PDA

View Full Version : Templars are getting cliche and corny



CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 03:02 PM
I was watching Revelation's opening and was kind of let down by Leandros, which led me to think about the others such as rodrigo and the other Templars that we've had to kill. Not only have they become one dimensional in just having power for power's sake, but also they seem to be automatically set to ******bag. No Templar even tries to be kind and if you notice, the Templars actually blend in more than the assassins do. The only thing that outs them as a templar is because they're bad/evil/or combined with stupid.

And tbh, they're doing stupid things on purpose to let our assassins get in shallow danger. We know they won't die because this is genetic memory so as long as Desmond or any kind of descendant is watching, they won't die:

AC:R-Leandros doesn't just stab Ezio or actually shoot him multiple times in the trailer. He has to kill him by hanging? And during gameplay, he leaves three people to deal with Ezio of all people? He doesn't even stick around to see if the job gets done or not. that's actually a hallmark of a cliche villain.

AC2-Rodrigo lightly stabs Ezio in the stomach, where his armor is thick instead of, IDK, the throat, the face, his eye?

AC: The Fall-Tsar doesn't want to kill the ASSASSIN because his kids are watching? So is fine with letting him get away with stabbing him, pointing a gun at his kids and killing three or two guards on the way in.

AC2-Templars attack Desmond with Batons...but are one of the biggest, therefore riches companies. They can afford a pistol, or at least a tazer.

While I think the villains of AC1 were better off in the character department, their delivery was crappy in that you only got to know about them through an excruciatingly long therapy session. At least some, not all had reasons to go to the Templar side. AC2 tried to deliver the same thing with a video montage, which is bad story telling, basically, to, "Show instead of Tell."

What's worse is probably the fans who just overlook it all. It's like...hmm, blind faith. the story is cool, but ignoring the faults help no one and hurt yourself.

LightRey
10-07-2011, 03:05 PM
We've seen one templar say about 10 sentences and you're already judging the general attitude of all the templars in the game? Why not just wait for the game to actually come out before you start criticizing it?

Sarari
10-07-2011, 03:12 PM
I think he has a point though. Ubisoft isn't really trying to focus on the templar side, but they're only focusing on making the game more easy and fun for people. Don't take what I just said the wrong way, I can't wait till ACR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif but they really took out the "purpose" I should say of the templars. They just serve as people that you have to kill, instead of having a reason.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 03:13 PM
@Sarari: thanks, I want to play ACR as well allot to, can't wait for it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Originally posted by LightRey:
We've seen one templar say about 10 sentences and you're already judging the general attitude of all the templars in the game? Why not just wait for the game to actually come out before you start criticizing it?

Talking about Leandros? I doubt he will be any different. But fine, even without him the argument still stands. And the thread says getting Cliche'd not that they are.

They could surprise me in Revelations.

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 03:14 PM
Assassin's Creed is still a great game regardless of this stuff?

It hurts us more? How? By not giving us the greatest story possible?

A good story is a good story, regardless of whether it met it's full potential. It only hurts the makers of the story, because they know it's not at it's full potential.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Assassin's Creed is still a great game regardless of this stuff?

It hurts us more? How? By not giving us the greatest story possible?

A good story is a good story, regardless of whether it met it's full potential. It only hurts the makers of the story, because they know it's not at it's full potential.

It hurts you more because the characters can be switched out between the other with a basic value of them being simply bad instead of having reasons and goals.

And a good story is one that evolves, not devolve all it's characters down to Saturday Morning Cartoon villains. The bad guys don't have much memorable personalities. I'm not just saying that they're not in full potential (which does hurt more than just the creators, it hurts people who look at the story, for story is made up of both plot and characters) I'm saying that it's starting to decline in what's already been established.

LightRey
10-07-2011, 03:22 PM
If you dig a little deeper, like if you actually take the time to read the letters in AC2 and pay attention to the character descriptions in the database, you'll notice that they most certainly are well worked out characters, not cliches.

Animuses
10-07-2011, 03:26 PM
The Templars in AC2 were not cliche or corny.

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 03:27 PM
For Leandros, I personally think that the reason why he wanted to hang Ezio instead of out right killing him is because Ezio looked pretty weak in the beginning of the trailer. They dragged him up to that point on the tower to hang him, and Leandros decided after Ezio broke free of the guards, that they brought him up there, and may as well hang him still, even if there was a higher percentage of failure.

Then again, Leandros didn't learn from that mistake, when he thought Ezio to be badly injured that 3 of his guards could take him down.

And don't say that Leandros didn't try to shoot Ezio after that. The guards were shooting at Ezio when he was climbing the tower to get at Leandros. The guns back then weren't very accurate, and the guards may of also suffered the Storm-trooper syndrome.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 03:29 PM
#Jexx21: so when people look weak, you wait for them to regain their strength and then kill them in over the top ways? That's still a bad way of planning. You see a threat, a threat you know is deadly, you take it out fast and quick.

It's like having a poison you don't cure. Instead you let it flow and you die


Originally posted by LightRey:
If you dig a little deeper, like if you actually take the time to read the letters in AC2 and pay attention to the character descriptions in the database, you'll notice that they most certainly are well worked out characters, not cliches.

Since you don't get any letters like that in ACB, you're talking about AC2, correct? The only one which explains the actions of another is the one on Vieri De'Pazzi who was being semi-neglected by the father and he wanted his attention.

A brat kid who killed for attention. Yeah, total Templar material. Only Antonio Maffei who was angered by the sacking of Voltera. Which then makes no sense as to why a man would then support another family who is just as ruthless or more so and join an organization bent on killing and torture, which Francesco did.

And the guy you killed, Alberto, wasn't a Templar, just a pawn. His letter doesn't count

LightRey
10-07-2011, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
For Leandros, I personally think that the reason why he wanted to hang Ezio instead of out right killing him is because Ezio looked pretty weak in the beginning of the trailer. They dragged him up to that point on the tower to hang him, and Leandros decided after Ezio broke free of the guards, that they brought him up there, and may as well hang him still, even if there was a higher percentage of failure.

Then again, Leandros didn't learn from that mistake, when he thought Ezio to be badly injured that 3 of his guards could take him down.

And don't say that Leandros didn't try to shoot Ezio after that. The guards were shooting at Ezio when he was climbing the tower to get at Leandros. The guns back then weren't very accurate, and the guards may of also suffered the Storm-trooper syndrome.
Or maybe the guards are actually the A-Team... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
If you dig a little deeper, like if you actually take the time to read the letters in AC2 and pay attention to the character descriptions in the database, you'll notice that they most certainly are well worked out characters, not cliches.

And the books flesh out the characters even more. In the book, Vieri expressed that he didn't truly hate Ezio when he (Vieri) died. He said that if the circumstances were different they of have been friends. The Ezio goes on his fit about how no one likes Vieri and how he's a stronzo.

Also, I believe that to be canon, as the game doesn't actually directly contradict it. The line in the book is actually something like this "Ezio- you expect a full confession? If they circumstances were different we may of been friends". I personally think that adds some good to Vieri, making him closer to a grey character.

LightRey
10-07-2011, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by t260z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
If you dig a little deeper, like if you actually take the time to read the letters in AC2 and pay attention to the character descriptions in the database, you'll notice that they most certainly are well worked out characters, not cliches.

Since you don't get any letters like that in ACB, you're talking about AC2, correct? The only one which explains the actions of another is the one on Vieri De'Pazzi who was being semi-neglected by the father and he wanted his attention.

A brat kid who killed for attention. Yeah, total Templar material. Only Antonio Maffei who was angered by the sacking of Voltera. Which then makes no sense as to why a man would then support another family who is just as ruthless or more so and join an organization bent on killing and torture, which Francesco did.

And the guy you killed, Alberto, wasn't a Templar, just a pawn. His letter doesn't count </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're forgetting about the database entries.

You're also forgetting that Dante Moro had a letter from his wife and The Conspirators also had several letters.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 03:34 PM
Edit: @Lightrey: not forgetting, you just assume I am. What's there to show us any difference? None. And Dante Morro wasn't a Templar. And the letters of those conspirators were basically saying, "I'm scared the assassin is going to kill us."

@Jexx: so I have to read a book outside of the game to actually give thought to characters? too much. And gray means balanced. Vieri still killed people when they won at races. He tried to rape Christina and led soldiers to kill people in town and after Ezio.

He's not grey, he's tar with a speck of light


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 Jexx21:
For Leandros, I personally think that the reason why he wanted to hang Ezio instead of out right killing him is because Ezio looked pretty weak in the beginning of the trailer. They dragged him up to that point on the tower to hang him, and Leandros decided after Ezio broke free of the guards, that they brought him up there, and may as well hang him still, even if there was a higher percentage of failure.

Then again, Leandros didn't learn from that mistake, when he thought Ezio to be badly injured that 3 of his guards could take him down.

And don't say that Leandros didn't try to shoot Ezio after that. The guards were shooting at Ezio when he was climbing the tower to get at Leandros. The guns back then weren't very accurate, and the guards may of also suffered the Storm-trooper syndrome.
Or maybe the guards are actually the A-Team... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or went to the storm trooper academy for shooting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif those guys never hit anything.

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by t260z:
#Jexx21: so when people look weak, you wait for them to regain their strength and then kill them in over the top ways? That's still a bad way of planning. You see a threat, a threat you know is deadly, you take it out fast and quick.

It's like having a poison you don't cure. Instead you let it flow and you die

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
If you dig a little deeper, like if you actually take the time to read the letters in AC2 and pay attention to the character descriptions in the database, you'll notice that they most certainly are well worked out characters, not cliches.

Since you don't get any letters like that in ACB, you're talking about AC2, correct? The only one which explains the actions of another is the one on Vieri De'Pazzi who was being semi-neglected by the father and he wanted his attention.

A brat kid who killed for attention. Yeah, total Templar material. Only Antonio Maffei who was angered by the sacking of Voltera. Which then makes no sense as to why a man would then support another family who is just as ruthless or more so and join an organization bent on killing and torture, which Francesco did.

And the guy you killed, Alberto, wasn't a Templar, just a pawn. His letter doesn't count </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alberti was actually a full Templar also. You're just making stuff up for your own benefit now..

The villains ARE fleshed out more in the books, which are canon. And please LightRey don't get onto the fanfiction thing. The books have UbiSoft's logo on it, and they say they are canon. The books don't actually always contradict the games.

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 03:37 PM
And to your comment about Leandros waiting for Ezio to regain his strength and kill him in an over the top way?

Leandros wasn't expecting Ezio to regain his strength after loosing to his battalion. Ezio is just one man, and Leandros most likely thought that the Italian Templars were weak fools.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by t260z:
#Jexx21: so when people look weak, you wait for them to regain their strength and then kill them in over the top ways? That's still a bad way of planning. You see a threat, a threat you know is deadly, you take it out fast and quick.

It's like having a poison you don't cure. Instead you let it flow and you die

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
If you dig a little deeper, like if you actually take the time to read the letters in AC2 and pay attention to the character descriptions in the database, you'll notice that they most certainly are well worked out characters, not cliches.

Since you don't get any letters like that in ACB, you're talking about AC2, correct? The only one which explains the actions of another is the one on Vieri De'Pazzi who was being semi-neglected by the father and he wanted his attention.

A brat kid who killed for attention. Yeah, total Templar material. Only Antonio Maffei who was angered by the sacking of Voltera. Which then makes no sense as to why a man would then support another family who is just as ruthless or more so and join an organization bent on killing and torture, which Francesco did.

And the guy you killed, Alberto, wasn't a Templar, just a pawn. His letter doesn't count </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alberti was actually a full Templar also. You're just making stuff up for your own benefit now..

The villains ARE fleshed out more in the books, which are canon. And please LightRey don't get onto the fanfiction thing. The books have UbiSoft's logo on it, and they say they are canon. The books don't actually always contradict the games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Woah, hold on, no he wasn't. I didn't make that up. I don't know what they say in book, but in the game he does it only for the people he loves, not for the New world Order presented in game.

The books are never completely cannon. And that requires me to buy something outside the game to get a complete story?

Edit: Okay, so you wouldn't kill the assassin who took out like ten of your men with an arrow in his shoulder? Doesn't make any sense. why wouldn't you kill him right then when he's weak? and come on, "weak fools"? They obliterated the Templar presence in Roma, Venice, Florence...all this is looked over?

why would you ever underestimate an assassin? Or anybody trying to kill you for that matter?

Calvarok
10-07-2011, 03:41 PM
The Tzar in the fall was insane. I liked him as a character more than any of the templars in AC1.

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 03:41 PM
Well obviously books weren't completely cannon. They weren't ever like a cannon.

They are however canon. Confirmed by UbiSoft.

And you don't have to buy the books, but to get the complete story of Assassin's Creed wholely, you should technically buy all of it's canon entertainments. Which includes the books and The Fall comic series.

If you want a definitive canon info source, I'd get the Encyclopedia when it comes out.

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by t260z:
and come on, "weak fools" they obliterated the Templar presence in Roma, Venice, Florence...all this is looked over?

I said that he may of thought the Italian TEMPLARS were weak fools to loos to one man.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Well obviously books weren't completely cannon. They weren't ever like a cannon.

They are however canon. Confirmed by UbiSoft.

And you don't have to buy the books, but to get the complete story of Assassin's Creed wholely, you should technically buy all of it's canon entertainments. Which includes the books and The Fall comic series.

If you want a definitive canon info source, I'd get the Encyclopedia when it comes out.

@Calvarok: he barely talked. And do you mean insane as cool or insane as well, crazy?

Lol, cannon...you just had to get that one in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif . And no, not everything in the book is cannon, like Rosa coming back to Rome, or Ezio and Mach attacking Juan Borgia with a small army.

I have the Fall, well, two of them, I want the second issue SO BADLY http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif ! Just going to settle with the collective paperback thing.

I know what you said. I was simply correcting what could of been a "maybe" into a "makes no sense."

rileypoole1234
10-07-2011, 03:57 PM
If you don't like it, you don't have to play it. Simple as that. I think the Templars are great characters. In the Crusades they killed anybody who wasn't a Christian. I'd say that's evil. They don't really need a reason do they? They're supposed to be evil characters, so Ubisoft made them evil. I definitely wouldn't want to see a nice Templar. That wouldn't really make any sense. And as for your saying "Why would he stab him in the abdomen where his armour is thick?" you said it yourself, Desmond can't see an ancestor die. If Rodrigo stabbed Ezio in the head what would happen? Desmond comes back and Lucy says "Woops. I guess that's it.." that would be dumb. If Leandros shot him the same thing would happen. Ubisoft puts them in "shallow" danger because if they die, what would be the point. Also, getting stabbed, and getting a noose put around your neck and being three seconds away from being hung is not shallow danger. If that happened to anybody else they would be dead.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
If you don't like it, you don't have to play it. Simple as that. I think the Templars are great characters. In the Crusades they killed anybody who wasn't a Christian. I'd say that's evil. They don't really need a reason do they? They're supposed to be evil characters, so Ubisoft made them evil. I definitely wouldn't want to see a nice Templar. That wouldn't really make any sense. And as for your saying "Why would he stab him in the abdomen where his armour is thick?" you said it yourself, Desmond can't see an ancestor die. If Rodrigo stabbed Ezio in the head what would happen? Desmond comes back and Lucy says "Woops. I guess that's it.." that would be dumb. If Leandros shot him the same thing would happen. Ubisoft puts them in "shallow" danger because if they die, what would be the point. Also, getting stabbed, and getting a noose put around your neck and being three seconds away from being hung is not shallow danger. If that happened to anybody else they would be dead.

If I didn't like the series I wouldn't have taken out the time to write it up int he first place.

Too bad you're talking about real Templars, not the ones in game. The people you kill in AC1 had no true religion and some of them wouldn't even be able to be christian, one even says he doesn't believe in a god, another being gay. And for each and every Templar to be evil is too single minded, a person, each one would have different takes on it. I sort of believe in what the Templars mission is, but their means suck though. It's like they're permanently stuck on eat baby mode. The Sentinel I believe wouldn't be completely evil as the type of villain you want to defeat.

simply put, you make another scenario, instead of putting out shallow danger moments. And when you know he won't die, it is shallow. the only thrill from ti is how he will escape. Instead of Ezio getting trapped by Rodrigo, they could've rewritten that. Instead of Ezio charging into the army he could've went around them or even tried to evade them.

It's stupid that they basically never check if he's dead, let others handle it for them and the situations aren't written in the best light.

Sarari
10-07-2011, 04:30 PM
That's true what Lightrey said, that each templar in AC2 had their own back story. But I would've liked it more if they just spoke out when Ezio talked to their dead bodies lol. That's just my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In AC1 I liked is how all templars were connected. When I say that, I mean that they all work together but don't make it obvious. It gives a big surprise when you find out that they are working together. But in AC2, they just all huddle around and talk about their business......IN CROWDS!! How do you get away with that kinda stuff lol. Also, another problem that they all just come together in one place takes out the surprise moment when you find out they all work together. But I gotta say, AC2 did a pretty good job of handling that :P

In ACB, the whole templar thing was just pathetic. No templar message, at all. Remember those people on the cover of ACB that you kill? Well those were pointless kills. It was like one kill after another without knowing why you're doing it or even who the hell they are. It was like you were killing them just to extend the game. They also didn't have the notes that describe what each templars goal was in ACB.

I hope ACR improves some of those mistakes and have a mix of AC1 and AC2 templar ways.

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 04:36 PM
I knew who they were and why we were killing them...

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
That's true what Lightrey said, that each templar in AC2 had their own back story. But I would've liked it more if they just spoke out when Ezio talked to their dead bodies lol. That's just my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In AC1 I liked is how all templars were connected. When I say that, I mean that they all work together but don't make it obvious. It gives a big surprise when you find out that they are working together. But in AC2, they just all huddle around and talk about their business......IN CROWDS!! How do you get away with that kinda stuff lol. Also, another problem that they all just come together in one place takes out the surprise moment when you find out they all work together. But I gotta say, AC2 did a pretty good job of handling that :P

In ACB, the whole templar thing was just pathetic. No templar message, at all. Remember those people on the cover of ACB that you kill? Well those were pointless kills. It was like one kill after another without knowing why you're doing it or even who the hell they are. It was like you were killing them just to extend the game. They also didn't have the notes that describe what each templars goal was in ACB.

I hope ACR improves some of those mistakes and have a mix of AC1 and AC2 templar ways.

For the people in ACR, the Templar Agents, from what I've seen of the Crusader they might be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif but I've only seen him, the other guy was kicking a dude to death, so...IDK, they have said that they'll actually do more than be a simple target with no real lines.

In Ac2 it was cool. We knew how was working together before we even met anybody though, lol, in the underground chamber near the first assassin tomb? I think it was there. And yeah, nobody listens to these secret public meetings?

Edit: and each agent was basically given a quick paragraph as to what they were doing, and how bad they are. Nothing into their character, back story or well, anything.

And AC@ did tell us a background, but they weren't that interesting. all of them were evil nobles who abuse people and want power. just copy and paste them to the next person over.

roostersrule2
10-07-2011, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by t260z:
I was watching Revelation's opening and was kind of let down by Leandros, which led me to think about the others such as rodrigo and the other Templars that we've had to kill. Not only have they become one dimensional in just having power for power's sake, but also they seem to be automatically set to ******bag. No Templar even tries to be kind and if you notice, the Templars actually blend in more than the assassins do. The only thing that outs them as a templar is because they're bad/evil/or combined with stupid.

And tbh, they're doing stupid things on purpose to let our assassins get in shallow danger. We know they won't die because this is genetic memory so as long as Desmond or any kind of descendant is watching, they won't die:

AC:R-Leandros doesn't just stab Ezio or actually shoot him multiple times in the trailer. He has to kill him by hanging? And during gameplay, he leaves three people to deal with Ezio of all people? He doesn't even stick around to see if the job gets done or not. that's actually a hallmark of a cliche villain.

AC2-Rodrigo lightly stabs Ezio in the stomach, where his armor is thick instead of, IDK, the throat, the face, his eye?

AC: The Fall-Tsar doesn't want to kill the ASSASSIN because his kids are watching? So is fine with letting him get away with stabbing him, pointing a gun at his kids and killing three or two guards on the way in.

AC2-Templars attack Desmond with Batons...but are one of the biggest, therefore riches companies. They can afford a pistol, or at least a tazer.

While I think the villains of AC1 were better off in the character department, their delivery was crappy in that you only got to know about them through an excruciatingly long therapy session. At least some, not all had reasons to go to the Templar side. AC2 tried to deliver the same thing with a video montage, which is bad story telling, basically, to, "Show instead of Tell."

What's worse is probably the fans who just overlook it all. It's like...hmm, blind faith. the story is cool, but ignoring the faults help no one and hurt yourself. At the end of AC2 they didn't want to kill them they only wanted bring them back and guns will ruin this game IMO.

Sarari
10-07-2011, 05:02 PM
@Jexx21, those people on the cover, the multiplayer characters you kill, they may have had been doing something bad, but no inside story about them. For instance, that first guy you kill. The only reason you kill him is because he was threatening a guy. That's it.

@t260z, when I said at their meetings, I meant like how they talk on the streets. For example, when you had to stalk them when they were in Venice. The templars were talking about their plans on the street where anybody can here them.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 05:04 PM
Yes, I agree whole heartedly, guns would ruin the game. Lol, the game even removes any kind of real aiming mechanic for long rang weaponry, just a focus button is present.

But I think the scene shouldn't be there, or be more of an assassination/free running segment.

About being taken alive, what could've been used:

Gas
Taser
Hacking the system
Stunning them in general

Edit: @Sarari My bad, lol, though, I commented on it, but had your posts mixed up, huh? Sorry about that.

And you kill the first guy because he hanged someone for no reason, and likes killing people...and other stuff *rubs evil beard*

Poodle_of_Doom
10-07-2011, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
For Leandros, I personally think that the reason why he wanted to hang Ezio instead of out right killing him is because Ezio looked pretty weak in the beginning of the trailer. They dragged him up to that point on the tower to hang him, and Leandros decided after Ezio broke free of the guards, that they brought him up there, and may as well hang him still, even if there was a higher percentage of failure.

Then again, Leandros didn't learn from that mistake, when he thought Ezio to be badly injured that 3 of his guards could take him down.

And don't say that Leandros didn't try to shoot Ezio after that. The guards were shooting at Ezio when he was climbing the tower to get at Leandros. The guns back then weren't very accurate, and the guards may of also suffered the Storm-trooper syndrome.

Actually this makes perfect sense. This is psychological torture, depending on how much what's his face new about Ezio. Second of all, considering how well known Ezio is, and how well hated he is by the templars, I can understand why they'd choose this methood. If done correctly, it's a slow, painful, and agonizing death.

That said, I fully agree with the OP 100%.


Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
If you don't like it, you don't have to play it. Simple as that. I think the Templars are great characters. In the Crusades they killed anybody who wasn't a Christian. I'd say that's evil. They don't really need a reason do they? They're supposed to be evil characters, so Ubisoft made them evil. I definitely wouldn't want to see a nice Templar. That wouldn't really make any sense. And as for your saying "Why would he stab him in the abdomen where his armour is thick?" you said it yourself, Desmond can't see an ancestor die. If Rodrigo stabbed Ezio in the head what would happen? Desmond comes back and Lucy says "Woops. I guess that's it.." that would be dumb. If Leandros shot him the same thing would happen. Ubisoft puts them in "shallow" danger because if they die, what would be the point. Also, getting stabbed, and getting a noose put around your neck and being three seconds away from being hung is not shallow danger. If that happened to anybody else they would be dead.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them.

Moultonborough
10-07-2011, 05:35 PM
I don't think they are too cliche. They are heading towards it but not quite yet. However, this brings up something I have been wondering for awhile now. Do we have any info on who the "head Templar" in Revelations? All I know is Leandros so far and we kill him in the first hour.

LightRey
10-07-2011, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
For Leandros, I personally think that the reason why he wanted to hang Ezio instead of out right killing him is because Ezio looked pretty weak in the beginning of the trailer. They dragged him up to that point on the tower to hang him, and Leandros decided after Ezio broke free of the guards, that they brought him up there, and may as well hang him still, even if there was a higher percentage of failure.

Then again, Leandros didn't learn from that mistake, when he thought Ezio to be badly injured that 3 of his guards could take him down.

And don't say that Leandros didn't try to shoot Ezio after that. The guards were shooting at Ezio when he was climbing the tower to get at Leandros. The guns back then weren't very accurate, and the guards may of also suffered the Storm-trooper syndrome.

Actually this makes perfect sense. This is psychological torture, depending on how much what's his face new about Ezio. Second of all, considering how well known Ezio is, and how well hated he is by the templars, I can understand why they'd choose this methood. If done correctly, it's a slow, painful, and agonizing death.

That said, I fully agree with the OP 100%.


Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
If you don't like it, you don't have to play it. Simple as that. I think the Templars are great characters. In the Crusades they killed anybody who wasn't a Christian. I'd say that's evil. They don't really need a reason do they? They're supposed to be evil characters, so Ubisoft made them evil. I definitely wouldn't want to see a nice Templar. That wouldn't really make any sense. And as for your saying "Why would he stab him in the abdomen where his armour is thick?" you said it yourself, Desmond can't see an ancestor die. If Rodrigo stabbed Ezio in the head what would happen? Desmond comes back and Lucy says "Woops. I guess that's it.." that would be dumb. If Leandros shot him the same thing would happen. Ubisoft puts them in "shallow" danger because if they die, what would be the point. Also, getting stabbed, and getting a noose put around your neck and being three seconds away from being hung is not shallow danger. If that happened to anybody else they would be dead.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could you be a bit more polite? Calling people "stupid" is not exactly a good way to contribute to a discussion and it's against the rules.

Serrachio
10-07-2011, 05:57 PM
One thing aside from the evil Templars is that there's no real good/ambiguous ones either, aside from Niccolo Copernico, and even then, that was a PS3 Exclusive.

We are told that they're a faction that aims for change through force, and yet all we ever see is that they're tyrannical and evil and a detriment to society.

On the same page, although Assassins try to remove the threat to the free will of the people, they hardly ever back up what they do with encouraging people to find themselves either, not if you exclude recruits to the Order.

It's getting to the point that Templars are bad dudes who control people like puppets and do nothing right, and the Assassins are the ones to clean up the mess of society, but never do much to bolster it either.

I want to see a broad spectrum of Assassin-Templar ideology and the motivations behind them.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Serrachio:
One thing aside from the evil Templars is that there's no real good/ambiguous ones either, aside from Niccolo Copernico, and even then, that was a PS3 Exclusive.

We are told that they're a faction that aims for change through force, and yet all we ever see is that they're tyrannical and evil and a detriment to society.

On the same page, although Assassins try to remove the threat to the free will of the people, they hardly ever back up what they do with encouraging people to find themselves either, not if you exclude recruits to the Order.

It's getting to the point that Templars are bad dudes who control people like puppets and do nothing right, and the Assassins are the ones to clean up the mess of society, but never do much to bolster it either.

I want to see a broad spectrum of Assassin-Templar ideology and the motivations behind them.

Wow, that's exactly what I was going for! The point of assassin's Creed is to be morally grey, and be confusing, but most if not all the time, the enemy is always easily spotted and since they have no real redeeming qualities, the player doesn't care as much.

for Assassins though, I think their role as changers and even manipulators of society changed greatly in AC: the Fall

SleezeRocker
10-07-2011, 06:54 PM
Dam the templars! let's replace templars with Dragons.

Assassin's vs Dragons! :P

rileypoole1234
10-07-2011, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them.

You must not have heard many stupid things then mate. I don't remember sympathising with the men I was about to assassinate. I think it makes sense not to sympathise or care about them though. Altair and Ezio don't, they just want to kill them.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 07:47 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 Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
For Leandros, I personally think that the reason why he wanted to hang Ezio instead of out right killing him is because Ezio looked pretty weak in the beginning of the trailer. They dragged him up to that point on the tower to hang him, and Leandros decided after Ezio broke free of the guards, that they brought him up there, and may as well hang him still, even if there was a higher percentage of failure.

Then again, Leandros didn't learn from that mistake, when he thought Ezio to be badly injured that 3 of his guards could take him down.

And don't say that Leandros didn't try to shoot Ezio after that. The guards were shooting at Ezio when he was climbing the tower to get at Leandros. The guns back then weren't very accurate, and the guards may of also suffered the Storm-trooper syndrome.

Actually this makes perfect sense. This is psychological torture, depending on how much what's his face new about Ezio. Second of all, considering how well known Ezio is, and how well hated he is by the templars, I can understand why they'd choose this methood. If done correctly, it's a slow, painful, and agonizing death.

That said, I fully agree with the OP 100%.


Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
If you don't like it, you don't have to play it. Simple as that. I think the Templars are great characters. In the Crusades they killed anybody who wasn't a Christian. I'd say that's evil. They don't really need a reason do they? They're supposed to be evil characters, so Ubisoft made them evil. I definitely wouldn't want to see a nice Templar. That wouldn't really make any sense. And as for your saying "Why would he stab him in the abdomen where his armour is thick?" you said it yourself, Desmond can't see an ancestor die. If Rodrigo stabbed Ezio in the head what would happen? Desmond comes back and Lucy says "Woops. I guess that's it.." that would be dumb. If Leandros shot him the same thing would happen. Ubisoft puts them in "shallow" danger because if they die, what would be the point. Also, getting stabbed, and getting a noose put around your neck and being three seconds away from being hung is not shallow danger. If that happened to anybody else they would be dead.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could you be a bit more polite? Calling people "stupid" is not exactly a good way to contribute to a discussion and it's against the rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did we care about calling people stupid on this forum? Lol, happens allt he time. If it breaks any rules, the Forum Reaper will come for us!

As said by Lucy and a couple others, the Templar idea is good, method bad. but these days they aren't even trying for the New world Order and most just complain for more power. In other words, the game, the first one anyways tries to get you tow at least understand why they did it.

Now it's just Templars=for the Evulz!

@Poodle: dude, no joke, I'd be scared to let Ezio live http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif . And their goal wasn't even psychological torture, in which they may have gained new information. they were going to kill him anyways.

Dagio12
10-07-2011, 07:49 PM
I see your point, but I guess i disagree overall. I've played many games and watched many movies and I gotta say that the AC villians still have a way to go before being cliche ( although Cesare sometimes bordered on that.. lol).

I dont really think that the templars in AC2 were very cliche. They definitely didnt feel the need to justify themselves about there actions like some of the ones in AC1, but I dont think that makes them just "evil" and "one dimensional". I feel like the letters and the database gives them plenty of material to be fleshed out characters. If it wasnt for the long drawn out death scenes in AC1, those templars would have seemed just as bland... if not more so, then some of the templars in AC2 IMO. In the grand scheme of it all, they are all after control of the populace in order to continue there fight to achieve this "new world order." But the renaissance was a totally different time then the crusades and I think the point of AC2s villains was to show that kind of power hungry, control seeking mind set that they believe they needed to have in order to achieve there goals. I kind of enjoy being able to see the personality differences between some of the templars in AC1 and the ones in AC2.. Maybe the Borgias WERE evil and power hungry. Nobody ever said that all Templars had to be good hearted people with good intentions, but bad ways of doing things.

I never really felt sorry for any of the templars in AC1, regardless of there rambling during the death scenes, the things they were doing to people ( such as the doctor, the big dude who poisoned everyone... etc) were still cruel and went about there goals in an evil manner.

I really think Revelations will have a some great characters in it. It seems like Darby really wants to emphasize good character development along with a great story. So maybe we will get everything we want.

But dont get me wrong... I can see where you are coming from, some of the villains can feel a little bland at times. But overall, I think they have done a really good job. It could easily be WAY more cliche.. hahaha.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by SF2themax:
I see your point, but I guess i disagree overall. I've played many games and watched many movies and I gotta say that the AC villians still have a way to go before being cliche ( although Cesare sometimes bordered on that.. lol).

I dont really think that the templars in AC2 were very cliche. They definitely didnt feel the need to justify themselves about there actions like some of the ones in AC1, but I dont think that makes them just "evil" and "one dimensional". I feel like the letters and the database gives them plenty of material to be fleshed out characters. If it wasnt for the long drawn out death scenes in AC1, those templars would have seemed just as bland... if not more so, then some of the templars in AC2 IMO. In the grand scheme of it all, they are all after control of the populace in order to continue there fight to achieve this "new world order." But the renaissance was a totally different time then the crusades and I think the point of AC2s villains was to show that kind of power hungry, control seeking mind set that they believe they needed to have in order to achieve there goals. I kind of enjoy being able to see the personality differences between some of the templars in AC1 and the ones in AC2.. Maybe the Borgias WERE evil and power hungry. Nobody ever said that all Templars had to be good hearted people with good intentions, but bad ways of doing things.

I never really felt sorry for any of the templars in AC1, regardless of there rambling during the death scenes, the things they were doing to people ( such as the doctor, the big dude who poisoned everyone... etc) were still cruel and went about there goals in an evil manner.

I really think Revelations will have a some great characters in it. It seems like Darby really wants to emphasize good character development along with a great story. So maybe we will get everything we want.

But dont get me wrong... I can see where you are coming from, some of the villains can feel a little bland at times. But overall, I think they have done a really good job. It could easily be WAY more cliche.. hahaha.

Thanks, I like your tone, very understanding.

And just because things can get worse doesn't mean they can't get worse. That's why I'm bringing it up now, so it doesn't. Lol, I never felt sorry for the Templars I killed. I was referring to their reasons for doing it though. Like why can't a good person be a Templar, yah know? I haven't been trained to kill people or hate others, but I agree with their ideology somewhat. And the AC2 villains felt like I couldn't even really care about them, they're all set to, "Power for Power". Not a "New world for Power" or "Better opportunities for people" and a brighter future.

You know, I laughed even harder on your last sentence cause I thought of AC:B's villains. And I'm hoping for that to in Revelations, the Crusader got my hopes up a bit in the gamecome demo though, so I won't rule it out, not yet anyways. The templar agents are looking awesome, kind of.

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
@Jexx21, those people on the cover, the multiplayer characters you kill, they may have had been doing something bad, but no inside story about them. For instance, that first guy you kill. The only reason you kill him is because he was threatening a guy. That's it.


But we do know who they are and what they did. Fiora (The Courtesan) defected the Templar order and gave us a list of people, what they did, and where they lived.

For example, The Doctor was posioning many Courtesans, an ally of the Assassins, and he was a Templar also.

rain89c
10-07-2011, 08:10 PM
Meh...ever since AC2 came out, you can feel from there onwards everything became more cliche, corny and less realistic from AC1.

naran6142
10-07-2011, 08:13 PM
well they did say that they were trying to make ACR seem more grey

as for leandro hanging ezio. well he did have an army behind him, so he probably thought he was safe and death by hanging probably seemed to him to be a little more fitting than just stabbing the legendary assassin

Jexx21
10-07-2011, 08:25 PM
Nothing's cliche and corny until a Templar steals Ezio's hidden blade, then kills himself with it when he's running away by tripping and trying to protect his head.

CRUDFACE
10-07-2011, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Nothing's cliche and corny until a Templar steals Ezio's hidden blade, then kills himself with it when he's running away by tripping and trying to protect his head.

That isn't a cliche, that's a pathetic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif death though.

@Jexx21: the courtesan isn't in the main game's plot, only explain in an outside source, and she wasn't a Templar, just worked for them. And if she was, she defected.

And their profiles were so-so

Poodle_of_Doom
10-07-2011, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by t260z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
For Leandros, I personally think that the reason why he wanted to hang Ezio instead of out right killing him is because Ezio looked pretty weak in the beginning of the trailer. They dragged him up to that point on the tower to hang him, and Leandros decided after Ezio broke free of the guards, that they brought him up there, and may as well hang him still, even if there was a higher percentage of failure.

Then again, Leandros didn't learn from that mistake, when he thought Ezio to be badly injured that 3 of his guards could take him down.

And don't say that Leandros didn't try to shoot Ezio after that. The guards were shooting at Ezio when he was climbing the tower to get at Leandros. The guns back then weren't very accurate, and the guards may of also suffered the Storm-trooper syndrome.

Actually this makes perfect sense. This is psychological torture, depending on how much what's his face new about Ezio. Second of all, considering how well known Ezio is, and how well hated he is by the templars, I can understand why they'd choose this methood. If done correctly, it's a slow, painful, and agonizing death.

That said, I fully agree with the OP 100%.


Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
If you don't like it, you don't have to play it. Simple as that. I think the Templars are great characters. In the Crusades they killed anybody who wasn't a Christian. I'd say that's evil. They don't really need a reason do they? They're supposed to be evil characters, so Ubisoft made them evil. I definitely wouldn't want to see a nice Templar. That wouldn't really make any sense. And as for your saying "Why would he stab him in the abdomen where his armour is thick?" you said it yourself, Desmond can't see an ancestor die. If Rodrigo stabbed Ezio in the head what would happen? Desmond comes back and Lucy says "Woops. I guess that's it.." that would be dumb. If Leandros shot him the same thing would happen. Ubisoft puts them in "shallow" danger because if they die, what would be the point. Also, getting stabbed, and getting a noose put around your neck and being three seconds away from being hung is not shallow danger. If that happened to anybody else they would be dead.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could you be a bit more polite? Calling people "stupid" is not exactly a good way to contribute to a discussion and it's against the rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did we care about calling people stupid on this forum? Lol, happens allt he time. If it breaks any rules, the Forum Reaper will come for us!

As said by Lucy and a couple others, the Templar idea is good, method bad. but these days they aren't even trying for the New world Order and most just complain for more power. In other words, the game, the first one anyways tries to get you tow at least understand why they did it.

Now it's just Templars=for the Evulz!

@Poodle: dude, no joke, I'd be scared to let Ezio live http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif . And their goal wasn't even psychological torture, in which they may have gained new information. they were going to kill him anyways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, what I meant was that they'd be killing him the same way he watched his family die, which would be psychological in nature. None the less, one would imagine they'd go streight to the point.

@Riley:

I try not to associate myself with many stupid people. So yes, it was one of the craziest things I've heard to date.

@Rey:

I never called anyone stupid. Only an idea.

AkeiraXgamer
10-07-2011, 09:24 PM
I think power-hungry villians are realistic.

There are so many of them in the world, so you don't need proof of that.

If you wanted more grey, then you might not be in the right place. Like politics, you often are forced to choose a side and not the middleground.

Atleast, that's my philosophy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

LightRey
10-08-2011, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
Well, what I meant was that they'd be killing him the same way he watched his family die, which would be psychological in nature. None the less, one would imagine they'd go streight to the point.

@Riley:

I try not to associate myself with many stupid people. So yes, it was one of the craziest things I've heard to date.

@Rey:

I never called anyone stupid. Only an idea.
Calling an idea stupid is basically the same as calling the one who thought of it stupid, so watch what you say.

CRUDFACE
10-08-2011, 05:53 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 Poodle_of_Doom:
Well, what I meant was that they'd be killing him the same way he watched his family die, which would be psychological in nature. None the less, one would imagine they'd go streight to the point.

@Riley:

I try not to associate myself with many stupid people. So yes, it was one of the craziest things I've heard to date.

@Rey:

I never called anyone stupid. Only an idea.
Calling an idea stupid is basically the same as calling the one who thought of it stupid, so watch what you say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...WTF...

EzioAssassin51
10-08-2011, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by t260z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Poodle_of_Doom:
Well, what I meant was that they'd be killing him the same way he watched his family die, which would be psychological in nature. None the less, one would imagine they'd go streight to the point.

@Riley:

I try not to associate myself with many stupid people. So yes, it was one of the craziest things I've heard to date.

@Rey:

I never called anyone stupid. Only an idea.
Calling an idea stupid is basically the same as calling the one who thought of it stupid, so watch what you say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...WTF... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People can get offended by calling their ideas stupid because it makes them feel stupid and it's saying they can't say anything worthwhile or intelligent.

Btw t260z why are you so narky in this thread?

CRUDFACE
10-08-2011, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by t260z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Poodle_of_Doom:
Well, what I meant was that they'd be killing him the same way he watched his family die, which would be psychological in nature. None the less, one would imagine they'd go streight to the point.

@Riley:

I try not to associate myself with many stupid people. So yes, it was one of the craziest things I've heard to date.

@Rey:

I never called anyone stupid. Only an idea.
Calling an idea stupid is basically the same as calling the one who thought of it stupid, so watch what you say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...WTF... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People can get offended by calling their ideas stupid because it makes them feel stupid and it's saying they can't say anything worthwhile or intelligent.

Btw t260z why are you so narky in this thread? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Narky" means what again?

ProletariatPleb
10-08-2011, 06:34 AM
Let's take Leandros....judging from what we've seen of him..he's too damn proud...even when Ezio approached him...he kept saying rubbish, earlier even asked if he was in-charge of an army of drunks swinging sticks, lol.

Rodrigo & Caesare? They were depicted very good, too good infact, have you heard the story of how Rodrigo got elected as the Pope and what all he did afterwards?

Caesare was power hungry, proud guy from the start, even as a teen.

Even Lucrezia(if you consider her one).

Plus...we're forgetting..it's a game, games are made for entertainment/fun, we have enough 'realism' in real life, although parts of it in-game are good, too much ruins it.

MT4K
10-08-2011, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by t260z:
"Narky" means what again?

Narky = Easily annoyed.

CRUDFACE
10-08-2011, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by sidspyker24:
Let's take Leandros....judging from what we've seen of him..he's too damn proud...even when Ezio approached him...he kept saying rubbish, earlier even asked if he was in-charge of an army of drunks swinging sticks, lol.

Rodrigo & Caesare? They were depicted very good, too good infact, have you heard the story of how Rodrigo got elected as the Pope and what all he did afterwards?

Caesare was power hungry, proud guy from the start, even as a teen.

Even Lucrezia(if you consider her one).

Plus...we're forgetting..it's a game, games are made for entertainment/fun, we have enough 'realism' in real life, although parts of it in-game are good, too much ruins it.

Being a game about conflicting goals of good intentions and bad form doesn't mean that they'll be the same character cut and pasted over again.

That's the kind of attitude as to why people don't take games seriously. Nobody's forgetting that it's a game, it's more like people need to be reminded that a game based on such high ideas that is mostly character driven needs to step up at times.

Lol, we could make Templars like that right now:

Proud/******-defines allot of them
Snarky/******
Serial killer/******
Brat kid/******
Power/******


I'm not sure about Lucrezia. Lol, never thought about it lol...hmmm... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Edit: Thanks for the definition, MTK4

@EzioAssassin51: you're talking about hwy I said WTF, right? Or because I made this thread?

ProletariatPleb
10-08-2011, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by t260z:
Being a game about conflicting goals of good intentions and bad form doesn't mean that they'll be the same character cut and pasted over again.

That's the kind of attitude as to why people don't take games seriously. Nobody's forgetting that it's a game, it's more like people need to be reminded that a game based on such high ideas that is mostly character driven needs to step up at times.

Lol, we could make Templars like that right now:

Proud/******-defines allot of them
Snarky/******
Serial killer/******
Brat kid/******
Power/******


I'm not sure about Lucrezia. Lol, never thought about it lol...hmmm... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Edit: Thanks for the definition, MTK4

@EzioAssassin51: you're talking about hwy I said WTF, right? Or because I made this thread?

Right, sorry for not being useful.

CRUDFACE
10-08-2011, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by sidspyker24:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by t260z:
Being a game about conflicting goals of good intentions and bad form doesn't mean that they'll be the same character cut and pasted over again.

That's the kind of attitude as to why people don't take games seriously. Nobody's forgetting that it's a game, it's more like people need to be reminded that a game based on such high ideas that is mostly character driven needs to step up at times.

Lol, we could make Templars like that right now:

Proud/******-defines allot of them
Snarky/******
Serial killer/******
Brat kid/******
Power/******

I'm not sure about Lucrezia. Lol, never thought about it lol...hmmm... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Edit: Thanks for the definition, MTK4

@EzioAssassin51: you're talking about hwy I said WTF, right? Or because I made this thread?

Right, sorry for not being useful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Woah, who called you that? If I came across as that, then I'm sorry. And if I implied that, then that's my fault, I should've just worded it better.

You're another opinion, so that makes you important.

ProletariatPleb
10-08-2011, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by t260z:
Woah, who called you that? If I came across as that, then I'm sorry. And if I implied that, then that's my fault, I should've just worded it better.

You're another opinion, so that makes you important.

It's alright if you didn't mean that, but the way you said it sounded like, take your trash opinion elsewhere, lol.

CRUDFACE
10-08-2011, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by sidspyker24:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by t260z:
Woah, who called you that? If I came across as that, then I'm sorry. And if I implied that, then that's my fault, I should've just worded it better.

You're another opinion, so that makes you important.

It's alright if you didn't mean that, but the way you said it sounded like, take your trash opinion elsewhere, lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I sounded like? Wow. Well, the fact that you posted on the thread meant you took the time out to respond so yeah, thanks http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

ProletariatPleb
10-08-2011, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by t260z:

That's what I sounded like? Wow. Well, the fact that you posted on the thread meant you took the time out to respond so yeah, thanks http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif
Lol, no problem man xD

Jexx21
10-08-2011, 09:26 AM
I actually have to admit I was saddened by the lack of greyness in the AC2+ACB villains. But to tell the truth, I don't care that much.

It provides me with an insanely good story either way.

Poodle_of_Doom
10-08-2011, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
I actually have to admit I was saddened by the lack of greyness in the AC2+ACB villains. But to tell the truth, I don't care that much.

It provides me with an insanely good story either way.

I actually enjoyed that grey area emminsely.

itsamea-mario
10-08-2011, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by AkeiraXgamer:
I think power-hungry villians are realistic.

There are so many of them in the world, so you don't need proof of that.

If you wanted more grey, then you might not be in the right place. Like politics, you often are forced to choose a side and not the middleground.

Atleast, that's my philosophy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Yes but these Templars are supposed to be a brotherhood of people who's main goal is to establish a new world order free of war or injustice.
They are supposed to have noble intentions, that cover the whole world. Except the way they go about it isn't so pleasant.
We've not seen this since AC1. The enemies in AC2 seem to be in it purely for their own gain, they want more wealth or more power etc. Rodrigo himself never even hints on any world plans, he only expresses a desire for power itself.
And cesare, he just wanted dominion, he didn't even seem like a Templar at all, he never says he is nor does anything to indicate he is.

As for leandros letting ezio live. Lots of artistic licsense here.
They obviously were set to kill him, they shot him and came at him with full force. Realistically they would have fired a few arrows finished it there and then, or at least just killed him whilst he was down. You don't capture one of your greatest enemies just because he fell over, you finish the job.

I hope the Constantinople Templars are a little more sophisticated.

Calvarok
10-08-2011, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AkeiraXgamer:
I think power-hungry villians are realistic.

There are so many of them in the world, so you don't need proof of that.

If you wanted more grey, then you might not be in the right place. Like politics, you often are forced to choose a side and not the middleground.

Atleast, that's my philosophy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Yes but these Templars are supposed to be a brotherhood of people who's main goal is to establish a new world order free of war or injustice.
They are supposed to have noble intentions, that cover the whole world. Except the way they go about it isn't so pleasant.
We've not seen this since AC1. The enemies in AC2 seem to be in it purely for their own gain, they want more wealth or more power etc. Rodrigo himself never even hints on any world plans, he only expresses a desire for power itself.
And cesare, he just wanted dominion, he didn't even seem like a Templar at all, he never says he is nor does anything to indicate he is.

As for leandros letting ezio live. Lots of artistic licsense here.
They obviously were set to kill him, they shot him and came at him with full force. Realistically they would have fired a few arrows finished it there and then, or at least just killed him whilst he was down. You don't capture one of your greatest enemies just because he fell over, you finish the job.

I hope the Constantinople Templars are a little more sophisticated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Templars are very symbolic and grandiose, and "I personally hanged him from the top of the Assassin's former fortress" sounds better than "some random guard stabbed him for me."

Rodrigo was searching for power for the same reasons as other Templars, and he was convinced that he was destined to be the one to change the world and all.

Cesare didn't really care about the Templar's ideoligy, no, but that was a contrast with im and Rodrigo. He still wanted to control everything, but he wanted it because he wanted power more than anything else.

Speaking of impractical ways of confronting an assassin, wouldn't it have been stupid if there had been a target in AC1 who lured Altair into a warehouse with archers in the rafters and then DIDN'T have them shoot him and just sent soldiers to fight him hand to hand?

That would make trying to hang him look smart, now wouldn't it? ; )

LightRey
10-08-2011, 12:23 PM
Yeah, Cesare thought that he was unbeatable and destined to rule all of Italy. He thought that his rule would be the best for the world, which is not unlike the general Templar attitude, except that it's a little more egotistical.

Calvarok
10-08-2011, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Yeah, Cesare thought that he was unbeatable and destined to rule all of Italy. He thought that his rule would be the best for the world, which is not unlike the general Templar attitude, except that it's a little more egotistical.
He also genuinely believed that it was what he was supposed to do, looking back.

I think you're right, he was just a lot more self-absorbed than his Father.

One of the parts I liked of Brotherhood was that it made me feel sorry for Rodrigo when it was revealed he tried to get rid of Cesare and stop him from harassing the Assassins.

Rodrigo was not a cliche.

LightRey
10-08-2011, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Yeah, Cesare thought that he was unbeatable and destined to rule all of Italy. He thought that his rule would be the best for the world, which is not unlike the general Templar attitude, except that it's a little more egotistical.
He also genuinely believed that it was what he was supposed to do, looking back.

I think you're right, he was just a lot more self-absorbed than his Father.

One of the parts I liked of Brotherhood was that it made me feel sorry for Rodrigo when it was revealed he tried to get rid of Cesare and stop him from harassing the Assassins.

Rodrigo was not a cliche. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same here. I loved his discussion with Cesare, saying stuff like "I gave you everything, yet it was never enough.". Poor guy, even for him the decision to poison Cesare must've been a hard one.

Jexx21
10-08-2011, 12:49 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 Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Yeah, Cesare thought that he was unbeatable and destined to rule all of Italy. He thought that his rule would be the best for the world, which is not unlike the general Templar attitude, except that it's a little more egotistical.
He also genuinely believed that it was what he was supposed to do, looking back.

I think you're right, he was just a lot more self-absorbed than his Father.

One of the parts I liked of Brotherhood was that it made me feel sorry for Rodrigo when it was revealed he tried to get rid of Cesare and stop him from harassing the Assassins.

Rodrigo was not a cliche. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same here. I loved his discussion with Cesare, saying stuff like "I gave you everything, yet it was never enough.". Poor guy, even for him the decision to poison Cesare must've been a hard one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, that was really un-cliche. The Templars in AC2 and ACB may have the general appearance of being evil (probably to mainly draw in the general populace that are attracted to plain black and white stories), but they really do have a soul hidden in them deep down if you look hard enough.

LightRey
10-08-2011, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Yeah, Cesare thought that he was unbeatable and destined to rule all of Italy. He thought that his rule would be the best for the world, which is not unlike the general Templar attitude, except that it's a little more egotistical.
He also genuinely believed that it was what he was supposed to do, looking back.

I think you're right, he was just a lot more self-absorbed than his Father.

One of the parts I liked of Brotherhood was that it made me feel sorry for Rodrigo when it was revealed he tried to get rid of Cesare and stop him from harassing the Assassins.

Rodrigo was not a cliche. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same here. I loved his discussion with Cesare, saying stuff like "I gave you everything, yet it was never enough.". Poor guy, even for him the decision to poison Cesare must've been a hard one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, that was really un-cliche. The Templars in AC2 and ACB may have the general appearance of being evil (probably to mainly draw in the general populace that are attracted to plain black and white stories), but they really do have a soul hidden in them deep down if you look hard enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, I think we got to see Rodrigo on a much more personal level than in ACII.

Jexx21
10-08-2011, 12:55 PM
That's actually one of the main reasons that I have stated over and over again for liking ACB better than AC2. Better character development.

Calvarok
10-08-2011, 01:20 PM
I would agree that the Cahracters develop better on the villain side, but as for Ezio? Not really. He's more of a tertiary Badarse guy who drops in and kills everything and always knows what to do.

I liked AC2 for its development of Ezio, and his relationships with other Assassins.

masterfenix2009
10-08-2011, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them.

You must not have heard many stupid things then mate. I don't remember sympathising with the men I was about to assassinate. I think it makes sense not to sympathise or care about them though. Altair and Ezio don't, they just want to kill them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sorry,but that simply isn't even true. Altair DEFINITELY cared and sympathized with the Templars. Ezio started caring near the end of AC2.

As a response to the OP, the reasons that the Templars may look cliche to you is because your on the Assassin's side. At least it was the reason for AC2. Ezio had his family killed. So he would look at it with a view of hatred. He would just think this when he saw Templars.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ilpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ) It wasn't till the end of AC2 that he started looking at the bigger picture. Especially during the Savanorola DLC.

Jexx21
10-08-2011, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
I would agree that the Cahracters develop better on the villain side, but as for Ezio? Not really. He's more of a tertiary Badarse guy who drops in and kills everything and always knows what to do.

I liked AC2 for its development of Ezio, and his relationships with other Assassins.

I felt that his relationships with the other Assassins outside of Mario were very shallow in AC2. I personally think that ACB also developed Ezio's character more also, into a leader figure, whether he wanted the position or not.

LordWolv
10-08-2011, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
I would agree that the Cahracters develop better on the villain side, but as for Ezio? Not really. He's more of a tertiary Badarse guy who drops in and kills everything and always knows what to do.

I liked AC2 for its development of Ezio, and his relationships with other Assassins.
Seconded.

Poodle_of_Doom
10-08-2011, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them.

You must not have heard many stupid things then mate. I don't remember sympathising with the men I was about to assassinate. I think it makes sense not to sympathise or care about them though. Altair and Ezio don't, they just want to kill them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sorry,but that simply isn't even true. Altair DEFINITELY cared and sympathized with the Templars. Ezio started caring near the end of AC2.

As a response to the OP, the reasons that the Templars may look cliche to you is because your on the Assassin's side. At least it was the reason for AC2. Ezio had his family killed. So he would look at it with a view of hatred. He would just think this when he saw Templars.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ilpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ) It wasn't till the end of AC2 that he started looking at the bigger picture. Especially during the Savanorola DLC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This actually makes a whole lot of sense to me.... The whole bit about it being cliche based upon the characters view makes sense.

Calvarok
10-08-2011, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them.

You must not have heard many stupid things then mate. I don't remember sympathising with the men I was about to assassinate. I think it makes sense not to sympathise or care about them though. Altair and Ezio don't, they just want to kill them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sorry,but that simply isn't even true. Altair DEFINITELY cared and sympathized with the Templars. Ezio started caring near the end of AC2.

As a response to the OP, the reasons that the Templars may look cliche to you is because your on the Assassin's side. At least it was the reason for AC2. Ezio had his family killed. So he would look at it with a view of hatred. He would just think this when he saw Templars.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ilpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ) It wasn't till the end of AC2 that he started looking at the bigger picture. Especially during the Savanorola DLC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This actually makes a whole lot of sense to me.... The whole bit about it being cliche based upon the characters view makes sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ezio wasn't mindless in his killing. He understood their motivations, and gave them as much respect in death as Altair did, after Vieri.

He had to kill so many people, but he never stopped trying to understand why they did what they did.

CRUDFACE
10-08-2011, 06:21 PM
@itsamea-mario: yup http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif why wouldn't you kill your archenemy who keeps single handedly reviving the orders, saving them and destroying your entire order at the same time?

@EzioAssassin51: Sorry, I never answered your question, lol. I've been called stupid and idiotic and other things on here before. Nobody said anything before, why start now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Basically, the only reason a punch of people said calling others stupid was bad was because when he said "stupid" they thought he was calling their ideas stupid, which was the reason they kept saying it was so wrong to do that.

Which is why I said WTF.


Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them.

You must not have heard many stupid things then mate. I don't remember sympathising with the men I was about to assassinate. I think it makes sense not to sympathise or care about them though. Altair and Ezio don't, they just want to kill them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sorry,but that simply isn't even true. Altair DEFINITELY cared and sympathized with the Templars. Ezio started caring near the end of AC2.

As a response to the OP, the reasons that the Templars may look cliche to you is because your on the Assassin's side. At least it was the reason for AC2. Ezio had his family killed. So he would look at it with a view of hatred. He would just think this when he saw Templars.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ilpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ) It wasn't till the end of AC2 that he started looking at the bigger picture. Especially during the Savanorola DLC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This actually makes a whole lot of sense to me.... The whole bit about it being cliche based upon the characters view makes sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ezio wasn't mindless in his killing. He understood their motivations, and gave them as much respect in death as Altair did, after Vieri.

He had to kill so many people, but he never stopped trying to understand why they did what they did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no, he didn't, the gamescom demo shows that he didn't when compared to Altair. The target basically says one line, Ezio says a philosophical (kind of corny at times) one liner, then he says rest in peace.

If it's based on the characters view, why was it different based in AC1? Altair saw opposing views just fine.

Cesare was basically the same, but I like the little moments where he talked and conversed with his father.

LightRey
10-08-2011, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by t260z:
@itsamea-mario: yup http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif why wouldn't you kill your archenemy who keeps single handedly reviving the orders, saving them and destroying your entire order at the same time?

@EzioAssassin51: Sorry, I never answered your question, lol. I've been called stupid and idiotic and other things on here before. Nobody said anything before, why start now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Basically, the only reason a punch of people said calling others stupid was bad was because when he said "stupid" they thought he was calling their ideas stupid, which was the reason they kept saying it was so wrong to do that.

Which is why I said WTF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them.

You must not have heard many stupid things then mate. I don't remember sympathising with the men I was about to assassinate. I think it makes sense not to sympathise or care about them though. Altair and Ezio don't, they just want to kill them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sorry,but that simply isn't even true. Altair DEFINITELY cared and sympathized with the Templars. Ezio started caring near the end of AC2.

As a response to the OP, the reasons that the Templars may look cliche to you is because your on the Assassin's side. At least it was the reason for AC2. Ezio had his family killed. So he would look at it with a view of hatred. He would just think this when he saw Templars.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ilpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ) It wasn't till the end of AC2 that he started looking at the bigger picture. Especially during the Savanorola DLC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This actually makes a whole lot of sense to me.... The whole bit about it being cliche based upon the characters view makes sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ezio wasn't mindless in his killing. He understood their motivations, and gave them as much respect in death as Altair did, after Vieri.

He had to kill so many people, but he never stopped trying to understand why they did what they did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no, he didn't, the gamescom demo shows that he didn't when compared to Altair. The target basically says one line, Ezio says a philosophical (kind of corny at times) one liner, then he says rest in peace.

If it's based on the characters view, why was it different based in AC1? Altair saw opposing views just fine.

Cesare was basically the same, but I like the little moments where he talked and conversed with his father. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The gamescom demo didn't show anything. They skipped his talk with Leandros.

Calvarok
10-08-2011, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by t260z:
@itsamea-mario: yup http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif why wouldn't you kill your archenemy who keeps single handedly reviving the orders, saving them and destroying your entire order at the same time?

@EzioAssassin51: Sorry, I never answered your question, lol. I've been called stupid and idiotic and other things on here before. Nobody said anything before, why start now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Basically, the only reason a punch of people said calling others stupid was bad was because when he said "stupid" they thought he was calling their ideas stupid, which was the reason they kept saying it was so wrong to do that.

Which is why I said WTF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them.

You must not have heard many stupid things then mate. I don't remember sympathising with the men I was about to assassinate. I think it makes sense not to sympathise or care about them though. Altair and Ezio don't, they just want to kill them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sorry,but that simply isn't even true. Altair DEFINITELY cared and sympathized with the Templars. Ezio started caring near the end of AC2.

As a response to the OP, the reasons that the Templars may look cliche to you is because your on the Assassin's side. At least it was the reason for AC2. Ezio had his family killed. So he would look at it with a view of hatred. He would just think this when he saw Templars.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ilpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ) It wasn't till the end of AC2 that he started looking at the bigger picture. Especially during the Savanorola DLC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This actually makes a whole lot of sense to me.... The whole bit about it being cliche based upon the characters view makes sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ezio wasn't mindless in his killing. He understood their motivations, and gave them as much respect in death as Altair did, after Vieri.

He had to kill so many people, but he never stopped trying to understand why they did what they did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no, he didn't, the gamescom demo shows that he didn't when compared to Altair. The target basically says one line, Ezio says a philosophical (kind of corny at times) one liner, then he says rest in peace.

If it's based on the characters view, why was it different based in AC1? Altair saw opposing views just fine.

Cesare was basically the same, but I like the little moments where he talked and conversed with his father. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gamescom Demo indeed skipped his final talk with Leandros, and also Ezio is getting old, and has spent his whole life killing those who try to impose their will on others. Leandros is probably one of the most obviously past the pint of return people. He is totally vile. He killed his own man to try to stop Ezio. Ezio is just getting sick of Templars.

Whatever their rationing, they objectively deserve to take responsibility for what they've done.

Ezio's conversations with his victims were sometimes shorter, but with those he spent more time tracking and chasing, he generally had an actually meaningful discussion with them.

And even his short ones had at least 3 exchanges.

Less said about the Templar Agents the better.

Jexx21
10-08-2011, 08:39 PM
The Templar agents were just side missions anyway, given to Ezio through one of his recruits that met with Fiora to get a list of Templars.

and thinking about that made me realize I haven't played Project Legacy yet today.

CRUDFACE
10-08-2011, 11:04 PM
@Lightrey: didn't they skip the talk they had while alive? But not the one when they died? Oh well, I hope I'm wrong on that.

@Calvarok: I never said they shouldn't take responsibility for what they've done. And their exchanges usually consists

Sorry, the first exchange is just Ezio asking why he did, he tells him, then he says rest in Peace. It's changed usually for the final kill, like Cesare and Rodrigo

And did you mean "past the point of no return" above?



Originally posted by Jexx21:
The Templar agents were just side missions anyway, given to Ezio through one of his recruits that met with Fiora to get a list of Templars.

and thinking about that made me realize I haven't played Project Legacy yet today.

The game only had three targets and the templar agents are supposed to be special or at least doing something. None of them are memorable in place of actually killing Templars.

They don't even say anything at their deaths.

Plus AC:B was basically nothing but side missions. That game lived on them.

masterfenix2009
10-08-2011, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like t260z said in the beginning, the templars are nothing like they were in the first game. Granted they were still evil, but you could almost sympathise with them.

You must not have heard many stupid things then mate. I don't remember sympathising with the men I was about to assassinate. I think it makes sense not to sympathise or care about them though. Altair and Ezio don't, they just want to kill them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sorry,but that simply isn't even true. Altair DEFINITELY cared and sympathized with the Templars. Ezio started caring near the end of AC2.

As a response to the OP, the reasons that the Templars may look cliche to you is because your on the Assassin's side. At least it was the reason for AC2. Ezio had his family killed. So he would look at it with a view of hatred. He would just think this when he saw Templars.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ilpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a6ucZsJQxbQ) It wasn't till the end of AC2 that he started looking at the bigger picture. Especially during the Savanorola DLC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This actually makes a whole lot of sense to me.... The whole bit about it being cliche based upon the characters view makes sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ezio wasn't mindless in his killing. He understood their motivations, and gave them as much respect in death as Altair did, after Vieri.

He had to kill so many people, but he never stopped trying to understand why they did what they did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I never said he was mindless. I think he just looked at them as villanous till the Savanorola missions.

@t260 They parts of the conversation before and after.

EzioAssassin51
10-09-2011, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by t260z:
@EzioAssassin51: Sorry, I never answered your question, lol. I've been called stupid and idiotic and other things on here before. Nobody said anything before, why start now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Basically, the only reason a punch of people said calling others stupid was bad was because when he said "stupid" they thought he was calling their ideas stupid, which was the reason they kept saying it was so wrong to do that.

Ahh ok, I thought you were confused as to what Lightrey was talking about when he said not to bag the other guy's ideas.

Also, in regards to the narky thing, I was just wondering based on some of your previous posts that sounded a little angry... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


But anyway, to be honest, I liked the tension between the Pope and Cesare and Lucrezia in ACB. I didn't find that corny at all when I look back on it. I just played through the SP again and I still love it. I still take the game seriously. I don't think they're corny at all. Sure nothing is really in depth about some of them, but they do talk to Ezio a bit about their motives and Ezio sort of tries to tell them what was bad about their motives before the die. Like the Baron d' Valoi (sp?) Ezio is telling him about true leadership or whatever...

CRUDFACE
10-09-2011, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by t260z:
@EzioAssassin51: Sorry, I never answered your question, lol. I've been called stupid and idiotic and other things on here before. Nobody said anything before, why start now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Basically, the only reason a punch of people said calling others stupid was bad was because when he said "stupid" they thought he was calling their ideas stupid, which was the reason they kept saying it was so wrong to do that.

Ahh ok, I thought you were confused as to what Lightrey was talking about when he said not to bag the other guy's ideas.

Also, in regards to the narky thing, I was just wondering based on some of your previous posts that sounded a little angry... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


But anyway, to be honest, I liked the tension between the Pope and Cesare and Lucrezia in ACB. I didn't find that corny at all when I look back on it. I just played through the SP again and I still love it. I still take the game seriously. I don't think they're corny at all. Sure nothing is really in depth about some of them, but they do talk to Ezio a bit about their motives and Ezio sort of tries to tell them what was bad about their motives before the die. Like the Baron d' Valoi (sp?) Ezio is telling him about true leadership or whatever... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, yeah, I only meant that at the hypocritical stuff and your like the second person on this thread to say that about the way I sound. Maybe I should put more smily faces in my posts?

Nah, then I'd just be spamming them

But yes, they gave them nice character development and we actually followed them. She was in the DLC for AC:B as well, very nice.

It's true about depth. It's just one of the pillars of the game that have been lost in my eyes and a few others.

Someone once said in a review of AC2 that it was "a revenge plot, run straight through with killing with no twists and turns and then a hook to draw you into the next game."

While I don't agree with it all the way through, it did show how the series lost something.

About the Braon thing, I know, I just plyaed through that part. Lol, I wish the Ac series had a replay "Entire Sequence" function instead of just playing one at a time.

With that it was the same to me, the baron wanted respect by using...disrespectful means, then Ezio says something philosophical or all knowing and he does he needs more time as he gives him his farewell.

I hope Revelations has Ezio actually in some tough situations instead of such clear cut things to do. Like with Manuel and working so close with royalty

thekarlone
10-09-2011, 10:30 PM
What you argument don't makes much sense. That is precisely the profile of a Templar, who seeks power at any price. If they want to be kind or other good purposes wouldn't be a Templar. In fact that's the real reason they succeeded and developed the Temple.

The reason to kill one way or another is because then there were some rituals and codes that are now difficult to understand, we are more gross.

naran6142
10-09-2011, 11:29 PM
nice sig dude ^ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

CRUDFACE
10-10-2011, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by thekarlone:
What you argument don't makes much sense. That is precisely the profile of a Templar, who seeks power at any price. If they want to be kind or other good purposes wouldn't be a Templar. In fact that's the real reason they succeeded and developed the Temple.

The reason to kill one way or another is because then there were some rituals and codes that are now difficult to understand, we are more gross.

Yes, to seek power at any price but with a goal. Think of having an allegiance, like neutral or chaotic and good and such. Now, the Templars were supposed to basically be Lawful now they're just dipping down into the Chaotic territory. The Templars we've seen don't share the dream of the New World. Instead they just want power for the sake of power.

And yes, you could be a Templar as long as you share the dream, but it's now basically become the dark side in the AC franchise while Assassin's are the "good" people.

@naran6142: he does have a cool sig, doesn't he http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif