PDA

View Full Version : Ezio Auditore: mass murderer? *SPOILERS*



SenethSomed
11-28-2011, 01:48 AM
Is it just me or did Ezio commit some evil deeds in Revelations? I mean besides the constant assassination of bad guys, and even beside killing Tarik.

First is the time he starts a riot just so he can infiltrate a Templar base more easily. Ezio starts an uprising without any intention of helping the people accomplish anything. Many dozens of citizens died in that ruckus, and Ezio doesn't seem to care. Even Yusuf says that it's a messed up plan, and Yusuf is a nut. When the guy whose idea of fun is finding creative new ways of killing cops says you've crossed a line, you've crossed a line.

But that's not as bad as what he pulled in Capadocia. How many thousand innocent people died of smoke inhalation in that cave? Including some allies, possibly, since we never see that spy woman again. Including himself, possibly, since whatever illness killed him was in his lungs.

Did Ezio just stop caring? He was never willing to cause so much collateral damage in Italy. This all makes him sound rather hypocritical when he's browbeating one of his master assassins about killing one innocent man. (Whose body he has dumped in the ocean like a bag of trash.)

It's a severe case of Ezio becoming a grumpy old man, I guess

Krayus Korianis
11-28-2011, 02:13 AM
Uh, everyone was a mass murderer in those times... No one was a saint tbh.

SenethSomed
11-28-2011, 02:35 AM
Ezio isn't nearly so callous during his first two games.

I got the impression that Ezio was just incredibly weary of the assassin's life. I think he planned for his trip to Masyaf to be his last mission, and was a little bitter that it turned into another massive project rebuilding the assassins around Constantinople. That, along with not having any close ties to anyone in Constantinople and Capadocia, made him crueler than he was in Italy.

Embers seems to support this as well, with Ezio getting unreasonably angry that a young assassin would come all the way from China to see him. How many Mentors just flat out quit? All the other Mentors we've seen served the order until their deaths, but Ezio retired.

If the smoke in Capadocia did lead to his death years later, that means that he got himself killed through his own recklessness. It's interesting to consider that as long as Ezio was committed to the life of an Assassin, he was nearly invincible. When he starts looking for a way out, he becomes weak. He made some sloppy mistakes in the east, getting a lot of innocent people killed and eventually killing himself.

Maybe.

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 03:38 AM
i think it's all just the writer's forgetting exactly who the character they created is. in AC2 he starts out as very vengeful and later learns from mario that he should be respectful and remains that way until revelations, where he becomes selfish, looking only to resolve his own issues. the only person he respects is sofia the book lady because she's venetian. also, what 60 year old man wouldn't be grumpy when the person controlling them makes them climb buildings, sprint everywhere, and do leaps of faith all the time?

Radman500
11-28-2011, 03:42 AM
e allies, possibly, since we n

g to consider that as long as Ezio was committed to the life of an Assassin, he was nearly invincible. When

Ezio is no saint, and yes what he did at Capadocia does sort of paint him as a "evil ****" and he probably had moral thoughts about it, hell he probably had moral thoughts on what he did, his whole life

but one can argue what he did, at capadocia, despite the many innocent deaths.. was ultimately for the Greater Good

<span class="ev_code_RED">Don't by-pass the censor.</span>

Radman500
11-28-2011, 03:44 AM
co


its sort of like a "would you kill 1 to save a thousand" question

lucifero2114
11-28-2011, 04:19 AM
they can explain away by saying the ezio thing is just a simulation, puppet system in the animus

so the exact actions ezio realy did historically, how many he killed cannot be known, maybe he rarely killed gaurds at all

also, memories are known to be subjected to corruption, alterations and varies with reality by the person's (ezio) perception of events

then again, the animus is only another representaion of genetic records, possibly leading to more mis-representation of data

Grandmaster_Z
11-28-2011, 07:05 AM
good original post

BK-110
11-28-2011, 07:40 AM
I did wonder about the fire in Cappadocia myself. As for the riot, he did at the same time try to empower the people and he did defend them as best he could. And about Yusuf. The only guards we see him kill were Byzantines, Templars. And the killing of Tarik was obviously a mistake which he much regretted just like Suleiman.

But I certainly do wonder about Cappadocia. I kind of do agree that Ezio seems a bit more rough and grumpy in his decision making.

eagleforlife1
11-28-2011, 07:43 AM
I don't think 500 years ago we had the scientific knowledge that we have today so I am not sure that Ezio knew that blowing up gunpowder would cause hazardous smoke clouds.

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 07:48 AM
I actually kinda like how Ezio acted like that, it gave him more Development as a character; a bitter Old man who has spent most of his life inflicting and receiving Pain.If you focused on his Assassinations during Revelations, you`d know that he has become grumpy and bitter, such as when he killed shahkulu, he simply gave him a shove with his boots, when he killed Manuel, Manuel was trying to explain why he did what he had done, yet Ezio cuts him short and tells him that he is only here for the keys and not to listen to his rambling.
This shows that although Ezio is fighting for the right cause, he is not perfect as he is only human..

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 08:02 AM
on the commercial it says Ezio has 90 some thousand kills so i'm not surprised that he is lol, but smoke rises so i don't know how all that smoke was lingering on the ground killing people though

SupremeCaptain
11-28-2011, 08:20 AM
Can't believe people are actually trying to justify Ezio's actions... >_>

I hated what Ezio did, inciting riots and causing that smoke cloud. It's like they forgot who the character is. If anything this added to my dislike of AC:R.

raven11d
11-28-2011, 08:38 AM
my ezio and even my altair have always been bastards

in AC1 i would kill the mad drunken men if they punched me and with ezio i used to poison the bards everytime they got in my way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Can't believe people are actually trying to justify Ezio's actions... >_>

I hated what Ezio did, inciting riots and causing that smoke cloud. It's like they forgot who the character is. If anything this added to my dislike of AC:R.
I didnt justify http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

LightRey
11-28-2011, 08:44 AM
Well now people, he's an Assassin. He's not here to do good, he's here to do what needs to be done.

Abeonis
11-28-2011, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
on the commercial it says Ezio has 90 some thousand kills so i'm not surprised that he is lol, but smoke rises so i don't know how all that smoke was lingering on the ground killing people though

No, it says "hits". You seem to be under the impression that absolutely everybody Ezio killed was defeated with a single strike; god knows how many times he got into combat, where it could wel have taken him up to a hundred sword swings, or hits, to defeat a single individual.

RzaRecta357
11-28-2011, 08:57 AM
Yeah. No one ever claimed him to be good.

If he had to press a button that killed 10,000 innocents to stop the templar plan for good he'd of done it.

itsamea-mario
11-28-2011, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Assassin_M:
I actually kinda like how Ezio acted like that, it gave him more Development as a character; a bitter Old man who has spent most of his life inflicting and receiving Pain.If you focused on his Assassinations during Revelations, you`d know that he has become grumpy and bitter, such as when he killed shahkulu, he simply gave him a shove with his boots, when he killed Manuel, Manuel was trying to explain why he did what he had done, yet Ezio cuts him short and tells him that he is only here for the keys and not to listen to his rambling.
This shows that although Ezio is fighting for the right cause, he is not perfect as he is only human..

Well the reason he kicked shahkulu was mainly to make sure the pesky S.O.B was dead.
He also called leandros a bastardo, but then again he kinda was.

He did sort of turn out how I expected, much more straight to the point, taking much less shazzizle.

I like to think he did what he did because he saw no other way.

But some things are a little more iffy, such as compromising the order in order to protect Sofia, an act which caused the ottoman grandmaster (& one of my favourite characters) Yusuf, to die.

And it's hard to justify possibly sacrificing many many people to achieve your goals, then sacrificing your goals to save one person.

But he's only human I suppose.

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
Yeah. No one ever claimed him to be good.

If he had to press a button that killed 10,000 innocents to stop the templar plan for good he'd of done it.
Exactly, its just more to proof that although the Assassins are just, they still can commit mistakes. Ezio, nor Altair, was never a Saint.
and in my book that counts as a thumbs up for Ubisoft, because every game Protagonist is just cliche, being the goodie goodie Angel from above..

maxriderules
11-28-2011, 09:45 AM
I don't know about everyone else, but when I play Ezio is like a mix of Hitler and Batman. I mean, how many guards have you killed from AC2 to ACR- 1000? 1,000,000?

If Ezio was in the modern day there'd be literally nobody sane who would help him.

UrDeviant1
11-28-2011, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by maxriderules:

If Ezio was in the modern day there'd be literally nobody sane who would help him.

I'd be too scared of him to say No.

RzaRecta357
11-28-2011, 10:27 AM
Mario. I wouldn't say Ezio compromised the order. He was in a race to find the seals which she helped him do.

He told Yusuf to protect her which in the end was at least a good thing because the templars were going to use her as leverage.

The templars found her out when Ezio just needed her to read some books and have a picnic. Haha.

I think people were just to taken with his super robinhood personality of Brotherhood which painted a bad picture of him I think.

Agentbarto
11-28-2011, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
i think it's all just the writer's forgetting exactly who the character they created is. in AC2 he starts out as very vengeful and later learns from mario that he should be respectful and remains that way until revelations, where he becomes selfish, looking only to resolve his own issues. the only person he respects is sofia the book lady because she's venetian. also, what 60 year old man wouldn't be grumpy when the person controlling them makes them climb buildings, sprint everywhere, and do leaps of faith all the time?

Showing respect to the dead just means not doing what Ezio did to Vieri's body. The last rights he gave many of his victims is just an added perk that makes him better than them; should he choose to withhold this from them, he is still being respectful as he would never treat them like some the Templar Agents treat their victims.

maxriderules
11-28-2011, 11:01 AM
Except then you can drop like, 50 bodies into one haystack and throw civillians into it for fun. which is about as bad as the templars, I think.

SolidSage
11-28-2011, 11:23 AM
I too had this thought about the Cappadocia incident. I think it was probably ignorance on Ezio's part though, not knowing at that time that carcinogens are killers.

In all though, his attitude towards the sanctity of life had to get more and more eroded through the years. all that killing has to desensitize you to a point, where one innocent here or there is acceptable collateral damage.

I like that he had enough, become war weary and gave it up to seek his own happiness. It set Ezio apart from the other members of his order (not Altair), made him a free thinker, unbound by loyalty and faith. It makes him a more likeable character for me.

At the end of the day though, like someone else said, my Ezio is a ruthless killer. I REFUSE to pay those big mouth Heralds who like to talk shiz about my biznuss, the only thing I give them is a bastard sword, chucked to the face from a nice distance. I make sure everyone see's it to, so they know what they'll get if they fug with me!

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
I too had this thought about the Cappadocia incident. I think it was probably ignorance on Ezio's part though, not knowing at that time that carcinogens are killers.

In all though, his attitude towards the sanctity of life had to get more and more eroded through the years. all that killing has to desensitize you to a point, where one innocent here or there is acceptable collateral damage.

I like that he had enough, become war weary and gave it up to seek his own happiness. It set Ezio apart from the other members of his order (not Altair), made him a free thinker, unbound by loyalty and faith. It makes him a more likeable character for me.

At the end of the day though, like someone else said, my Ezio is a ruthless killer. I REFUSE to pay those big mouth Heralds who like to talk shiz about my biznuss, the only thing I give them is a bastard sword, chucked to the face from a nice distance. I make sure everyone see's it to, so they know what they'll get if they fug with me! people back then must have been really stupid, it doesn't take a genius to realize that inhaling thick, black smoke is bad for your health

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SolidSage:
I too had this thought about the Cappadocia incident. I think it was probably ignorance on Ezio's part though, not knowing at that time that carcinogens are killers.

In all though, his attitude towards the sanctity of life had to get more and more eroded through the years. all that killing has to desensitize you to a point, where one innocent here or there is acceptable collateral damage.

I like that he had enough, become war weary and gave it up to seek his own happiness. It set Ezio apart from the other members of his order (not Altair), made him a free thinker, unbound by loyalty and faith. It makes him a more likeable character for me.

At the end of the day though, like someone else said, my Ezio is a ruthless killer. I REFUSE to pay those big mouth Heralds who like to talk shiz about my biznuss, the only thing I give them is a bastard sword, chucked to the face from a nice distance. I make sure everyone see's it to, so they know what they'll get if they fug with me! people back then must have been really stupid, it doesn't take a genius to realize that inhaling thick, black smoke is bad for your health </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hear this; back in the 50s people thought smoking was good for your health..

SolidSage
11-28-2011, 11:36 AM
@Schmagelborfer
Back then? Take a look around bro, we've got more than enough stupid to go around right here in the present.

rain89c
11-28-2011, 11:38 AM
Not to mention he steals money from civilians too. And people claim he is an honorable man... Lols

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SolidSage:
I too had this thought about the Cappadocia incident. I think it was probably ignorance on Ezio's part though, not knowing at that time that carcinogens are killers.

In all though, his attitude towards the sanctity of life had to get more and more eroded through the years. all that killing has to desensitize you to a point, where one innocent here or there is acceptable collateral damage.

I like that he had enough, become war weary and gave it up to seek his own happiness. It set Ezio apart from the other members of his order (not Altair), made him a free thinker, unbound by loyalty and faith. It makes him a more likeable character for me.

At the end of the day though, like someone else said, my Ezio is a ruthless killer. I REFUSE to pay those big mouth Heralds who like to talk shiz about my biznuss, the only thing I give them is a bastard sword, chucked to the face from a nice distance. I make sure everyone see's it to, so they know what they'll get if they fug with me! people back then must have been really stupid, it doesn't take a genius to realize that inhaling thick, black smoke is bad for your health </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hear this; back in the 50s people thought smoking was good for your health.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>that's not thick, black smoke though

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
@Schmagelborfer
Back then? Take a look around bro, we've got more than enough stupid to go around right here in the present. lol good point

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SolidSage:
I too had this thought about the Cappadocia incident. I think it was probably ignorance on Ezio's part though, not knowing at that time that carcinogens are killers.

In all though, his attitude towards the sanctity of life had to get more and more eroded through the years. all that killing has to desensitize you to a point, where one innocent here or there is acceptable collateral damage.

I like that he had enough, become war weary and gave it up to seek his own happiness. It set Ezio apart from the other members of his order (not Altair), made him a free thinker, unbound by loyalty and faith. It makes him a more likeable character for me.

At the end of the day though, like someone else said, my Ezio is a ruthless killer. I REFUSE to pay those big mouth Heralds who like to talk shiz about my biznuss, the only thing I give them is a bastard sword, chucked to the face from a nice distance. I make sure everyone see's it to, so they know what they'll get if they fug with me! people back then must have been really stupid, it doesn't take a genius to realize that inhaling thick, black smoke is bad for your health </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hear this; back in the 50s people thought smoking was good for your health.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>that's not thick, black smoke though </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was referring to your comment "it doesn't take a genius to realize that inhaling thick, black smoke is bad for your health" Big thick smoke or smoking they`r both bad and yet earlier in life smoking was thought to be a bless.

NuclearFuss
11-28-2011, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SolidSage:
I too had this thought about the Cappadocia incident. I think it was probably ignorance on Ezio's part though, not knowing at that time that carcinogens are killers.

In all though, his attitude towards the sanctity of life had to get more and more eroded through the years. all that killing has to desensitize you to a point, where one innocent here or there is acceptable collateral damage.

I like that he had enough, become war weary and gave it up to seek his own happiness. It set Ezio apart from the other members of his order (not Altair), made him a free thinker, unbound by loyalty and faith. It makes him a more likeable character for me.

At the end of the day though, like someone else said, my Ezio is a ruthless killer. I REFUSE to pay those big mouth Heralds who like to talk shiz about my biznuss, the only thing I give them is a bastard sword, chucked to the face from a nice distance. I make sure everyone see's it to, so they know what they'll get if they fug with me! people back then must have been really stupid, it doesn't take a genius to realize that inhaling thick, black smoke is bad for your health </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Doctors back then probably thought they could cure it with leeches. It's the solution for everything.

Even Ezio's broken bones at the beginning of Brotherhood http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

(I'm assuming he has a broken arm or rib or something from the way he walks... Don't hold me to it)

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by sackboy411:


The Doctors back then probably thought they could cure it with leeches. It's the solution for everything.

Even Ezio's broken bones at the beginning of Brotherhood http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

(I'm assuming he has a broken arm or rib or something from the way he walks... Don't hold me to it)
Broken bones from the fall off the roof and 3 holes in his body from the shots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SolidSage:
I too had this thought about the Cappadocia incident. I think it was probably ignorance on Ezio's part though, not knowing at that time that carcinogens are killers.

In all though, his attitude towards the sanctity of life had to get more and more eroded through the years. all that killing has to desensitize you to a point, where one innocent here or there is acceptable collateral damage.

I like that he had enough, become war weary and gave it up to seek his own happiness. It set Ezio apart from the other members of his order (not Altair), made him a free thinker, unbound by loyalty and faith. It makes him a more likeable character for me.

At the end of the day though, like someone else said, my Ezio is a ruthless killer. I REFUSE to pay those big mouth Heralds who like to talk shiz about my biznuss, the only thing I give them is a bastard sword, chucked to the face from a nice distance. I make sure everyone see's it to, so they know what they'll get if they fug with me! people back then must have been really stupid, it doesn't take a genius to realize that inhaling thick, black smoke is bad for your health </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hear this; back in the 50s people thought smoking was good for your health.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>that's not thick, black smoke though </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was referring to your comment "it doesn't take a genius to realize that inhaling thick, black smoke is bad for your health" Big thick smoke or smoking they`r both bad and yet earlier in life smoking was thought to be a bless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i understand what you're saying, but people don't burn fossil fuels or black powder to inhale the smoke on purpose. back in the 50's they had x-ray machines on the streets outside of novelty stores and supermarkets and such so people could see their hands or feet or even their whole body in an x-ray but they didn't know it would give you cancer if you had prolonged exposure

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
i understand what you're saying, but people don't burn fossil fuels or black powder to inhale the smoke on purpose. back in the 50's they had x-ray machines on the streets outside of novelty stores and supermarkets and such so people could see their hands or feet or even their whole body in an x-ray but they didn't know it would give you cancer if you had prolonged exposure
My Point exactly, "back then, they didnt know"

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
i understand what you're saying, but people don't burn fossil fuels or black powder to inhale the smoke on purpose. back in the 50's they had x-ray machines on the streets outside of novelty stores and supermarkets and such so people could see their hands or feet or even their whole body in an x-ray but they didn't know it would give you cancer if you had prolonged exposure
My Point exactly, "back then, they didnt know" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>so if you were alive back then in a cave full of black smoke you'd welcome it because you don't know it's bad?, a person can smoke cigarettes for years and years w/o dying, smoke inhalation like in cappadocia could kill you in minutes. shouldn't that tell you something about black smoke no matter what time period it is? x-rays don't hurt but black smoke in your lungs does and makes you violently cough

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
i understand what you're saying, but people don't burn fossil fuels or black powder to inhale the smoke on purpose. back in the 50's they had x-ray machines on the streets outside of novelty stores and supermarkets and such so people could see their hands or feet or even their whole body in an x-ray but they didn't know it would give you cancer if you had prolonged exposure
My Point exactly, "back then, they didnt know" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>so if you were alive back then in a cave full of black smoke you'd welcome it because you don't know it's bad?, a person can smoke cigarettes for years and years w/o dying, smoke inhalation like in cappadocia could kill you in minutes. shouldn't that tell you something about black smoke no matter what time period it is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe Ezio didnt know that it would turn out like that, I mean he was still inside when the smoke was at its Maximum..
and Im not justifying Ezio`s actions, Im just giving out alternate explanations..

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
i understand what you're saying, but people don't burn fossil fuels or black powder to inhale the smoke on purpose. back in the 50's they had x-ray machines on the streets outside of novelty stores and supermarkets and such so people could see their hands or feet or even their whole body in an x-ray but they didn't know it would give you cancer if you had prolonged exposure
My Point exactly, "back then, they didnt know" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>so if you were alive back then in a cave full of black smoke you'd welcome it because you don't know it's bad?, a person can smoke cigarettes for years and years w/o dying, smoke inhalation like in cappadocia could kill you in minutes. shouldn't that tell you something about black smoke no matter what time period it is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe Ezio didnt know that it would turn out like that, I mean he was still inside when the smoke was at its Maximum..
and Im not justifying Ezio`s actions, Im just giving out alternate explanations.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>when they cleaned out the bodies after that fire i think they realized the people died from the smoke and that it's bad for you. if they didn't realize that than it's sad

Grandmaster_Z
11-28-2011, 01:25 PM
you would realize it because you would start coughing like hell.

raven11d
11-28-2011, 01:36 PM
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

tjbyrum1
11-28-2011, 02:02 PM
Cause it looked cooler to blow **** up in Cappadocia instead of "get some Assassins here to escort this out.

eagleforlife1
11-28-2011, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now.

albertwesker22
11-28-2011, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still, where there's smoke, there's fire and fire is bad. Of courrse the people would know that. Just like if you were cornered by a pack of wolves, you would know it was bad news.

raven11d
11-28-2011, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


intelligence as in knowing stuff bc we can read about it in books, yes obviously we have more of that now. but in brain capacity we're still the same as 2000 years ago

eagleforlife1
11-28-2011, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


intelligence as in knowing stuff bc we can read about it in books, yes obviously we have more of that now. but in brain capacity we're still the same as 2000 years ago </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll use a different example. If I invented a time machine and gave a neandertal a bomb do you think he would understand that if he set it off in his cave that it would cause a smoke cloud to form?

SteelCity999
11-28-2011, 02:40 PM
I think that Ubi has just forgotten the creed that they used as a plot device in AC1. I think Ezio broke all of them throughout his life and multiple times in ACR.

In brotherhood they said they work in the dark (or the shadows) to serve the light, so I guess he felt like he need to make Cappadocia dark with smoke. Then there is the killing of innocents which Altair was berated for. I guess when you are the guy in charge, you can do whatever you want. By the end of AC3, the creed will be pointless words.

raven11d
11-28-2011, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


intelligence as in knowing stuff bc we can read about it in books, yes obviously we have more of that now. but in brain capacity we're still the same as 2000 years ago </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


who is talking about a neandertal? and yes, if you would go for example to aciet egypt and gave those ppl a few bombs they would figure it out after a while. what you are saying is still based upon knowledge acquired from intelligence available to you, not your own capacity to make logical conclusions. Cesar for example was a brilliant strategist and 99% of the ppl living now don't even reach to his ankles concerning tactics. not to mention that still up to now we're still confused on how the egyptians build the pyramids, the architect must have been a real genius
I'll use a different example. If I invented a time machine and gave a neandertal a bomb do you think he would understand that if he set it off in his cave that it would cause a smoke cloud to form? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AssassinTrio
11-28-2011, 02:54 PM
All the other Mentors we've seen served the order until their deaths, but Ezio retired.
The reason he tired is because he found out about the truth of the assassin order. All other mentors just believed that it was a simple cause to stop evil, but Altair helped Ezio see through that illusion.

luckyto
11-28-2011, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Well now people, he's an Assassin. He's not here to do good, he's here to do what needs to be done.

So what "needs be done" is to slaughter hundreds of people to get one person? Bull.

The whole concept of the assassination is to spare many by killing one.

Yeah, not cool with the Cappadocia bit at all. It didn't kill it for me, but it didn't sit right either.

eagleforlife1
11-28-2011, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


intelligence as in knowing stuff bc we can read about it in books, yes obviously we have more of that now. but in brain capacity we're still the same as 2000 years ago </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


who is talking about a neandertal? and yes, if you would go for example to aciet egypt and gave those ppl a few bombs they would figure it out after a while. what you are saying is still based upon knowledge acquired from intelligence available to you, not your own capacity to make logical conclusions. Cesar for example was a brilliant strategist and 99% of the ppl living now don't even reach to his ankles concerning tactics. not to mention that still up to now we're still confused on how the egyptians build the pyramids, the architect must have been a real genius
I'll use a different example. If I invented a time machine and gave a neandertal a bomb do you think he would understand that if he set it off in his cave that it would cause a smoke cloud to form? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm talking about neanderthal's because as I said I was using a different example (they are a species of human).

The majority of people in 1512 still firmly believed that disease was caused by things as trivial as Hippocrates' four humours and even by planets. Although the likes of Fracastoro, Bassi and Henle proposed the germ theory it wasn't until the late 19th century when Louis Pasteur proved to the world through experiments what caused disease. Ezio wouldn't have known the hazards that smoke would have had on health. In the 20th century doctors were still telling people that smoking is good for you.

AssassinTrio
11-28-2011, 03:10 PM
I think Ezio has become less of an assassin in Revelations. He's more like a knight. He doesn't even follow the tenants of the creed.

1. Never compromise the brotherhood: Got Yusuf killed and got Mario killed.
2. Killed many innocents with the explosives.
3. Hide in plain sight: To many times in his games have we seen him just go all out and kill a bunch of templars.

This is partially the reason why I have gotten disappointed in the AC series after AC2 and sort of during AC2. They took out the whole concept of being an assassin and just changed it entirely.

Now it's like being the epic hero who saves all the people because he's just a good person. He's no Jesus, he's no Beowulf, he's no Super man. He's an assassin. They should either make the next assassin follow the guidelines of an assassin or stop making Assassin's Creed, because TBH, the game is losing its meaning.

This doesn't mean I hate the series. I love it, but AC1 was my favorite of all time and will always be, because at this point, they're not gonna go back to the old style of AC.

lukaszep
11-28-2011, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Assassin_M:
I actually kinda like how Ezio acted like that, it gave him more Development as a character; a bitter Old man who has spent most of his life inflicting and receiving Pain.If you focused on his Assassinations during Revelations, you`d know that he has become grumpy and bitter, such as when he killed shahkulu, he simply gave him a shove with his boots, when he killed Manuel, Manuel was trying to explain why he did what he had done, yet Ezio cuts him short and tells him that he is only here for the keys and not to listen to his rambling.
This shows that although Ezio is fighting for the right cause, he is not perfect as he is only human..

I agree. And i'm almost certain the events in Cappadocia are to make us question what the Assassins and Templars are doing and the morality of both orders. Throughout the games, we've assumed the Assassins are good, and AC:R has done an amazing job of making us re-consider. The Assassins kill, probably more than the Templars. Does the end justify the means? There's no real answer, but i think it's important to UbiMontreal and to the story that we understand where the two orders stand.
Ezio has never been placed as the hero. Sure he's the main character, but he's a normal guy, but his actions have never been glorified. Ezio, really, is a tragic anti-hero.

LightRey
11-28-2011, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by AssassinTrio:
I think Ezio has become less of an assassin in Revelations. He's more like a knight. He doesn't even follow the tenants of the creed.

1. Never compromise the brotherhood: Got Yusuf killed and got Mario killed.
2. Killed many innocents with the explosives.
3. Hide in plain sight: To many times in his games have we seen him just go all out and kill a bunch of templars.

This is partially the reason why I have gotten disappointed in the AC series after AC2 and sort of during AC2. They took out the whole concept of being an assassin and just changed it entirely.

Now it's like being the epic hero who saves all the people because he's just a good person. He's no Jesus, he's no Beowulf, he's no Super man. He's an assassin. They should either make the next assassin follow the guidelines of an assassin or stop making Assassin's Creed, because TBH, the game is losing its meaning.

This doesn't mean I hate the series. I love it, but AC1 was my favorite of all time and will always be, because at this point, they're not gonna go back to the old style of AC.
1. He didn't get Yusuf or Mario killed. Mario was killed because of Cesare, who attacked because Ezio went to the Vatican, which was on orders of the Assassin Order.
Yusuf died doing his duty and he =/= the brotherhood. Compromising the brotherhood involves giving up the location of their base or revealing secrets of the order. At best he compromised Sofia.
2. No, you killed innocents with explosives, just like you probably accidentally stabbed some people with your hidden blades. As you might've noticed, killing civilians with bombs causes desync, which wouldn't happen if it was something Ezio would really have done.
3. Again, that's you, not Ezio. During basically every mission you can be completely stealthy unless Ezio's cover was already blown.

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
I actually kinda like how Ezio acted like that, it gave him more Development as a character; a bitter Old man who has spent most of his life inflicting and receiving Pain.If you focused on his Assassinations during Revelations, you`d know that he has become grumpy and bitter, such as when he killed shahkulu, he simply gave him a shove with his boots, when he killed Manuel, Manuel was trying to explain why he did what he had done, yet Ezio cuts him short and tells him that he is only here for the keys and not to listen to his rambling.
This shows that although Ezio is fighting for the right cause, he is not perfect as he is only human..

I agree. And i'm almost certain the events in Cappadocia are to make us question what the Assassins and Templars are doing and the morality of both orders. Throughout the games, we've assumed the Assassins are good, and AC:R has done an amazing job of making us re-consider. The Assassins kill, probably more than the Templars. Does the end justify the means? There's no real answer, but i think it's important to UbiMontreal and to the story that we understand where the two orders stand.
Ezio has never been placed as the hero. Sure he's the main character, but he's a normal guy, but his actions have never been glorified. Ezio, really, is a tragic anti-hero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It takes some open-mindedness and focus to realize that ultimately, the Assassins arent perfect and that Ezio is not a saint..

albertwesker22
11-28-2011, 03:20 PM
. He didn't get Yusuf or Mario killed. Mario was killed because of Cesare, who attacked because Ezio went to the Vatican, which was on orders of the Assassin Order.
Yusuf died doing his duty and he =/= the brotherhood. Compromising the brotherhood involves giving up the location of their base or revealing secrets of the order. At best he compromised Sofia.
2. No, you killed innocents with explosives, just like you probably accidentally stabbed some people with your hidden blades. As you might've noticed, killing civilians with bombs causes desync, which wouldn't happen if it was something Ezio would really have done.
3. Again, that's you, not Ezio. During basically every mission you can be completely stealthy unless Ezio's cover was already blown.

I think he meant Ezio blowing up the gun powder in Cappadoccia.

LightRey
11-28-2011, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by albertwesker22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. He didn't get Yusuf or Mario killed. Mario was killed because of Cesare, who attacked because Ezio went to the Vatican, which was on orders of the Assassin Order.
Yusuf died doing his duty and he =/= the brotherhood. Compromising the brotherhood involves giving up the location of their base or revealing secrets of the order. At best he compromised Sofia.
2. No, you killed innocents with explosives, just like you probably accidentally stabbed some people with your hidden blades. As you might've noticed, killing civilians with bombs causes desync, which wouldn't happen if it was something Ezio would really have done.
3. Again, that's you, not Ezio. During basically every mission you can be completely stealthy unless Ezio's cover was already blown.

I think he meant Ezio blowing up the gun powder in Cappadoccia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't see any dead people there.

lukaszep
11-28-2011, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by albertwesker22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. He didn't get Yusuf or Mario killed. Mario was killed because of Cesare, who attacked because Ezio went to the Vatican, which was on orders of the Assassin Order.
Yusuf died doing his duty and he =/= the brotherhood. Compromising the brotherhood involves giving up the location of their base or revealing secrets of the order. At best he compromised Sofia.
2. No, you killed innocents with explosives, just like you probably accidentally stabbed some people with your hidden blades. As you might've noticed, killing civilians with bombs causes desync, which wouldn't happen if it was something Ezio would really have done.
3. Again, that's you, not Ezio. During basically every mission you can be completely stealthy unless Ezio's cover was already blown.

I think he meant Ezio blowing up the gun powder in Cappadoccia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't see any dead people there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be fair, what Ezio did was basically a terrorist attack...But your right he didn't intend to kill any civilians none were shown dying.

albertwesker22
11-28-2011, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by albertwesker22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. He didn't get Yusuf or Mario killed. Mario was killed because of Cesare, who attacked because Ezio went to the Vatican, which was on orders of the Assassin Order.
Yusuf died doing his duty and he =/= the brotherhood. Compromising the brotherhood involves giving up the location of their base or revealing secrets of the order. At best he compromised Sofia.
2. No, you killed innocents with explosives, just like you probably accidentally stabbed some people with your hidden blades. As you might've noticed, killing civilians with bombs causes desync, which wouldn't happen if it was something Ezio would really have done.
3. Again, that's you, not Ezio. During basically every mission you can be completely stealthy unless Ezio's cover was already blown.

I think he meant Ezio blowing up the gun powder in Cappadoccia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't see any dead people there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but a lot of them probably did suffocate. Ezio's health was being drained quite fast and when he made it out, not that many people were with him.

AssassinTrio
11-28-2011, 03:27 PM
Are you kidding me....you're telling me that everybody survived that.....you're just trying to defend Ezio, even though he's a video game character lol. It's not weird, I do the same sometimes with Altair http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

And there were many cut scenes where he just barged in and started a fight. Tbh though, I can't name any. For some reason I only remember every single thing that happened in Altair's life but not in Ezio's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

raven11d
11-28-2011, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


intelligence as in knowing stuff bc we can read about it in books, yes obviously we have more of that now. but in brain capacity we're still the same as 2000 years ago </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


who is talking about a neandertal? and yes, if you would go for example to aciet egypt and gave those ppl a few bombs they would figure it out after a while. what you are saying is still based upon knowledge acquired from intelligence available to you, not your own capacity to make logical conclusions. Cesar for example was a brilliant strategist and 99% of the ppl living now don't even reach to his ankles concerning tactics. not to mention that still up to now we're still confused on how the egyptians build the pyramids, the architect must have been a real genius
I'll use a different example. If I invented a time machine and gave a neandertal a bomb do you think he would understand that if he set it off in his cave that it would cause a smoke cloud to form? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm talking about neanderthal's because as I said I was using a different example (they are a species of human).

The majority of people in 1512 still firmly believed that disease was caused by things as trivial as Hippocrates' four humours and even by planets. Although the likes of Fracastoro, Bassi and Henle proposed the germ theory it wasn't until the late 19th century when Louis Pasteur proved to the world through experiments what caused disease. Ezio wouldn't have known the hazards that smoke would have had on health. In the 20th century doctors were still telling people that smoking is good for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are in fact proving my point. let's say that louis pasteur was never born .. how would we think about deseases now? probably more along the lines as 500 years ago. the only reason why you and i know better is bc someone proved it for us. neither you nor I did the research. we base our knowledge on something that has been proven by someone else. that doesn't make us smarter, it only means we have more access to knowledge thanks to ppl who came before us. if i would follow your logic, european ppl in the 1500's were smarter then native south americans bc they didn't had the wheel. also it would mean arabic ppl were smarter then us bc during the crusades we learned a great deal from them for example the binoculars and other stuff. not to mention the chinese who had fireworks.

it's not the fact that someone told you the earth isn't flat that makes you a smart person, it's finding out why the earth is not flat that makes you smart

and you can't compare neandertals with the modern human, it's like comparing humans and chimps. we are not descendant of neandertals.

eagleforlife1
11-28-2011, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


intelligence as in knowing stuff bc we can read about it in books, yes obviously we have more of that now. but in brain capacity we're still the same as 2000 years ago </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


who is talking about a neandertal? and yes, if you would go for example to aciet egypt and gave those ppl a few bombs they would figure it out after a while. what you are saying is still based upon knowledge acquired from intelligence available to you, not your own capacity to make logical conclusions. Cesar for example was a brilliant strategist and 99% of the ppl living now don't even reach to his ankles concerning tactics. not to mention that still up to now we're still confused on how the egyptians build the pyramids, the architect must have been a real genius
I'll use a different example. If I invented a time machine and gave a neandertal a bomb do you think he would understand that if he set it off in his cave that it would cause a smoke cloud to form? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm talking about neanderthal's because as I said I was using a different example (they are a species of human).

The majority of people in 1512 still firmly believed that disease was caused by things as trivial as Hippocrates' four humours and even by planets. Although the likes of Fracastoro, Bassi and Henle proposed the germ theory it wasn't until the late 19th century when Louis Pasteur proved to the world through experiments what caused disease. Ezio wouldn't have known the hazards that smoke would have had on health. In the 20th century doctors were still telling people that smoking is good for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are in fact proving my point. let's say that louis pasteur was never born .. how would we think about deseases now? probably more along the lines as 500 years ago. the only reason why you and i know better is bc someone proved it for us. neither you nor I did the research. we base our knowledge on something that has been proven by someone else. that doesn't make us smarter, it only means we have more access to knowledge thanks to ppl who came before us. if i would follow your logic, european ppl in the 1500's were smarter then native south americans bc they didn't had the wheel. also it would mean arabic ppl were smarter then us bc during the crusades we learned a great deal from them for example the binoculars and other stuff. not to mention the chinese who had fireworks.

it's not the fact that someone told you the earth isn't flat that makes you a smart person, it's finding out why the earth is not flat that makes you smart

and you can't compare neandertals with the modern human, it's like comparing humans and chimps. we are not descendant of neandertals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, neanderthal's Latin name is homo sapiens neanderthalensis; they are a subspecies of humans. Chimpanzees are not a sub-species of human.

Secondly, you can't just say let's pretend Louis Pasteur didn't exist because he most certainly did exist.

Thirdly, people didn't have proper access to education until around the time of Pasteur's theory as school wasn't compulsory. The majority of people were working class and couldn't afford a proper education. Therefore the majority of people didn't have the access to other people's knowledge nor the education to form their own theories. The few people that did have the resources to form their own theories influenced those that didn't know any better, i.e. those that weren't educated.

raven11d
11-28-2011, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


intelligence as in knowing stuff bc we can read about it in books, yes obviously we have more of that now. but in brain capacity we're still the same as 2000 years ago </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


who is talking about a neandertal? and yes, if you would go for example to aciet egypt and gave those ppl a few bombs they would figure it out after a while. what you are saying is still based upon knowledge acquired from intelligence available to you, not your own capacity to make logical conclusions. Cesar for example was a brilliant strategist and 99% of the ppl living now don't even reach to his ankles concerning tactics. not to mention that still up to now we're still confused on how the egyptians build the pyramids, the architect must have been a real genius
I'll use a different example. If I invented a time machine and gave a neandertal a bomb do you think he would understand that if he set it off in his cave that it would cause a smoke cloud to form? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm talking about neanderthal's because as I said I was using a different example (they are a species of human).

The majority of people in 1512 still firmly believed that disease was caused by things as trivial as Hippocrates' four humours and even by planets. Although the likes of Fracastoro, Bassi and Henle proposed the germ theory it wasn't until the late 19th century when Louis Pasteur proved to the world through experiments what caused disease. Ezio wouldn't have known the hazards that smoke would have had on health. In the 20th century doctors were still telling people that smoking is good for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are in fact proving my point. let's say that louis pasteur was never born .. how would we think about deseases now? probably more along the lines as 500 years ago. the only reason why you and i know better is bc someone proved it for us. neither you nor I did the research. we base our knowledge on something that has been proven by someone else. that doesn't make us smarter, it only means we have more access to knowledge thanks to ppl who came before us. if i would follow your logic, european ppl in the 1500's were smarter then native south americans bc they didn't had the wheel. also it would mean arabic ppl were smarter then us bc during the crusades we learned a great deal from them for example the binoculars and other stuff. not to mention the chinese who had fireworks.

it's not the fact that someone told you the earth isn't flat that makes you a smart person, it's finding out why the earth is not flat that makes you smart

and you can't compare neandertals with the modern human, it's like comparing humans and chimps. we are not descendant of neandertals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, neanderthal's Latin name is homo sapiens neanderthalensis; they are a subspecies of humans. Chimpanzees are not a sub-species of human.

Secondly, you can't just say let's pretend Louis Pasteur didn't exist because he most certainly did exist.

Thirdly, people didn't have proper access to education until around the time of Pasteur's theory as school wasn't compulsory. The majority of people were working class and couldn't afford a proper education. Therefore the majority of people didn't have the access to other people's knowledge nor the education to form their own theories. The few people that did have the resources to form their own theories influenced those that didn't know any better, i.e. those that weren't educated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yet again proving my point. education does not equal being smarter

eagleforlife1
11-28-2011, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
saying ppl were stupid back then is stupid. human intelligence hasn't grown in 1000's of years, we only know more bc along the way geniuses invented and scientificly proved new things based on things proven or invented by a genius before them.
as an example, the south american culture didn't had carriages and such bc they didn't had wheels. wee they dumb? no, they were well educated on astrology and very good in math, however somehow none of the geniuses came up with the idea of the wheel. we see the wheel and have a sense of "duh" of course it makes travelling and other things easier but we wouldn't know if we never had seen a wheel.

as for the big black smoke, the ppl kew it was hazardous to your health but Ezio probably didn't anticipate such a huge cloud of it, that's probably all there is to it

No it isn't. We didn't have anywhere near the intelligence back then as we do now. That's categorically true. I am a social historian and there is no doubt about it that we didn't have the knowledge back then that we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


intelligence as in knowing stuff bc we can read about it in books, yes obviously we have more of that now. but in brain capacity we're still the same as 2000 years ago </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


who is talking about a neandertal? and yes, if you would go for example to aciet egypt and gave those ppl a few bombs they would figure it out after a while. what you are saying is still based upon knowledge acquired from intelligence available to you, not your own capacity to make logical conclusions. Cesar for example was a brilliant strategist and 99% of the ppl living now don't even reach to his ankles concerning tactics. not to mention that still up to now we're still confused on how the egyptians build the pyramids, the architect must have been a real genius
I'll use a different example. If I invented a time machine and gave a neandertal a bomb do you think he would understand that if he set it off in his cave that it would cause a smoke cloud to form? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm talking about neanderthal's because as I said I was using a different example (they are a species of human).

The majority of people in 1512 still firmly believed that disease was caused by things as trivial as Hippocrates' four humours and even by planets. Although the likes of Fracastoro, Bassi and Henle proposed the germ theory it wasn't until the late 19th century when Louis Pasteur proved to the world through experiments what caused disease. Ezio wouldn't have known the hazards that smoke would have had on health. In the 20th century doctors were still telling people that smoking is good for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are in fact proving my point. let's say that louis pasteur was never born .. how would we think about deseases now? probably more along the lines as 500 years ago. the only reason why you and i know better is bc someone proved it for us. neither you nor I did the research. we base our knowledge on something that has been proven by someone else. that doesn't make us smarter, it only means we have more access to knowledge thanks to ppl who came before us. if i would follow your logic, european ppl in the 1500's were smarter then native south americans bc they didn't had the wheel. also it would mean arabic ppl were smarter then us bc during the crusades we learned a great deal from them for example the binoculars and other stuff. not to mention the chinese who had fireworks.

it's not the fact that someone told you the earth isn't flat that makes you a smart person, it's finding out why the earth is not flat that makes you smart

and you can't compare neandertals with the modern human, it's like comparing humans and chimps. we are not descendant of neandertals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, neanderthal's Latin name is homo sapiens neanderthalensis; they are a subspecies of humans. Chimpanzees are not a sub-species of human.

Secondly, you can't just say let's pretend Louis Pasteur didn't exist because he most certainly did exist.

Thirdly, people didn't have proper access to education until around the time of Pasteur's theory as school wasn't compulsory. The majority of people were working class and couldn't afford a proper education. Therefore the majority of people didn't have the access to other people's knowledge nor the education to form their own theories. The few people that did have the resources to form their own theories influenced those that didn't know any better, i.e. those that weren't educated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yet again proving my point. education does not equal being smarter </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

??? Yes it does.

To quote you earlier: it's not the fact that someone told you the earth isn't flat that makes you a smart person, it's finding out why the earth is not flat that makes you smart

Pasteur developed his theory because he had an education. The masses believed what he said because they didn't have the education to disprove him or come up with an alternative theory of their own. They didn't find out about the germ theory themselves; they were told it.

raven11d
11-28-2011, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by eagleforlife1:

To quote you earlier: it's not the fact that someone told you the earth isn't flat that makes you a smart person, it's finding out why the earth is not flat that makes you smart

Pasteur developed his theory because he had an education. The masses believed what he said because they didn't have the education to disprove him or come up with an alternative theory of their own. They didn't find out about the germ theory themselves; they were told it.

espicially quoting this : "They didn't find out about the germ theory themselves; they were told it."

yet you claim those ppl were smarter then the ppl 400 years before them. what exactly in "They didn't find out about the germ theory themselves; they were told it." makes them smarter then ppl 400 years ago who believed something else but also bc they have been told so and didn't had education either???

it only means pasteur was smarter then the average guy in his time and smarter then the average guy 400 years before him and he was smarter then the average guy that lives now. btw, still to this day lots of humans believe in voodoo and things like that. and youtube is probably the best way to show you ppl aren't smarter then 500 years ago http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

eagleforlife1
11-28-2011, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eagleforlife1:

To quote you earlier: it's not the fact that someone told you the earth isn't flat that makes you a smart person, it's finding out why the earth is not flat that makes you smart

Pasteur developed his theory because he had an education. The masses believed what he said because they didn't have the education to disprove him or come up with an alternative theory of their own. They didn't find out about the germ theory themselves; they were told it.

espicially quoting this : "They didn't find out about the germ theory themselves; they were told it."

yet you claim those ppl were smarter then the ppl 400 years before them. what exactly in "They didn't find out about the germ theory themselves; they were told it." makes them smarter then ppl 400 years ago who believed something else but also bc they have been told so and didn't had education either???

it only means pasteur was smarter then the average guy in his time and smarter then the average guy 400 years before him and he was smarter then the average guy that lives now. btw, still to this day lots of humans believe in voodoo and things like that. and youtube is probably the best way to show you ppl aren't smarter then 500 years ago http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say they were smarter. I said that they didn't have access to the same knowledge; so they didn't have the same understanding.

SupremeCaptain
11-28-2011, 04:17 PM
I just find it funny that if you kill a civilian you get a "Ezio didn't kill civilian's" message, but he obviously did in 2 missions.

But you might say he did it unintentionally, but I don't see how inciting a riot and blowing a cave up allows you to say "Oh he didn't mean it, teehee.".

And I can't believe people think Ezio is allowed to do this because he is old.

Altair, at 82, asks his fellow assassins to spare as much blood as they can. And that was to the traitors, not innocent civilians.

I just don't feel as connected to Ezio anymore.

LightRey
11-28-2011, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
I just find it funny that if you kill a civilian you get a "Ezio didn't kill civilian's" message, but he obviously did in 2 missions.

But you might say he did it unintentionally, but I don't see how inciting a riot and blowing a cave up allows you to say "Oh he didn't mean it, teehee.".

And I can't believe people think Ezio is allowed to do this because he is old.

Altair, at 82, asks his fellow assassins to spare as much blood as they can. And that was to the traitors, not innocent civilians.

I just don't feel as connected to Ezio anymore.
He didn't blow up a cave, he just blew up a structure in a cave. At worst the people there that didn't flee immediately inhaled some smoke, but usually in such situations total evacuation soon follows, so there will only have been a few civilians left.
I also very much doubt that Ezio was able to foresee the consequences of the explosion as he himself suffered for it quite much when leaving Cappadocia.

And assuming the other occasion is referring to the rebellion he incited; he did not kill those civilians. He merely helped encourage the people to rebel.

Voltige2011
11-28-2011, 05:18 PM
So basically my rundown of revalations is:
*Spoilers*
Halfway through collecting seals that open a door he probably could of just blow open, Ezio thinks a guy is suspicious. He notices people don't like the local soldiers and starts a riot killing both civilians and people who are supposedly allies. From this he basically finds out that guy really was suspicious, talks to a prince, then immediately goes to assassinate an aggressive soldier. According to a soldier he just dumped the guy in the streets like trash, and somehow damaged armor he obtained from jumping out a bush and stabbing the soldier in the neck. Ezio infiltrates a camp full of people raised from childhood to be soldiers and kills the suspicious one, only to find out he was suspicious because he really was on Ezio's side.

So right after this Ezio decides to go to that island without even bringing any sort of backup.
He basically beacme a terrorist from there on.
Finds a spy, and a few corpses, and then decides it be cool to detonate stored gunpowder in a closed off city with only one known exit, the fact that the player is able to see the lake under Cappadocia, meaning Ezio probably knew about it has nothing to do with his decision making.

Is it rocket science to know a few simple laws of physics?
gunpowder >fire>smoke

I kind of admit that not even I expected the powder to be so destructive.

Now I'm sitting here waiting for Templar's creed, just to have another point of view....


Also if anyone besides me has actually bothered to collect all the books you get treated to a nice cutscene of just how well Ezio hides the hideout. If a woman who can't be confirmed of an allegiance can walk into the center of an underground fortress and be introduced to the brotherhood members can just talk in and surprise Ezio.......
The reason I say unconfirmed is because of his record of telling them factions apart.

So if anyone noticed by the writing style i kind of had some pie and calmed down halfway through the post, guess what type of pie it was.

ForsakEnd
11-28-2011, 06:59 PM
Am I the only one to see that Cappadocia was a Templar HQ FULL of Templars and Byzantines(assimilated into Templars)so basically it was cave full of enemies,Soldiers and sympathizers so the innocent count drops. But in the end its WAR, people die on both sides its inevitable.

EzioAssassin51
11-28-2011, 07:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif he's right, it was a city full of enemies and I'm willing to bed the civilians were Templars as well!

Also @Voltige2011 - I think that's just the guards saying that, because we needed to throw him in a haybale and they're probably just exaggerating it or whatever


Also, you guys should consider that some of your points don't make sense. Ezio only stole from civilians if he had to quickly accumulate money for something, say, saving madonna Solari from the slave traders.

Any other time Ezio stole or threw (tons of them, not just say 1 or 2 to hide them) bodies into haybales probably didn't happen. You guys are getting confused with your own gameplay, which is the point of those being in the game, to have fun...

Also, I don't think Ezio would have killed THAT many guards in combat or whatever, only a few during obvious missions when it said 'kill such and such amount of guards' or when he had to to escape. If you were a proper assassin (which he was by the end of AC2 - ACR), you wouldn't be getting into fights for fun to see what finishing moves you can pull off.

I agree Ezio might have made a mistake with Cappadocia, but how else would he have gotten rid of the gunpowder? Escorting it with his assassins? Too hard, the Templars would be on their *** so quickly it's not funny. I don't really mind the Cappadoccia thing, I personally don't care, IMO, that would really be the only time Ezio would be a 'mass murderer'. I don't think he killed civilians for fun. What's that message that pops up whenever we do that say again?

obliviondoll
11-28-2011, 08:19 PM
If you think about it though... in every AC game, you get a desynchronisation warning for doing things that person didn't do. With Ezio, you don't get a warning when you knock a person out, then throw their unconscious body down a well so they drown. But if you throw a citizen of VENICE into a canal, RIGHT NEXT TO A WAY BACK OUT, you get warned that Ezio never did such things. So yeah, Ezio never pushed anyone into the water without first making sure they weren't capable of swimming to safety.

Nice guy.

xCr0wnedNorris
11-28-2011, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
If you think about it though... in every AC game, you get a desynchronisation warning for doing things that person didn't do. With Ezio, you don't get a warning when you knock a person out, then throw their unconscious body down a well so they drown. But if you throw a citizen of VENICE into a canal, RIGHT NEXT TO A WAY BACK OUT, you get warned that Ezio never did such things. So yeah, Ezio never pushed anyone into the water without first making sure they weren't capable of swimming to safety.

Nice guy.
Meh, that's still better than what you could do to civilians when you completed AC1. One of my favorite pastimes in that game was going on a massive civilian murder spree while singing Tiny Tim songs.

(That's not a sign of a serial killer, is it?)

Voltige2011
11-28-2011, 08:29 PM
Also slaves hundreds of thousands of slaves and war captives, but since I found out we can go back to Cappadocia I might not feel as bad about it. On a side note it still leaves the plot hole of collecting all the books wide open. So basically Sofia either has no short term memory or I'm missing something.
Ezio comes back> OMG YUSUF NOOO> Uhh wheres Sofia?>Ezio becomes a temporary hero then goes on a road trip> Ezio gets banned from Istanbul> He goes on another road trip.

The most spoiler free way I could think of asking a plotline question.

Dagio12
11-28-2011, 09:20 PM
It seems that when in a massive war, such as that of the Assassins and Templar, men on either side may do things they might not otherwise do in order to advance there cause. Ezio may have to kill extra guards in order to get to where he needs to be, or kill the one thats needs to die, he may even need to allow for civilian casualties, but its never intentional and almost always for a greater purpose.

He started a riot to try and get access to the location he was going, not a riot to get people killed. He merely bribed some heralds to boost the peoples morale, to show them they could stand up against what isnt right. This was to cause some commotion to get the guards attention. The guards could have easily tried to calm the citizens down and focus there efforts in a different way then battling the citizens. However, it got out of hand and a fight ensued. In Ezios defense, he stayed and helped save many lives before being able to breach the area.

Now on to Cappadocia. Destroying the gun powder was something that Ezio felt needed to be done to stop the advancement of the Templar's. He probably wasnt thinking to much, or may not have even known, how dangerous blowing the gun powder could be. Again, to Ezio, and to the Assassins goal, it seemed as if it was something that had to be done, for the greater purpose. Although we see lots of citizens coughing, we never really see that many, if any, die from it. We can just as easily assume that many citizens escaped, and not only that, but some could have potentially been freed from being templar slaves. Also, if you look up, you can see light coming from the ceiling of the underground city, showing that smoke, would eventually rise out of the city. It may have been dangerous, and put some lives at risk, but after-all, it was a templar city that called for some drastic measures. Other then that, Ezio is an Assassin, and may not always make the most moral choices. These events show some poor judgements as well as a lot of character development. He is a human afterall, and shouldnt always make the best, easiest, good and obvious choices. He is a part of a war where both sides due things that are by most standards, sometimes very immoral. But I wouldnt consider him a mass murderer.

I dont know how most of you play Ezio, ( or Altair for that matter).. but I tend to only kill when I HAVE to and try to keep the body count as low as I can while still kicking some templar arse when I need to. I try to run when I can, and avoid conflict when I can. I dont loot random civilians on the street unless its mission specific.. Hell, I tend to throw money around every chance I get. haha. anyways, rant over.

obliviondoll
11-28-2011, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
If you think about it though... in every AC game, you get a desynchronisation warning for doing things that person didn't do. With Ezio, you don't get a warning when you knock a person out, then throw their unconscious body down a well so they drown. But if you throw a citizen of VENICE into a canal, RIGHT NEXT TO A WAY BACK OUT, you get warned that Ezio never did such things. So yeah, Ezio never pushed anyone into the water without first making sure they weren't capable of swimming to safety.

Nice guy.
Meh, that's still better than what you could do to civilians when you completed AC1. One of my favorite pastimes in that game was going on a massive civilian murder spree while singing Tiny Tim songs.

(That's not a sign of a serial killer, is it?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But post-game AC1 is when you've already completed synchronisation, so you're MEANT to be free to do whatever. Surprised AC2 and ACB didn't allow that freedom once you reached 100% sync.

Lethalla
11-28-2011, 09:49 PM
One of my favourite things to do in AC2 in Venice was to climb onto a moving gondola - http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif the boatman would always scream and jump into the water. We never got any warning, though, that Ezio didn't scare citizens into drowning themselves.

eagleforlife1
11-29-2011, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Voltige2011:
Is it rocket science to know a few simple laws of physics?
gunpowder >fire>smoke


No it isn't rocket science but Newton's Law of Physics wasn't published until 1687 (175 years after events in Cappadocia).

People didn't know of the hazards of smoke back then. My mum was born in 1961 and her doctor told her as a kid to smoke as much as she can as it is good for your health.

LordWolv
11-29-2011, 12:43 AM
The riot mission... Well, I didn't really think much of it. I was a bit sceptical about why Ezio was actually doing that, though..

But then came the Cappaccodia mission. I was ABSOLUTELY APPALLED. I was just running for the exit thinking 'No.. No.. This isn't Ezio. This isn't the Ezio I know...' I watched the innocent, innocent civilians choking to death and collapsing all over the floor. I was expecting Ezio to walk out and apologise desperately, I thought he'd be so sorry. I thought he didn't realise that was going to happen. But what did he do? He CARRIED ON walking, back to the boat, back to Constantinople. Pathetic.

LightRey
11-29-2011, 02:13 AM
For the last freaking time. In the riot Ezio does not kill civilians, the guards kill civilians. Ezio just incites a riot, which would not even have happened if the guards didn't act like such a-holes all the time. He didn't force the civilians, he just influenced them.

souNdwAve89
11-29-2011, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by SF2themax:
It seems that when in a massive war, such as that of the Assassins and Templar, men on either side may do things they might not otherwise do in order to advance there cause. Ezio may have to kill extra guards in order to get to where he needs to be, or kill the one thats needs to die, he may even need to allow for civilian casualties, but its never intentional and almost always for a greater purpose.

He started a riot to try and get access to the location he was going, not a riot to get people killed. He merely bribed some heralds to boost the peoples morale, to show them they could stand up against what isnt right. This was to cause some commotion to get the guards attention. The guards could have easily tried to calm the citizens down and focus there efforts in a different way then battling the citizens. However, it got out of hand and a fight ensued. In Ezios defense, he stayed and helped save many lives before being able to breach the area.

Now on to Cappadocia. Destroying the gun powder was something that Ezio felt needed to be done to stop the advancement of the Templar's. He probably wasnt thinking to much, or may not have even known, how dangerous blowing the gun powder could be. Again, to Ezio, and to the Assassins goal, it seemed as if it was something that had to be done, for the greater purpose. Although we see lots of citizens coughing, we never really see that many, if any, die from it. We can just as easily assume that many citizens escaped, and not only that, but some could have potentially been freed from being templar slaves. Also, if you look up, you can see light coming from the ceiling of the underground city, showing that smoke, would eventually rise out of the city. It may have been dangerous, and put some lives at risk, but after-all, it was a templar city that called for some drastic measures. Other then that, Ezio is an Assassin, and may not always make the most moral choices. These events show some poor judgements as well as a lot of character development. He is a human afterall, and shouldnt always make the best, easiest, good and obvious choices. He is a part of a war where both sides due things that are by most standards, sometimes very immoral. But I wouldnt consider him a mass murderer.

I dont know how most of you play Ezio, ( or Altair for that matter).. but I tend to only kill when I HAVE to and try to keep the body count as low as I can while still kicking some templar arse when I need to. I try to run when I can, and avoid conflict when I can. I dont loot random civilians on the street unless its mission specific.. Hell, I tend to throw money around every chance I get. haha. anyways, rant over.

I agree with this post. A lot of people complain about AC games not being stealthy anymore, but I see the newer games as a way for the player to play how they want to play. If I want to play like an assassin, I do it. If I want to be a badass, then I'll charge into a group and pick a fight. The guards are there to kill if you choose to. There are times that you have to in order to go further in the mission. Don't forget that there are specific missions that you must not kill anyone in order to get 100% sync. Whenever I successfully kill a target, I tend to just escape, but I'll fight if I have to.

It depends on the person, but I remember how people moan and groan how AC1 was repetitive. When AC2 came out, most praise it for being such an "improvement". Then Brotherhood and Revelations came out, now people want some of AC1's style of starting the mission, I.E. investigating, pickpocket, etc. In the end, some people don't know what they want.

On the topic, I can see what people think about Ezio in Revelations, but I agree with those who believe that Ezio was not thinking clearly. He is fed up with the assassin life at this point and he had no intention on starting another big project. This goes back to how Ezio did not want to help Shao Jun in Embers since he retired at the end of Revelations. As for the igniting the riot, it is not like Ezio sat back and watch it happen. The 100% sync is to protect the civilians, so it showed that Ezio did try to protect them.

TonberryFeye
11-29-2011, 02:29 AM
To butcher a well known saying:

"Kill one man and you're a murderer. Kill a hundred men and you're a monster. Kill a million and it's a statistic."

Just how many men have died to Ezio's hand? He killed about half a dozen in the cinematic intro to AC2 (the Venice sequence). He probably killed more than that in the intro to Revelations. None of that counts any other operation he was involved in.

Just how many missions has he done? How many Assassinations? If all of them had an average of six kills at a time... that could easily be hundreds and hundreds of people. Not to mention the huge bodycount caused by things like sinking / burning ships, blowing up Templar armouries to protect DaVinciTech and so on.

So... yeah. Ezio has so much blood on his hands he probably doesn't even see most people AS people anymore; they're just things that get broken sometimes.



Originally posted by souNdwAve89:
I agree with this post. A lot of people complain about AC games not being stealthy anymore, but I see the newer games as a way for the player to play how they want to play. If I want to play like an assassin, I do it. If I want to be a badass, then I'll charge into a group and pick a fight. The guards are there to kill if you choose to. There are times that you have to in order to go further in the mission. Don't forget that there are specific missions that you must not kill anyone in order to get 100% sync. Whenever I successfully kill a target, I tend to just escape, but I'll fight if I have to.

It depends on the person, but I remember how people moan and groan how AC1 was repetitive. When AC2 came out, most praise it for being such an "improvement". Then Brotherhood and Revelations came out, now people want some of AC1's style of starting the mission, I.E. investigating, pickpocket, etc. In the end, some people don't know what they want.

On the topic, I can see what people think about Ezio in Revelations, but I agree with those who believe that Ezio was not thinking clearly. He is fed up with the assassin life at this point and he had no intention on starting another big project. This goes back to how Ezio did not want to help Shao Jun in Embers since he retired at the end of Revelations. As for the igniting the riot, it is not like Ezio sat back and watch it happen. The 100% sync is to protect the civilians, so it showed that Ezio did try to protect them.

I think the problem is the execution.

The missions in AC1 were tiresome because they felt copy-pasted, and were very forced.

By Revelations, the missions are too far forced the other way: you MUST do this stealthily. You MUST do this. You MUST do that. Failure results in desynchronisation!

What I want is freedom. I would honestly like to see more of the Multiplayer in Single Player.

I don't particularly like having the game set things up for me. "Oooh! Look at that AERIAL ASSASSINATION POINT right above the target. 'Hey, Ezio, show us your AERIAL ASSASSINATION technique!'. When I get close the Templar mutters, 'I hope nobody does an AERIAL ASSASSINATION on me...' And oh look, 100% sync demands an Aerial Assassination!"

I would much rather you give us box-ticks. "Kill the guy quietly." Not "kill him this stupidly specific way."

Let's have an example: "Kill the Templar in the Market."

Valid 100% sync methods would include:
- Poison blade kill.
- Poison dart kill from the roof.
- Poison gas grenade.
- Kill from a hay cart.
- Kill him undetected and throw the body down a well before the guards see.
- Use thieves to lure him into an alley and kill him there.
- Lure Ottoman Guards into the area and have them kill him.

In short, 100% sync would be 'any kill where you can't be blamed'.


Another nice one would be "Make an example of the Templar."

This would be pitched quite simply - the guy thinks he's untouchable. In this case, both stealth AND brute force are valid - you would be given 100% sync for killing every guard in the building, for example. After all, what better way to show that no Templar is safe than not only killing a high ranking officer, but every man sent to protect him?

For those who prefer stealth, it would work the other way; the final kill needs to be brutal (the Hidden Blade would be more than sufficient) but you can get in, kill and get out without harming anyone else - just so long as the body is left where the guards will find it. If you hurl it off a cliff into the ocean then nobody will know you did it!

EzioAssassin51
11-29-2011, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by TonberryFeye:
Just how many men have died to Ezio's hand? He killed about half a dozen in the cinematic intro to AC2 (the Venice sequence). He probably killed more than that in the intro to Revelations. None of that counts any other operation he was involved in. !

The AC2 one wasn't part of the game so that doesn't really count IMO...


After all, what better way to show that no Templar is safe than not only killing a high ranking officer, but every man sent to protect him?

Lol I'm not sure if you were defending Ezio throughout your post but if you were, this is a bad example of doing something since you're pretty much multiplying your body count by a lot!

Mr_Stunner
12-03-2011, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Well now people, he's an Assassin. He's not here to do good, he's here to do what needs to be done.

So Templars are good aswell, they look at no means to do what has to be done

Animuses
12-03-2011, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
Yeah. No one ever claimed him to be good.

If he had to press a button that killed 10,000 innocents to stop the templar plan for good he'd of done it.
Wrong. Assassins wouldn't kill that many innocent lives just to mess up a Templar plan. The Assassin's want peace, but won't try to achieve it at too great a cost. The Assassins are all about free-will. If they kill that many innocent lives, they are going against everything their creed stands for.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
Yeah. No one ever claimed him to be good.

If he had to press a button that killed 10,000 innocents to stop the templar plan for good he'd of done it.
Wrong. Assassins wouldn't kill that many innocent lives just to mess up a Templar plan. The Assassin's want peace, but won't try to achieve it at too great a cost. The Assassins are all about free-will. If they kill that many innocent lives, they are going against everything their creed stands for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exacty which is why Ezio sets a very bad example in ACR.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
Yeah. No one ever claimed him to be good.

If he had to press a button that killed 10,000 innocents to stop the templar plan for good he'd of done it.
Wrong. Assassins wouldn't kill that many innocent lives just to mess up a Templar plan. The Assassin's want peace, but won't try to achieve it at too great a cost. The Assassins are all about free-will. If they kill that many innocent lives, they are going against everything their creed stands for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exacty which is why Ezio sets a very bad example in ACR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No he doesn't. At no point does he (intentionally) kill innocents.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
Yeah. No one ever claimed him to be good.

If he had to press a button that killed 10,000 innocents to stop the templar plan for good he'd of done it.
Wrong. Assassins wouldn't kill that many innocent lives just to mess up a Templar plan. The Assassin's want peace, but won't try to achieve it at too great a cost. The Assassins are all about free-will. If they kill that many innocent lives, they are going against everything their creed stands for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exacty which is why Ezio sets a very bad example in ACR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No he doesn't. At no point does he (intentionally) kill innocents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He happily sacrifices civies to get into the armoury. That was intentional. He blows up the gunpowder. That was intentional. I doubt the dead and their families care that Ezio didn't kill them directly.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
He happily sacrifices civies to get into the armoury. That was intentional. He blows up the gunpowder. That was intentional. I doubt the dead and their families care that Ezio didn't kill them directly.
You mean the arsenal and he doesn't "sacrifice" them. He incites a riot. A riot that was already on the brink of happening naturally regardless. Saying that Ezio is responsible for those deaths is equal to saying that those people had no free will.

They could've chosen not to fight. They could've walked away.

Markie577
12-03-2011, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by ForsakEnd:
Am I the only one to see that Cappadocia was a Templar HQ FULL of Templars and Byzantines(assimilated into Templars)so basically it was cave full of enemies,Soldiers and sympathizers so the innocent count drops. But in the end its WAR, people die on both sides its inevitable.

THIS! And about the riot. Well those people were being harassed by the guards and all Ezio did was give them the courage to stand up! Yes this helped ezio in his cause but it also helped the civilians.

Perhaps on a different note, the riots in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria were pared with the killings of thousands(syria) of civilians. Are the people who started the riots also evil?

MajorMinus
12-03-2011, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Well now people, he's an Assassin. He's not here to do good, he's here to do what needs to be done.

I agree. Take Batman Begins and The Dark Knight for example. Batman broke the law hundreds of times to save the greater good.

"Things will always get worse before they get better".

ACSineQuaNon
12-03-2011, 11:04 PM
The most important thing to realize is that Ezio's integrity as a character has been compromised due to Ubisoft's inconsistency in tone. Altair and Ezio in AC and AC2 would never have caused so much reckless destruction (maybe Altair at the beginning of AC1, but the writers made a clear point of portraying him as foolish and arrogant).

The purpose Ezio's voyage to Masyaf was to find Altair's library and gain from it a special wisdom. However, instead of learning from the seals, Ezio just loses his mind and goes AWOL trying to find one after another. This is all due to Ubisoft's attempts to utilize their increased budget and create high-production value, epic set pieces.

Neither the OP or myself is saying that Ezio is supposed to be a cookie-cutter good guy. However, Ubisoft letting all of Ezio's antics slide under the table without addressing them is problematic. Not only were guards who were doing their duty killed, but also innocent civilians. I doubt OP would have made this thread if the screenwriters had taken some time to show Ezio's remorse. Unfortunately, they didn't.

LightRey
12-04-2011, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by ACSineQuaNon:
The most important thing to realize is that Ezio's integrity as a character has been compromised due to Ubisoft's inconsistency in tone. Altair and Ezio in AC and AC2 would never have caused so much reckless destruction (maybe Altair at the beginning of AC1, but the writers made a clear point of portraying him as foolish and arrogant).

The purpose Ezio's voyage to Masyaf was to find Altair's library and gain from it a special wisdom. However, instead of learning from the seals, Ezio just loses his mind and goes AWOL trying to find one after another. This is all due to Ubisoft's attempts to utilize their increased budget and create high-production value, epic set pieces.

Neither the OP or myself is saying that Ezio is supposed to be a cookie-cutter good guy. However, Ubisoft letting all of Ezio's antics slide under the table without addressing them is problematic. Not only were guards who were doing their duty killed, but also innocent civilians. I doubt OP would have made this thread if the screenwriters had taken some time to show Ezio's remorse. Unfortunately, they didn't.
You completely misinterpreted Ezio's actions in ACR. Did you even pay any attention to what was said? Every time he supposedly "goes AWOL", he's actually makes valid mistakes that were completely understandable considering the information he had.

OgiOlack
12-06-2011, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
Yeah. No one ever claimed him to be good.

If he had to press a button that killed 10,000 innocents to stop the templar plan for good he'd of done it.
Exactly, its just more to proof that although the Assassins are just, they still can commit mistakes. Ezio, nor Altair, was never a Saint.
and in my book that counts as a thumbs up for Ubisoft, because every game Protagonist is just cliche, being the goodie goodie Angel from above.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
xD Resident Evil saga characthers cliches at extreme!
Thats why i like God Of War and AC saga http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif