PDA

View Full Version : [SPOILERS]Petition for a new and longer ending[SPOILERS]



JCearlyyears
11-01-2012, 08:09 PM
[SPOILERS]

I think that the ending was generally disappointing to most people. I have only heard good of it from one person. The ending for Desmond was so short, and seemed weird to me. Why did he have to die? Why couldn't he just save the world?
Edit: Okay. I see now that I would hate for someone to ask me for a new ending, but at least a longer more detailed ending that shows the people from a few different countries reacting to the solar flare and then the shield coming up and then more reactions so it feels like we accomplish something with the sacrifice.
As it stands, it didn't seem like they cared too much. Nobody did, not even the characters. No goodbye,no hugs, nothing. They did nothing but leave. As far as we know, they didn't even come back to check on him. We don't get to see much. I just want them to extend the ending and add a lot more detail to it. I don't mean epic exactly, but a bit more forceful and impacting.

EscoBlades
11-01-2012, 08:19 PM
SPOILERS AHEAD!!



Juno skillfully manipulated events over the course of the games so that Desmond and co arrived at the Grand Temple at a VERY SPECIFIC point in time, when the impending disaster would represent her best bargaining chip (to her resurrection)

If Desmond had entered the Grand Temple prior to December 21st 2012, he might have been able to find a way to save the world beyond that date without paying the price. At that moment though, he had two very clear choices given what was about to happen:

To live, and in doing so, allow the Disaster to occur, effectively sign off on the death of over 99% of the world's population BUT prevent Juno from leaving her digital cell to enslave mankind or....

To sacrifice himself to set Juno free and hope that she is able to use First Civ tech to avert the Disaster. However, he'd be d-amning mankind to perpetual servitude under her rule.

I though it was cleverly written, but that cutscene didn't really portray it as well as it could have.

In short, it is nothing like Mass Effect and the call for a petition is an overreaction in my opinion.

Edit: I put my thoughts into video form. Again....SPOILERS!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZueeBqoHoo

pirate1802
11-01-2012, 08:28 PM
In short, it is nothing like Mass Effect and the call for a petition is an overreaction in my opinion.

True that. I liked the ending. Also if the OP wanted a choice he was clearly playing the wrong game..

BK-110
11-01-2012, 08:32 PM
SPOILERS!

I still wonder whether he really did die, though. Sure, it looked much like he was fried, but perhaps somehow he survived and shows up again in the next game as either the main character or a major support character. I really want him to survive, seeing as this game finally really gave him some depth... Do we know anything about who the man speaking after the epilogue is? And who might we be playing as in the Animus now? As in all Assassin's Creed games, the ending opens up a whole bunch of new questions...

lightning667
11-01-2012, 08:32 PM
I don't like that people are calling for petitions because of something they don't like. If you were reading a book and didn't like the ending, would you call up the author and tell them it needs to be changed?

I do think it could have been better explained, like exactly how Juno saved the world but the game was amazing and I wouldn't change anything about the story even if it were up to me alone.

EscoBlades
11-01-2012, 08:36 PM
SPOILERS!

I still wonder whether he really did die, though. Sure, it looked much like he was fried, but perhaps somehow he survived and shows up again in the next game as either the main character or a major support character. I really want him to survive, seeing as this game finally really gave him some depth... Do we know anything about who the man speaking after the epilogue is? And who might we be playing as in the Animus now? As in all Assassin's Creed games, the ending opens up a whole bunch of new questions...

My guess (just a guess/ my opinion) is that he could possibly have had his consciousness transferred into the biometric device as his body got fried, just like Subject 16 before him, and Juno as well. Hypothetically, a digital version of Desmond could be present within the walls of the Grand Temple. Just a thought ;)

JCearlyyears
11-01-2012, 08:40 PM
I didn't mean exactly like mass effect, I would call the author, and I understand the ending, I just wanted a choice in the matter and wanted it to last longer and in my opinion, the cutscene in place was done badly and wasn't that detailed or emotional and I flat out hated the presentation of the ending. If it was longer and done better, okay, but it's like they didn't care at all. That's the way I see it.

BK-110
11-01-2012, 08:41 PM
Seeing as his amount of TWCB genes has given him a number of perks already, perhaps he wasn't actually killed. Perhaps he fell unconscious and was later recovered by the others. It just kind of annoys me that he has to die in the one game that really gives him an ample amount of character development...

Master_Dyne
11-01-2012, 08:54 PM
Created an account just to chime in on this, as I think that it is a very sad state of affairs when players demand a new ending.

You are NOT entitled for an ending you like. You are entitled to a game and a story. Nothing more. You are fully in your rights to not like the ending, just please try not to forget the hours of playtime you enjoyed getting to the ending.

Its unfair to ask a writer for a do over. Imagine how crappy films, books, games would be if they had to factor in the fact that a small segment of people may not like it.

Again, don't like it, totally your right, and I'm sure that many would loved to see the ending you describe, but the game, like life, doesn't work that way. Bottom line is that the same team (I believe) has worked on this for a long time, and I'm sure that they knew what they were doing.

Everyone has the right to love or hate, just as the developers have the right to end THEIR STORIES the way they like.

JCearlyyears
11-01-2012, 09:01 PM
Created an account just to chime in on this, as I think that it is a very sad state of affairs when players demand a new ending.

You are NOT entitled for an ending you like. You are entitled to a game and a story. Nothing more. You are fully in your rights to not like the ending, just please try not to forget the hours of playtime you enjoyed getting to the ending.

Its unfair to ask a writer for a do over. Imagine how crappy films, books, games would be if they had to factor in the fact that a small segment of people may not like it.

Again, don't like it, totally your right, and I'm sure that many would loved to see the ending you describe, but the game, like life, doesn't work that way. Bottom line is that the same team (I believe) has worked on this for a long time, and I'm sure that they knew what they were doing.

Everyone has the right to love or hate, just as the developers have the right to end THEIR STORIES the way they like.
I said I'd be fine with the same ending but just longer, but I also want a choice. They didn't seem to handle the ending they had with any care. It was so short. I want it to at least be longer and more detailed. I would really like a choice. It does work that way. People wanted a new ending for ME3 and they got it.

Master_Dyne
11-01-2012, 09:15 PM
People wanted a new ending for ME3 and they got it.

Which IMO was a mistake. I don't like it when writers, or creators in any form, apologize for their work. I think that what players have a problem with is that fact that it is indeed, an ending. No tease to a future game, no seed of a new beginning, just an end.

I had zero problem with the ending, tho I have had with other games, and I would never dream of asking them to redo or alter it. That's how crappy sit coms are made a person creates a story, a bunch of people stick their hands into it and it gets diluted, and we don't need another one of those.

In short, I am not criticizing your opinion of the ending, I just get annoyed when people ask an artist to alter their work.

JCearlyyears
11-01-2012, 09:20 PM
It wouldn't even be altering that much. It is a choice. To save it one way or another, die one way or another. To have them both be long and to explain why he has to die in the one in place. It was not presented effectively.

NinjaOnFire
11-01-2012, 09:23 PM
We didn't get a NEW ending for ME3, it added a cutscene and some static slides based on your decisions to give players closure, the ending is still the same.

lightning667
11-01-2012, 09:24 PM
I said I'd be fine with the same ending but just longer, but I also want a choice. They didn't seem to handle the ending they had with any care. It was so short. I want it to at least be longer and more detailed. I would really like a choice. It does work that way. People wanted a new ending for ME3 and they got it.

Assassin's Creed isn't really a game where choice is a big factor in regard to the story. it could have been explained better but it's too late for that now. All the present day things aren't gone from the game after you see the ending though. There is something else in game that I haven't played around with because I'm not the code breaker type. Maybe that content will explain more.

Master_Dyne
11-01-2012, 09:26 PM
It does work that way. People wanted a new ending for ME3 and they got it.

Which was a mistake IMO. I don't like seeing writers apologize for their work.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing your opinion, I just don't think one can ask a creative to redo something they worked really hard on.

Assassin_M
11-01-2012, 09:32 PM
So you want an ending tailored specifically for your liking ? Its their story, they ended it. We have no right to say "Oh Please change it, I hate it" You can hate it, sure, but asking for it to be replaced is just wrong..

Also, People are over reacting..

crash3
11-01-2012, 09:44 PM
The ending has left the story open for more games, but if desmond really did die, I hope we dont end up playing as william, shaun or rebecca. I was pretty disappointed that we didnt get to meet other modern day assassins, the whole assassins creed universe still feels very closed to me, I was expecting more from the desmond storyline in AC3

JCearlyyears
11-01-2012, 10:05 PM
I edited the OP, please read it.

thejoshknight
11-01-2012, 10:26 PM
You don't get a choice. That's just how it is. This is Assassins Creed, not Mass Effect. You are being told a story, not writing your own. If you didn't get a choice for 4.99 games, why would you get one in the last 5 minutes?

The ending made perfect sense to anybody who has played the series and was paying attention. Juno manipulated everyone so that Desmond would arrive in such a way that he would have no choice but to release her. The templars and assassins fighting for hundreds of years ensured that it would be too late as well. So, Desmond had to die. He is dead. Very dead. You aren't asking for a extended ending, you are asking them to rewrite the series.

The ending is based on things that have happened for the last 5 games, and last time I checked they can't recall our copies and change the story around.

PKnark
11-01-2012, 10:50 PM
ME3 didn't get a new ending, just an extended one, and that didn't even make people happy. Asking for a new or extended ending is childish in my opinion, bioware made a mistake, I hope ubisoft dosnt make the same mistake

Eurostar7
11-02-2012, 12:03 AM
Created an account just to chime in on this, as I think that it is a very sad state of affairs when players

demand a new ending.

You are NOT entitled for an ending you like. You are entitled to a game and a story. Nothing more. You are fully in your rights to not like the ending, just please try not to forget the hours of playtime you enjoyed getting to the ending.

Its unfair to ask a writer for a do over. Imagine how crappy films, books, games would be if they had to factor in the fact that a small segment of people may not like it.

Again, don't like it, totally your right, and I'm sure that many would loved to see the ending you describe, but the game, like life, doesn't work that way. Bottom line is that the same team (I believe) has worked on this for a long time, and I'm sure that they knew what they were doing.

Everyone has the right to love or hate, just as the developers have the right to end THEIR STORIES the way they like.

While i agree mostly with this, i also agree that there SHOULD be a petition to REMIND Ubisoft that they ultimately cater to the fans, and therefore must birng out quality pieces of art (because video games, like real movies, are indeed art). People want quality and Ubisoft promised it, but it didnt have such quality of previous AC games. One thing i missed from ACR was the camera angle movement. Remember when Ezio gets injured the camera would move and tilt and so on?

Anyway, sometimes us fans need to remind Ubisoft that we exist and when something in the series doesnt seem right we must inform them. Petitions, if many join in, makes a lot of noise and 'the powers that be' at Ubisoft will indeed see everybody's opinions more clearly as it is all concentrated rather than hidden in an unrelated thread.

This is more crucial now than ever, because this game sold like hot cakes and its likely Ubisoft will see the sales numbers as success and if people dont express their opinions clearly, they can downgrade the franchise.

Bigodon
11-02-2012, 12:36 AM
This is the same happened to ME3: shorty lazy ending events
This is very fustrating they conclude a trilogy who many of us play since 2007 with lacking of content for the end

I played ac, ac2, ac:b, ac:r, bought books
them... They give us a major lazy cinematic to conclude the end? Come on...

I also find the abstergo assault so-so... How the powerful organization of modern templars is just like that? When desmond get the apple off, yes.. That was awesome, but before... So rushed.

