PDA

View Full Version : Animus



jeremy54321
04-17-2011, 12:12 AM
How do you think Desmond sees Ezio or Altair in the animus. Do you think its third-person or first?

Xanatos2007
04-17-2011, 12:54 AM
*sigh* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pS9turIoPI) First, although the games portray it in 3rd for convenience.

Now come back when you learn how to apply common sense.

Abeonis
04-17-2011, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
*sigh* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pS9turIoPI) First, although the games portray it in 3rd for convenience.

Now come back when you learn how to apply common sense.

Erm, before you start calling people idiots and suggest the use of common sense, I'll point out that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest Desmond sees his ancestors memories in anything but third person.

What source do you have explicitly stating he views the memories in first person? Because every single game so far has them being viewed over-the-shoulder.

itsamea-mario
04-17-2011, 09:08 AM
When was the last time you remembered viewing yourself in third person.

The animus allows someone to view the memories of their ancestors.
Unless Desmonds ancestors had eyes that floated about 4ft behind their head, then desmond couldn't possibly be viewing them in 3rd person.

The only source he needs is a prmary school science text book, which will quite clearly tell you that humans see with their eyes, and that said eyes are located at the front of your head.

The reason the game is in third person, is because it's a game, and third person is alot better for this style of game.

So yes the OP is an idiot, and so are you for backing him up.

El_Sjietah
04-17-2011, 09:46 AM
When you see your ancestors through the bleeding effect, you don't see it happening through their eyes either, so you might want to be careful accepting either side as proven fact.

itsamea-mario
04-17-2011, 09:53 AM
Yes you do.
who's elses are you going to be seeing it through exactly.
Desmonds real ancestor who was 9 ft tall and constantly followed ezio around?

El_Sjietah
04-17-2011, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
Yes you do.
who's elses are you going to be seeing it through exactly.
Desmonds real ancestor who was 9 ft tall and constantly followed ezio around?

When you first arrive in Monterigionni as Desmond, you follow an apparition of Ezio. You don't see what happened from Ezio's PoV, you see him as if you were a spectator.

Common sense dictates you view the memories in first person, but because of the nature of the bleeding effect, it doesn't hold up anymore.

itsamea-mario
04-17-2011, 11:57 AM
I call that the devs getting confused.
Like halfway through a book the writer registers the naration as a character.

Now explain to me exactly how he'd manage to view memories in third person.
The bleeding effect is pretty much the same as the animus by the way.

phil.llllll
04-17-2011, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
*sigh* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pS9turIoPI) First, although the games portray it in 3rd for convenience.

Now come back when you learn how to apply common sense.

Good way to welcome someone who's new here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And I think you should use some of that common sense yourself. This is a video game we're talking about here where we can relive ancestors lives by being strapped into a magic chair. Rules of logic don't apply.

Also, El_Sjietah made a good point.

Abeonis
04-17-2011, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
When was the last time you remembered viewing yourself in third person.

The animus allows someone to view the memories of their ancestors.
Unless Desmonds ancestors had eyes that floated about 4ft behind their head, then desmond couldn't possibly be viewing them in 3rd person.

The only source he needs is a prmary school science text book, which will quite clearly tell you that humans see with their eyes, and that said eyes are located at the front of your head.

The reason the game is in third person, is because it's a game, and third person is alot better for this style of game.

So yes the OP is an idiot, and so are you for backing him up.

Desmond is viewing what his ancestor's saw, he's viewing what they remember. If you can only remember what is directly in front of your own two eyes, and not what's exists behind and around you, you exist with a very limited capacity of thought.



The bleeding effect is pretty much the same as the animus by the way.

No. That's like saying chemotherapy and cancer are the same thing...

Once again, I highly suggest you don't go around insulting people when you don't understand the facts.

itsamea-mario
04-17-2011, 12:29 PM
Shaun: "... won't need the animus to relive your ancestors memories, that wouldn't be such a bad thing..." (or something like that)
Meaning basically, ancestors memories 'bleed' through to the subjects own. much like the animus does.

Yeah i remember knowing what's behind me, and sort of sensing whats around, but you know what (without the aid of a camera or mirrors) i have absoloutly no idea what the back of my head looks like, and i have no memories of myself in third person.
yes i can think what my back looks like, but that's very different from seeing it.

