PDA

View Full Version : Is this a Flaw in the Story?



ACSineQuaNon
11-21-2011, 05:06 PM
As much as I appreciate Ezio as a character, sometimes I feel as if he has made some really reckless decisions. This became more apparent in ACR, particularly in the Escape the Hidden City mission. What he basically did was bring anarchy to an entire city and undoubtedly kill numerous innocents (smoke inhalation). Even Ezio "almost died" because he couldn't escape without using Eagle Sense.

What I'm questioning is whether or not Ubisoft is sacrificing the integrity of their characters for more "epic" moments.

The_Sphinx
11-21-2011, 05:26 PM
I definately agree.

The definition of the Assassin in the original AC was a quiet, lonely man hiding in the shadows and blending in with the crowd, killing his single target, because that single target was inherently bad and the world would be a better place without him.

Over the course of the last few games however, Ubi turned "the assassin" into a one-man killing machine stacked with weapons and wearing more armor than a modern day abrahams tank. Granted, this turned the game into a more epic spectacle, but in my opinion it also tarnishes the original game because in the end, Ezio is no different from any "templar" he kills.

ACSineQuaNon
11-21-2011, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Adnocana:
I definately agree.

The definition of the Assassin in the original AC was a quiet, lonely man hiding in the shadows and blending in with the crowd, killing his single target, because that single target was inherently bad and the world would be a better place without him.

Over the course of the last few games however, Ubi turned "the assassin" into a one-man killing machine stacked with weapons and wearing more armor than a modern day abrahams tank. Granted, this turned the game into a more epic spectacle, but in my opinion it also tarnishes the original game because in the end, Ezio is no different from any "templar" he kills.

Yeah, definitely. I still enjoy the games and feel like they've actually generally progressed well in terms of gameplay and environment, but I feel Ubisoft, since AC1, has largely ignored the ethics of being an assassin. However, unlike most people it seems, I actually felt Brotherhood's narrative (although not story) was actually an improvement upon AC2's. I thought the developers did a good job with tying in the problems of Rome with the presence of the Borgia and their pervasive influence.

The_Sphinx
11-21-2011, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by ACSineQuaNon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adnocana:
I definately agree.

The definition of the Assassin in the original AC was a quiet, lonely man hiding in the shadows and blending in with the crowd, killing his single target, because that single target was inherently bad and the world would be a better place without him.

Over the course of the last few games however, Ubi turned "the assassin" into a one-man killing machine stacked with weapons and wearing more armor than a modern day abrahams tank. Granted, this turned the game into a more epic spectacle, but in my opinion it also tarnishes the original game because in the end, Ezio is no different from any "templar" he kills.

Yeah, definitely. I still enjoy the games and feel like they've actually generally progressed well in terms of gameplay and environment, but I feel Ubisoft, since AC1, has largely ignored the ethics of being an assassin. However, unlike most people it seems, I actually felt Brotherhood's narrative (although not story) was actually an improvement upon AC2's. I thought the developers did a good job with tying in the problems of Rome with the presence of the Borgia and their pervasive influence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but even then the game did a bad job explaining me why Cesare Borgia is an evil person. Sure, he kills Mario at the start of the game, but other than that [and questionable sexual desires] we never see him do anything wrong.

That's where these games go off track: the original AC showed perfectly WHY the targets were evil. Remember that doctor breaking that dudes legs so he wouldn't escape? That was brutal. The minute I saw that I thought "this guy needs to die".
In the other games however, nothing happens. The game can yell in my face "CESARE IS BAD", but without showing any evidence of that I'm having a hard time caring.

Like in Revelations, Shakhulu. So he trades in weapons, and he likes to beat up people every now and then. Big deal, does that mean he deserves a knife in the neck? Doubtful.

But as every year, these remarks fall upon deaf ears. I hope ACIII finds the courage to get the narrative back on track again.

Will_Lucky
11-21-2011, 05:45 PM
Wouldn't have surprised me if he did this Brotherhood, his life was at rock bottom. But by this point due to Sofia he had a reason to live. It just seemed so short sighted and near suicidal on his part to go ahead with it in the end even after he was warned what he was doing.

laxplyr1112
11-21-2011, 06:37 PM
actually shakulu was one of the few i was sure about killing he killed for the sport and fun of it i thought his character was awesome and would have like to see a bit more of him but he was one of the few i knew deserved it in this game IMO

rileypoole1234
11-21-2011, 08:53 PM
Desperate times...

Il_Divo
11-21-2011, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Adnocana:

Yes, but even then the game did a bad job explaining me why Cesare Borgia is an evil person. Sure, he kills Mario at the start of the game, but other than that [and questionable sexual desires] we never see him do anything wrong.

Beyond Cesare razing an entire city to the ground, murdering Mario, being the son of the Templar Faction's leader, and the extreme likelihood of him misusing the the apple in various ways? If the explanations in AC1 were enough (breaking soemone's legs), I'm not certain I see how Cesare Borgia should fall into the "not kill" territory. It's also established that he has a general reputation as being feared by the general populus and an all around terrible person.

AdmiralPerry
11-21-2011, 10:54 PM
Is Ezio reckless? Sure. That whole thing with the Janissary captain was probably the biggest mistake Ezio made. But that's what makes him human, and, in a way, seem a little more human than Altair did. Also, there's a, what, 300 year gap or so between Altair and Ezio? Considering what Altair did with the Assassins, that's a long time for things to get changed around, hence why the Assassins behave differently.

ACSineQuaNon
11-21-2011, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by AdmiralPerry:
Is Ezio reckless? Sure. That whole thing with the Janissary captain was probably the biggest mistake Ezio made. But that's what makes him human, and, in a way, seem a little more human than Altair did.

It's more than that, though. One of the major themes of Revelations is wisdom, that which Ezio should have gained throughout his life. The decisions he made were more than "human mistakes." They showed a complete and selfish disregard for human life, collateral damage. It's hard to sympathize with Ezio because, at moments, he seems to be a heartless killing machine. That is not what Altair wanted, what his parents wanted, or uncle wanted. The Masyaf Keys were supposed to grant Ezio the wisdom and understanding of Altair.

I just remembered a moment that illustrates this perfectly. At the very beginning of the game when Ezio kills Leandros, he says "Requiescat en pace, bastardo" and throws him to the ground. The very first time I saw this scene in the GamesCom demo 1-2 months before Reveleations released, I already felt as though the writers had just made a big mistake. Ezio's disrespect for the dead goes against his very first lesson as an assassin Mario taught him. WTF!?

CDFinnigan
11-22-2011, 12:06 AM
I thought that was odd to until I realized he's becoming very tired and bitter in his old age. Remember he's been having questions and doubts for awhile now about his purpose which is why he went on the journey to Masyaf in the first place- because he needed, if not answers, then at least some inspiration to continue.

This is a very damaged person we're dealing with and for a long time he's been fighting with having nothing to really fight for other than revenge which only twists you up inside.

eagleforlife1
11-22-2011, 12:43 AM
I don't think that Ezio knew that the explosion would have caused a smoke cloud. It was 1512; I don't think we had the same kind of knowledge that we have now.

Krayus Korianis
11-22-2011, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
I don't think that Ezio knew that the explosion would have caused a smoke cloud. It was 1512; I don't think we had the same kind of knowledge that we have now.

Cavern + Gunpowder = Smoke filled cavern... Don't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Kytr
11-22-2011, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Adnocana:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ACSineQuaNon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adnocana:
I definately agree.

The definition of the Assassin in the original AC was a quiet, lonely man hiding in the shadows and blending in with the crowd, killing his single target, because that single target was inherently bad and the world would be a better place without him.

Over the course of the last few games however, Ubi turned "the assassin" into a one-man killing machine stacked with weapons and wearing more armor than a modern day abrahams tank. Granted, this turned the game into a more epic spectacle, but in my opinion it also tarnishes the original game because in the end, Ezio is no different from any "templar" he kills.

Yeah, definitely. I still enjoy the games and feel like they've actually generally progressed well in terms of gameplay and environment, but I feel Ubisoft, since AC1, has largely ignored the ethics of being an assassin. However, unlike most people it seems, I actually felt Brotherhood's narrative (although not story) was actually an improvement upon AC2's. I thought the developers did a good job with tying in the problems of Rome with the presence of the Borgia and their pervasive influence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but even then the game did a bad job explaining me why Cesare Borgia is an evil person. Sure, he kills Mario at the start of the game, but other than that [and questionable sexual desires] we never see him do anything wrong.

That's where these games go off track: the original AC showed perfectly WHY the targets were evil. Remember that doctor breaking that dudes legs so he wouldn't escape? That was brutal. The minute I saw that I thought "this guy needs to die".
In the other games however, nothing happens. The game can yell in my face "CESARE IS BAD", but without showing any evidence of that I'm having a hard time caring.

Like in Revelations, Shakhulu. So he trades in weapons, and he likes to beat up people every now and then. Big deal, does that mean he deserves a knife in the neck? Doubtful.

But as every year, these remarks fall upon deaf ears. I hope ACIII finds the courage to get the narrative back on track again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should pay more attention. He also committed patricide (that is the killing of one's father in case you didn't know), ordered the murder of a follower whose brother had acted against him. He was waging open warfare to satisfy his desire to conquer all of Italy. His own words show him to be dangerously insane. There really was no question that Cesare was bad.

Revelations is not so clear cut -- the Templars are the enemy more because they are Templars than their own actions. But even here, their deaths are generally necessary -- they are using murder to try to enforce their desires. The one killing that can truly be pointed to as wrong is the Janissary captain Talik. And that looked merited until he explained what he was trying to do.

souNdwAve89
11-22-2011, 12:22 PM
The differences between the Syrian Assassins and Italian Assassins are there, but I see it in a different light. Mario said so himself that they are not so literal such as cutting off the ring finger. Over time, different methods are used depending on the Assassin Guild. They still follow the Creed, but loosely depending on the assassin. Ezio may not be the traditional assassin that Altair was, but he's still an assassin.

Yeah, the games are gotten to a point to make you feel like a badass, but I don't mind. One of the new features in Brotherhood was the execution feature, which was attacking and killing the enemy quickly. That aspect made sense to me because assassins are suppose to be fast and agile. Besides, if you want to play like a traditional assassin in AC2, ACB, or ACR, then do it. Most of the time, there is no forcing of the player to kill all the guards to escape. I see the AC games as one of those games that you play how you want to play it. If you want to be sneaky, then be sneaky. If you want to go Rambo and charge right in, then do it.

eagleforlife1
11-22-2011, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Krayus_Korianis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
I don't think that Ezio knew that the explosion would have caused a smoke cloud. It was 1512; I don't think we had the same kind of knowledge that we have now.

Cavern + Gunpowder = Smoke filled cavern... Don't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but in 1512 would you still be saying that. To be honest, I'm probably just a complete idiot but in 2011 I wouldn't have even realised that that would happen.

Kytr
11-23-2011, 09:30 AM
One purpose was to get rid of the gunpowder (not the crate of guns, the girl told him that most of them would not function). There were two means of getting rid of it -- carry it off (not likely) or burn it. It was also supposed to be a distraction that would get rid of the guards -- they should be fighting the fire not him (they didn't because of Templar orders).

The reality is that he would have had no experience with large fires in an enclosed space. Think about it -- he was trapped in the cavern himself. This is a case if ignorance, not a casual disreguard of life.

PartyAnimalia
11-23-2011, 10:26 PM
On the topic of Ezio killing the jennisary captain yes that was wrong but Altair did something very simmilar in The Secret Crusade. Altair was told that his target was a traitor much like Tarak and he must die. Like in Ezio's case it turned out not to be true. Granted this is in a book and may not be cannon it still shows that people may make mistakes. But when Ezio called Leandros a bastardo after killing him I was startled and that was defiantly wrong.