Toa TAK
11-02-2012, 12:43 AM
This really isn't as bad as Mass Effect 3. The ending, unsatisfactory it is, just ends Desmond's story, not the franchise's.

xx-pyro
11-02-2012, 03:01 AM
Wow the sense of entitlement some people feel amazes me sometimes. Sorry you didn't like the ending that's a fair opinion, I'm still deciding whether it was decent or horrible in my opinion. Just don't act self-righteous about it and demand for it to be changed because you're unhappy with it.Yes it could have been longer, yes it could have explained more, but the ending was fair closure to Desmond and that's all that they promised.

Layytez
11-02-2012, 03:05 AM
Urmmmm how could Desmond find a way to save the world before December 21st if Minerva had just said he's CENTURIES too late ? Even if Juno didn't survive and create that machine, what would be there ? Jupiter ha instructed Desmond to go there not knowing that Juno survived. Therefore something should have been there already unless you are telling me that the Eye had a different purpose prior to Junos modifications. If that's the case it makes sense a little bit more. However at that point in time saying that Desmond is centuries too late would only make sense if whatever they left behind wouldn't work anyway but of course they leave us with more questions than answers. The more I think about it...if Minerva and Jupiter destroyed the Eye due to Juno, without Juno being in the temple would Desmond have to basically rebuild and finish it thus finishing their "work" ?

thejoshknight
11-02-2012, 03:22 AM
Minerva did not say he was centuries too late to save the world.

He was centuries too late to save the world in a way that wouldn't release Juno. Minerva thought releasing Juno would be worse than the world being destroyed. But because of the Assassin Templar fued, when Desmond got there no time was left to figure anything else out. He had to release Juno to save the world.

Basically, Minerva knew the method to save the world was there(I would imagine she knew desmond would have to die as well) but she didn't know it would release Juno as well.

Layytez
11-02-2012, 03:25 AM
Minerva did not say he was centuries too late to save the world.

He was centuries too late to save the world in a way that wouldn't release Juno. Minerva thought releasing Juno would be worse than the world being destroyed. But because of the Assassin Templar fued, when Desmond got there no time was left to figure anything else out. He had to release Juno to save the world.

Basically, Minerva knew the method to save the world was there(I would imagine she knew desmond would have to die as well) but she didn't know it would release Juno as well.

Not exactly. The original Eye they intended to use had nothing to do with Juno. But because Juno survived she rebuilt and finished the Eye the way SHE wanted thus releasing her when activated. If Juno wasn't alive the remains of the Eye would be there and Desmond would have to finish the work and save the world without Juno being released since she should have been dead.

BlackRose1809
11-03-2012, 01:24 AM
SPOILERS!

I still wonder whether he really did die, though. Sure, it looked much like he was fried, but perhaps somehow he survived and shows up again in the next game as either the main character or a major support character. I really want him to survive, seeing as this game finally really gave him some depth... Do we know anything about who the man speaking after the epilogue is? And who might we be playing as in the Animus now? As in all Assassin's Creed games, the ending opens up a whole bunch of new questions...


Exactly my thought... I mean for me it seemed like it was in Brotherhood... I mean why are we then back in the animus after this? I don't think Desmond died... He might be in the temple, stuck with the voice that was shown for the pivots.

Turul.
11-03-2012, 04:56 AM
SPOILERS AHEAD!!



Juno skillfully manipulated events over the course of the games so that Desmond and co arrived at the Grand Temple at a VERY SPECIFIC point in time, when the impending disaster would represent her best bargaining chip (to her resurrection)

If Desmond had entered the Grand Temple prior to December 21st 2012, he might have been able to find a way to save the world beyond that date without paying the price. At that moment though, he had two very clear choices given what was about to happen:

To live, and in doing so, allow the Disaster to occur, effectively sign off on the death of over 99% of the world's population BUT prevent Juno from leaving her digital cell to enslave mankind or....

To sacrifice himself to set Juno free and hope that she is able to use First Civ tech to avert the Disaster. However, he'd be d-amning mankind to perpetual servitude under her rule.

I though it was cleverly written, but that cutscene didn't really portray it as well as it could have.

In short, it is nothing like Mass Effect and the call for a petition is an overreaction in my opinion.

Edit: I put my thoughts into video form. Again....SPOILERS!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZueeBqoHoo


i thought the ending was actually pretty good.
though they still speak in a cryptic way so its hard to understand that juno was being deceptive to both minerva and desmond.
and desmond's death was neccessary IMO. it would have felt too easy for him to just live.

Turul.
11-03-2012, 05:03 AM
[SPOILERS]

I think that the ending was generally disappointing to most people. I have only heard good of it from one person. The ending for Desmond was so short, and seemed weird to me. Why did he have to die? Why couldn't he just save the world?
Edit: Okay. I see now that I would hate for someone to ask me for a new ending, but at least a longer more detailed ending that shows the people from a few different countries reacting to the solar flare and then the shield coming up and then more reactions so it feels like we accomplish something with the sacrifice.
As it stands, it didn't seem like they cared too much. Nobody did, not even the characters. No goodbye,no hugs, nothing. They did nothing but leave. As far as we know, they didn't even come back to check on him. We don't get to see much. I just want them to extend the ending and add a lot more detail to it. I don't mean epic exactly, but a bit more forceful and impacting.

i think youre overreacting a bit mate

POP1Fan
11-03-2012, 11:11 AM
Someone changing HIS story to please other people instead of defending his artistic vision is wrong. Even if the ending would have been the WORST ending ever it would have been wrong. The writer wanted it to end like this so you can't do anything. As a writer myself I would hate someone to tell me to change an ending just so they could feel better.
If Ubisoft does this and forces the writer to change the ending I will lose all my respect for BOTH of them.

thePhilCasper
11-05-2012, 04:52 PM
Hi. Iīm from Europe and i really like AC. I played the series sice AC1 (2008) an Iīm really dissapointed about the ACIII ending. It was really hurried, not-effective ant not-thrilling like it was in earlier games. Desmond didnīt deserve to end just like that. I liked the whole ACIII, but last 10 minutes was horrible. I couldnīt believe that Ubisoft didnīt care about Desmondīs story at all. I agree with the petition, we want a NEW-more EMOTIONAL and DETAILED ending, which does leave some clarity and show us, that the last 4 games werenīt just "dust". I had goosebumps after the others AC endings. ACIII ending ( not whole game ) did nothing to me... We wanted to end Desmondīs Story, not Desmond alone... ... We were Desmond for five years. WE became HIM through the bleeding effect of our Gaming Consoles... WE ARE ASSASSINS!!! AND SO ITīS OUR DUTY TO CHANGE, WHAT ONCE WAS... LETīs SAVE WHAT HE WAS DESTINED TO BE AND DO... LETīS CHANGE THE ACIII ENDING AND REKINDLE THE SPARK OF Assassinīs Creed. Assassinīs Creed has changed the World for itīs more than just game and now its basic idea is ruined by its own creators... So now itīs time, when we must CHANGE THE Assassinīs Creed because "Nothing is true, everything is permitted".

pirate1802
11-05-2012, 05:29 PM
Good luck with your petition then! I somehow doubt it will be much successful, but still good luck from my side!

pirate1802
11-05-2012, 05:31 PM
If Ubisoft does this and forces the writer to change the ending I will lose all my respect for BOTH of them.

Indeed.

thePhilCasper
11-05-2012, 07:18 PM
Indeed.

But we are not in the Medieval times where were only books... We live in 21st Century... We have programs, editors, patches available... Ubisoft uses nothing of it... and should... It is no problem to change 10 minutes of game and release a patch... Or DLC...

pirate1802
11-05-2012, 07:29 PM
But we are not in the Medieval times where were only books... We live in 21st Century... We have programs, editors, patches available... Ubisoft uses nothing of it... and should... It is no problem to change 10 minutes of game and release a patch... Or DLC...

The problem is not whether they could, but whether they should. Just because someone doesn't like the ending, doesn't mean they should pressurize the writers to change their work. I'm perfectly ok with them releasing a DLC to clarifying stuff (infact I want that) but I don't want them to tamper with the game now. And indeed, the poster above me said "fans" don't like the ending. How does he know, do we have any poll of any sizable sample? the OP says he saw only 'one" guy who liked the ending but if you read other threads you'd certainly find more than that. Some of my friends are OK with the ending, some are not. IMO, the fanbase is more confused and divided in opinion, and not singularly united in their hate as was with ME3 (though change-supporters claim its as bad as ME3 to support their cause). Just read this very thread and see how many support such a petition.

In my opinion, what is needed, is an interview with Corey May/someone else, or a DLC where we get glimpses of future AC, maybe showing who Eve is, showing Erudito etc, instead on a rewrite of the ending.

infamous_ezio
11-05-2012, 07:36 PM
They won't change it...

kuled2012
11-05-2012, 07:41 PM
"Life is not a fairytale and there are no happy endings" After thinking about the ending I think it's opened up a lot more possibilities, I'm looking forward to the next game..Desmond saving the world and nothing happening to him would've been too good to be true from a realistic point of view.

pirate1802
11-05-2012, 07:42 PM
They won't change it...

I hope not! Quite frankly its not needed too. The ending isn't something out of the blue like ME3's case, contradicting everything else, which needs to be scrapped in its totality.. It just has some loose ends, ends that can be tied in a podcast or a future DLC..

projectpat06
11-05-2012, 07:45 PM
I would rather them focus their efforts on adding new and fun content as well as fixing the bugs and glitches. This dual pistol glitch is more annoying than the ending. I mean, it's Assassin's Creed, did you really expect a ton of closure and no cliffhanger? It had to have a WTF ending

pirate1802
11-05-2012, 07:49 PM
I would rather them focus their efforts on adding new and fun content as well as fixing the bugs and glitches. This dual pistol glitch is more annoying than the ending. I mean, it's Assassin's Creed, did you really expect a ton of closure and no cliffhanger? It had to have a WTF ending

Totally agreed. They should rather fix the innumerable bugs and the hood issue, which, going by its thread, has got more people riled than the ending.

Rithrius
11-05-2012, 08:32 PM
Totally agreed. They should rather fix the innumerable bugs and the hood issue, which, going by its thread, has got more people riled than the ending.

Apparently Ubisoft twittered that they'll fix the hood issue. :P


@ OP: As for creating a petition to change the ending of the game... Are you daft, deranged or ******ed? Ubisoft is going out of their way to change the hood issue FOR us. There's no way they're gonna give a rat's *** about a request like this. And honestly, i kinda liked the ending. Sure it could've been handled a bit better or differently, but i like it as it is anyway.

thePhilCasper
11-05-2012, 08:56 PM
Apparently Ubisoft twittered that they'll fix the hood issue. :P


@ OP: As for creating a petition to change the ending of the game... Are you daft, deranged or ******ed? Ubisoft is going out of their way to change the hood issue FOR us. There's no way they're gonna give a rat's *** about a request like this. And honestly, i kinda liked the ending. Sure it could've been handled a bit better or differently, but i like it as it is anyway.

Iīm just telling. Not forcing you. But... Jesus... If they had three years on that story and ending this certainly wasnīt the best performance from Ubi. I liked the whole game, it was exciting and it kept me in suspense. I almost stopped blinking and breathing, when I put "The Amulet" in the glowing wall... But everything happened after unlocking The Secrets Of Grand Temple threw that suspense away. It left just lingering questions and sadness... I mean... Was this It???!!! Altair, Ezio and Connor sacrificed all those things and years of their work just to this???!!! So Desmond could got killed by a f*cking Disco Ball???!!!

IlDiv0
11-06-2012, 12:49 AM
"Life is not a fairytale and there are no happy endings" After thinking about the ending I think it's opened up a lot more possibilities, I'm looking forward to the next game..Desmond saving the world and nothing happening to him would've been too good to be true from a realistic point of view.


The ending is unrealistic in its current form. Desmond living or dying doesn't suddenly change that.

AC3's ending isn't quite ME3 level bad, but that's not saying much. Both make the mistake of solving their central conflicts in the last five minutes, with no actual build-up. Every character and their mother constantly reminds Desmond that it's his responsibility to find a way to save the world. Yet, in AC3, what do we do? Spend the entire game watching filler content (Connor's story) only so Desmond can walk through a door, at which point he dies by authorial fiat. Instead, Desmond's sequences should actually have been about finding a solution, building up to everything else we've seen. Connor's story was great, but it left the writers in a corner. They had to shoe-horn in some method of making everything okay, because they didn't spend enough time addressing the primary conflict. Also add in the fact that Revelations was largely about closing out Desmond's previous ancestors' stories and about his willingness to embrace his identity as an assassin, and Connor's story looks more and more unnecessary.

In short: Connor's story was phenomenal, but it should never have been told.

Layytez
11-06-2012, 01:08 AM
Desmond dying isn't the problem. The problem is Desmond dying while leaving 3 year old questions relevant to him unanswered.

Theassassin4756
11-06-2012, 01:14 AM
Sync the Animus with the cloud... The answer has to lie within the epilogue.

I believe Desmond isnt "dead", cause when you put the second power piece in Juno talks about how it was easy to " transfer" into a computer but getting out required something more twisted and dark

Also her email started out as binary then displayed as regular characters. Maybe she isn't released physically but is more like a computer program now? I'm petty sure the person who talks about the pivot points has to be someone from Eudrito(I'm sure I didn't spell the right)

I'm kinda looking frowrad to the Tyranny of GW to see if maybe there will be some new info there.

Layytez
11-06-2012, 01:22 AM
Sync the Animus with the cloud... The answer has to lie within the epilogue.

I believe Desmond isnt "dead", cause when you put the second power piece in Juno talks about how it was easy to " transfer" into a computer but getting out required something more twisted and dark

Also her email started out as binary then displayed as regular characters. Maybe she isn't released physically but is more like a computer program now? I'm petty sure the person who talks about the pivot points has to be someone from Eudrito(I'm sure I didn't spell the right)

I'm kinda looking frowrad to the Tyranny of GW to see if maybe there will be some new info there.

Desmonds high First Civ DNA revived her. Rebecca talked of someone or something being in the temple. Cryogenics ? Her body remains there but connected to a machine which is connected to the pedestal. Touching that extracted Desmonds DNA and rejuvenated Juno. Desmond could have saved the world without losing his life if Juno didn't want to be brought back.

Theassassin4756
11-06-2012, 01:31 AM
But then why not show her body? or anything like that? Heck we only still see the holographic of her. Ubi might have rushed the ending a bit but even they would have at least thrown that in.

Layytez
11-06-2012, 01:34 AM
But then why not show her body? or anything like that? Heck we only still see the holographic of her. Ubi might have rushed the ending a bit but even they would have at least thrown that in.

Coz Ubisoft are lazy. Simple. The game itself is great but the Desmond portion was handled terrible. You would think they would spend alot of effort in it since it's his last game but no they decide to kill him off with no closure and not answer previous questions.

zerocooll21
11-06-2012, 02:49 AM
It was well played but DEFF need more time an better explination. What of those Discs minerva left that Juno trashed. I bet there would have been some good info in there.

pirate1802
11-06-2012, 05:09 AM
Iīm just telling. Not forcing you. But... Jesus... If they had three years on that story and ending this certainly wasnīt the best performance from Ubi. I liked the whole game, it was exciting and it kept me in suspense. I almost stopped blinking and breathing, when I put "The Amulet" in the glowing wall... But everything happened after unlocking The Secrets Of Grand Temple threw that suspense away. It left just lingering questions and sadness... I mean... Was this It???!!! Altair, Ezio and Connor sacrificed all those things and years of their work just to this???!!! So Desmond could got killed by a f*cking Disco Ball???!!!

No.. so that Desmond could save the world. Look, don't lose sight of the main problem, he did save the world, but he also released a monster. Without all the assassin's efforts the world would have been a smoking ruin. Would that have been better? If yes, then true, Desmond and all other assassins died in vein. Agreed.

creedalien
11-06-2012, 01:41 PM
[SPOILERS]

I think that the ending was generally disappointing to most people. I have only heard good of it from one person. The ending for Desmond was so short, and seemed weird to me. Why did he have to die? Why couldn't he just save the world?
Edit: Okay. I see now that I would hate for someone to ask me for a new ending, but at least a longer more detailed ending that shows the people from a few different countries reacting to the solar flare and then the shield coming up and then more reactions so it feels like we accomplish something with the sacrifice.
As it stands, it didn't seem like they cared too much. Nobody did, not even the characters. No goodbye,no hugs, nothing. They did nothing but leave. As far as we know, they didn't even come back to check on him. We don't get to see much. I just want them to extend the ending and add a lot more detail to it. I don't mean epic exactly, but a bit more forceful and impacting.


Dude you overreacting this ending...

for me the ending was great.. desmond never was a "great" character anyway.. and why should every game ending like a fairy-tale...? are you love watching fairy tale??

zerocooll21
11-06-2012, 01:48 PM
Its not so much the fairy tale and more the way it was presented which could have be a whole lot better. I mean this is the climax of desmonds journey and they did nothing to convey the emotions properly. Desmonds death albeit was short but they could have shown more of him being drained, screaming ect. A nice look back to his father / cut to flashes of moments when they had good times would have helped. Something similar to Tron Legacy ending.

IDK, Desmond was good for the most part. Clear concise thought, not second guessing himself.

pirate1802
11-06-2012, 01:51 PM
Its not so much the fairy tale and more the way it was presented which could have be a whole lot better. I mean this is the climax of desmonds journey and they did nothing to convey the emotions properly. Desmonds death albeit was short but they could have shown more of him being drained, screaming ect. A nice look back to his father / cut to flashes of moments when they had good times would have helped. Something similar to Tron Legacy ending.

IDK, Desmond was good for the most part. Clear concise thought, not second guessing himself.

Agreed. The presentation was lacking, not the underlying idea.

LilyasAvalon
11-06-2012, 02:09 PM
Guys, really? I mean, seriously, really?

Okay, as somebody who was there in the whole ME3 ending fiasco, I can tell you this, AC3's ending is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as the original ME3 ending was.

I'm not going to lie, the ending was confusing and rather anticlimactic, but it's nothing to get your knickers in a knot about and I think it's a pretty good cliffhanger to start AC4 on. I'd rather Ubisoft focus on AC4 than fixing up something that doesn't really need fixing up.

Besides, for all we know, Desmond isn't really 'dead'.

zerocooll21
11-06-2012, 02:12 PM
They're probably going to make a AC3.5 with Connor in the French war. Too much time and engery invested into creating all of AC3 for them to just scrap. I'm willing to bet AC4 will be on next gen hardware.

LilyasAvalon
11-06-2012, 02:23 PM
They have said they will invest in future games with Connor if he recieves a well reception, that's why they focused on Ezio for 3 games.

zerocooll21
11-06-2012, 02:25 PM
As long as he doesn't act like a whiney child I'm game :p

pirate1802
11-06-2012, 02:31 PM
Three games is a bit overkill I think, as by Revelation Ezio was looking quite.. umm.. used? lol (still loved Revelations, but the signs were definitely there). Buuut at the same time, just one game with a brand new character and settings is a wasted potential. I think two games with one character is ideal, and gives enough space for the character to grow.

LilyasAvalon
11-06-2012, 02:36 PM
Three games is a bit overkill I think, as by Revelation Ezio was looking quite.. umm.. used? lol (still loved Revelations, but the signs were definitely there). Buuut at the same time, just one game with a brand new character and settings is a wasted potential. I think two games with one character is ideal, and gives enough space for the character to grow.

I agree, poor Ezio. I loved him and all, but he was in his 60's by the time he finally started thinking about something other than being an Assassin. Thankfully, Ubisoft has already confirmed they WON'T be doing that again. Connor will get, at most, one more 'main' game. He'll probably get some sort of portable game too. Altair had Bloodlines for the PSP and Chronicles for the DS, Ezio had Discovery for the DS.

zerocooll21
11-06-2012, 02:40 PM
Agreed. Plus he's so close in time to the french war, thats gotta be where he goes. Going to be interesting how they find someone who can relieve his memories. It could be with this shift from the Abstergo front of being able to re-live memories even if you're not related (AC:L) comes into play.

I keep seeing people complaining about how AC has lost the mystery and secrecy now that juno turned out to be just manipulating the assassins over time. I kinda feel the same way but I have my hunches that AC4 will have someone going back to adam/eve era to see how to stop Juno. Maybe the humans from back then sent messages or hid items to help the futures after seeing how Juno would take over.

pirate1802
11-06-2012, 02:40 PM
Yeah. two at most.. to prevent burnout and fatigue xD

thePhilCasper
11-06-2012, 09:08 PM
Agreed. The presentation was lacking, not the underlying idea.

I must agree. Ending wasnīt badly written. Only represented, shown... explained... just lacking something... Emotions, Quick flashback that show us that Junoīs plan has sense since Brotherhood. And something, that show us that the Desmondīs work is done... Imagine... After his death, Desmond finds himself in the Nexus of Time, with Minerva, Jupiter, Subject 16, Ezio, Altair, Connor and Lucy waiting for him and welcoming him in the place where heīs going to have his deserved rest. Then they tell him that they were watching him in the nexus of time (Reversed Effect of the Animus)... Crazy... but the original ending was crazy anyway...

thejoshknight
11-06-2012, 09:30 PM
I must agree. Ending wasnīt badly written. Only represented, shown... explained... just lacking something... Emotions, Quick flashback that show us that Junoīs plan has sense since Brotherhood. And something, that show us that the Desmondīs work is done... Imagine... After his death, Desmond finds himself in the Nexus of Time, with Minerva, Jupiter, Subject 16, Ezio, Altair, Connor and Lucy waiting for him and welcoming him in the place where heīs going to have his deserved rest. Then they tell him that they were watching him in the nexus of time (Reversed Effect of the Animus)... Crazy... but the original ending was crazy anyway...

They established in the series that god isn't real, so there probably isn't a place of rest in the AC universe.

creedalien
11-07-2012, 01:22 PM
I must agree. Ending wasnīt badly written. Only represented, shown... explained... just lacking something... Emotions, Quick flashback that show us that Junoīs plan has sense since Brotherhood. And something, that show us that the Desmondīs work is done... Imagine... After his death, Desmond finds himself in the Nexus of Time, with Minerva, Jupiter, Subject 16, Ezio, Altair, Connor and Lucy waiting for him and welcoming him in the place where heīs going to have his deserved rest. Then they tell him that they were watching him in the nexus of time (Reversed Effect of the Animus)... Crazy... but the original ending was crazy anyway...

Well that would be the same ending like Final Fantasy X-was:)... lol...

pirate1802
11-07-2012, 01:40 PM
I must agree. Ending wasnīt badly written. Only represented, shown... explained... just lacking something... Emotions, Quick flashback that show us that Junoīs plan has sense since Brotherhood. And something, that show us that the Desmondīs work is done... Imagine... After his death, Desmond finds himself in the Nexus of Time, with Minerva, Jupiter, Subject 16, Ezio, Altair, Connor and Lucy waiting for him and welcoming him in the place where heīs going to have his deserved rest. Then they tell him that they were watching him in the nexus of time (Reversed Effect of the Animus)... Crazy... but the original ending was crazy anyway...

Nah.. too cheesy for my tastes. Sorry :| Either way, they didn't show what became of Desmond because maybe its got something to do with AC IV??

thePhilCasper
11-07-2012, 01:57 PM
Well that would be the same ending like Final Fantasy X-was:)... lol...

Well, I didnīt play any Final Fantasy, so this is nice coincidence... :)

thePhilCasper
11-07-2012, 02:02 PM
They established in the series that god isn't real, so there probably isn't a place of rest in the AC universe.

As far as I know, I didnīt mention a god. Only The Nexus Of Time and Those "good" Who Came Before. Which is by the way something, that IS placed in AC Universe and was good move from Ubi...

weston_19
11-07-2012, 02:51 PM
You are perfectly justified in pointing out and being critical about the content of the story, and expecting a good story. Not even a story that you like, but one that makes believable sense. It has nothing to with liking the ending and everything to do with a good story making believable sense, within its cannonical universe If you feel ick about the ending im going to tell you why. If you feel that the ending was perfectly acceptable and the nothing needs changing, consider these points. The writing was pathetic. Case in point of a complete lack of creativity for the William Miles rescue mission. Abstergo has your dad. They want the apple, you want your dad. Vidic himself tells you, Desmond, to deliver the POE to Abstergo, in exchange for his father. The immediate reaction is, why would Vidic, a Templar that has witnessed first hand the power wielded by the apple, ask for it to be delivered by the only member of the group who has the capacity to weild its power, and also has relived multiple memories of ancestors wielding said POE, with Vidic HIMSELF witnessing Desmond relieve Altairs memories first hand. To any capacity, Vidic would ultimatlely come to the conclusion that Desmond can and will wield its power to prevent the Templars from obtaining it. The best Abstergo can come up with is Cross. Are you kidding me :mad: Granted the power of the AOE, you stand virtually unopposed.

To point out another detrimental hole is when Desmond is being shown the future events of the the decision not to set Juno free. It takes into no account the very real fact that seeing as the temple survived the previous solar event, it would also survive the next, creating a sanctuary the survivors, who while the narration is Juno is the proposition of Minerva, being Desmond and friends, could use as shelter to survive the event. The very real fact exists that humans would not be subjected to the same fate as our original one, as we would have access to this grand temple, which is the storehouse of information to TWCB. Even if you could say that this information was unable to be retrieved, you would still be in possession of an animus. This animus would provide free education for years to come, preserving an accurate perspective containing lifetimes of information that would be seemingly preserved for millenia. Considering at least 2 survivors contain this dna it could be exploited genetically to ensure every child after a certain number of generations would have ancient dna. To provoke me to somehow conclude that history would repeat itself resulting in a complete circle back to a complete degradation of information is to ask me to be intellectually dis-honest. The very access to said temple would fundementally change our development, and result in a completely different historical route than the one before it. And dont tell me that somehow the animus could not be powered, as rebecca is more than capable of establishing a renewable energy source before her death. And even if she could not, the perceptive loss of information takes more than 2 or 3 generations to slip into oblivion. If it doesnt make any sense, its simply bad story telling. None of this content was given any thought as these were very obvious conclusions to come to immediately after witnessing it.

I heard an earlier poster say that Ubisoft or other publishers dont have the requirement to satisfy everyone`s interest. That is to say not everybody is going to like the content. However, it is completely reasonable if this was the first game of the series. There is nothing established. You can create your universe and do whatever you want. And if the story doesnt make sense, and people dont like it, it will crash and burn like so many titles that are forgotton immediately. However, given the historical and intellectual veracity established across the board in all previous games, to suddenly make all of these contradictions and paradoxical arguments, is not what fans expect from this title in regards to whats been established across the previous 4 titles. To the greater detriment of the franchise, its now committed to the terrible content of the story in the first place, and in that, those contradictions and paradoxical arguments. There is no going back or back-filling the story, for many of us, as Ubisoft has back itself into a corner. And the reason why is something they freely admit to. This was a GOTY run. They focused on making the game a GOTY and ignored the fans that supported the franchise from day one. In all aspects this game is layed out in effort to present the game in a way that would score high in judging. Alex even tried to justify his own opinion that the ending was bad by saying they owed nothing more but a true ending. You may have delivered a true ending, but it doesnt make any sense and is ragged with bad and ill-informed story telling. Every aspect is contradictory in nature and just send you spinning into an abyss with Ubisoft hoping somebody like me doesnt point out the very obvious selling out. Good job Ubi, Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted. You can make up whatever you want and expect fans to believe it regardless of contradiction and nobody can tell you otherwise because its your product and you can do whatever you want with it. Thats fine. Enjoy crashing and burning the best franchise you have ever created because of your selfish motivations. You could learn a thing our two from the message you project in your video games.

Mega8BitPanda
11-07-2012, 03:30 PM
You are perfectly justified in pointing out and being critical about the content of the story, and expecting a good story. Not even a story that you like, but one that makes believable sense. It has nothing to with liking the ending and everything to do with a good story making believable sense, within its cannonical universe If you feel ick about the ending im going to tell you why. If you feel that the ending was perfectly acceptable and the nothing needs changing, consider these points. The writing was pathetic. Case in point of a complete lack of creativity for the William Miles rescue mission. Abstergo has your dad. They want the apple, you want your dad. Vidic himself tells you, Desmond, to deliver the POE to Abstergo, in exchange for his father. The immediate reaction is, why would Vidic, a Templar that has witnessed first hand the power wielded by the apple, ask for it to be delivered by the only member of the group who has the capacity to weild its power, and also has relived multiple memories of ancestors wielding said POE, with Vidic HIMSELF witnessing Desmond relieve Altairs memories first hand. To any capacity, Vidic would ultimatlely come to the conclusion that Desmond can and will wield its power to prevent the Templars from obtaining it. The best Abstergo can come up with is Cross. Are you kidding me :mad: Granted the power of the AOE, you stand virtually unopposed.

I have to completely disagree. Warren was an egotist and he thought extremely little of Desmond, even when he wiped the floor of his men before him in the hideout in AC2, Warren was extremely smug towards him. Warren saw himself as a true "mastermind" and most likely didn't expect Desmond to even have the courage to use the apple, or even know how, when taking it to him while he had William hostage. In AC1, all Desmond saw was the power of the Apple and not how to use it, that came AC2/B.

Also, Cross not only had Desmond cornered but at gun point in Abstergo. If he didn't have his bleeding effect go haywire then Desmond would have had his work cut out for him in that instance. If you engage with Rebecca in conversation after first meeting him, by the end of the conversation Desmond knows Cross is merely brainwashed and 'was a good guy' to some extent and expresses some sympathy towards him so I highly doubt he would have wanted to kill him if he could get away with it too, hence merely fist fighting before hand. They also most likely expected Cross to outright disable Desmond rather than take all that time gloating, as Desmond didn't even wield the Apple in Abstergo before that.


To point out another detrimental hole is when Desmond is being shown the future events of the the decision not to set Juno free. It takes into no account the very real fact that seeing as the temple survived the previous solar event, it would also survive the next, creating a sanctuary the survivors, who while the narration is Juno is the proposition of Minerva, being Desmond and friends, could use as shelter to survive the event. The very real fact exists that humans would not be subjected to the same fate as our original one, as we would have access to this grand temple, which is the storehouse of information to TWCB. Even if you could say that this information was unable to be retrieved, you would still be in possession of an animus. This animus would provide free education for years to come, preserving an accurate perspective containing lifetimes of information that would be seemingly preserved for millenia. Considering at least 2 survivors contain this dna it could be exploited genetically to ensure every child after a certain number of generations would have ancient dna. To provoke me to somehow conclude that history would repeat itself resulting in a complete circle back to a complete degradation of information is to ask me to be intellectually dis-honest. The very access to said temple would fundementally change our development, and result in a completely different historical route than the one before it. And dont tell me that somehow the animus could not be powered, as rebecca is more than capable of establishing a renewable energy source before her death. And even if she could not, the perceptive loss of information takes more than 2 or 3 generations to slip into oblivion. If it doesnt make any sense, its simply bad story telling. None of this content was given any thought as these were very obvious conclusions to come to immediately after witnessing it.

Did you not see the state of the Temple? It was in decay and I highly doubt it would last another millennium or two til the next solar flare, a lot of it was caved in. Also, what about food? We don't know how long the aftermath of the flare lasted or when it'd be safe to leave the temple. We just know that eventually, humans began to live and survive once more after time.

Also, as Haytham proves, just because Desmond or the group would repopulate eventually does not mean that their children will take their lessons on board or even understand the consequences should they not act immediately. Take a lot of what is happening in the real world today, pollution; hardly anyone on the grander scale of things cares about it because they can't see the effects it'll have in maybe a hundred years so I highly doubt the survivors at the start of the next cycle would about the next solar flare in 'x' amount of years.

Again, there would be nothing but ash, volcanoes and much worse on the outside of the temple. There would be no more venturing out to get a new power source for a very long time and even if they did, we only know how to power up the temple and not how to adapt these ancient power sources to our own technology or how to actually operate the temple, hence the first civ' method of salvation being a simple hand scanner. They constantly tell us that they, and their technology, is mostly beyond our understanding. Even if we knew about it, we wouldn't be able to understand it as the sixth, knowledge, is hidden from us.

Don't get me wrong, I think Desmond's sections were heavily underplayed, weighing it at 3 missions which is about 1 memory sequence unlike the promised 2 length, but a lot of what you just brought up can and has been explained.

zerocooll21
11-07-2012, 03:36 PM
ANyone who is interested I created a Poll for the AC:3 ending. Three choices, say your piece and please don't argue with other answers. I want to have a organized set of thoughts/feelings in once place for the Dev's to read.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/724132-Spoiler-AC-3-Ending-Poll-Spoiler

weston_19
11-07-2012, 10:49 PM
In no capacity can i expect Vidics leaders to accept his irrationality in your proposed statement that somehow the situation was justified. The simple truth is, Vidic would have known Desmond had the capacity to wield the apple, given his ancestry. Vidic would have instead told Shaun or Rebecca to bring the apple, as it completely insane to simply assume that his negative opinion towards Desmond would have discredited the very real threat regardless in all this. Vidics leaders would have seen this a mile away and called his decisions into question. For a secret society that has maintained tyrannical rule for centuries to assume that any person capable of wielding this device to to any capacity probably doesnt have the balls to do so is unjustified. And i dont really care about the specific events in the mission, it all is just one bad arc point after another. In no capacity can this be justified. Desmond didnt use the apple until he had no choice but to do so. And the foreshadowing within that specific part ruins the entire part as you already know whats going to happen dont you. Again, walk into abstergo, spam AOE, leave. In no way did i remotely find myself in any danger. Clearly this random timely bleeding effect is probably by extension Juno using it to prevent Cross from doing anything at all. It doesnt matter to what you can accredit the bleeding effect to, regardless, as not one member of abstergo had the sensability to grab a POE from there stockpile in the case that Desmond decided to use it.

Further more its created a vast paradox regarding history repeating itself. The only logical conclusion i can come up with is that the foresight of Minerva or Juno is unable to accurately assertain the future. If Minerva is capable of having this foresight of Desmonds reboot of the world, in what capacity does she afford the luxury of ignoring the foresight that she would have that vision in the first place. It dives into the deep of paradox and takes no action to justify or explain any of this. And it wont get explained, because they will come to the same conclusion that i have that, they have contradicted themselves within there own universe and now we dont know anything at all. As regards for the temple, its state of degradation is obviously the result of time, however considering its completely functional its very possible that the poor state is visual. Not to mention juno talks about automation, and also is concerned that Desmond would somehow access the knowledge to save the world had he not shown up at the exact time he did. Because Juno has the power of foresight, it can be concluded that Desmond would be able to access this knowledge, and be able to also use it. The entire way the foresight of both Juno and Minerva is presented is paradoxical and simply poorly done. The genius of this series was allowing time travel without the inherent paradox situation. Animus was a plot device that was pure genius in nature. Only to later suscribe to something paradoxical in nature and just not making sense. Of coarse i seen the temple, the conclusions the writers made were pathetic and the justifications you are coming up with only come to there defense. Dont get me wrong, I have played each game from AC to AC3, having completed each of them as fully as im going to. I love the franchise, but i simply dont see any back pedalling to correct this.

F4H bandicoot
11-07-2012, 11:06 PM
Further more its created a vast paradox regarding history repeating itself. The only logical conclusion i can come up with is that the foresight of Minerva or Juno is unable to accurately assertain the future. If Minerva is capable of having this foresight of Desmonds reboot of the world, in what capacity does she afford the luxury of ignoring the foresight that she would have that vision in the first place. It dives into the deep of paradox and takes no action to justify or explain any of this. And it wont get explained, because they will come to the same conclusion that i have that, they have contradicted themselves within there own universe and now we dont know anything at all. As regards for the temple, its state of degradation is obviously the result of time, however considering its completely functional its very possible that the poor state is visual. Not to mention juno talks about automation, and also is concerned that Desmond would somehow access the knowledge to save the world had he not shown up at the exact time he did. Because Juno has the power of foresight, it can be concluded that Desmond would be able to access this knowledge, and be able to also use it. The entire way the foresight of both Juno and Minerva is presented is paradoxical and simply poorly done. The genius of this series was allowing time travel without the inherent paradox situation. Animus was a plot device that was pure genius in nature. Only to later suscribe to something paradoxical in nature and just not making sense. Of coarse i seen the temple, the conclusions the writers made were pathetic and the justifications you are coming up with only come to there defense. Dont get me wrong, I have played each game from AC to AC3, having completed each of them as fully as im going to. I love the franchise, but i simply dont see any back pedalling to correct this.

The nexus of time (How Minerva is there) does not appear to be a 'simple' thing though. Juno tells us that time travel can not happen properly when explaining the ways they tried to save the world. It's never developed on, but it's not time travel by any means.
Instead they look at calculations and numbers. For instance Minerva 'looks' forward, but will not be able to act upon this event because of how the system works. They don't travel in time.
As for cycles, they happen everywhere, everything repeats. The fact they know what will happen is basic sense really.

Mega8BitPanda
11-07-2012, 11:46 PM
In no capacity can i expect Vidics leaders to accept his irrationality in your proposed statement that somehow the situation was justified. The simple truth is, Vidic would have known Desmond had the capacity to wield the apple, given his ancestry. Vidic would have instead told Shaun or Rebecca to bring the apple, as it completely insane to simply assume that his negative opinion towards Desmond would have discredited the very real threat regardless in all this. Vidics leaders would have seen this a mile away and called his decisions into question. For a secret society that has maintained tyrannical rule for centuries to assume that any person capable of wielding this device to to any capacity probably doesnt have the balls to do so is unjustified. And i dont really care about the specific events in the mission, it all is just one bad arc point after another. In no capacity can this be justified. Desmond didnt use the apple until he had no choice but to do so. And the foreshadowing within that specific part ruins the entire part as you already know whats going to happen dont you. Again, walk into abstergo, spam AOE, leave. In no way did i remotely find myself in any danger. Clearly this random timely bleeding effect is probably by extension Juno using it to prevent Cross from doing anything at all. It doesnt matter to what you can accredit the bleeding effect to, regardless, as not one member of abstergo had the sensability to grab a POE from there stockpile in the case that Desmond decided to use it.

Further more its created a vast paradox regarding history repeating itself. The only logical conclusion i can come up with is that the foresight of Minerva or Juno is unable to accurately assertain the future. If Minerva is capable of having this foresight of Desmonds reboot of the world, in what capacity does she afford the luxury of ignoring the foresight that she would have that vision in the first place. It dives into the deep of paradox and takes no action to justify or explain any of this. And it wont get explained, because they will come to the same conclusion that i have that, they have contradicted themselves within there own universe and now we dont know anything at all. As regards for the temple, its state of degradation is obviously the result of time, however considering its completely functional its very possible that the poor state is visual. Not to mention juno talks about automation, and also is concerned that Desmond would somehow access the knowledge to save the world had he not shown up at the exact time he did. Because Juno has the power of foresight, it can be concluded that Desmond would be able to access this knowledge, and be able to also use it. The entire way the foresight of both Juno and Minerva is presented is paradoxical and simply poorly done. The genius of this series was allowing time travel without the inherent paradox situation. Animus was a plot device that was pure genius in nature. Only to later suscribe to something paradoxical in nature and just not making sense. Of coarse i seen the temple, the conclusions the writers made were pathetic and the justifications you are coming up with only come to there defense. Dont get me wrong, I have played each game from AC to AC3, having completed each of them as fully as im going to. I love the franchise, but i simply dont see any back pedalling to correct this.

Vidic was constantly allowed to act on his own accord and how he see fit, he was head of that branch of Abstergo so I highly doubt others would be around to over see him until debriefings like we saw in AC1. The only time he has ever been brought into question was the board meeting at the end of AC1 and if you care not for specific details then that is sort of cherry picking. Again, as I pointed out there was also the fact that Vidic was unaware that Desmond even knew how to use the Apple as only he learned how to use much after Vidic had him under house arrest in Abstergo. To my knowledge, only the Assassin's knew Desmond had a high concentration of First Civ' DNA only because off how the Apple in Rome reacted and Abstergo merely knew he was related to Altair and numerous other Assassin's of interest.

The Bleeding Effect has constantly been foreshadowed and quite frankly I chalked it down to dramatic foreshadowing from the previous games and us finally getting to see it. I would have rather an actual fight with Cross but what they did was logical, random or not, and it isn't sensible to have a Piece of Eden to combat another. What if Desmond won regardless? That would mean that another piece to the Assassin's. You'd want to limit your losses as much as possible in such circumstances. Again, had Cross done his job and out right shot Desmond's legs or arms like he kept gloating about then; problem solved. He'd been a valuable asset in doing soon pre ACIII and thus would be trusted to do so again. Instead he choose to expose himself and corner Desmond to gloat rather than do his job, something he hasn't really done before in the comics etc.

As mentioned, Minerva is still technically in the past but merely being projected through time to speak and not act. You also disregard my examples about real life events that prove the point that there is a high risk of history repeating due to words simply being twisted.

" Listen and you shall be saved " quickly gets twisted to " Listen or you will burn " so those of the time can gain power through the guise of 'knowledge'. Men are easily corruptible and, not matter how good willed the original message, will result in the Templar and Assassin war to either continue or begin anew under new names. As well as this, like Desmond says in Revelations, merely stating a threat over and over again about the Templars being Abstergo did nothing for him and was the main reason he left the Brotherhood as a teenager. Simply stating there will be a solar flare and catastrophic events in hundreds and hundreds from now would do nothing and eventually become a joke, as we see today in real life, or skewered to those whom hunger for power.

As for Desmond and knowledge, I think it was more a case of Juno expected to see Desmond and co' at the temple and no Juno and simply would have instructed him on how to operate things and would not have been a case of him accessing knowledge that he can comprehend in the temple. Juno delayed Minerva, which is explained, and thus even she couldn't get her 'hologram' there in time. That or the device was to simply be used without the catch of Juno being there as nothing was there ready to be built. which you seem to be implying?

Temple wise, my point being that sure it ran while Desmond got there but the state of it was far from okay, which we agree on, but I highly doubt, looking at the state of it, it'd last another millennium til the next Solar Flare. There is far too much chance involved to assume so with such high stakes. The power cells had either rather out or scattered, since it wasn't powered up when they got there thus meaning we'd have to also bank on more power cells being salvageable by the time the next Solar Flare arrives. Food, still, is an issue, also.

ACfan443
11-08-2012, 12:14 AM
The context of the ending I didn't really mind. AC3 was supposed to be a conclusion to Desmond's story. What I DID hate was the execution of the ending. The cutscenes were terrible, it was underwhelming, uninspiring, anti-climactic and looked like it was put together in a rush. It didn't feel complete, I was longing for more. If you look at all the previous AC endings they were epic/dramatic - especially revelations' ending. For AC3 I was expecting something similar of the sort, dramatic and climactic. But no, when he 'saved the world' you had some ******* newsreader telling the story of how the aurora covered the earth and saved everyone yada yada. What the actual f***? Why did they do that? Why couldn't it show it all happening there and then?

Even keeping with the context of the ending (Desmond dying, Juno being freed) They could have made it (and Desmond's whole plot/missions) in AC3 a million times better if they'd put the time and care into it. It seems like even the devs started hating Desmond.

If you're gonna do a petition, I'll happily sign it.

Layytez
11-08-2012, 12:24 AM
Iv'e been watching the different ending videos on youtube and i'm glad that everyone is mad with the ending. It actually shows that we are not being unreasonable or too harsh. We paiteintly waited for something to answer our questions, provide a path to the next game and be a well suited ending to Desmond. I don't care if i'm stating this as opinion or fact but if you believe that ending was great and satisfying then you are blind ****ing idiot and a **** follower.

Mr_Shade
11-08-2012, 12:34 AM
Iv'e been watching the different ending videos on youtube and i'm glad that everyone is mad with the ending. It actually shows that we are not being unreasonable or too harsh. We paiteintly waited for something to answer our questions, provide a path to the next game and be a well suited ending to Desmond. I don't care if i'm stating this as opinion or fact but if you believe that ending was great and satisfying then you are blind ****ing idiot and a **** follower.
Less of the insults please...


May surprise you to know that some people DO like the ending - and you shouldn't call them names for doing so..


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - as you are...

however

Start slinging abuse around, and you will not.

IlDiv0
11-08-2012, 03:06 AM
The context of the ending I didn't really mind. AC3 was supposed to be a conclusion to Desmond's story. What I DID hate was the execution of the ending. The cutscenes were terrible, it was underwhelming, uninspiring, anti-climactic and looked like it was put together in a rush. It didn't feel complete, I was longing for more. If you look at all the previous AC endings they were epic/dramatic - especially revelations' ending. For AC3 I was expecting something similar of the sort, dramatic and climactic. But no, when he 'saved the world' you had some ******* newsreader telling the story of how the aurora covered the earth and saved everyone yada yada. What the actual f***? Why did they do that? Why couldn't it show it all happening there and then?

Even keeping with the context of the ending (Desmond dying, Juno being freed) They could have made it (and Desmond's whole plot/missions) in AC3 a million times better if they'd put the time and care into it. It seems like even the devs started hating Desmond.

If you're gonna do a petition, I'll happily sign it.

Very well said.

It's especially interesting if you compare it to Brotherhood's final Desmond sequence, which was far longer than that featured in any of the other games. I think AC3 should have closed out on a Desmond mission, since this series was really all about him acquiring his ancestors' skills and knowledge.

The ending completely fails to capture any of the emotional content leading up until this point. Nothing with Shaun/Rebecca. Compared to the sendoffs which both Ezio and Altair received, it's almost like the writers didn't give a crap that Desmond just sacrificed himself to save the world. More emphasis was placed on Juno's release than it was on Desmond's death.

weston_19
11-08-2012, 03:08 AM
Your perception of time is completely different than mine. Ill explain my justification for my critical attitude towards the plot. Not saying your wrong however it seems youve allowed so very deep exceptions to exist in your understanding of time. Also, if you feel those are adequate justifications to the content of the abstergo rescue missions than so be it, i however feel those justifications are besides the point. They seem like weak arguments to justify the content, and please im not saying your wrong just that i cannot accept those justifications.

Onto the paradoxical nature created by the plot, i must first point out that i do realise that minerva is using pre-recorded messages to deliver her wisdom unto future generations. She is in all capacities dead, not existing anymore. Barring some rediculous justification that contradicts the very laws of space and time, then the obvious conclusion is that her ability to communicate to ezio in the original vault was soley due to her premonition. This removes freewill of humans from the equation, making time a predetermined path In which can be observed to an accuracy that is ludicrous. Over 75,000 years she was able to anticipate every event leading up to ezio entering the vault to pass a message to an observer a further 500 years in the future using a technologically advance device relive past memories only to stumble upon her warning. Even if in any capacity Juno is able to counter-act Minervas foresight, Minerva herself presents the contradiction.

With the events of the games actually taking place within a short period of time Minervas warning in AC2 contradicts her own ability of foresight. She set the events into action to speak through Ezio to Desmond to warn him of the impending diaster and to seek out the other temples to prevent it from happening. Within the short period of between this original message and meeting Minerva in person, she completly changes positions and states to Desmond that the possibility to save the world has been squandered between the centuries of war between templars and assassins. So if this message is also the result of her premonition, seeing she has no capacity to act on any events and only offer advise, why would she take the trouble to warn Desmond in the first place if she has also seen that they will miss the mark of salvation by not a few months or days, but centuries? Either you subscribe to the established concept of time, and find this paradoxical in nature, or you seek justification in eluding to some unknown aspect of time that these beings understand that completly condradicts our understanding with no explaination or justification. Again in such a small capacity this small problems paints the bigger picture of contradiction and paradox that has been completly ignored by the writers that wrote this canonical universe in the first place.

Based on the unknowable nature of history repeating itself without some form of foresight, i will agree that words are perverted from there original meaning causeing an information paradox. However every circumstance excluding the extinction event is different, and to assert that despite this the course of history will repeat is almost offensive intellectually. The survivors have seen first hand the effects of this information perversion, and to assume that they are in all capacities unable to prevent it from repeating is insulting to the intellect granted to the cast. Shaun being a historian and Rebecca being a engineer of vast capacity, are two examples of somthing the original survivors did not have the liberty of having. This is were your argument contradicts the time travellers paradox, in that any small change will drastically alter the course of history, and is exactly why nobody touches the paradox. It creates so many holes in the story that it is irreversable, with the most succesful being one being a plot dancing around this paradox in humour and with no commitment to accuratly portray this paradox, with that being BTTF. You may assert that what Juno says rings true in that the words will be twisted, but every circumstance is inherently different and would be impossible to come to the conclusion that history would once again follow the same events as before. They justify this reality by presenting as a premonition as so it cannot be called into question the outcome however based on the internal contradictions of the premonitionary nature neither minerva nor juno really have a clue as to what could or will happen, regardless of supernatural attributes assigned to them.

pirate1802
11-08-2012, 03:20 AM
Iv'e been watching the different ending videos on youtube and i'm glad that everyone is mad with the ending. It actually shows that we are not being unreasonable or too harsh. We paiteintly waited for something to answer our questions, provide a path to the next game and be a well suited ending to Desmond. I don't care if i'm stating this as opinion or fact but if you believe that ending was great and satisfying then you are blind ****ing idiot and a **** follower.

YouTube is filled with kids, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that "everyone" is mad with the ending. It may not be an ideal measure to judge what "everyone" thinks about the ending, just sayin'. Also, whats with the hate? Dare to like something I hate?????? Must be an idiot!!

Turul.
11-08-2012, 03:23 AM
Anyone begging for a different ending needs to be quiet and deal with it.

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE IT IS HEADED. It's obvious there is more to the story and it doesn't end with AC3, so enjoy the game and story for what it is, and wait until next year.

pirate1802
11-08-2012, 03:27 AM
Anyone begging for a different ending needs to be quiet and deal with it.

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE IT IS HEADED. It's obvious there is more to the story and it doesn't end with AC3, so enjoy the game and story for what it is, and wait until next year.

Indeed. For all we know, Desmond might not even be dead, not totally.

Will_Lucky
11-08-2012, 03:33 AM
This really isn't as bad as Mass Effect 3. The ending, unsatisfactory it is, just ends Desmond's story, not the franchise's.

The Fourth single player release in the Mass Effect franchise is already well into production. The ME3 ending didn't end that franchise.

My problem is how shoddy the AC3 ending is, its obvious there will be a sequel but its a horrific ending all things considered.

weston_19
11-08-2012, 03:37 AM
To say that humankind has no way of combating there own fallibility (twisting of words) is false. Its called objective truth. To acknowledge the fallibility in the first place is somthing that came through philosophy and is credited to forming the scientific community in the first place. In any capacity this is another example of serious differences drawn between the original survivors and the cast survivors. To purge any subjective thought process during the reboot of humanity, we would essentially be skipping the dark ages with profound philosophical understanding never available to the one who made the mistakes in the first place. Subjective thought was exploited by religion, somthing shaun in full capacity understands. Once again you have no justification to assert that the survivors would have no way of preventing this, causing a radically different future. Its probably why Juno is narrating, because Minerva would realise this, and is the premonition of Juno in the first place, leading me to believe that Minerva ultimatley seen this and encouraged Desmond to make the decision, based on the fact that if presented with that information i would glady burn to start fresh without the bane of subjective truth demolishing 1000 years of social and technological progress.

Do not tell me to be quite and deal with it. Im not complaining that i didnt like the ending, that has no bearing on how i critise the content of the story. Regardless of your personal feelings towards the ending, im simply asking for justification for the pathetic content of the story. I found that Connors story was profound and well executed. I liked every bit of the game. That is not to say i cannot point out aspects of the plot that offer contradiction and conclude its badly written. Any story that needs this amount of justification and explaination is inherenty bad. Dont agree? Thats fine. But dont tell me to shut up. If your story is filled with holes, im going to point them out. I made the same concerns regarding the tv show LOST. Guess what, it was concluded also with terrible content and so full of holes that no amount of backfilling could save a shred of it. The same rings true here, and nomatter what happens in future games irreversable damage has been done. Theyve commited writers suicide in all respects. If in no way you can see my point, just wait for the next game. Your not going to find any anwsers there either.

Mega8BitPanda
11-08-2012, 04:18 AM
To say that humankind has no way of combating there own fallibility (twisting of words) is false. Its called objective truth. To acknowledge the fallibility in the first place is somthing that came through philosophy and is credited to forming the scientific community in the first place. In any capacity this is another example of serious differences drawn between the original survivors and the cast survivors. To purge any subjective thought process during the reboot of humanity, we would essentially be skipping the dark ages with profound philosophical understanding never available to the one who made the mistakes in the first place. Subjective thought was exploited by religion, somthing shaun in full capacity understands. Once again you have no justification to assert that the survivors would have no way of preventing this, causing a radically different future. Its probably why Juno is narrating, because Minerva would realise this, and is the premonition of Juno in the first place, leading me to believe that Minerva ultimatley seen this and encouraged Desmond to make the decision, based on the fact that if presented with that information i would glady burn to start fresh without the bane of subjective truth demolishing 1000 years of social and technological progress.

As I understood it, Minerva did not know of Juno up until those very last moments where she gazed into the nexus one last time before her end. Because of Juno's alterations to the Eye it would take centuries to rectify it so it wouldn't unleash her, otherwise things would have been okay. Also, Minerva's messages were to get Desmond to the Temple sooner but because she was un-aware of Juno until her final nexus projection, she could rectify the instructions that had been altered to lead Desmond by Juno to that exact moment, down to pretty much the second.

See, the First Civ' had greater advancements in technology than we ever had. We can both agree on this but bare with me; so to say the survivors had nothing like the our cast now is hard to say. Adam and Eve are one of the only people to ever break free of an Apple's hold and live to tell the tale. They would have understood the tools back then as they were slaves and so on. To say they would not have known how to craft anything to somewhat help their cause, I doubt that, however would they lack the means post flare? Sure would. They also would have mentioned the war when they rebeled and still we wound up with the world we had today in the AC universe.

By no means am I saying this is a certainty but it's a high chance. However, you're version of events depends on no-one like the Templars coming along again who'd hide the truth and be good willed towards the greater good of the solar flare surviving, many will want to obscure it for immediate gains, not gains they'll get after they're long dead. Rebecca and Shaun have the know how, yes, but what is a man without his tools? They'd be starting from square one, assuming that the temple has no tools itself given it's soul purpose is prevent the world's grisly fate and nothing else. Not only would they have to rebuild, they'd have to gather food and other essentials, things like paper and books to document such events would be pretty low on the list given having to make the world hospitable would be the prime goal so the message can even be passed on.

Even then, after their passing, a lot of it is going to be completely neutral again. Do you not think the original survivors mentioned the first civilisation and the war, etc? That's where the logic came from about history repeating. The message behind it being that we have done it before, the survivors had foretold of what had happened, their folly and their message of the flare. Desmond and co' will only be around for around 50 years, if not a little bit more or less, and after that we're still pretty much starting from scratch. Rebecca is an engineer in electronics and we no ground to really say otherwise. Shaun would be able to teach sure, but their have been much better than him in the past and we still wound up to this event in time. Remember, this is the second time, not the first, this is where the logic of history repeating itself comes in given the universe has established we had the same, if not more of what we had available and still failed. The First Civilisation left no notes on how to alter or even recreate the machine which holds Juno that we are aware of. We wouldn't even know if the power cells would survive the solar flare now that they are out of their vaults to even power the temple.

Bottom line; we can argue the semantics of this for hours as it is a hefty subject but it all comes down to the thought process of Desmond, which is what I'm trying to establish. He was presented with two evils and choose the one with more immediate effects, hoping that with the technology left unscathed would provide human kind a chance against Juno. After the second flare there would be no more Minerva and no more messages, merely Juno awaiting the next cycle while Desmond and the cast ponder on something the First Civilisation purposely designed them not to have; comprehension of the First Civilisation's knowledge.

weston_19
11-08-2012, 04:40 AM
I Make this comment only to commend you for your civility. Its extremely rare to find on forums and despite dissagreement it shows to others that ad homium attacks are irrelevent to any sort of discussion. You have been extremely ethical in your responses and hope that i have showed the same courtesy. Thank you. ( i still stand by my positions, and only wish to comend your attitude and manner as somthing to strive for)

pirate1802
11-08-2012, 04:42 AM
The Fourth single player release in the Mass Effect franchise is already well into production. The ME3 ending didn't end that franchise.

My problem is how shoddy the AC3 ending is, its obvious there will be a sequel but its a horrific ending all things considered.

We don't know if that Mass Effect would be a sequel, prequel or a different ball game altogether, nothing. It ay abandon ME3's storyline and start a whole different story of its own. ME3 may have been, for all intent and purpose, the full stop end of the first trilogy, which is why all the DLCs they are producing are pre-ending. AC3 provides plenty of clues that this is not the story endpoint, and what would happen next.

I wouldn't call the ending horrific, maybe weak or subpar. Horrific is too strong a word.

zhengyingli
11-08-2012, 05:05 AM
I wouldn't call the ending horrific, maybe weak or subpar. Horrific is too strong a word.
I do wonder if it's an ending at all. If it's to open up something, they did an okay job. Connor's ending was the only ending in the game, from what I saw.

pirate1802
11-08-2012, 05:17 AM
I do wonder if it's an ending at all. If it's to open up something, they did an okay job. Connor's ending was the only ending in the game, from what I saw.

Indeed. Its patently obvious they want to continue the story. That is why to me AC3's ending will be never as bad as ME3's.

projectpat06
11-08-2012, 05:31 AM
Besides not knowing what happened to the templars with satellite or or really what their plans were with the grand temple, I liked the ending. If you go back and watch the ending to brotherhood. It all makes sense how Juno was setting Desmond up the entire time. She tells him back then that he must play his part. The Cross darkens the path so she killed Lucy who was a templar. Desmond must find eve which I'm pretty sure happened to be Juno. The salvation lied with her even if it came at a cost. Ultimately, freedom meant death so control was the only hope for survival. It was a constant theme that Connor faces with his father and the templars.

This just opens the door for even bigger war against Juno which will make for a good story IMO. That is, if we are still here in 2013.

zerocooll21
11-08-2012, 01:00 PM
That is, if we are still here in 2013.

haha :p

CheersForBeers0
11-14-2012, 05:34 AM
Created an account just to chime in on this, as I think that it is a very sad state of affairs when players demand a new ending.

You are NOT entitled for an ending you like. You are entitled to a game and a story. Nothing more. You are fully in your rights to not like the ending, just please try not to forget the hours of playtime you enjoyed getting to the ending.

Its unfair to ask a writer for a do over. Imagine how crappy films, books, games would be if they had to factor in the fact that a small segment of people may not like it.

Again, don't like it, totally your right, and I'm sure that many would loved to see the ending you describe, but the game, like life, doesn't work that way. Bottom line is that the same team (I believe) has worked on this for a long time, and I'm sure that they knew what they were doing.

Everyone has the right to love or hate, just as the developers have the right to end THEIR STORIES the way they like.

Heres the thing, WE THE PEOPLE are entitled to a good ending, seeing as WE THE PEOPLE PAY FOR IT! Now I understand that the AC series has issues coming up with good endings going all the way back to AC1. I will say I wasnt shocked that the game ended this way, they did it with AC1 and I was pissed off then. I dont care to come on forums but when I drop my hard earned money on a game that in my opinion is so full of bugs I nearly gave up playing a half a dozen times. But I continued on because I wanted to see how they would end the **** thing, and alas it shorts you on story and substance and pulls a green glow ending.

Overall as someone who has a degree in history, the Revolutionary story is fun but not as cool as the trailers made it to be. Maybe the dlc will fill in some of these plot holes, I doubt it though.

pirate1802
11-14-2012, 07:02 AM
Heres the thing, WE THE PEOPLE are entitled to a good ending, seeing as WE THE PEOPLE PAY FOR IT! Now I understand that the AC series has issues coming up with good endings going all the way back to AC1. I will say I wasnt shocked that the game ended this way, they did it with AC1 and I was pissed off then. I dont care to come on forums but when I drop my hard earned money on a game that in my opinion is so full of bugs I nearly gave up playing a half a dozen times. But I continued on because I wanted to see how they would end the **** thing, and alas it shorts you on story and substance and pulls a green glow ending.

Overall as someone who has a degree in history, the Revolutionary story is fun but not as cool as the trailers made it to be. Maybe the dlc will fill in some of these plot holes, I doubt it though.

Here's the thing. What or who decides what is a good ending or what is not? As far as this ending is concerned, some people liked it, some did not, and some are ambivalent towards it. Its pretty much divided. There's no good or bad ending, there are endings we like, and there are endings we don't like.

This change-the-ending-cuz we-don't-like-it trend starts a slippery slope, once we are on it, people can demand about changing pretty much everything in a game because it doesn't please someone. Just gather large enough people, and you're good to go. Some say we've already started sliding that slope.

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 08:25 AM
I would rather complain the hell out of something rather then forcing the devs to change an existing work. They know if they don't somehow acknowledge my complaint, they might lose a future customer. Vote with my wallet, I suppose.

IlDiv0
11-14-2012, 12:04 PM
This change-the-ending-cuz we-don't-like-it trend starts a slippery slope, once we are on it, people can demand about changing pretty much everything in a game because it doesn't please someone. Just gather large enough people, and you're good to go. Some say we've already started sliding that slope.

See, this is a good thing. Mass Effect 3 already demonstrated what happens when developers attempt to be "artistic" with their endings. As consumers, the goal is to maximize entertainment from a given product. Suppliers meet that demand through games, movies, etc. If a product fails to please, it fails to sell. At the end of the day though, a good amount of consumer cooperation is necessary to achieve the above, which isn't always easy. Mass Effect 3 forums had about 80,000 fans voting on their ending polls over the course of two weeks and this still barely got the developers' attention.

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 12:47 PM
I wonder how much is because of writing and how much because of commitments.

It's possible Nolan North just wanted out.

pirate1802
11-14-2012, 12:56 PM
See, this is a good thing. Mass Effect 3 already demonstrated what happens when developers attempt to be "artistic" with their endings. As consumers, the goal is to maximize entertainment from a given product. Suppliers meet that demand through games, movies, etc. If a product fails to please, it fails to sell. At the end of the day though, a good amount of consumer cooperation is necessary to achieve the above, which isn't always easy. Mass Effect 3 forums had about 80,000 fans voting on their ending polls over the course of two weeks and this still barely got the developers' attention.

I would agreed on ME3,, but a part of me still feels nervous.

zerocooll21
11-14-2012, 01:38 PM
Here's the thing. What or who decides what is a good ending or what is not? As far as this ending is concerned, some people liked it, some did not, and some are ambivalent towards it. Its pretty much divided. There's no good or bad ending, there are endings we like, and there are endings we don't like.

This change-the-ending-cuz we-don't-like-it trend starts a slippery slope, once we are on it, people can demand about changing pretty much everything in a game because it doesn't please someone. Just gather large enough people, and you're good to go. Some say we've already started sliding that slope.

+1





It's possible Nolan North just wanted out.

Doubtful, this is what he does for a living and I'm sure he's getting paid very well for it :p

Mega8BitPanda
11-14-2012, 03:08 PM
Maybe the best way they could handle this is an Epilogue DLC. Introduce us to a new character and see the solar flare, the saving of the Earth and Juno's immediate actions from this new perspective outside of the Temple. Maybe even as Erudito or the Animus Technician? It could put a lot of minds at ease as for where the Modern Day plot is going for those that care. Maybe even as an Assassin that retrieve Shaun, Rebecca and William and they can provide first hand expedition? Finally showing us the emotions towards Desmond many of us desire?

The more I think about it, a longer Epilogue "DLC" provides an opportunity not only to the fans but Ubisoft, too. I wouldn't even mind paying for it despite the Season Pass being in my possession given they'd have to make it and such if it wasn't already planned. Although if it did become the norm' after it... yuck.

pirate1802
11-14-2012, 03:48 PM
Maybe the best way they could handle this is an Epilogue DLC. Introduce us to a new character and see the solar flare, the saving of the Earth and Juno's immediate actions from this new perspective outside of the Temple. Maybe even as Erudito or the Animus Technician? It could put a lot of minds at ease as for where the Modern Day plot is going for those that care. Maybe even as an Assassin that retrieve Shaun, Rebecca and William and they can provide first hand expedition? Finally showing us the emotions towards Desmond many of us desire?

The more I think about it, a longer Epilogue "DLC" provides an opportunity not only to the fans but Ubisoft, too. I wouldn't even mind paying for it despite the Season Pass being in my possession given they'd have to make it and such if it wasn't already planned. Although if it did become the norm' after it... yuck.

Like the epilogue DLC for PoP (2008) ? That'd be a good idea. Although I don't see it being free, and there are two problems with it being priced:
1) People are gonna whine that this content should have been ingame from the get go (a not totally unjustified claim).
2) Asking people to pay for "clarifying" content would set off another kind of wrong trend among the publishers. Once they realize people are willing to pay for epilogue DLCs they would intentionally start cutting off contents and release them later as paid clarification DLCs. Again, some would say this trend has already started.

One thing they can do however, is to make a short animated movie, like Embers. They have done this in the past to serve as epilogues/prologues, and methinks there is a real chance them might do that again this time, given the big jump forward in the plot. That is the best way forward, all tings considered. However I'm not sure if they will make that movie if it falls outside their planned program, i.e, they may not make it just because fans demand it.

twenty_glyphs
11-14-2012, 04:58 PM
The ending as explained by EscoBlades and elaborated on greatly by the strategy guide is actually not that bad of a premise. However, the presentation in the game is incredibly rushed, nothing is properly explained or even hinted at, and many of the explanations from the guide can't be pieced together by the player on their own no matter how smart they are or how many clues they look for. At its core, it's just a completely unsatisfying conclusion for a character and a 5 year story. Especially when many of the clues weren't there in past installments, and many other clues that were built up as being hugely important were either ignored or are being saved for even further down the line. There is no emotional payoff when you are told that 5 chapters of story are almost meaningless, almost nothing you were told is true or important, the lead character being a pawn just accepts it without any sort of fight, and you end up feeling like you have just been watching a prequel to the real story.

At the very least, a more satisfying conclusion would have involved Desmond doing something, anything, however small, to fight back against Juno. He still would have lost and died, and Juno still would have gotten out, but he would have laid the groundwork for humanity to fight back against her and save themselves. That would be a true messiah story. I have a feeling that's how they plan to run with things, but they should have shown him fighting somehow and hinted at him laying the groundwork for salvation from Juno. Instead, he seems to just assume that other people will find a way to fight her and proceeds to do exactly as he's told by the villain. You just can't end the protagonist's story without any sort of fight.

You just can't keep mystery going without payoff, and AC3's ending has very little payoff. It dismisses the two big conflicts of the entire series with a wave of the hand (Abstergo's satellite was always going to fail, and Desmond just had to push a button to prevent the Apocalypse, which was never even shown) and it provides no payoff for the most interesting mysteries of the whole series. I get that perhaps the whole Eve thing is still the true central premise, and that something about her was always intended as a way to stop Juno or someone like her. Subject 16 was contacted by Juno in The Lost Archive somehow, so maybe he always knew that something about her was wrong (The Lost Archive had a message saying "Beware the daughter of the sixth"). Maybe his whole purpose was to guide Desmond to save the world from the solar flare and also show them the importance of Eve in stopping Juno. But still, to string us along this far and still have absolutely no payoff to most of the mysteries has caused me to lose almost all interest I once had in the mysteries of the series and the story as a whole. I was honestly more interested in fighting off the Templars from gaining control than fighting some supervillain who wants control the same as them.

I don't want them to change the ending. The less I have to see or deal with it anymore, the better. They'd probably just screw it up even more. What they can do is start fresh with a satisfying explanation of what happened and a satisfying aftermath with William, Shaun and Rebecca moving forward. Give us a new protagonist who's going to have a satisfying story arc with real emotional payoff in the end. Show us how all the work Desmond did will help humanity fight Juno so we can feel better about his story and his work when looking back. I get the desire to create art, but I see pure art as existing for its own sake. Stories are entertainment, and entertainment means satisfying your audience in some way. Shock us, surprise us, make us sad, but give us some sort of satisfying story. Then in hindsight your story might just be interpreted as great art.

infamous_ezio
11-14-2012, 05:28 PM
The ending as explained by EscoBlades and elaborated on greatly by the strategy guide is actually not that bad of a premise. However, the presentation in the game is incredibly rushed, nothing is properly explained or even hinted at, and many of the explanations from the guide can't be pieced together by the player on their own no matter how smart they are or how many clues they look for. At its core, it's just a completely unsatisfying conclusion for a character and a 5 year story. Especially when many of the clues weren't there in past installments, and many other clues that were built up as being hugely important were either ignored or are being saved for even further down the line. There is no emotional payoff when you are told that 5 chapters of story are almost meaningless, almost nothing you were told is true or important, the lead character being a pawn just accepts it without any sort of fight, and you end up feeling like you have just been watching a prequel to the real story.

At the very least, a more satisfying conclusion would have involved Desmond doing something, anything, however small, to fight back against Juno. He still would have lost and died, and Juno still would have gotten out, but he would have laid the groundwork for humanity to fight back against her and save themselves. That would be a true messiah story. I have a feeling that's how they plan to run with things, but they should have shown him fighting somehow and hinted at him laying the groundwork for salvation from Juno. Instead, he seems to just assume that other people will find a way to fight her and proceeds to do exactly as he's told by the villain. You just can't end the protagonist's story without any sort of fight.

You just can't keep mystery going without payoff, and AC3's ending has very little payoff. It dismisses the two big conflicts of the entire series with a wave of the hand (Abstergo's satellite was always going to fail, and Desmond just had to push a button to prevent the Apocalypse, which was never even shown) and it provides no payoff for the most interesting mysteries of the whole series. I get that perhaps the whole Eve thing is still the true central premise, and that something about her was always intended as a way to stop Juno or someone like her. Subject 16 was contacted by Juno in The Lost Archive somehow, so maybe he always knew that something about her was wrong (The Lost Archive had a message saying "Beware the daughter of the sixth"). Maybe his whole purpose was to guide Desmond to save the world from the solar flare and also show them the importance of Eve in stopping Juno. But still, to string us along this far and still have absolutely no payoff to most of the mysteries has caused me to lose almost all interest I once had in the mysteries of the series and the story as a whole. I was honestly more interested in fighting off the Templars from gaining control than fighting some supervillain who wants control the same as them.