Some logic does still apply, the game toys with ideas that aren't entirely impossible, very unlikely but not impossible.
It however still resides within the bounds of reality (minus ancient gods) in the way the eyes work, and how visual memory works.

Abeonis
04-17-2011, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
Shaun: "... won't need the animus to relive your ancestors memories, that wouldn't be such a bad thing..." (or something like that)
Meaning basically, ancestors memories 'bleed' through to the subjects own. much like the animus does.

No, the Animus is a catylst for the bleeding effect, not the same thing. The Animus allows you to see the genetic memories of your ancestor in a controlled fashion; whereas the bleeding effect is when your memories, and those of your ancestors merge together.



Yeah i remember knowing what's behind me, and sort of sensing whats around, but you know what (without the aid of a camera or mirrors) i have absoloutly no idea what the back of my head looks like, and i have no memories of myself in third person.
yes i can think what my back looks like, but that's very different from seeing it.


Once again, you're not seeing what your ancestor saw, you're seeing what he remembers. You can remember if you have long or short hair, if you're wearing a hoodie or not, can't you?

AronAssassin68
04-17-2011, 12:40 PM
Itsamea_Mario is right in all ways.

El_Sjietah: Het is toch logisch dat je als je herinneringen van een van je voorouders bekijkt dat je die ziet zoals hij ze zag, aangezien ze in je dna zitten zoals het is doorgegeven door henzelf?

Black_Widow9
04-17-2011, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
*sigh* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pS9turIoPI) First, although the games portray it in 3rd for convenience.

Now come back when you learn how to apply common sense.

This is no way to welcome someone to the Forums. If you have nothing constructive to say please don't post.
Thanks

itsamea-mario
04-17-2011, 12:52 PM
^^ i like this guy, i think.

Anyway, yeah i remember what i think i look like, that's different.
The animus shows the memories of what the ancestor SAW, 3rd person is a gameplay mechanic.

The animus provides an interface for a controlled method for viewing an ancestors memories.
The bleeding affect just goes straight ahead and makes you remember them as you would do it normally.
They both acheive the same goals.

UrDeviant1
04-17-2011, 01:28 PM
Nobody likes a smart arse Mario, you spend to much time on this damn forum.

lilbacchant
04-17-2011, 01:34 PM
Common-sense would obviously suggest the memories should be first-person.

However, the game developers have given us some suggestions/implications (note: I didn't say proof) that first-person isn't necessarily always the case.

As El_Sjietah and others mentioned, some of the bleeding-effect memories seem far removed from first-person. And at the end of AC2, when Minerva first addresses Desmond, she looks over Ezio's shoulder as if she were addressing a ... third person.

It's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that the non first-person stuff* is purely for dramatic effect. Either way, I personally don't see it as a big deal compared to all of the other bombshells AC:B threw at us.

*[The presentation of memories inside the animus are influenced by the puppeteering interface.]

Abeonis
04-17-2011, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by lilbacchant:
As El_Sjietah and others mentioned, some of the bleeding-effect memories seem far removed from first-person. And at the end of AC2, when Minerva first addresses Desmond, she looks over Ezio's shoulder as if she were addressing a ... third person.


Actually, you've hit the nail directly on the head. If Desmond was viewing things from a first-person POV, Minerva would've looked directly at Ezio as she spoke to him; she didn't, she look towards the camera.

I would say this is enough proof to confirm Desmond is viewing the genetic memories from a third-person perspective.

Thank you.

ThaWhistle
04-17-2011, 11:12 PM
the animus is a puppeteering device.

Desmond is viewing through the third person, as we are desmond. the reasoning for this? play AC1, the head button puts you in first person, however.

for further proof, ill refer back to anyhting abeonis has said in this thread.

xsatanicjokerx
04-18-2011, 12:33 AM
I donít know about you guys but when I remember something especially older memories I "see" them in 3rd person. Thatís because I donít just remember what I see but also what feel, hear, smell etc. So if I remember myself being angry I see not just whatís making me angry but also my angry face.

Ureh
04-18-2011, 01:20 AM
Both sides seem to make sense. I guess we can't be too sure because they lead us to believe both ways are how we view memories in the Animus.

It makes sense that when you review an ancestor's memories that you'll see it from their point of view. It's sorta like a camcorder... But it's hard to play this type of game through 1st person. And it's hard to be cinematic if all the cutscenes are always from 1st person. Also when the camera moves around to show the platforming solutions it kinda doesn't make sense why that would be in the memory. Which makes me think 3rd person is just for gameplay and to create certain effects.

Also when Altair impregnates Maria, Desmond was like "Hey, why aren't I following Altair?" And I guess he was outside the entire time viewing the memory through camera mode. Then he went into Maria's womb... not sure how he would view the memories from in there. Third or first? The Minerva idea and puppet theory support 3rd person too.

It could be that when Minerva was looking at the camera that she wanted to address other people as well. We know that Lucy, Shawn, and Rebecca can see what Desmond sees. Perhaps they're all crucial to Desmond's success. or maybe she knew there was a traitor in their midst and wanted to unnerve them.

El_Sjietah
04-18-2011, 08:24 AM
Personally, I'd say they're leaving this one vague on purpose, because it works better the way it is from a gameplay/storytelling perspective.

I don't think they put as much thought in it and if they did, decided to ignore it, because the major audience wouldn't notice anyway.

And they were right to do so imo.

ThaWhistle
04-18-2011, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Personally, I'd say they're leaving this one vague on purpose, because it works better the way it is from a gameplay/storytelling perspective.

I don't think they put as much thought in it and if they did, decided to ignore it, because the major audience wouldn't notice anyway.

And they were right to do so imo.

they dont leave it vague, its in the third person.

El_Sjietah
04-18-2011, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Personally, I'd say they're leaving this one vague on purpose, because it works better the way it is from a gameplay/storytelling perspective.

I don't think they put as much thought in it and if they did, decided to ignore it, because the major audience wouldn't notice anyway.

And they were right to do so imo.

they dont leave it vague, its in the third person. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are 2 possibilities here:

- It really is third person, but they don't explain why it's different from the logical first person.

- It is in fact first person, but they don't explain why the bleeding effect is how it is.

Either way, they don't explain why they stray from the logical conclusion, so either way, it's vague.

ION_05
04-18-2011, 12:53 PM
Also don't forget that all the animus does is create a virtual reality of the events that happened during the ancestors life, so its easily explainable why its in the third person.

itsamea-mario
04-18-2011, 01:16 PM
What-evs.

Howabout everybody's right and we can all go hand in had and frollick through meadows of buttercups together in jovial delight...

magesupermaster
04-18-2011, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
What-evs.

Howabout everybody's right and we can all go hand in had and frollick through meadows of buttercups together in jovial delight...
I agree with Mario. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

ThaWhistle
04-18-2011, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Personally, I'd say they're leaving this one vague on purpose, because it works better the way it is from a gameplay/storytelling perspective.

I don't think they put as much thought in it and if they did, decided to ignore it, because the major audience wouldn't notice anyway.

And they were right to do so imo.

they dont leave it vague, its in the third person. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are 2 possibilities here:

- It really is third person, but they don't explain why it's different from the logical first person.

- It is in fact first person, but they don't explain why the bleeding effect is how it is.

Either way, they don't explain why they stray from the logical conclusion, so either way, it's vague. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its pretty obvious actually. you are in the third person, you are desmond, minerva addresses empty space, that we are viewing from, ezio looks around in confusion, the animus controls the ancestor via a puppeteering system. you are not strictly reliving the memories, you have basic outside control. In the first game, you didnt take damage, you lost synchronization. the animus shows all the data in the third person.

elvindrummer
04-18-2011, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Personally, I'd say they're leaving this one vague on purpose, because it works better the way it is from a gameplay/storytelling perspective.

I don't think they put as much thought in it and if they did, decided to ignore it, because the major audience wouldn't notice anyway.

And they were right to do so imo.

they dont leave it vague, its in the third person. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are 2 possibilities here:

- It really is third person, but they don't explain why it's different from the logical first person.

- It is in fact first person, but they don't explain why the bleeding effect is how it is.

Either way, they don't explain why they stray from the logical conclusion, so either way, it's vague. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its pretty obvious actually. you are in the third person, you are desmond, minerva addresses empty space, that we are viewing from, ezio looks around in confusion, the animus controls the ancestor via a puppeteering system. you are not strictly reliving the memories, you have basic outside control. In the first game, you didnt take damage, you lost synchronization. the animus shows all the data in the third person. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea I always thought it was first but this makes a lot of sense since she does look beyond ezio at desemond and he says "she looked just at me" or w/e. So maybe it is third. or at times it is third.

El_Sjietah
04-18-2011, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:

its pretty obvious actually. you are in the third person, you are desmond, minerva addresses empty space, that we are viewing from, ezio looks around in confusion, the animus controls the ancestor via a puppeteering system. you are not strictly reliving the memories, you have basic outside control. In the first game, you didnt take damage, you lost synchronization. the animus shows all the data in the third person.

One example doesn't prove a theory. Your example is an example of my first point.
An example of my second point would be all the stuff you can see happening through the bleeding effect, that your ancestor never got to see directly. A person can't visually record what he can't see, so he can't remember what he can't see.

Like I said: They put reasoning aside and went with what worked best from a gameplay/storytelling perspective.

ThaWhistle
04-18-2011, 06:11 PM
desmond having hallucinations through the bleeding effect would probably be explained that his conciousness is recalling memories of ezio when desmond comes across things they both have seen/are seeing. theoretically the sights not seen can be remembered via hearing or smell or the like, I can hear people talking outside right now, but I cant see them, but I know they are there, etc.

and I gave more than one example. the end of AC2 and the entire gameplay mechanic of AC1.


obviously there is creative license taken with the entire idea of the game, but there is nothing in the game to suggest the animus works in first person, ONLY that it works in the third person, except in the instance the head button is used to look through the eyes of the ancestor, as is the case in AC1.

lilbacchant
04-18-2011, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Ureh:
Then he went into Maria's womb... not sure how he would view the memories from in there. Third or first?

Hah! That'd make a great Easter Egg!

--
Desmond gets in the animus.

Loading screen appears as Rebecca loads a DNA sequence.

Then all we see is a black screen and hear a loud heartbeat.

Rebecca: "Oops. A little too early."

Loading screen reappears and the 'cursor' moves farther up the chain.

Ancestor's memory begins to materialize normally (environment starts 'building', etc.).

Rebecca: "Yep, that's better."
--

El_Sjietah
04-19-2011, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
desmond having hallucinations through the bleeding effect would probably be explained that his conciousness is recalling memories of ezio when desmond comes across things they both have seen/are seeing. theoretically the sights not seen can be remembered via hearing or smell or the like, I can hear people talking outside right now, but I cant see them, but I know they are there, etc.

You know they are there, but you don't know what they look like. I can hear someone walk behind me, but until I turn around, I have no idea how to visualise him. Still, this happens all the time through the bleeding effect.


and I gave more than one example. the end of AC2 and the entire gameplay mechanic of AC1.

Tbh, I see no connection between the premise of losing sync because you got damaged where Altair didn't IRL and what parts of an event a person can visually remember.

The other example is the one I already addressed.



obviously there is creative license taken with the entire idea of the game, but there is nothing in the game to suggest the animus works in first person, ONLY that it works in the third person, except in the instance the head button is used to look through the eyes of the ancestor, as is the case in AC1.

Common sense still dictates that you relive memories in first person, so until they give us an explanation why it isn't that way ingame OR they explicitly state that you relive your memories in third person, one can still argue that it's a gameplay decision without in-universe argumentation to back it up.

itsamea-mario
04-19-2011, 11:34 AM
Erm El_Sjietah, what are saying now 3rd, 1st neutral on topic, i'm confused.

Well sure you will sense what's around you, via 3D planes of hearing, smells and other such sensations. And they will be in desmonds head. "Live and breathe as ezio auditore" which is what desmond does.
He can 'sense' what's around him but he can't 'see' it. but obviously you as the player cannot sense what's in the ancestors proximity. So to compensate for this they make the game 3rd person, so we have an idea of what Ezio/Desmond is sensing. at least that's what i think.

No, stop! Frollick through fields etc....

ThaWhistle
04-19-2011, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ThaWhistle:

its pretty obvious actually. you are in the third person, you are desmond, minerva addresses empty space, that we are viewing from, ezio looks around in confusion, the animus controls the ancestor via a puppeteering system. you are not strictly reliving the memories, you have basic outside control. In the first game, you didnt take damage, you lost synchronization. the animus shows all the data in the third person.

One example doesn't prove a theory. Your example is an example of my first point.
An example of my second point would be all the stuff you can see happening through the bleeding effect, that your ancestor never got to see directly. A person can't visually record what he can't see, so he can't remember what he can't see.

Like I said: They put reasoning aside and went with what worked best from a gameplay/storytelling perspective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you even play the first game? the losing synch thing had nothing to do with whether it was third or first person, but instead had to do with the mechanics of hte animus.

The entire game was third person, the animus showed ALL events in third person, UNLESS you hit the head button, which then put you in first person. I sound like a broken record at this point but the evidence in the first game is overwhelming that the Animus shows memories in the third person.


common sense would indeed dictate that you have memories in first person, but this is a game where all sorts of common sense and etc go out the window, its a work of fiction, so common sense doesn't acutally apply here.

El_Sjietah
04-20-2011, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:

Did you even play the first game? the losing synch thing had nothing to do with whether it was third or first person, but instead had to do with the mechanics of hte animus.

The entire game was third person, the animus showed ALL events in third person, UNLESS you hit the head button, which then put you in first person. I sound like a broken record at this point but the evidence in the first game is overwhelming that the Animus shows memories in the third person.


common sense would indeed dictate that you have memories in first person, but this is a game where all sorts of common sense and etc go out the window, its a work of fiction, so common sense doesn't acutally apply here.

It's still fiction based on the real world, so any conclusions we can draw based on real world deductions, still apply in game unless specifically told otherwise.

This, combined with the rest of your post, pretty much says exactly what I've been saying at the start of this argument, so let's just cut it off here.

ThaWhistle
04-20-2011, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ThaWhistle:

Did you even play the first game? the losing synch thing had nothing to do with whether it was third or first person, but instead had to do with the mechanics of hte animus.

The entire game was third person, the animus showed ALL events in third person, UNLESS you hit the head button, which then put you in first person. I sound like a broken record at this point but the evidence in the first game is overwhelming that the Animus shows memories in the third person.


common sense would indeed dictate that you have memories in first person, but this is a game where all sorts of common sense and etc go out the window, its a work of fiction, so common sense doesn't acutally apply here.

It's still fiction based on the real world, so any conclusions we can draw based on real world deductions, still apply in game unless specifically told otherwise.

This, combined with the rest of your post, pretty much says exactly what I've been saying at the start of this argument, so let's just cut it off here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isn't exactly what you've been saying. You seem to be of the opinion it could be either because we haven't ben told one way or the other. But we have.

El_Sjietah
04-20-2011, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:

It isn't exactly what you've been saying. You seem to be of the opinion it could be either because we haven't ben told one way or the other. But we have.

Quote it for me then.

ThaWhistle
04-20-2011, 02:25 PM
its early in there. the thing with the head button.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n21LBD54cnU

you play in third person because its easier to control, why would that not be the same for the animus? there is no contrary evidence to show that desmond uses the animus in first person. ever. there IS plenty of evidence to show it is in third person.
http://www.amazon.com/Assassin...id=1303330711&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Creed-Xbox-360/dp/B000P46NMK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303330711&sr=8-1)
http://www.amazon.com/Assassin...HQ7S/ref=pd_sim_vg_2 (http://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Creed-Brotherhood-Xbox-360/dp/B003L8HQ7S/ref=pd_sim_vg_2)
http://www.amazon.com/Assassin...DXCK/ref=pd_sim_vg_1 (http://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Creed-II-Xbox-360/dp/B00269DXCK/ref=pd_sim_vg_1)

They might not expressly say, but it is observable and there is never any reason to doubt it would be otherwise. They never say flat out Leonardo and whats his face were butt buddies, but it is implied just the same.

itsamea-mario
04-20-2011, 02:34 PM
I find your world with magical floating eyes very interesting.

ThaWhistle
04-20-2011, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
I find your world with magical floating eyes very interesting.

that would explain why you stick around at a forum about a game where you follow around fake dead people with floating eyes

El_Sjietah
04-20-2011, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:

They might not expressly say, but it is observable and there is never any reason to doubt it would be otherwise.

Except deductive reasoning...

I'm not saying it's definately first person, but saying it's definately third person is premature all the same.


They never say flat out Leonardo and whats his face were butt buddies, but it is implied just the same.

Academics would laugh in your face if you made such a claim based on the amount of evidence that's provided in ACB.

Sure, it's implied, but that doesn't make it fact.

ThaWhistle
04-20-2011, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ThaWhistle:

They might not expressly say, but it is observable and there is never any reason to doubt it would be otherwise.

Except deductive reasoning...

I'm not saying it's definately first person, but saying it's definately third person is premature all the same.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So where is ANY information to show that desmond views memories in the animus in the first person, except for in a few instances as stated by the video I posted?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They never say flat out Leonardo and whats his face were butt buddies, but it is implied just the same.

Academics would laugh in your face if you made such a claim based on the amount of evidence that's provided in ACB.

Sure, it's implied, but that doesn't make it fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
non sequitor much? The point of that argument is that based on information FROM THE GAME you can indeed deduce certain facts about the games universe. historians would have a laugh at nearly half ofthe stuff in this game. But again, its an irrelevent arguement.

itsamea-mario
04-20-2011, 02:55 PM
Well i suppose the evidence would be that people see through there eyes. You cannot 'See' what can't reflect light into your eye.

I know it's Sci Fi, and they like to play around with science, but there are some things that they just can't change, such as eyes.
That's why ezio didn't just grow rockets and fire lazers at everyone with the justification of "oh it's sci fi we can do what we want."

ThaWhistle
04-20-2011, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
I know it's Sci Fi, and they like to play around with science, but there are some things that they just can't change, such as eyes.

clearly they can and they do. this game takes alot of liberties with science, history, philosophies, etc.

common sense should make you think the idea of a global millennia old conspiracy hell bent on controlling humanity with ancient shiny glowy artfacts is a load of crap as well.

El_Sjietah
04-20-2011, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:

non sequitor much? The point of that argument is that based on information FROM THE GAME you can indeed deduce certain facts about the games universe. historians would have a laugh at nearly half ofthe stuff in this game. But again, its an irrelevent arguement.

So what you're saying is, that if there's a record IRL, about two persons having a casual conversation, in which one of them makes an indirect comment about the other having a male lover, to which the other responds with neither denying or acknowledging it, we can consider it to be true?


Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
clearly they can and they do. this game takes alot of liberties with science, history, philosophies, etc.

common sense should make you think the idea of a global millennia old conspiracy hell bent on controlling humanity with ancient shiny glowy artfacts is a load of crap as well.

The difference being that we're specifically told there's a global millennia old conspiracy hell bent on controlling humanity with ancient shiny glowy artfacts.

They can hint at it all they want, but unless they specifically state it or it can't be explained with a different theory, it isn't undisputable fact.

lilbacchant
04-20-2011, 05:31 PM
I suspect that in the in-game universe, the animus translates/re-codes DNA memory into a presentation that is third person.

However, I think the jury is still out as to what the deal is with recalling DNA memory outside of the animus -- e.g., because of the bleeding effect. In my view, at least, this is where it gets murky and at times seems to defy common sense.

ThaWhistle
04-20-2011, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ThaWhistle:

non sequitor much? The point of that argument is that based on information FROM THE GAME you can indeed deduce certain facts about the games universe. historians would have a laugh at nearly half ofthe stuff in this game. But again, its an irrelevent arguement.

So what you're saying is, that if there's a record IRL, about two persons having a casual conversation, in which one of them makes an indirect comment about the other having a male lover, to which the other responds with neither denying or acknowledging it, we can consider it to be true? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We both know there were many more hints towards leonardo and salai having a relationship in the DLC than just that offhand remark...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
clearly they can and they do. this game takes alot of liberties with science, history, philosophies, etc.

common sense should make you think the idea of a global millennia old conspiracy hell bent on controlling humanity with ancient shiny glowy artfacts is a load of crap as well.

The difference being that we're specifically told there's a global millennia old conspiracy hell bent on controlling humanity with ancient shiny glowy artfacts.

They can hint at it all they want, but unless they specifically state it or it can't be explained with a different theory, it isn't undisputable fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, we are told there is the conspiracy, but we also SEE that the animus projects the character in the third person? <insert cliche about value of a picture vs. words here>

I see you ignored the direct question about there being anything to suggest it is in the first person. There are some things you can very safely assume based on limited information, and the animus user seeing their ancestor in the third person is one of those. They never explicitly say it is in the third person, but it is sure as **** implied, such as in the clip I linked and keep referring to. They never say that petruccio is also Marios nephew, but we know he is. But he just as well might not be.


There is literally nothing to suggest the animus works in the first person(except for in AC1 when the head button is used, but it couldbe assumed in the animus 2.0, it is strictly third, as there is no more first person view button).

lilbacchant
04-20-2011, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
in the animus 2.0, it is strictly third, as there is no more first person view button).

Rebecca's internet is down right now (something about being trapped in "a dank, dungeony" place without -- Gasp! Horrors! -- Wi-Fi), so I've been tasked with defending her.

You just need to press (consoles) the left stick.

"The head button is so old school!"

At least I think that's what she said; some british guy in the background was whining loudly and drowning her out.

El_Sjietah
04-21-2011, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
re many more hints towards leonardo and salai having a relationship in the DLC than just that offhand remark...

Such as?



Yes, we are told there is the conspiracy, but we also SEE that the animus projects the character in the third person? <insert cliche about value of a picture vs. words here>

I see you ignored the direct question about there being anything to suggest it is in the first person. There are some things you can very safely assume based on limited information, and the animus user seeing their ancestor in the third person is one of those. They never explicitly say it is in the third person, but it is sure as **** implied, such as in the clip I linked and keep referring to.

There is literally nothing to suggest the animus works in the first person(except for in AC1 when the head button is used, but it couldbe assumed in the animus 2.0, it is strictly third, as there is no more first person view button).

It's just as likely they did that because it would make the gameplay/storytelling better, without justifying it in the AC universe.

Again, in sci-fi you can assume something is the same as IRL, unless specifically stated otherwise or when there is no other way to explain it.


They never say that petruccio is also Marios nephew, but we know he is. But he just as well might not be.


No, but they do say that Petruccio is Ezio's little brother and that Ezio is Mario's nephew. Therefor, Petruccio is Mario's nephew.

This isn't implied, it's proven through deduction.

ThaWhistle
04-21-2011, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
re many more hints towards leonardo and salai having a relationship in the DLC than just that offhand remark...

Such as?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
really? everything salai or leonardo says about the other implies a relationship beyond that of just employer/employee friend/friend, etc. If anyone claimed that the game didn't seriously imply the two were romantically involved, I'd call them a liar.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Yes, we are told there is the conspiracy, but we also SEE that the animus projects the character in the third person? <insert cliche about value of a picture vs. words here>

I see you ignored the direct question about there being anything to suggest it is in the first person. There are some things you can very safely assume based on limited information, and the animus user seeing their ancestor in the third person is one of those. They never explicitly say it is in the third person, but it is sure as **** implied, such as in the clip I linked and keep referring to.

There is literally nothing to suggest the animus works in the first person(except for in AC1 when the head button is used, but it couldbe assumed in the animus 2.0, it is strictly third, as there is no more first person view button).

It's just as likely they did that because it would make the gameplay/storytelling better, without justifying it in the AC universe.

Again, in sci-fi you can assume something is the same as IRL, unless specifically stated otherwise or when there is no other way to explain it.


They never say that petruccio is also Marios nephew, but we know he is. But he just as well might not be.


No, but they do say that Petruccio is Ezio's little brother and that Ezio is Mario's nephew. Therefor, Petruccio is Mario's nephew.

This isn't implied, it's proven through deduction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

petruccio could very well have a different father though, noone ever refers to him as giovannis son. but because htere is nothing stated contrary, it is 100% safe to assume he is giovannis son. Just the same as there is nothing to suggest that desmond doesn't see the memories through the third person.

UrDeviant1
04-22-2011, 12:18 PM
Is desmond not controling ezio through the animus? "no" then why do we get better sync for doing a mission exactly how ezio did it at the time? "in the grand scheme of things we are playing as desmond, not ezio, and in order for desmond to be ezio and complete missions as he did it seems likely to me that he'd be viewing him in the 1st person". But whos to say its not in the 4th person? "shutup"