PDA

View Full Version : Abandoned Plot Points



DiamondBlade_R
11-11-2010, 09:17 AM
I just beat AC1 for the gazilonth time yesterday, and it occoured to me that ever AC2 came out, the developers – or the writers, to be precise, - have done a sloppy work at best.
I've stated numerous times on this forum that I feel AC2, and potentially Brotherhood, seem to be lacking a great deal of charm that made AC1 what it is. By that I mean that both games seem to go for an atmosphere that is unfitting for the series – one full of explosions and gadgets and put together in a wrong pace, instead of staying with the gloomy, dark, slow-paced atmosphere the first installment tried to set for the series.

After completing AC1 yesterday, and this time getting into the conference room for the first time and reading all of the E-mails by Vidic and Lucy as well as those on Alan Rikkin's laptop, I have another major complaint, which seems even more serious to me. It seems that there's a huge portion of the present timeline plot that has simply been thrown out the window. Who is Alan Rikkin? Where does he rank among other modern templars?
I mean, if we chose the right camera angle during the last present-time cutscene in the first game, we could actually see his face for a brief second or two. How could the writers just start to establish a character and then throw it away like that?

Not to mention all the other questions that arise from the E-mails found on Lucy's computer:
Who is Leila? Who is Neumann? What is their role in the story?
How come Lucy tells Rebecca and Shaun that "the templars intend to control their minds"? It doesn't make sense for her to not have known this before infiltrating Abstergo; What could have motivated her to do so, other than learning of their plan and wanting to stop them?

What are all the different matters mentioned in one of A.R.'s E-mails, involving the PoE's? The game seemed to try and establish them as key details to understanding the story, so how come they were never mentioned again after AC1?

Warren:
The others and I have finished reviewing the Animus recordings from Subjects 12-16. While the Piece of Eden remains our priority, we must all continue working to locate and understand the remaining artifacts. I am sure you can understand our reasoning behind this. Although the satellite is intended to accomplish a fair portion of the work for us, we will certainly need to deal with those who are either immune to - or protected from - its effects.

Please take a moment to look over our findings and get back to me with any feedback you may have. I will summarize below:

1.Piece of Eden (no. 3) - We applaud your continued efforts to locate an alternate artifact following the loss of no.2 in the DIA Satellite Accident. We understand Subject Seventeen is having trouble interfacing with the Animus, leading to delays. As a result, we estimate another 24 hours before your next critical update. In the meantime, we'll prepare an extraction team and set them to standby. We're relying on you to obtain the additional information we require. He knows where the other objects are - even if he doesn't realize it. You MUST unlock that final memory or all of this will have been for nothing.
2.Philadelphia Project - Data provided from Animus Subject Twelve indicates that the ship briefly manifested in a future state for approximately 18 minutes. It is unclear whether the timeline is consistent with or parallel to our own. Although we have recovered enough data to reconstruct and repair the original artifact used in the experiment, Administration has refused to move forward on the project, citing paradox concerns. Corporate policy remains in place: any objects found to interfere with or manipulate time must be contained. Artifact will be moved to secure storage.
3.Tunguska Incident - Now believed to be the direct result of assault by Assassins. Research station destroyed as was artifact. Alternate wave generation devices have been located in storage, but we have insufficient data at the moment to initiate research. The risk of accident is too high. Lineage Discovery and Acquisition Division should attempt to locate descendants of any attack survivors (either Assassins or Brotherhood) in order to continue research. Resurrecting this particular type of technology will aid us greatly with any holdouts following the Satellite's activation. We're putting together a team to push research in this area.
4.Grail - We are removing the Grail from our list of objectives. There is insufficient evidence to confirm its existence. Current examination of Subject Seventeen indicates that aside from the Piece of Eden, all other artifacts related to Christ-figure are literary devices (or derived from Piece of Eden) and not actual objects. Even if the object is real, its use at this stage is negligible. Our resources are better used elsewhere.
5.Mitchell-Hedges Communicators - Analysis of the objects is complete. The good news is that they work. As a result, we now have a safe and secure communication channel for use after the launch. However, they are severely limited in number, and so we will be providing them only to our most essential facilities. You will obviously retain possession of the one you have.
Warren, I cannot stress how important it is that you wrap things up with Subject Seventeen as soon as possible. We're obviously relieved that you seem to be closing in on the target memory,but you need to step it up. Everything we're working towards depends on your retrieving those locations. Without them, we've got nothing.

May The Father of Understanding guide you to success.

A.R.


Lastly, in ACB, why is the order of Assassins formed by Ezio referred to as "a brotherhood,", when in AC1, the term was associated with the templars?

So you see where I'm going… So many plot points mentioned, yet left untouched. What a shame. AC1 really seemed to go for deep storytelling with mystery aspects, though its sequels abandon them in favor of appealing to the more casual fans.

Rakudaton
11-11-2010, 09:34 AM
1. I agree that AC1 had a darker (and possibly better) atmosphere, but I think that was deliberate: it was set in a time of war. Heck, we're in the renaissance now people! AC2 had its own charms. Hearing the doctors shout "Come, Amici!" whilst gazing over the grand canal had its own special charms.

2. There was no need, or opportunity, to show Alan Rikkin in AC2. They haven't thrown him away necessarily - he'll probably be an assassination target in AC3 (or maybe even ACB).

3. Leila and Neuman were presumably introduced to provide some context for Lucy being employed at Abstergo. Maybe we'll find out more, but I doubt it. I'm not that interested in them anyway.

4. I've played AC2 5 times now, and not once did I hear Lucy telling them that the Templars intend to control everyone's minds. I'm pretty sure the assassins knew that already, but if they didn't, then it's because they hadn't discovered them by using the animi.

5.Oh man, this is ridiculous. So you object to the term "brotherhood" because the templars were sometimes called a brotherhood in AC1? Wow. Would you object to getting a fellowship at a university on the grounds that there was a Fellowship of the Ring? It's just a name - and a good one at that - for a group of people.

Abeonis
11-11-2010, 09:43 AM
I'll answer your questions in the order you ask them, but it is only your opinion that Ubisoft did a bad job, not fact.

Firstly, If you actually read the emails properly, you will see that Alan Rikkin is the CEO of Abstergo Industires, or at least that particular facility. It clearly says as much in one of his emails sent to Lucy. Also, we don't know if any of those three suited individuals at the end are Rikkin, you're making an assumption without any evidence to back it up.

Secondly, Leila is a former Abstergo employee who supposedly commited suicide, once again the emails say as much. "Neumann" is the name given to the individual said to be partially responsible; now, in my opinion there is a good chance that this "Neumann" never existed,a t that Leila was killed for asking too many question, or finding out too much, but once again that is simply my opinion.

Thirdly, why would she have known what the Templars were planning to do before infiltrating Abstergo? Granted, both sides want the same thing, and each knew that, but why exactly would she know that the Templars planned to send a PoE into orbit? As for the "incidents", I suggest you look them up (Wikipedia would be a good place for information on the Philadelphia Project and the Assassin's Creed Wiki (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) for information on the Tunguska Incident).

The game does not try to indicate them as major parts of the story, otherwise they wouldn't be locked away in a secure room that you cannot possibly reach until the end; why mention them again when we already know everything we need from the e-mails.

As for the title of "brotherhood", I actually agree with you here, and brought this up on the forums soon after the title was announced, simple answer: Ubisoft wants it that way.

DiamondBlade_R
11-11-2010, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Rakudaton:
1. I agree that AC1 had a darker (and possibly better) atmosphere, but I think that was deliberate: it was set in a time of war. Heck, we're in the renaissance now people! AC2 had its own charms. Hearing the doctors shout "Come, Amici!" whilst gazing over the grand canal had its own special charms.

2. There was no need, or opportunity, to show Alan Rikkin in AC2. They haven't thrown him away necessarily - he'll probably be an assassination target in AC3 (or maybe even ACB).

<span class="ev_code_RED">I sure hope so.</span>

3. Leila and Neuman were presumably introduced to provide some context for Lucy being employed at Abstergo. Maybe we'll find out more, but I doubt it. I'm not that interested in them anyway.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Even if the purpose of their introduction was merely privoding context for Lucy being employed at Abstergo, they are still characters brought into the game's universe, and it'd be a shame if they remained untouched.</span>

4. I've played AC2 5 times now, and not once did I hear Lucy telling them that the Templars intend to control everyone's minds. I'm pretty sure the assassins knew that already, but if they didn't, then it's because they hadn't discovered them by using the animi.

<span class="ev_code_red">Just gotta know where to look. It is said in an E-mail in AC1 where she contacts Shaun and Rebecca:
From:

To: Lucy Stillman
Date/Time: Sep 6 - 6:48
Subject: ??
NEED INTEL ON DIA EVENT

From: Lucy Stillman
To:
Date/Time: Sep 6 - 6:58
Subject:
AT LEAST TWENTY DEAD IN ACCIDENT. ASSUME THIS IS SITE OF LAUNCH. IF NOT LAUNCH, THEN CERTAINLY ASSEMBLY, SHOULD TRY AND INFILTRATE.

From:
To: Lucy Stillman
Date/Time: Sep 6 - 7:12
Subject:
WHAT IS PURPOSE OF LAUNCH?


From: Lucy Stillman
To:
Date/Time: Sep 6 - 7:15
Subject:
LOW EARTH ORBIT TRANSMITTER FOR ARTIFACT. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONED RESPONSE EXPERIMENTS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO. IF SUCCESSFUL THEY CONTROL EVERYTHING.

From:
To: Lucy Stillman
Date/Time: Sep 6 - 7:18
Subject:
WHAT DO YOU MEAN EVERYTHING?

From: Lucy Stillman
To:
Date/Time: Sep 6 - 7:20
Subject:
OUR MINDS.
</span>

5.Oh man, this is ridiculous. So you object to the term "brotherhood" because the templars were sometimes called a brotherhood in AC1? Wow. Would you object to getting a fellowship at a university on the grounds that there was a Fellowship of the Ring? It's just a name - and a good one at that - for a group of people
<span class="ev_code_red"> Perhaps, but I still feels that upon being used several times in relation to them - in both the present timeline story and the past one - it kinda became their nickname. </span>
My comments in <span class="ev_code_RED">red.</span>

Rainie
11-11-2010, 09:51 AM
For the parts about Abstergo; in both AC1 and AC2 we haven't had much exposure to what's happening in 2012 yet so it's natural that we don't have that info you're talking about. We already know that we'll be seeing a lot more of Desmond in ACB so its possible that we'll get to learn about the people you mentioned, or maybe meet new Abstergo employees. To say that there have been plot points missed in regards to the present/future timeline is premature (at least I think so) because the story isn't over. We still have ACB to go through and we all know there's going to be a AC3 so be patient and see what happens. If they plot points aren't revisited after the very last game is released, then you can say they were missed and complain about it

Drakonous505
11-11-2010, 10:04 AM
Regarding your use of the term Brotherhood you forget the Tenants of the Creed:

1. Stay your blade from the flesh of an Innocent.

2. Always be discreet.

3. Never compromise the Brotherhood.

Brotherhood is a term that has been used widely and even in AC1 to refer to both Templar and Assassin alike.

salted onions
11-11-2010, 10:48 AM
1. Well in AC1, it was during a simpler time, and a time of war like what Rakudaton said. During the Renaissance, the world was bright, vibrant, and beautiful. The medieval setting of the Third Crusades were a dreary time. It is a big shift from AC1, but that comes along with the change in time period.

2. Alan Rikkin had no reason to be shown in AC2 in general. In AC1, Desmond was a captive of the Templars so he would probably see many Templars. In AC2, Desmond is in good hands now, and now their agenda was to prepare Desmond, and turn him into a skillful Assassin. Not AC2, maybe not ACB, but probably in future games, he'll be hunting down high ranking Abstergo Templars, leading up to a confrontation with Rikkin. Maybe. I have my own theory that your primary target is Warren, and that once he's killed, this "trilogy" is over, but with Rikkin still alive leaves possibilities for even more.

3. Leila and Neumann weren't very important at all. Like Rakudaton said, just there to provide context. Those side characters aren't very important, no need to flesh them out. It would be interesting if they did, but somehow I doubt it would lead to anything too interesting.

4. About Lucy telling Rebecca and Shaun that the Templars intend to control their minds, maybe they didn't see the scope of the problem. They did not for see a satellite launch to amplify the PoE's power to be used worldwide to control the minds of all of mankind.

5. The Brotherhood? Now this is just arguing rhetoric. I think others have made a strong case.

SWJS
11-11-2010, 10:55 AM
After completing AC1 yesterday, and this time getting into the conference room for the first time and reading all of the E-mails by Vidic and Lucy as well as those on Alan Rikkin's laptop, I have another major complaint, which seems even more serious to me. It seems that there's a huge portion of the present timeline plot that has simply been thrown out the window. Who is Alan Rikkin? Where does he rank among other modern templars?
I mean, if we chose the right camera angle during the last present-time cutscene in the first game, we could actually see his face for a brief second or two. How could the writers just start to establish a character and then throw it away like that?

Not to mention all the other questions that arise from the E-mails found on Lucy's computer:
Who is Leila? Who is Neumann? What is their role in the story?
How come Lucy tells Rebecca and Shaun that "the templars intend to control their minds"? It doesn't make sense for her to not have known this before infiltrating Abstergo; What could have motivated her to do so, other than learning of their plan and wanting to stop them?

What are all the different matters mentioned in one of A.R.'s E-mails, involving the PoE's? The game seemed to try and establish them as key details to understanding the story, so how come they were never mentioned again after AC1?
A bit of deeper reading probably would have yielded better answers.

Alan Rikkin is the CEO of Abstergo and the Geand Master of the Templar Order in 2012.

Leila was apparently a friend of Lucy's who was in Lucy's spot while Subject 16 was in the animus. When she and 16 (Who is believed to be Neumann) supposedly die, Lucy is placed at Vidic's side, and Desmond is the unlucky schmuck chosen to be strapped into the Animus. One theory was that 16 may actually be alive, having used Leila's blood instead of his own to draw the symbols, and faking his death. It looks like this may be implied to be true, what with 16's ***SPOILERS*** "IAMALIVE" achievement name. ***SPOILERS***

It was a well thought out plan of Lucy, Shaun, and Rebecca's. They knew the Templars were searching for something, but they had no clue of what was actually going on, so they wanted to learn what it was and beat them at their own game. They sent Lucy through college to "study" genetic memory, then like clockwork, she was approached by Abstergo. During the next 4 years, she would over see the animus project, and continuously relay information and leak animus schematics to Shaun and Rebecca through emails disguised as Spam. After 16 and Leila die, Lucy feels horrible at what she's been doing, and sets about preventing anything like this from happening to the next subject. Enter Desmond. After seeing that his ancestors were no ordinary ancestors, Lucy develops an idea, relays it to Shaun and Rebecca, then organizes an escape for Desmond. Training Big Bad Bartenderman with the bleeding effect, they give Desmond the epic skills of two of history's biggest badasses, and ensure themselves a chance at avoiding corruption and catastrophe.

As for the Brotherhood question, Drakonous sums it up very well.

Regarding your use of the term Brotherhood you forget the Tenants of the Creed:

1. Stay your blade from the flesh of an Innocent.

2. Always be discreet.

3. Never compromise the Brotherhood.

Brotherhood is a term that has been used widely and even in AC1 to refer to both Templar and Assassin alike.

DiamondBlade_R
11-11-2010, 02:30 PM
My issues with the game aren't that you don't get to see what happenes with all those side-characters per se, but the fact that AC2 doesn't feature ANY "secret story pieces a-la E-mails" at all. In AC1 it seems they actually cared about creating a universe, with all kinds of "story pieces" that the player just needed to find. In AC2, we had nothing of that nature.

Rainie
11-11-2010, 02:56 PM
well in AC2, majority of the time that you're not in the Animus you're no longer at Abstergo so there's no searching to be had. ACB is pretty much AC2.5 and we've already been promised that we'll get more playtime with Desmond, so we're going to get to learn more of what's happening in 2012. I think what they did in AC2 was fine, and I think its too early to say they abandoned anything

lilbacchant
11-11-2010, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by DiamondBlade_R:
My issues with the game aren't that you don't get to see what happenes with all those side-characters per se, but the fact that AC2 doesn't feature ANY "secret story pieces a-la E-mails" at all. In AC1 it seems they actually cared about creating a universe, with all kinds of "story pieces" that the player just needed to find. In AC2, we had nothing of that nature.

Well, I thought the Glyphs/Truth puzzles provided quite the stimulating array of "story pieces". I don't know if you've visited the AC2 wiki or not, but there's a whole ton of info there about those puzzles -- details I never would've thought of investigating (e.g., morse and binary code in some of the puzzles).

I suppose one could argue that it was more difficult in AC2 to accumulate these "story pieces", but then it *is* consistent with the storyline. In AC1, he was in an Abstergo facility being hand-fed security overrides by Lucy. Whereas in AC2, the info is coming from computer programs installed by a paranoid hacker (subject 16). The bright side is that this paranoid hacker may prove to be the most interesting character in AC, depending ....

CRUDFACE
11-11-2010, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by DiamondBlade_R:
My issues with the game aren't that you don't get to see what happenes with all those side-characters per se, but the fact that AC2 doesn't feature ANY "secret story pieces a-la E-mails" at all. In AC1 it seems they actually cared about creating a universe, with all kinds of "story pieces" that the player just needed to find. In AC2, we had nothing of that nature.

People have already answered your questions from above, so I'll focuss on this one and another issue. Assassin's Creed as we all know, is based heavily on the "feel" of the time. Because of that, Ezio's couldn't be gloomy since the time period wasn't. Well, on the outside anyways, but since it was the renaissance, many were happy and inspired. In all honesty, i liked the puzzles in Ac2 way more than AC1. Those in Ac1 could only be accessed at certain periods, and if you mmissed any, you wouldn't be able to go back and collect them. They also offer more content as well, identifying Templars and Assassins through the ages.

Lol, forget learning about subject sixteen by email, I get to hear him go insane while trying to show me "The Truth".

SWJS
11-11-2010, 03:49 PM
I think its too early to say they abandoned anything
I agree. It's the rule of the Chekhov's Gun. If a gun appears hanging on the wall in the first chapter, it MUST be fired by the end, else it has no purpose and shouldn't be there.

I doubt the AC writers would give us info and not expand upon it.

obliviondoll
11-11-2010, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think its too early to say they abandoned anything
I agree. It's the rule of the Chekhov's Gun. If a gun appears hanging on the wall in the first chapter, it MUST be fired by the end, else it has no purpose and shouldn't be there.

I doubt the AC writers would give us info and not expand upon it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's book/film logic. Not necessarily applicable in game terms.

Often, an object/side character in the game will exist with minimal (if any) direct involvement, and is there simply to add to the feel of the world. They serve their purpose better without interaction. Rikkin, being a major player on the Templar side, is likely (if not guaranteed) to show up again in Brotherhood or AC3. The others mentioned in Lucy's emails less so, because they serve their purpose more as additional characterisation for Lucy than as characters in their own right. They may or may not show up, and either way, their presence added an extra layer of depth to Lucy's character and to the world itself.

SWJS
11-12-2010, 12:36 AM
That's book/film logic. Not necessarily applicable in game terms.
Actually it can be applied to any form of media. Many games use this all the time. For example, the Halo series has a Chekhov's Gun in the form of the Halo rings themselves. Installation 04 was discovered in the first game, actually fired in the 3rd.

AC also has a few. For example, The Apple in AC1 proves to be this. Found by Altair and Malik in the beginning, used by Al Mualim in the end.

Chekhov's Gun is mostly associated with objects though, more or likely MacGuffins. They can be associated with backstory as well, in a certain sense, such as Subject 16 playing a larger role in AC2 and Brotherhood. He wasn't as important in AC1.

But you may be right about the emails providing characterization for Lucy. We'll only know for sure come AC3.

obliviondoll
11-12-2010, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's book/film logic. Not necessarily applicable in game terms.
Actually it can be applied to any form of media. Many games use this all the time. For example, the Halo series has a Chekhov's Gun in the form of the Halo rings themselves. Installation 04 was discovered in the first game, actually fired in the 3rd.

AC also has a few. For example, The Apple in AC1 proves to be this. Found by Altair and Malik in the beginning, used by Al Mualim in the end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Added emphasis for explanatory purposes.

The examples it was used in reference to were ones where in an interactive medium, they can just as easily be background to make the world feel more real, thus adding immersion and implying a wider context without having to actually create the characters referenced.

THAT is somewhat of a no-no in non-interactive media, which is why I was saying it's not necessarily the case in games.

DiamondBlade_R
11-12-2010, 06:47 AM
Another intersting plot aspect that has never been discussed - or even reffered to - niether in-game nor by the developes, is the Templars' act of straying from their original cause (creating peace), only to become devoted to it again approximately 500 years later.
Or is it just that the writers of AC2 were too lazy to come up with justifiable arguments for the targets' misdeeds?

PhiIs1618033
11-12-2010, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by DiamondBlade_R:
Another intersting plot aspect that has never been discussed is the Templars' act of straying from their original cause (creating peace), only to become devoted to it again approximately 500 years later.
Or is it just that the writers of AC2 were too lazy to come up with justifiable arguments for the targets' misdeeds?
They were trying to get control in order to make peace.

DiamondBlade_R
11-12-2010, 07:02 AM
Not one is that specified in AC2. The Renissance era Templars just seemed to have forgotten about their ancestors' cause and to be acting purely out of egoistic motives, namely acheiving power.

E-Zekiel
11-12-2010, 01:18 PM
One thing I don't like about Brotherhood's feel and possibly its direction - the cinematic trailer. Remember it? They're straying away from the "professional" feel of an assassin. Ezio walks RIGHT THROUGH A HUGE CROWD OF PEOPLE HE CAN'T POSSIBLY BLEND WITH. He is spotted by numerous guards. He then ANNOUNCES HIMSELF blatantly before moving in on a target.

This is amateurish. Truly. And it makes me hope that it's not just becoming Legend of Zelda, less mystified and more about moral ambiguity rather than just a fairytale. (I use Zelda because the puzzles and action somewhat remind me of it, Twilight Princess anyway.)

In the first one, they heavily condemned Altair for announcing himself like that.

One thing I did like about the cinematic trailer though, I understood it long after complaining about it - when he is walking through the big group of people in red...He is the prophet, and it is a metaphor for Moses parting the Red Sea.


But you get what I'm saying, anyway....


/ramble

Rainie
11-12-2010, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:

One thing I did like about the cinematic trailer though, I understood it long after complaining about it - when he is walking through the big group of people in red...He is the prophet, and it is a metaphor for Moses parting the Red Sea

I can honestly say I didn't make that connection before but now that you pointed it out I think that's an awesome metaphor XD

lilbacchant
11-12-2010, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by DiamondBlade_R:
Not one is that specified in AC2. The Renissance era Templars just seemed to have forgotten about their ancestors' cause and to be acting purely out of egoistic motives, namely acheiving power.

I feel ya. In AC1, there were two primary ways Altair learned of the templar's motives (even if he don't know they were templars):

1) From the post-kill cutscenes with his targets and their dialogue.

2) His pre-assassination investigations.

As I understood it (and supported), #1 was eliminated in AC2 because fans complained about how unrealistic and, therefore, immersion breaking it was.

I sorely missed #2 being in AC2 though, both for its (lost) opportunity to give us insight into the templars in general, and as a means to inform us about specific targets. In AC1, I felt like I got to know my targets aforehand; whereas in AC2, it just seemed like someone would point and I'd go kill.

I remember every individual assassination and target from AC1. Most of the assassinations in AC2, however, are mostly a blur for me, despite having played it several times.

lilbacchant
11-12-2010, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by kriticalraine:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:

One thing I did like about the cinematic trailer though, I understood it long after complaining about it - when he is walking through the big group of people in red...He is the prophet, and it is a metaphor for Moses parting the Red Sea

I can honestly say I didn't make that connection before but now that you pointed it out I think that's an awesome metaphor XD </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I also mostly agree with what zek said and it does worry me a bit that the franchise is moving more towards killing vs. assassinating -- if you get my drift. But, I'll reserve my judgement until I've played AC:B and seen how the "parting of the red sea" scene plays out in context.