PDA

View Full Version : Has the Series Focus Been Shifting From What it Originally Was?



Potato54321
07-05-2012, 01:32 AM
Assassin's Creed 1's entire premise was that the Assassin's and the Templars were basically indistinguishable from each other, and they were both going towards the same goals. The sides were very morally ambiguous. Altair thought he was on the good side, but really he was doing just what the Templars were doing: following orders in the name of justice from a power hungry leader. The game got you to think which side was good and morality in general.

Assassin's Creed 2 turned the Templar's into obvious bad guys. I was disappointed, but they still seemed to believe they're helping someone, themselves, and the story more or less followed history very well. There was turmoil in Italy in that time, and most of it was generated by power hungry nobles. Still, I was disappointed at how one-sided the game was.

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood gave us an obviously psychotic main villain who terrorized Rome and its people. Again, I was disappointed how far the series had gone from its morally ambiguous roots. It seemed that Cesare didn't even believe he was the good guy, he just wanted power. But, I suppose I could understand that in the context of history (The Borgias really did just want power), and every order has its bad apples (no pun intended).

Assassin's Creed Revelations went closer to the series roots. Whether the Ottomans and the Byzantines were better for the people of Constantinople is a very difficult question to answer. While the Assassins still appeared to champion the side of the people, both enemies seemed to think they were the good guys, which I appreciated. I suppose it fits, since that game was supposed to be closer to Assassin's Creed 1 than the previous 2.

Now, we have obvious displays of American Jingoism that not only make the conflict appear extremely one sided, but go against history. Not every was for revolution, and what happened to the Dev's claim that there will be enemies on both sides? A vocal minority was all the was calling for war, and most were influential rich people who championed the cause of the people only to seize power after the war. Sound familiar? That's basically the medieval templar's calling card. There was even a rebellion after the war where peasants, upset at how little had changed, tried to revolt. It was called Shay's Rebellion, and it was cut down with brute force by Washington.

I hope that these promotional images and trailers don't reflect the morality of the final product, but we've yet to see a single trailer, promotional art or gameplay that didn't portray America as a utopian bastion of freedom and the British as tyrannical oppressors.

This view does not follow path this series set out to follow, nor is it historically accurate.

TL;DR: AC1 didn't have an obvious good guy or bad guy, as per history. AC3 appears to go against history and the series's beginnings and make an obvious good and bad guy in a morally ambiguous setting.

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 01:35 AM
The series has strayed. They dropped part of the creed and strayed from the 2 sides being very similar, or there goals anyway.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 01:36 AM
AC:B's Cesare did not care about the Templars. More about himself, and no, they did not paint them as bad guys, it has been shown over and over in the series that the conflict is due too the differing methods.
EDIT: No they did not drop part of the Creed -___-

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 01:38 AM
Name the three tenets, do not look it up.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 01:39 AM
Stray you're blade from the flesh of innocents
Hide in plain sight
Never compromise the Brotherhood.

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 01:41 AM
You took too long, I don't believe you didn't look it up. Well anyhow, they haven't mentioned the tenets since the first although they have followed it more or less.

Potato54321
07-05-2012, 01:41 AM
AC:B's Cesare did not care about the Templars. More about himself, and no, they did not paint them as bad guys, it has been shown over and over in the series that the conflict is due too the differing methods.
EDIT: No they did not drop part of the Creed -___-

I wasn't saying they dropped any part of the Creed, I'm saying that the series has changed it's focus from portraying a historically accurate game that makes you think about Morality to a patriotic beat 'em up.

And I was okay with Cesare being an obvious bad guy, he was an obvious bad guy in real life. The British however, were not.

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 01:43 AM
Well first, there were templars on both sides, second, the british were oppressive.

Turul.
07-05-2012, 01:44 AM
AC2 - so much irony, Ezio killed many people from gaining power so the Medici could hold control. If you read the in game descriptions shaun talks alot about how the governments weren't really democracies, more of illusions of democracies. though Italy flourished during this time, the governments were still controlling.

The Borgias are very self-serving, Cesare wished to rule all of Italy and Rodrigo wanted the powers of Gods. So these guys still followed the traditional templar beliefs, but were a little more..... ambitious

Revelations was a nice return to the more gray area ideals, both sides has similar goals, but different means, and still had different ideas on what constantinople should be.

As for AC3 the least biased trailer, was the E3 trailer, where Connor asks who were trying to free. and then is shown fighting his way to the templar, his goal is not to kill british soldiers, but if they stand in his way he will. He also fights alone in this trailer, he doesn't fight for the Colonists, but he does inspire them, as you see them charge the field after he kills the General.

So the series as waned from its original concept slightly, but it was still brilliant and is starting to slide back over to its more "neutral" representation of conflicts.

hopefully everyone can just hold on a little bit and wait to play the game before they start judging the series.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 01:48 AM
Ahh...JC, I was in the bathroom before I responded.
They do mention it. In AC:B, in AC II, even in AC:R.

Potato54321
07-05-2012, 01:49 AM
Well first, there were templars on both sides, second, the british were oppressive.

I sincerely hope that there are Templars on both sides and this is a case of marketing going wrong, but the British were relatively non oppressing compared to other countries.

The main reason them taxing the colonists was so overblown was because the British imposed virtually no taxes for years while they practiced salutary neglect, not because the colonists had high taxes compared to most of the empire. Not to mention, they were subjects of the king, not a foreign entity annexed and then forced to pay tribute. Virtual representation was, however, an issue, but the American colonies were no more represented than, say, India, with whom the British never practiced salutary neglect and subsequently had much higher taxes than the colonies.

The situation then started to get out of hand, with villains on both sides. The American Revolution did not have an obvious good or bad side. History is written by the victors, so most Americans see the British as oppressive, but they were mostly responding badly to American protests, not going out of their way to oppress the colonists.

BATISTABUS
07-05-2012, 01:50 AM
Revelations and Embers made the mission of the Assassins more clear. Value people, preserve culture, and allow people to choose their own fate.

The devs have said more recently that Templars stand for a noble cause, but their methods (and ultimately end result) are a bit misguided.

Hopefully this isn't a complaint about the marketing disguised as meaningful discussion. If not, you shouldn't be worried. May has stated he really wants to emphasize the ambiguity between the both sides in this installment.

RuggedBabyJesus
07-05-2012, 01:50 AM
Didn't Ubi say that they wanted to go back to the morally ambiguous roots of the first Assassin's Creed? If you look at that history of the Templars thing in Revelation's multiplayer, it states that the Templars were very corrupt during the time of the Borgia's rule (AC 2 and Brotherhood), and that they preferred power and wealth over helping humanity like they were originally supposed to. I think it'll be more like AC1 this time around.

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 01:51 AM
Nothing is true, everything is permitted, but never the tenets.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 01:51 AM
The marketing team is diss-connected from the dev team, devs have no choice in what too show.
EDIT: But you said the Creed, and the Creed is nothing is true everything is permitted.

Potato54321
07-05-2012, 01:52 AM
Didn't Ubi say that they wanted to go back to the morally ambiguous roots of the first Assassin's Creed? If you look at that history of the Templars thing in Revelation's multiplayer, it states that the Templars were very corrupt during the time of the Borgia's rule (AC 2 and Brotherhood), and that they preferred power and wealth over helping humanity like they were originally supposed to. I think it'll be more like AC1 this time around.

I hope so. I'm curious to see how many others do to.

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 01:55 AM
I replayed AC1 last night, beat the whole thing, the tenets are surely a vital part of the creed. He broke the tenets and suffered the consequences.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 01:56 AM
Ezio broke the tenets alot. Which always bugged me, hope it dosen't happen now.

Potato54321
07-05-2012, 01:57 AM
Why does everyone keep talking about the tenents? I wasn't referring to them at all.

I was referring to the focus of the series not the Assassins.

Legendz54
07-05-2012, 01:58 AM
There is one thing i think it has shifted away from, Im not sure if this is a good or bad thing, After AC1 we lost the sense that we were under Control by a person of higher rank than you. We had to listen to Al Muliam or face the consequences, but with Ezio we were just our own person and quickly climbed to the top of the brotherhood. Maybe they will bring back a Mentor Mohawk head chief version of Al Mulaim.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 01:59 AM
Mostly because Ezio was not born into the Order. And there was no real Mentor too the Italian Assassin's until AC:B.

JCearlyyears
07-05-2012, 02:00 AM
Well in a way, it strayed by not mentioning part of the creed.

De Filosoof
07-05-2012, 02:25 AM
Face the facts.

So you wanna leave facts out just in the sake for a grey area?
Sometimes things are grey, sometimes things are pretty much black & white.
Believe me, there are A LOT of people getting h-orny from money and power and are willing to do some really bad, sick and ****ed up stuff to get it.

I love that AC is touching upon the subject of corruption.
Maybe that way people will finally learn that history will always repeat itself (if we do nothing about it).

"Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it"

You know what the funny thing is? Most of the stuff in AC2 and ACB is so relevant to this time.

Potato54321
07-05-2012, 02:35 AM
The way they're portraying it, they are leaving facts out for the sake of making the Americans seem to be the obvious good guys. The fact is that the American Revolution is grey.

De Filosoof
07-05-2012, 02:39 AM
The way they're portraying it, they are leaving facts out for the sake of making the Americans seem to be the obvious good guys. The fact is that the American Revolution is grey.

True, but i think that things like slavery and the natives being murdered, raped and forced out of their territories will be touched upon in the game, and if not then this will be my last AC game.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 04:10 AM
I have doubts about the how they will portray each side, but we will see.

Eurostar7
07-05-2012, 04:51 AM
To me it strayed far from its roots. The tone of AC1 and AC2 are different from the games that came out after them. There was more mystery on the Templar side of the storyline, and they completely ditched the puzzles from AC2, the glyph puzzles, which were also pretty scary at times and were fun to do. They tried to add something to make up for it (like the tower defense thing) but it was nowhere near as good as the glyphs. AC2 was very epic in a way. Ezio had a lot of enemies but also a lot of friends who came and went. That was lacking in every other release.

Interested to see what they do with AC3, and i hope it brings back some of the magic that made me a big fan of the franchise.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 04:57 AM
ACII and AC:B, and also AC:R were more ''fun ride'' stories than the philosophical story of AC1. Which they want too bring back in AC III.
And you have a army too command in AC B and AC:R....so really, you did not lack friends :P

Eurostar7
07-05-2012, 05:38 AM
Not that kind of friends. lol I mean in AC2 you knew people more personally, you dont command a cool army but you had La Volpe helping you and the small resistance group helping you. You met each of them, they had back story, and they helped Ezio grow as an Assassin. DaVinci helped you as well, he had a story and comedy. In ACR you had that Turkish guy (who ended up dying, and you BARELY saw him i think he shows up 4 or 5 times in the game). Supposedly Ezio's Turkish 'helper' led the Assassins in Constantinople but you didnt meet anybody else in the Assassins Order, just him.....Suleiman was neither a Templar or Assassin (his brother was a Templar though).

LightRey
07-05-2012, 01:13 PM
Not that kind of friends. lol I mean in AC2 you knew people more personally, you dont command a cool army but you had La Volpe helping you and the small resistance group helping you. You met each of them, they had back story, and they helped Ezio grow as an Assassin. DaVinci helped you as well, he had a story and comedy. In ACR you had that Turkish guy (who ended up dying, and you BARELY saw him i think he shows up 4 or 5 times in the game). Supposedly Ezio's Turkish 'helper' led the Assassins in Constantinople but you didnt meet anybody else in the Assassins Order, just him.....Suleiman was neither a Templar or Assassin (his brother was a Templar though).
I think you mean his uncle.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 02:05 PM
...Which we saw a couple of time and they killed off cheaply in AC:B.
Should have died later, atleast.

LightRey
07-05-2012, 02:16 PM
...Which we saw a couple of time and they killed off cheaply in AC:B.
Should have died later, atleast.
What? No, not that uncle. Suleiman's uncle.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 02:17 PM
Oh....
That dude who appeared a couple of seconds then diss-appeared?
Lol.

LightRey
07-05-2012, 02:29 PM
Oh....
That dude who appeared a couple of seconds then diss-appeared?
Lol.
No, the guy he played chess with 'n stuff.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-05-2012, 02:32 PM
Darn it, I confused between Ahmet and Selim xD Sorry about that.