu were at least as intelligent as modern humans, if not more so.

Elder-Kalakta
05-30-2017, 10:50 PM
I agree, I definitely think we've progressed in some ways that the Isu didn't.

I'd dare say our space exploration may be a bit more advanced than theirs because we're putting more focus on it while they didn't have the societal pressure to do that.

I think they're more intelligent, but Tinia did say that one day humans may be as wise as them. I don't think that's today however. :p

wvstolzing
06-01-2017, 08:23 AM
I agree, I definitely think we've progressed in some ways that the Isu didn't.

I'd dare say our space exploration may be a bit more advanced than theirs because we're putting more focus on it while they didn't have the societal pressure to do that.

We're exploring space? There's 'societal pressure' towards space exploration? Not in this sh*tty reality that I'm living in.... :(

cawatrooper9
06-01-2017, 02:20 PM
We're exploring space? There's 'societal pressure' towards space exploration? Not in this sh*tty reality that I'm living in.... :(

I definitely wish NASA got better funding and could do more, but we're getting there. I think we at least have the capability to send others to survive for some time on another planet if we needed to. I don't know if the Isu were capable of that.

Though- and correct me if I'm wrong- but they did manage to put an Apple into orbit, didn't they? I'm not sure they weren't necessarily spaceworthy. In fact, I remember having a discussion in another thread about a potential future plotline of an Isu remnant returning to Earth after having fled to another planet for thousands of years.

Elder-Kalakta
06-01-2017, 08:07 PM
We're exploring space? There's 'societal pressure' towards space exploration? Not in this sh*tty reality that I'm living in.... :(

Well we do have a space station and have sent out many unmanned probes to explore other planets. The only Pieces of Eden in space was one on the moon and a few orbiting Earth. There's no Precursor International Space Temple out there in AC.

And there is some pressure from people who feel it'd be better for us to go out there and explore space. Or we could all just sit here and breed ourselves into extinction if we haven't unleashed every nuke in our arsenal by then.

Isu didn't overpopulate nor did they shag like rabbits, so resource problems weren't an issue for them and thus I don't see many of them going "damn, we gotta colonise Mars asap."

I definitely wish that we'd hurry up with our space programs though instead of wasting time here waiting for Yellowstone to pop. I want my Mars cabin. :(

LoyalACFan
06-01-2017, 08:12 PM
I never thought the Isu were more "intelligent" than humans, per se, it's just that they possess an extra sense that humans don't. Given that Eagle Vision is a sort of remnant or corruption of this sense, we can guess that it's some type of intuition, but we can't fully understand what this sense does exactly, because we have no frame of reference for it outside of the crudely visualized interpretations of Eagle Vision produced by the Animus. Is a person with perfect vision more intelligent than a person who was born blind? No, but the former can understand and perceive the world in ways that the latter can't fully conceive of.

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2017, 09:30 PM
I think the First Civilization (I absolutely refuse to acknowledge Ubisoft's latest-retcon backstory and will not call them by their new name) were super-intelligent beings based on the technology they built and their scientific understanding. But they also didn't have all the answers like say defending the planet from environmental catastrophe and despite their great advantages never setting up off-world colonization.

On the other hand politically they were pretty stupid, or must have been since they didn't see the dangers of creating the hybrids and didn't foresee any rebellion, and of course many of them died in the Human-First Civilization war so they can't have been all that special either.

As a fantasy species, the First Civilization is based on fairly dated science-fiction notions of the late 19th and early 20th century which associated the past with exaggerated scientific accomplishments without fully understanding the true history of how science developed and society progressed. Education, upliftment, democracy being the key ingredients.

It's based on the idea that the Ancient Romans were some kind of geniuses when today's historians consider them a pack of moronic troglodytes who in 700 years created no mathematics and science worthy of Archimedes (who after all fought for Hannibal Barca against the Romans). There was more scientific advancement, vastly, in the so-called Dark Ages.

Megas_Doux
06-02-2017, 12:56 AM
I know I'll regret this, but.......




It's based on the idea that the Ancient Romans were some kind of geniuses when today's historians consider them a pack of moronic troglodytes who in 700 years created no mathematics and science worthy of Archimedes (who after all fought for Hannibal Barca against the Romans). There was more scientific advancement, vastly, in the so-called Dark Ages.


WHAT???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You exaggerate at times, but this just crossed the line .I mean, question their skills in terms of engineering and science???? I'll just leave this here:

http://romanlegacyexpansion.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/9/0/24907110/1293746_orig.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Segovia_Aqueduct.JPG/250px-Segovia_Aqueduct.JPG

http://cdn.movieweb.com/img.news/NE1um941Ben634_1_3.jpg

http://www.crystalinks.com/romanaqueducts1.jpg

http://www.gothereguide.com/Images/Italy/Rome/Pantheon_rome.jpg

http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/assets/0909/0000/0026/bath_hypo_0001_mid.jpg

The hypocaust: Warm and hot water 2000 years ago......

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZR6QgxasOlo/hqdefault.jpg
http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2015/03/lists-8-reasons-roads-helped-rome-rule-the-ancient-world-2-E.jpeg

Rome was the most advanced city of its geographical area and beyond at its time by a HUGE margin with the exception of a contemporary chinese capital and that's it. Romans had amenities that were not seen until the XIX century.....

So, no.....

Twinfryes
06-02-2017, 01:12 AM
We're exploring space? There's 'societal pressure' towards space exploration? Not in this sh*tty reality that I'm living in.... :(

We aren't "Exploring", per se, but we do have the ISS, and several independent plans for landing on Mars, some of which involve large-scale colonisation. As for "Societal pressure", think about the Space Race. The space race was an unusual situation, which caused some rapid advancements in rocket technology and such. If the Isu didn't have a similar situation, chances are they would have started exploring space at a later equivalent period, and probably would have advanced at a slower rate after they started. In any case, I personally doubt the isu ever sent manned rockets into space; like, they're logical beings, strapping a person to a ton of explosives and firing them into an environment which could kill them in the account of any mistake doesn't really seem like their style. I would assume they stuck with satellites.

Twinfryes
06-02-2017, 01:26 AM
I think the First Civilization (I absolutely refuse to acknowledge Ubisoft's latest-retcon backstory and will not call them by their new name)

It's not a retcon, a retcon would be a change which contradicted established continuity. "The First Civilization" isn't what they called themselves, "Isu" is, and introducing a previously unknown endonym doesn't contradict anything previously established in the universe, therefore, not retcon. Introducing new information is not retcon.



On the other hand politically they were pretty stupid, or must have been since they didn't see the dangers of creating the hybrids and didn't foresee any rebellion, and of course many of them died in the Human-First Civilization war so they can't have been all that special either.

Pretty sure they didn't create hybrids on purpose... those were just an unfortunate accident on their part.



As a fantasy species, the First Civilization is based on fairly dated science-fiction notions of the late 19th and early 20th century which associated the past with exaggerated scientific accomplishments without fully understanding the true history of how science developed and society progressed. Education, upliftment, democracy being the key ingredients. It's based on the idea that the Ancient Romans were some kind of geniuses when today's historians consider them a pack of moronic troglodytes who in 700 years created no mathematics and science worthy of Archimedes (who after all fought for Hannibal Barca against the Romans). There was more scientific advancement, vastly, in the so-called Dark Ages.


As a fantasy species, the first civ are based on Ancient Astronaut theory. Oh yeah, and you're seriously exaggerating the primitivity of the Romans to the point where I'm feeling embarrassed on your behalf.

M4ke_Off
06-02-2017, 01:36 AM
Our technology today comes no where near the level of the Pieces of Eden

so were not even close to reaching that

VestigialLlama4
06-02-2017, 05:30 AM
I know I'll regret this, but.......




WHAT???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You exaggerate at times, but this just crossed the line .I mean, question their skills in terms of engineering and science????

,,,,

Rome was the most advanced city of its geographical area and beyond at its time by a HUGE margin with the exception of a contemporary chinese capital and that's it. Romans had amenities that were not seen until the XIX century.....

So, no.....

Name ONE Roman-era mathematician, one Latin work on maths...Name ONE Roman-era book on physics. Name one original contribution to theory made by those Latin a--holes. You have plenty from Greece, you have Euclid, Archimedes, Democritus, and the greatness of the Ptolemaics in Alexandria (whose Library was burnt down by Romans).

The Romans were a parasitic civilization leeching off superior and smarter precursors and neighbors. They could apply and borrow stuff from Etruscans, Egyptians (like the Calendar which Julius Caesar created), and the Greeks and Carthaginians, but could not create or innovate on their own. Their education system was abysmal and wretched. Worse than anything in the Middle Ages. They believed Aristotle was a genius and swallowed his physical model without submitting any of it to the scientific method. Actual science developed during after the Roman Empire and outside the Roman empire, in the Arab lands. The Italians showed more genius and enterprise during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance then they did during the Rome.

Let's face it science would have developed faster and stronger had Hannibal conquered Rome...after all Archimedes wouldn't have died at the end of a Roman spear.

The fact is for scientific advancement and development you need a lot of social development...the idea of the First Civilization is the same wrong attitude people projected on the Ancient Romans...they were old, great and powerful so they must have been geniuses. It wasn't true in any sense about the Romans but in fiction it is.

The First Civilization is a romantic fantasy species of elves, scientists working in isolation without feedback, without any political-social development, and with eugenics being a legitimate actual thing. Much of this is 19th Century Euro-nostalgia that passed through a lot of cheap pulp fiction. So that's why I think the First Civilization is dated in many essential respects.

M4ke_Off
06-02-2017, 05:45 AM
Name ONE Roman-era mathematician, one Latin work on maths...Name ONE Roman-era book on physics. Name one original contribution to theory made by those Latin a--holes. You have plenty from Greece, you have Euclid, Archimedes, Democritus, and the greatness of the Ptolemaics in Alexandria (whose Library was burnt down by Romans).

The Romans were a parasitic civilization leeching off superior and smarter precursors and neighbors. They could apply and borrow stuff from Etruscans, Egyptians (like the Calendar which Julius Caesar created), and the Greeks and Carthaginians, but could not create or innovate on their own. Their education system was abysmal and wretched. Worse than anything in the Middle Ages. They believed Aristotle was a genius and swallowed his physical model without submitting any of it to the scientific method. Actual science developed during after the Roman Empire and outside the Roman empire, in the Arab lands. The Italians showed more genius and enterprise during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance then they did during the Rome.

Let's face it science would have developed faster and stronger had Hannibal conquered Rome...after all Archimedes wouldn't have died at the end of a Roman spear.

The fact is for scientific advancement and development you need a lot of social development...the idea of the First Civilization is the same wrong attitude people projected on the Ancient Romans...they were old, great and powerful so they must have been geniuses. It wasn't true in any sense about the Romans but in fiction it is.

The First Civilization is a romantic fantasy species of elves, scientists working in isolation without feedback, without any political-social development, and with eugenics being a legitimate actual thing. Much of this is 19th Century Euro-nostalgia that passed through a lot of cheap pulp fiction. So that's why I think the First Civilization is dated in many essential respects.

Using your logic

you would also have to imply that to Sub Saharian Africa, for the achievements of Sub Saharian Africa are no where near the level of Greece (in philosophy, mathematics, medicine etc.)

heck neither Babylonia or Egypt are on the level of Greece, so I find it quite odd that you are calling Roman's "parasites"

seeing as you would never apply that to the Sub Saharian Africans? why, because you would see that as racist right?

so why attack Rome

VestigialLlama4
06-02-2017, 06:00 AM
heck neither Babylonia or Egypt are on the level of Greece, so I find it quite odd that you are calling Roman's "parasites"

By Babylon do you mean Persia? Because the Ancient Persians were quite advanced and brilliant. Unfortunately Alexander's invasion destroyed most of their old libraries and archives but based on stuff like the Baghdad Battery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery) (which the games in classic racist fashion credit to the First Civilization)

And Egypt was crazy Advanced. They were the ones who taught the Greeks...Pythagoras learnt everything from Ancient Greek mathematicians and the Alexander invasions and settlements transformed Egypt into the center of science in the Mediterranean.

They were both the superior and teacher of Greece...so maybe you should not leap forth in conclusions hmmm?


seeing as you would never apply that to the Sub Saharian Africans? why, because you would see that as racist right?

so why attack Rome

The real question is "why defend Rome?" I mean the Roman civilization went to the dustbin of history. Since its downfall Italy has never been top dog in European, leave alone international politics. Nobody, logically, has any skin in this game.

As for Rome, for a civilization that lasted 1000 years so on without producing a single smart mathematician and scientist or having any native born writers in those fields of inquiry after somehow being the political and military master of the region is kind of unprecedented. It's like the civilization of that lucky kid who got to the top of the heap despite flunking every test and hating books. Ancient India contributed a lot to astronomy and maths, as did the Arabs, the Chinese...even the Aztecs and Mayans were a lot smarter in the same amount of time.

M4ke_Off
06-02-2017, 03:01 PM
By Babylon do you mean Persia? Because the Ancient Persians were quite advanced and brilliant. Unfortunately Alexander's invasion destroyed most of their old libraries and archives but based on stuff like the Baghdad Battery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery) (which the games in classic racist fashion credit to the First Civilization)

And Egypt was crazy Advanced. They were the ones who taught the Greeks...Pythagoras learnt everything from Ancient Greek mathematicians and the Alexander invasions and settlements transformed Egypt into the center of science in the Mediterranean.

They were both the superior and teacher of Greece...so maybe you should not leap forth in conclusions hmmm?



The real question is "why defend Rome?" I mean the Roman civilization went to the dustbin of history. Since its downfall Italy has never been top dog in European, leave alone international politics. Nobody, logically, has any skin in this game.

As for Rome, for a civilization that lasted 1000 years so on without producing a single smart mathematician and scientist or having any native born writers in those fields of inquiry after somehow being the political and military master of the region is kind of unprecedented. It's like the civilization of that lucky kid who got to the top of the heap despite flunking every test and hating books. Ancient India contributed a lot to astronomy and maths, as did the Arabs, the Chinese...even the Aztecs and Mayans were a lot smarter in the same amount of time.


It's true that their was information and cultural exchange between Egypt and Greece, but that is not the same as "teaching the Greeks everything"

while its true that Babylonia and Egypt had mathematics before Greece, they tended to focus on using it for practical reasons

True Theoretical mathematics begins with Greece, and begins with Euclid's "Elements" which is the first mathematical text ever to have a deductive system/mathematical proofs

the math we do today begins with Euclid

and Rome of course had a bunch of brilliant people: Virgil, Ovid, Boethius etc.

Boethius "Consolation of Philosophy" was probably the most important philosophy book until the Renaissance

cawatrooper9
06-02-2017, 03:20 PM
Something I think is pretty relevant to this theory (that I may have brought up on these forums before)- Chronological Snobbery.

Coined, in part, by The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe author C.S. Lewis, this philosophy was basically meant to represent the idea that art or science from a particular era could be inherently inferior to the modern day.

Obviously, there are some issues with this (and Lewis, by the way, was kind of playing Devil's Advocate with this theory). Particularly, it's quite a claim to attach any sort of objective value to art, especially as broadly as this theory would like to claim.

With science, it's a little bit less clear. Obviously, as a whole I'd say we're more scientifically advanced than we were 100 years ago. But does that invalidate every single piece of scientific data that we had during that era?

What's particularly interesting about this in the case with Assassins Creed is that the fall of the Isu (not really a retcon when you give a name to something that previously only had a title, by the way) represents a cultural and scientific hard reset bigger than anything we have reason to believe has actually ever happened on Earth to a sentient species before (yes, the Toba incident is based on a real event, but we have no reason to believe that life was nearly as advanced as it is in AC during that time). So, that really throws a wrench into the mix of this whole idea of Chronological Snobbery. No longer is it simply wrong to assume that past culture is inferior- because, in fact, art and science may have been better in general with the Isu.

wvstolzing
06-02-2017, 03:25 PM
It's based on the idea that the Ancient Romans were some kind of geniuses when today's historians consider them a pack of moronic troglodytes who in 700 years created no mathematics and science worthy of Archimedes (who after all fought for Hannibal Barca against the Romans). There was more scientific advancement, vastly, in the so-called Dark Ages.

I think that the critique of the notion of 'militaristic *******s who were geniuses nevertheless' does have a lot of merit; and I think that that's what VestigialLlama is trying to stress.


The First Civilization is a romantic fantasy species of elves, scientists working in isolation without feedback, without any political-social development, and with eugenics being a legitimate actual thing. Much of this is 19th Century Euro-nostalgia that passed through a lot of cheap pulp fiction. So that's why I think the First Civilization is dated in many essential respects.

For a quick comparison of Greece and Rome -- one point that requires emphasis is that Greece owes its 'golden age' not to the 'racial characteristics of the Hellenic race' (which is how earlier textbooks with fewer 'PC' concerns put it), nor to the magical waters of the Aegean, but the egalitarian reforms during the time of Pericles. It's no coincidence that all those great minds, from Herodotus, to the great tragedians, to the Sophists, all the way to Plato, Euclid, et al., appeared in the space of a couple of generations. They didn't spontaneously generate from a society of slave-holding belligerent *******s.

Similarly with the alleged brilliance of the Nazi scientists.

VestigialLlama4
06-02-2017, 04:46 PM
Boethius "Consolation of Philosophy" was probably the most important philosophy book until the Renaissance

Boethius was born four years after the downfall of the Western Roman Empire and he was a Catholic writer. So not sure how "Roman" we want to consider him. And there are other important philosophy books before the Renaissance, other influences...Augustine's City of God being a major one as is his Confessions. Averroes' translation and commentary on Aristotle was also a huge inspiration.


I think that the critique of the notion of 'militaristic *******s who were geniuses nevertheless' does have a lot of merit; and I think that that's what VestigialLlama is trying to stress.

Exactly. The First Civilization in these games were initially supposed to come off as spooky creeps, slightly Lovecraftian figures and it worked in the context, where much of it was left for the audience to figure out. But now that they are a full-blown part of the mythos...where we go from one or two artifacts to well over 50 named ones I imagine, and one or two temples and sites to one every game...they become far less mysterious and far less impressive.

It worked better as metaphor and suggestion. But they simply do not make good characters and the whole aspect of the past is filled with eugenics. They were this inherently advanced and rational and brilliant civilization even if they had a small population and they were a bunch of decadent aristocrats. That's just pulp fiction nonsense, only far less entertaining in the AC games.

These people are so smart that they got toppled and seriously injured in a war against humans led by genetically engineered hybrids...I mean none of that makes any logical sense from a story point of view. And of course the inherent association with downfall and regression with the rebellion is just classic Joseph de Maistre reactionary snobbism.


For a quick comparison of Greece and Rome -- one point that requires emphasis is that Greece owes its 'golden age' not to the 'racial characteristics of the Hellenic race' (which is how earlier textbooks with fewer 'PC' concerns put it), nor to the magical waters of the Aegean, but the egalitarian reforms during the time of Pericles. It's no coincidence that all those great minds, from Herodotus, to the great tragedians, to the Sophists, all the way to Plato, Euclid, et al., appeared in the space of a couple of generations. They didn't spontaneously generate from a society of slave-holding belligerent *******s.

Similarly with the alleged brilliance of the Nazi scientists.

Exactly. The modern scientific revolution likewise comes from the Protestant Reformation and the spread of literacy, the Enlightenment and its many revolutions and reforms. These days we know for a fact that the so-called Dark Ages had far more scientific advancement than the entirety of the Roman era...but historians had more primary sources from the Roman era than from the interim and out of that people decided that nothing happened there. I mean as far as Romans being the founders of Europe...the Vikings traveled further, wider and settled more than they did...they invented Russia, a place the Romans never reached, as well as Iceland, going as far as Newfoundland, Canada.

The First Civilization is pure Ancient Aliens bullcrap as a concept. That is precisely why I have little interest in the upcoming Egypt game, I mean I'll take a look at it, but to me anything that leans too heavily on the series lore: whether it's the Assassin V Templar, and especially the First Civilzation, will date and dry up very fast. The core of the best games have always been historical and grounded, specific to the era, and going against that has ruined the franchise.


What's particularly interesting about this in the case with Assassins Creed is that the fall of the Isu (not really a retcon when you give a name to something that previously only had a title, by the way) represents a cultural and scientific hard reset bigger than anything we have reason to believe has actually ever happened on Earth to a sentient species before (yes, the Toba incident is based on a real event, but we have no reason to believe that life was nearly as advanced as it is in AC during that time). So, that really throws a wrench into the mix of this whole idea of Chronological Snobbery. No longer is it simply wrong to assume that past culture is inferior- because, in fact, art and science may have been better in general with the Isu.

The CS Lewis concept you mention is interesting, so thanks for bringing that here.

Elder-Kalakta
06-02-2017, 06:11 PM
Some really interesting responses here.

VestigialLlama4, I'm glad I am not the only one who likens the First Civilisation to elves. :D

They're arrogant, long lived, taller, look down on us etc. Very "high elf" if you ask me.

Anyway, I must mention that they did not genetically engineer hybrids. The hybrids are an accidental byproduct of copulation between the two species. The Isu created humans and Neanderthals, we're similar enough to inter-breed with Neanderthals. Isu were in the same genus as us which is in one of Dr. Grammatica's notes, they're actually a sub-species of us.

Homo sapiens sapiens.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Homo sapiens divinus.

They would've been much more closely related to us than chimps (Pan troglodytes) are, probably even more closely related to us genetically than Neanderthals even, as Minerva says they made us in their image and if you look at Neanderthals, they don't exactly look 100% like us or the Isu. I'd say they made a mistake in not thinking through the consequences of inter-breeding with us. They thought they'd be too good for us and didn't foresee some individuals thinking otherwise.

I like this aspect, that even a super intelligent species makes mistakes. it makes them more believable.

M4ke_Off
06-02-2017, 09:06 PM
My question Vestigial is that are you willing to promote the same standard to sub saharian africa which by all objective criteria was less advanced than Rome, in the way you compare Rome to Greece?

Sorrosyss
06-02-2017, 09:13 PM
The Isu created us, and we wiped them out. Pretty smart huh. Now its our turn with AI. So continues the progenitor curse. :p

cawatrooper9
06-02-2017, 09:16 PM
The Isu created us, and we wiped them out. Pretty smart huh. Now its our turn with AI. So continues the progenitor curse. :p

I always did think there were some thematic similarities between Assassins Creed and Mass Effect lore...

Sorrosyss
06-02-2017, 09:27 PM
*holds an Apple of Eden*

ASSUMING CONTROL

:p

VestigialLlama4
06-02-2017, 09:27 PM
My question Vestigial...

I will not answer a question so blatant in its insincere formulation, which so patently ignores the crux of my earlier posts and which is going even further off-topic.

After all, I was only bringing the Roman History stuff to highlight the issues of the First Civilization and their pulp fiction origins and basis.

M4ke_Off
06-02-2017, 09:32 PM
I will not answer a question so blatant in its insincere formulation, which so patently ignores the crux of my earlier posts and which is going even further off-topic.

After all, I was only bringing the Roman History stuff to highlight the issues of the First Civilization and their pulp fiction origins and basis.

well I think you are being hypocritcal or at least not totally honest in your critique

if you are going to say that Rome is "inferior" to Greece, based on the criteria that you mentioned (philosophy, science, mathematics) then you also have to apply that criteria to Sub Saharian Africa

but you obviously won't, which is why you ignore the question. I assume that you are a leftist, which is why you won't apply the same criteria to Sub Saharian Africa that you use to Rome, it's much less "problematic" to attack/critique a Western society than a Non-Western society

I don't necessary disagree with your arguments, but you are selectively judging Rome on a weird criteria which you would not actually do to other civilizations

wvstolzing
06-02-2017, 09:38 PM
I always did think there were some thematic similarities between Assassins Creed and Mass Effect lore...

The theme of an ancient advanced civilization creating/manipulating/guiding humanity, as well as the theme of an ancient cosmic threat (both milked to no end by sci-fi authors for the past century) are really variations on Lovecraftian themes. Lovecraft's influence is a lot more conspicuous in Mass Effect (in ME3's Leviathan DLC, we even descended to a R'lyeh-like underwater city to talk to the original 'great tentacled one'?!), but it's there in AC too.

This guy (Jason Colavito) writes pretty interesting books debunking Atlantis & 'ancient aliens' 'theorists': https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jason+colavito

He does a good job laying out how post-WW2 crackpot theorists have helped themselves liberally to the early 20th Century horror literature for 'inspiration' (to the point of outright plagiarism); in turn, they've inspired fiction authors. Interestingly, pulp horror/fantasy writers of the early 20th Century referred to the crazy theories of the 'theosophists' et al. in turn.

I find the enterprise mostly entertaining; though it's also important to keep in mind that certain strains of 'theosophists' take their silly fantasies to some hideous extremes (e.g., some even 'argue' that Jewish people are in fact aliens implanted from another dimension -- things like that); it's also no joke that certain Nazi maniacs certainly were influenced by the 'Aryan supremacism' of the original theosophists.

VestigialLlama4
06-02-2017, 09:49 PM
why you ignore the question.

I ignore your question because it is insincere...Proof of this insincerity is this...


I assume that you are a leftist,

...which is a pure ad-hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack. You can't respond to what is actually said so you make assumptions about me and decide to bait someone. I have fallen in enough such traps in my time to avoid it this time thank you very much.

Read wvstolzing's posts, and respond to the thread that was actually about what was being discussed instead of going on your personal clickbait tangents.


I don't necessary disagree with your arguments, but you are selectively judging Rome...

If you don't disagree then why bring this weird criteria...nobody here was mentioning the Sub-Saharans except yourself...and if you cannot understand the nature of what is being discussed, let me break it down for you.

I bring up Rome because

1) The whole archetype of the advanced race with lost technology, the First Civilization, was based on how people imagined the Romans to be from the Renaissance to the Romantic era. They assumed that because the Romans had this advanced engineering and stuff they were a smarter, superior, and better people. Later historians have found out that the Romans simply stole and copied other civilizations and made no original contributions, so that fantasy concept of these Elves or these Alien Gods being automatically superior and conquering because of their tech is based on a flawed conception of history.

2) In the AC Games, all the First Civilization beings we meet in the games are Roman-Etruscan deities...Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Aita, Consus are all from one particular European culture. We don't get Norse, Greek, Egyptian or Indian inspired beings except in transmedia and as Ubisoft have proven time and time again, transmedia doesn't count. So the games themselves do to a large degree have this assumption that the Romans were somehow special beings and a special people.

As such attacking Ancient Rome within the concept of Assassin's Creed makes perfect sense and is well warranted. I was simply discussing Ancient Rome compared to other Ancient Civilizations within its vicinity.

Please, if you have anything to say, respond to the content of my post, and my argument and not on your opinions about what my political orientation may or may not be. Do not take this further off-topic.

wvstolzing
06-02-2017, 09:51 PM
I don't necessary disagree with your arguments, but you are selectively judging Rome on a weird criteria which you would not actually do to other civilizations

Why not? All you seem to be interested in, is to make a 'leftist' produce the expression that 'subsaharan Africans are inferior'.

Well, no one denies that the Zulus were belligerent a-holes as well, and no one pretends that there exists an African Euclid. OBVIOUSLY, as mathematicians and scientists, pretty much everyone else was INFERIOR compared to the Greeks.

... but that sentence doesn't mean what you think it means. You might be satisfied to hear that sentence coming from a 'leftist', though ironically, you don't understand what it implies.

You think it amounts to a concession that 'African people are inferior, just by virtue of being African' -- but that simply doesn't follow.

Both Vestigial and I have stressed that the brilliance of the Greeks wasn't due to THE IMMUTABLE ESSENCE OF GREEKNESS, but due to an extremely happy confluence of social-political factors at a certain conjunction in history. Fiction that ignores such factors, and revels in fantasies of 'scientifically advanced societies that were otherwise totalitarian' is clueless. Fantasies surrounding Nazi technological ingenuity are some of the most grotesque examples of such fantasies.

cawatrooper9
06-02-2017, 09:51 PM
The theme of an ancient advanced civilization creating/manipulating/guiding humanity, as well as the theme of an ancient cosmic threat (both milked to no end by sci-fi authors for the past century) are really variations on Lovecraftian themes. Lovecraft's influence is a lot more conspicuous in Mass Effect (in ME3's Leviathan DLC, we even descended to a R'lyeh-like underwater city to talk to the original 'great tentacled one'?!), but it's there in AC too.


Oh yeah, the Leviathan DLC was totally Lovecraft inspired. Excellent stuff.

AC has some cosmicism to it too, for sure- it just feels less like Lovecraftian Horror because, well, it has less traditional horror elements than Mass Effect.

I'll have to check out Colavito. Thanks for the suggestion!

M4ke_Off
06-02-2017, 09:56 PM
I ignore your question because it is insincere...Proof of this insincerity is this...



...which is a pure ad-hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack. You can't respond to what is actually said so you make assumptions about me and decide to bait someone. I have fallen in enough such traps in my time to avoid it this time thank you very much.

Read wvstolzing's posts, and respond to the thread that was actually about what was being discussed instead of going on your personal clickbait tangents.



If you don't disagree then why bring this weird criteria...nobody here was mentioning the Sub-Saharans except yourself...and if you cannot understand the nature of what is being discussed, let me break it down for you.

I bring up Rome because

1) The whole archetype of the advanced race with lost technology, the First Civilization, was based on how people imagined the Romans to be from the Renaissance to the Romantic era. They assumed that because the Romans had this advanced engineering and stuff they were a smarter, superior, and better people. Later historians have found out that the Romans simply stole and copied other civilizations and made no original contributions, so that fantasy concept of these Elves or these Alien Gods being automatically superior and conquering because of their tech is based on a flawed conception of history.

2) In the AC Games, all the First Civilization beings we meet in the games are Roman-Etruscan deities...Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Aita, Consus are all from one particular European culture. We don't get Norse, Greek, Egyptian or Indian inspired beings except in transmedia and as Ubisoft have proven time and time again, transmedia doesn't count. So the games themselves do to a large degree have this assumption that the Romans were somehow special beings and a special people.

As such attacking Ancient Rome within the concept of Assassin's Creed makes perfect sense and is well warranted. I was simply discussing Ancient Rome compared to other Ancient Civilizations within its vicinity.

Please, if you have anything to say, respond to the content of my post, and my argument and not on your opinions about what my political orientation may or may not be. Do not take this further off-topic.

Isaac Newton "If i have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"

you seem to have this weird view of how science and technology develops over time, how the notion of progress develops over time.

Science and Mathematics builds on each other over time. There was no "stealing" or "copying" by Rome of other civilizations, they simply took ideas, modified them in their own contexts.

Rome in many ways was like Egypt in which was more focused on practical uses of science than theoretical (i.e Greece and Babylon), it's not that they lacked the ability, they simply were focused on different things

Sub Saharian Africa had no advanced mathematics or science, much was primitive. But i would never say they were "inferior" to other civilizations, that's actually quite a whiggish and reactionary view which you seem to contest

VestigialLlama4
06-02-2017, 10:30 PM
you seem to have this weird view of how science and technology develops over time, how the notion of progress develops over time.

No I was simply stating things and observing it as they are.


There was no "stealing" or "copying" by Rome of other civilizations, they simply took ideas, modified them in their own contexts.

Except the Romans did not produce any written academic science.There was no Roman House of Wisdom, no Roman Royal Society.The only occupations were Politics and the Military, and if you were a craftsman in letters/sculpture/music/architecture, you got jobs building stuff celebrating Roman political and military successes and failures. For an "advanced" civilization to go through 700 years or so without any innovation and improvement from the time of Archimedes (who died at the end of a Roman spear) is kind-of shocking for its intellectual and imaginative failure.

The Romans took over sophisticated civilizations, made the best and brightest of Greece and Egypt into their slaves (quite literally as Greek slaves were highly prized by the Romans) and pretty much snuffed out the true grandeur of the Ancient World. There's no Roman Antikythera Mechanism and no Roman Battery.


But i would never say they were "inferior" to other civilizations, that's actually quite a whiggish and reactionary view which you seem to contest

"Whiggish" and "Reactionary" view are two separate entirely different views, not remotely related. But you are correct that I don't have either view of history.


Fiction that ignores such factors, and revels in fantasies of 'scientifically advanced societies that were otherwise totalitarian' is clueless. Fantasies surrounding Nazi technological ingenuity are some of the most grotesque examples of such fantasies.

Exactly. And that's what I mean by the First Civilization being a dated creation. It's good in small doses and as a suggestion and hook and metaphor it works fine, but as an inherent part of the Lore it flirts with Eugenics, it flirts with totalitarian fantasies, much of which is rooted in Rome. And we mentioned Lovecraft. Let's not forget that Lovecraft was a eugenicist racist exceptional even for his time.

I mean the fact that the Assassins are these supersoldiers because of their ancient Part-Human Part-God DNA and blood is very Eugenicist. Most of the time the game treats these concepts as an excuse for the historical exploration so you don't think about it, but once the series starts to take its lore seriously, those problems come up. The Lore was never intended to be taken seriously, was never written with that purpose and now that it's getting that purpose, this nasty stuff sticks out.

SixKeys
06-02-2017, 10:42 PM
I mean the fact that the Assassins are these supersoldiers because of their ancient Part-Human Part-God DNA and blood is very Eugenicist. Most of the time the game treats these concepts as an excuse for the historical exploration so you don't think about it, but once the series starts to take its lore seriously, those problems come up. The Lore was never intended to be taken seriously, was never written with that purpose and now that it's getting that purpose, this nasty stuff sticks out.

I get what you're going for, but the AC lore also states that all of humanity technically has the ability to unlock dormant Isu genes. Most of them never do only because they're unaware of their own potential. Adewale and Mary Read are a few examples of people who came into the Brotherhood as "normies" and learned to parkour and use Eagle Vision after some training.

While I agree that the First Civ is more interesting as a mysterious suggestion rather than a fully explored culture, I don't mind that they're a race of "gods" who sometimes make bad decisions and act haughtily towards their creations. It's true to the spirit of how the Greeks viewed their gods: powerful, yet petty, vengeful, proud and fallible.

wvstolzing
06-02-2017, 10:59 PM
The Romans took over sophisticated civilizations, made the best and brightest of Greece and Egypt into their slaves (quite literally as Greek slaves were highly prized by the Romans) and pretty much snuffed out the true grandeur of the Ancient World. There's no Roman Antikythera Mechanism and no Roman Battery.

What's even more significant about the accomplishment of the Greeks, is that they came up with the notion of mathematics as a *formal*, non-empirical discipline -- crudely put, the study of sheer forms and relationships as such -- and philosophy likewise as a mode of pure inquiry into practical reason as such, being as such, and so on.

While all earlier cultures had various calculation techniques, and varieties of 'empirical' mathematics, none produced the system of formal proof, which is what's most impressive about Euclid's Elements. Similarly, while earlier cultures may have had their 'wisdom literatures', inquiries into 'what constitutes a good life', and questions as to 'where all this stuff in nature comes from', they did not inquire after the possibility/nature/metaphysics, etc. of practical judgment as such, the striving after 'the good' as such, of being as such, on ways of articulating different ways of being, and so forth. Also, the Milesian 'natural philosophers', who came earliest by the way, introduced the notion of scientific explanation strictly in terms of natural mechanisms. They had some absurd views as to those mechanisms, of course; but their breakthrough wasn't really a matter of what 'answers' they came up with, but a matter of the manner of questioning they introduced, with respect to any "why is it this way rather than that" questions.

Similar 'formal' breakthroughs in ways of thinking/questioning didn't occur until much *much* later, once again occasioned by a confluence of numerous factors, which eventually ushered in the Enlightenment and modernity.

VestigialLlama4
06-02-2017, 11:05 PM
I get what you're going for, but the AC lore also states that all of humanity technically has the ability to unlock dormant Isu genes. Most of them never do only because they're unaware of their own potential. Adewale and Mary Read are a few examples of people who came into the Brotherhood as "normies" and learned to parkour and use Eagle Vision after some training.

That was Darby McDevitt writing that, and that's very well and good. He understands all this baggage well because he's a writer of real sophistication. But he doesn't write all the games and he didn't write the full lore.

Much of the AC-Lore was made as an excuse for AC1 to disguise and distract people from playing as an Arab during the Crusades and making the conflict a secular one between secret societies. It was never meant to be this super-big mega thing. It was not made to really last. The focus of these games was always going to be history. Stuff like Pieces of Eden, Animus DNA, and First Civilization was meant to provide gamey experiences for the whole thing to work and make sense.

It's just the problematic stuff becomes an issue without a solid historically immersive context. Like in BLACK FLAG, the fact that you are a Pirate in the 18th Century makes the fact that your protagonist stumbled into a Lovecraftian freak like the Sage/Black Bart makes it spooky and creepy and it kind of provides an epic sweep and uplift to a personal story of the hero. As scary as the First Civilization is to a 20th-21st Century person, it's scarier for Edward and yes this low-rent Pirate/Assassin saved the world and killed a monster. That's how the Lore should work ideally.

But in a game with the proposed title of "Assassin's Creed Origins" that gets threatened. People will come to the games about Ancient Egypt and they will leave thinking about First Civilization crap and let's not forget that it flirts with that whole Ancient Astronauts concept which is essentially racist, you know crediting Aliens or Interdimensional beings for the works of the Egyptians, Aztecs and Mayans and not the people who were Egyptians, Aztecs and Mayans.

So there's a lot of carefully stepping they need to do to avoid this. And DarbyMcDevitt will have to be his best, assuming if he is the writer.


While I agree that the First Civ is more interesting as a mysterious suggestion rather than a fully explored culture, I don't mind that they're a race of "gods" who sometimes make bad decisions and act haughtily towards their creations. It's true to the spirit of how the Greeks viewed their gods: powerful, yet petty, vengeful, proud and fallible.

The Greeks didn't see their Gods as "fallible", that's the Norse Gods, and the Norse Gods in the form we know them was put down by a Christian scholar centuries after the Scandinavians and Germanics converted to Christianity (by force...cf, Charlemagne's campaign against the Saxons and the destruction of that Tree). So we don't know if the Scandinavians saw their gods as fallible either. The Greeks saw their gods as above humanity and not subject to human laws and concerns. But they still worshipped and respected them at least at first. It's only in later centuries that the Greeks questioned their gods and even then a small minority.

And you know not all Gods are the same and the idea that the only kind of "gods" who are believable or acceptable is the Graeco-Roman pantheon has its own troubling issues.

SixKeys
06-03-2017, 01:13 AM
That was Darby McDevitt writing that, and that's very well and good. He understands all this baggage well because he's a writer of real sophistication. But he doesn't write all the games and he didn't write the full lore.

Much of the AC-Lore was made as an excuse for AC1 to disguise and distract people from playing as an Arab during the Crusades and making the conflict a secular one between secret societies. It was never meant to be this super-big mega thing. It was not made to really last. The focus of these games was always going to be history. Stuff like Pieces of Eden, Animus DNA, and First Civilization was meant to provide gamey experiences for the whole thing to work and make sense.

The thing about canon is that it doesn't matter what something was written before or why, what matters is that it remain consistent with the new writing. You act as if the First Civ stuff somehow proves the games are pro-eugenics, yet when I say "not really because the lore says all humans have the potential to become superhuman", you say "yeah, but that's because so-and-so wrote it into the lore". SO? Whoever wrote it doesn't matter, what matters is that it IS part of the lore now. You can't say the lore is pro-eugenics only to turn around and say "well, okay, it wasn't when Darby wrote this, but it used to be". It doesn't matter what it used to be, what matters is what it is now. And the current lore is based on what Darby added to the mythos.



The Greeks didn't see their Gods as "fallible", that's the Norse Gods, and the Norse Gods in the form we know them was put down by a Christian scholar centuries after the Scandinavians and Germanics converted to Christianity (by force...cf, Charlemagne's campaign against the Saxons and the destruction of that Tree). So we don't know if the Scandinavians saw their gods as fallible either. The Greeks saw their gods as above humanity and not subject to human laws and concerns. But they still worshipped and respected them at least at first. It's only in later centuries that the Greeks questioned their gods and even then a small minority.

Zeus f***s anything that moves, Hera gets pissed off at him all the time and takes her anger out on humans. Poseidon destroys fleets of ships and cities if he happened to be in a bad mood and Hephaestus was tossed off Olympos simply for being too ugly. Sometimes they punish humans for bad deeds like one would expect from a god, but often they simply mess with humans for s***s and giggles. Sure, the Greeks respected and worshipped them, but that doesn't mean they thought of the gods as perfect. Respect is not the same as love, after all, and neither is obedience. You can respect and obey an army officer or a king, but it doesn't necessarily mean you think they're infallible. The way the gods are portrayed in the stories is relatable and even humorous, compared to the super-serious and moralizing stories of, for example, the Abrahamic religions. (Even in the Old Testament there are stories where God admits his initial judgment was hasty and he promises to do better in the future, but I don't want to veer too much off-topic.)



And you know not all Gods are the same and the idea that the only kind of "gods" who are believable or acceptable is the Graeco-Roman pantheon has its own troubling issues.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. The First Civ members we have seen so far are based on the Graeco-Roman pantheon. That's why we're talking about those gods and not, say, Mayan gods.

VestigialLlama4
06-03-2017, 01:58 AM
The thing about canon is that it doesn't matter what something was written before or why, what matters is that it remain consistent with the new writing. You act as if the First Civ stuff somehow proves the games are pro-eugenics, yet when I say "not really because the lore says all humans have the potential to become superhuman", you say "yeah, but that's because so-and-so wrote it into the lore". SO? Whoever wrote it doesn't matter, what matters is that it IS part of the lore now. You can't say the lore is pro-eugenics only to turn around and say "well, okay, it wasn't when Darby wrote this, but it used to be". It doesn't matter what it used to be, what matters is what it is now. And the current lore is based on what Darby added to the mythos.

I said there were parts of the Lore that and this is so crucial that I will highlight this...there are aspects of the Lore that if it is not well written, and not properly contextualized, that comes across as deeply problematic. . That's all.

Speaking for myself, treating the Lore as a composite part and not as true canon is about the only way I can create meaning from the games and likewise derive enjoyment from them. Surely that is not any less valid an approach as any. And besides, the idea of a "canon" as this thing set in stone has never been true of anything. It wasn't true of the Biblical canon (from which the word originates), it wasn't true of LOTR and Star Wars. Tolkien revised and changed stuff, like rewriting The Hobbit to fit in with LOTR after he came up with the sequel. And George Lucas likewise never decided that Darth Vader was the hero's Dad until he worked on the sequel.

If you accept the games as Canon, which I do, and dismiss the transmedia, which I recommend, the games barely make sense. And the stuff about the additional First Civilization and Juno herself only exists because AC2 was so successful that they decided to put Ezio sequels.


Zeus f***s anything that moves, Hera gets pissed off at him all the time and takes her anger out on humans. Poseidon destroys fleets of ships and cities if he happened to be in a bad mood and Hephaestus was tossed off Olympos simply for being too ugly. Sometimes they punish humans for bad deeds like one would expect from a god, but often they simply mess with humans for s***s and giggles. Sure, the Greeks respected and worshipped them, but that doesn't mean they thought of the gods as perfect.

Firstly, the Greeks were hardly such nice people themselves. The Athenians and Spartans were slave societies. In Athens women were entirely restricted indoors, not allowed to be seen on the streets (except for prostitutes) and were about as free as women in Saudi Arabia today, and probably even less free. The Spartans...well what's to say they were horrible *******es albeit with more gender equality than Athens and other city states.

There was almost nobody in the Ancient World who could be considered good as we define it. They certainly didn't think the worst part of Zeus was that he raped girls.


The way the gods are portrayed in the stories is relatable and even humorous, compared to the super-serious and moralizing stories of, for example, the Abrahamic religions. (Even in the Old Testament there are stories where God admits his initial judgment was hasty and he promises to do better in the future, but I don't want to veer too much off-topic.)

Well there you are presuming that the Ancient Greeks had the same attitude towards their gods as you have towards it. You presume that the Ancient Greeks had the same moral attitude you have. Some of them did have it to an extent, but not entirely and they were not reflective of all Greeks.

They took their religion pretty seriously. Proto-atheists they were not.

joshoolhorst
06-07-2017, 06:44 AM
If you accept the games as Canon, which I do, and dismiss the transmedia, which I recommend, the games barely make sense. And the stuff about the additional First Civilization and Juno herself only exists because AC2 was so successful that they decided to put Ezio sequels.

That just makes me wonder how the franchise looks like IF Ezio never got sequels I wonder where we would be.

VestigialLlama4
06-07-2017, 07:19 AM
That just makes me wonder how the franchise looks like IF Ezio never got sequels I wonder where we would be.

Initially Brotherhood was intended to be an episodic DLC, which makes sense when you consider how slight it is as content (the story missions at least). So most likely you would have Brotherhood but not in the form we have now...it would be shorter, compact and have fewer side missions. You would definitely not have Revelations (a game made in less than a year and greenlit very late). You would not have Multiplayer.

Then you have AC3...now in the case of AC3, in this new scenario, you are going to get a different game. According to the little we know of the early plans of the series, AC3 would always take place in America and Connor was apparently PD's choice. PD mentioned that the natural and wildnerness and hunting mechanic was something he wanted for AC1 itself. But Nolan North also says that the original idea involved Desmond becoming the ultimate assassin and interacting with his past without the Animus, which to me suggests that AC3 would have Altair, Ezio and a Third Ancestor (who may or may not be Connor) alongside Desmond.

Now this AC3 if it doesn't have the Sailing Mechanic, then you won't have Black Flag. Black Flag owes its existence to the Feature Creep of the annualization by which each sequel was expected to have additional features and components, that began with Brotherhood, continued with Revelations and reached a Crescendo with AC3...which led to Ubi Singapore creating the Sailing Component which was such a hit in Previews that they immediately decided to do a pirate game.

Basically, as much as AC fans want to slam annualization, and cite flaws, there's also a lot of good that comes from it. There would never have been an AC game set in Istanbul for any feature game and that means, no open-world AAA game set in Istanbul, without annualization because it's not a location/setting that a major corporation would invest resources and money in for a biannual release. BLACK FLAG also would not have been made without annualization.

And most likely, we probably would not have gotten Freedom Cry, Tyranny of King Washington and AC Syndicate.

cawatrooper9
06-07-2017, 02:40 PM
I Basically, as much as AC fans want to slam annualization, and cite flaws, there's also a lot of good that comes from it. There would never have been an AC game set in Istanbul for any feature game and that means, no open-world AAA game set in Istanbul, without annualization because it's not a location/setting that a major corporation would invest resources and money in for a biannual release. BLACK FLAG also would not have been made without annualization.

And most likely, we probably would not have gotten Freedom Cry, Tyranny of King Washington and AC Syndicate.

Absolutely. As much as people complain about annualization, one thing that I appreciate about it is that it does give us the opportunity to go off the grid a little bit. If we only got a game every few years, we'd basically go down the checklist- French Revolution, Victorian London, WWII, Hundred Years war, etc. And while some of those games have already been done and some may seem appealing, it wouldn't allow us to really even speculate much because the settings would always be relatively obvious- some popular historical setting.

Say what you want about the final product of the games, but the fact that we've had such settings as the Seven Years War in North America, sixteenth century Istanbul, and colonial Louisiana is actually pretty incredible. Annualization, I think, allows for more risks.

MageAquarius20
02-21-2018, 01:25 AM
I agree, I definitely think we've progressed in some ways that the Isu didn't.

I'd dare say our space exploration may be a bit more advanced than theirs because we're putting more focus on it while they didn't have the societal pressure to do that.

I think they're more intelligent, but Tinia did say that one day humans may be as wise as them. I don't think that's today however. :p

Not really, the Isu already worked on Space travel since we found PoE on the Moon, which implies that they had interest for space exploration and even more so considering how Aita was more interested on outside the Earth than inside if youheard his tape talking about NASA.


PS: 100% of all Human inventions including the Nuclear bomb were not discovered, it was rediscovered.

I think you are a bit blinded by your hurt pirde of being Human, not that I can blame you, Juno is an A******, even for her Species standarts, but the key to defeat her is humility and not arrogance.

MasterAssasin84
03-25-2018, 10:35 PM
Well given the fact that the ISU created us in their image , They had six senses from which when they created humanoids ( According to the Lore ) they purposely left out the sixth sense for the obvious purpose of obedience and control.

When you take into consideration Eagle Vision its only due to the fact there is a higher dilution of the TWCB gene in the persons genetic make up, Or one could say that the Animus is simply illustrating the sixth sense in a simple format from which the sixth sense is referred to as Eagle Vision.

I think in terms of intelligence between Humans and the ISU if you cast your mind back to Black Flag Mary Reed explained to Edward Kenway that every human being has some kind of hidden intuition from which only very few can muster its immediately and most never do, That in itself implies we all have it we have just have to learn how to access it deep in our grey matter.

Humans are just as intelligent and adaptable as the ISU in my opinion.

MageAquarius20
03-26-2018, 06:06 PM
Well given the fact that the ISU created us in their image , They had six senses from which when they created humanoids ( According to the Lore ) they purposely left out the sixth sense for the obvious purpose of obedience and control.

Juno said that it was to protect themselves from Humans, which is rather smart from them, contrary to what Vestigal believes.


When you take into consideration Eagle Vision its only due to the fact there is a higher dilution of the TWCB gene in the persons genetic make up, Or one could say that the Animus is simply illustrating the sixth sense in a simple format from which the sixth sense is referred to as Eagle Vision.

I hope that if we go to a Ancient Mesopotamian setting, we can call the sense: "Seeing the deep". It would be a awesome Epic of Gilgamesh refference.


I think in terms of intelligence between Humans and the ISU if you cast your mind back to Black Flag Mary Reed explained to Edward Kenway that every human being has some kind of hidden intuition from which only very few can muster its immediately and most never do, That in itself implies we all have it we have just have to learn how to access it deep in our grey matter.

Isu are as a species more experience than Humans, so they would know more stuff than we do as well as existing far longer han us. Currently we have to wait if we see a Human with a full and true eagle vision, until then, we need to get more knowledge on them.


Humans are just as intelligent and adaptable as the ISU in my opinion.

Agreed, though it takes some time until we reach thier level.