I don't want them to change the ending. The less I have to see or deal with it anymore, the better. They'd probably just screw it up even more. What they can do is start fresh with a satisfying explanation of what happened and a satisfying aftermath with William, Shaun and Rebecca moving forward. Give us a new protagonist who's going to have a satisfying story arc with real emotional payoff in the end. Show us how all the work Desmond did will help humanity fight Juno so we can feel better about his story and his work when looking back. I get the desire to create art, but I see pure art as existing for its own sake. Stories are entertainment, and entertainment means satisfying your audience in some way. Shock us, surprise us, make us sad, but give us some sort of satisfying story. Then in hindsight your story might just be interpreted as great art.

What does the strategy guide say about the ending? would you mind PMing it to me?

The stuff in TLA actually makes sense, "they must all suffer as we suffered", The hole thing about lilith, all kind of makes sense. I suggested that clay was hinting at something for the "bigger journey" as Jeff yohalem put it when asked about the ACB truth meaning.

EDIT: Juno, is the daughter of saturn, saturn being the sixth planet... my god I can't believe i didn't notice this earlier.

twenty_glyphs
11-14-2012, 06:11 PM
What does the strategy guide say about the ending? would you mind PMing it to me?

The stuff in TLA actually makes sense, "they must all suffer as we suffered", The hole thing about lilith, all kind of makes sense. I suggested that clay was hinting at something for the "bigger journey" as Jeff yohalem put it when asked about the ACB truth meaning.

I can just put it here. It basically says that Juno was telling a lot of the story when she told Desmond about the six methods of salvation that the First Civilization tried. They were: building towers to absorb the flare, building a shield around the planet, using Apples in orbit to enthrall the world and make their thoughts become reality to protect them, looking forward in time (divination) to see if they survived or to find a solution in the future (this was Minerva's project), bio-engineering people to survive the flare's effects (this was the project Juno's husband volunteered for and ended up dying from), and transcendence, transferring their minds into a new vessel.

About the first method of towers, Juno said they would take a thousand years or more to build, so they just didn't have enough time. But she also said that some returned later and sought to automate the process and have machines finish the towers. This is likely what happened during the time after the first solar flare, and the guide says the towers are likely underground because you can see the Grand Temple goes incredibly deep (also likely to dissipate the flare to the Earth's core). About the sixth method of salvation, transcendence, Juno said it was easy to enter the new vessel but difficult to leave, requiring something "wrong".

The guide elaborates on actual story points with specifics that sound like they fit, but I'm not sure if they're conjecture or actually told to them by Ubisoft. Basically it says that Minerva looked into the future and contacted Ezio using a device (the Eye?) in the Grand Temple. It says Juno later used the same device to contact Desmond at the end of Brotherhood. At some point after that, Tinia and Minerva discovered that Juno and others were working to re-conquer the world instead of to save it, so they killed them in the Grand Temple (maybe that's where they discovered it and it just happened fast). I think the guide says then Tinia used the divination device to contact Desmond at the end of Revelations, destroyed it, and then sealed Juno and the others inside. But Juno wasn't dead yet, so she used the sixth method of salvation to transfer her mind into the computers of the Grand Temple and survive.

At that point, Juno was alive as an AI like Subject 16. The guide says she could then use the Grand Temple to reach out to Pieces of Eden throughout the world and manipulate humans along the path she wanted. That's likely how she contacted Connor the two times they spoke through the "crystal ball" in AC3. She likely wanted to prevent humans from accessing the Grand Temple and finding out about her until the last minute, when she could use the impending apocalypse as a bargaining chip in forcing humans to choose to "turn on" the Grand Temple and set her free. That's the whole reason she wanted the Mohawk people and Connor to prevent anyone from accessing the Grand Temple too early, where people would still have a long time to see if there was a way to use the Grand Temple to save the world and keep Juno from getting out. She said herself in an email to Desmond that Tinia and Minerva left messages for Desmond at the Temple, but that she destroyed them. The guide says later in her life Minerva looked into the future again to see if their work had succeeded in saving humanity. That's why she showed up while Juno was talking to Desmond, and why Juno was surprised since she had used another device outside the Grand Temple, where she had destroyed the original divination device.

So I get all that, but it's really hard to put that together based on what the story presents to us. I still think this is an interesting premise, and now based on the ending to Liberation, it seems like there was a faction of TWCB who may have wanted to free humanity and so set up Eve to be able to lead them to freedom. It's likely they engineered humanity's freedom, and included Tinia and Minerva, and would explain why they worked so hard to let Desmond save the world even after they were gone.

infamous_ezio
11-14-2012, 06:40 PM
I can just put it here. It basically says that Juno was telling a lot of the story when she told Desmond about the six methods of salvation that the First Civilization tried. They were: building towers to absorb the flare, building a shield around the planet, using Apples in orbit to enthrall the world and make their thoughts become reality to protect them, looking forward in time (divination) to see if they survived or to find a solution in the future (this was Minerva's project), bio-engineering people to survive the flare's effects (this was the project Juno's husband volunteered for and ended up dying from), and transcendence, transferring their minds into a new vessel.

About the first method of towers, Juno said they would take a thousand years or more to build, so they just didn't have enough time. But she also said that some returned later and sought to automate the process and have machines finish the towers. This is likely what happened during the time after the first solar flare, and the guide says the towers are likely underground because you can see the Grand Temple goes incredibly deep (also likely to dissipate the flare to the Earth's core). About the sixth method of salvation, transcendence, Juno said it was easy to enter the new vessel but difficult to leave, requiring something "wrong".

The guide elaborates on actual story points with specifics that sound like they fit, but I'm not sure if they're conjecture or actually told to them by Ubisoft. Basically it says that Minerva looked into the future and contacted Ezio using a device (the Eye?) in the Grand Temple. It says Juno later used the same device to contact Desmond at the end of Brotherhood. At some point after that, Tinia and Minerva discovered that Juno and others were working to re-conquer the world instead of to save it, so they killed them in the Grand Temple (maybe that's where they discovered it and it just happened fast). I think the guide says then Tinia used the divination device to contact Desmond at the end of Revelations, destroyed it, and then sealed Juno and the others inside. But Juno wasn't dead yet, so she used the sixth method of salvation to transfer her mind into the computers of the Grand Temple and survive.

At that point, Juno was alive as an AI like Subject 16. The guide says she could then use the Grand Temple to reach out to Pieces of Eden throughout the world and manipulate humans along the path she wanted. That's likely how she contacted Connor the two times they spoke through the "crystal ball" in AC3. She likely wanted to prevent humans from accessing the Grand Temple and finding out about her until the last minute, when she could use the impending apocalypse as a bargaining chip in forcing humans to choose to "turn on" the Grand Temple and set her free. That's the whole reason she wanted the Mohawk people and Connor to prevent anyone from accessing the Grand Temple too early, where people would still have a long time to see if there was a way to use the Grand Temple to save the world and keep Juno from getting out. She said herself in an email to Desmond that Tinia and Minerva left messages for Desmond at the Temple, but that she destroyed them. The guide says later in her life Minerva looked into the future again to see if their work had succeeded in saving humanity. That's why she showed up while Juno was talking to Desmond, and why Juno was surprised since she had used another device outside the Grand Temple, where she had destroyed the original divination device.

So I get all that, but it's really hard to put that together based on what the story presents to us. I still think this is an interesting premise, and now based on the ending to Liberation, it seems like there was a faction of TWCB who may have wanted to free humanity and so set up Eve to be able to lead them to freedom. It's likely they engineered humanity's freedom, and included Tinia and Minerva, and would explain why they worked so hard to let Desmond save the world even after they were gone.

Nice one. Few questions though, does it mention what the messages were about? the ones that juno destroyed.

At the end minerva says "I built the eye to aid us", is she referring to the divination device? because I got a little confused if this eye was the same as the abstergo one, (amplified the apple) or just a seperate thing all together.

It makes sense yeah, but I don''t understand why previous plot points weren't addressed, mainly the whole ACB truth... I saw the liberations ending, gave me some hope that the future games might help us understand this a bit better...

twenty_glyphs
11-14-2012, 06:58 PM
Nice one. Few questions though, does it mention what the messages were about? the ones that juno destroyed.

At the end minerva says "I built the eye to aid us", is she referring to the divination device? because I got a little confused if this eye was the same as the abstergo one, (amplified the apple) or just a seperate thing all together.

It makes sense yeah, but I don''t understand why previous plot points weren't addressed, mainly the whole ACB truth... I saw the liberations ending, gave me some hope that the future games might help us understand this a bit better...

The guide doesn't mention the messages Tinia (why do they insist on calling him that instead of Jupiter? Harder to type and say) and Minerva left for Desmond in the Grand Temple. I'm not sure if the guide mentions the Eye by name (not with me at the moment), but I would say just calling it the "Eye" makes me think of seeing as in seeing into the future and divination. I think it's unfortunate that it conflicts with the name for the Eye-Abstergo satellite, because it just creates more confusion. I doubt Abstergo's satellite was going to deal with seeing into the future, but be more of a watchful eye in the sky.

I agree that the most frustrating plot point dropped is the Truth mentions of Eve. Such an interesting concept, and they still haven't addressed it. I can't believe they are dragging it out for so long. I get the feeling it's part of the "something bigger" that Jeffrey Yohalem mentioned, but seriously, if you want it to be such a big mystery, at least drop a few more hints in AC3. At least give us something new to chew on, and maybe close a door or two the mystery might lead down. I'm also incredibly frustrated that it feels like all the other side content in the Truth has just been ignored or outright contradicted by the main narrative. I'm also really disappointed in The Chain now. I thought that was supposed to give more context for Desmond's story in AC3, but it adds nothing of value after seeing AC3. I really hope Jeffrey Yohalem gets to come back as the lead writer for some future games, as I think my favorite elements of the series have been written by him.

jamgamerforever
11-14-2012, 08:51 PM
I would enjoy an extended version, but not a new ending. Yes, Desmond dies. It's called drama, not every character lives in a story.

I do, however, feel it was rather abrupt after the massive build-up the inside of the Temple was given. I'd like a proper goodbye from Desmond to Shaun, Rebecca and his father too.

mashroot
11-15-2012, 07:27 AM
I have no problem with this ending, but that is because I know that Desmond is still part of the story, because I'm positive that he will be the one to defeat Juno. I don't believe that UBI would actually kill him off in this way, or at this time. I feel like UBI has been teasing us from the very first game, by deliberately limiting the information they are giving us in the modern day story, and steeping the story in mystery, and to me, that is part of the lure of this franchise, it keeps me coming back for more. I beileve that this is not a bad story at all, and that it is deliberately incomplete to make us think, "WTF". Yes, it's a cliff hanger, and it probably means that we are nearing the end of the franchise, which might end in the next game. I really think that when Minerva says, "It will destroy you", that she is referring to the aftermath of releasing Juno, as if to say, this future will be the end of freedom, and the destruction of the Assassin order. It's really about the context in which the words were used, after which, Desmond ordered the others to leave. So, why do that, why make them leave if Minerva and Juno meant, "you will be electrocuted if you touch the blue glowy ball thing"? I'm sorry, but that is way too simple for Assassin's Creed, and given the lack of emotion from the other Assassins, it was almost like, "Yep, this is what we were expecting". If it really cost a human life to release Juno, and, "there is no other way, I think that Desmond's father would push him aside, and place his own hand on the mechanism, having the same DNA, to keep his son from killing himself, especially after Desmond single handedly raided Abstergo to save him. Neither Minerva, or Juno are truly benevolent toward human beings, and they each have their own agendas, neither of them being trust worthy. I remember Desmond making a brief comment or two about this during the course of the series, and you know that he wouldn't condemn humanity to slavery, so he has to believe that he can defeat, or re-imprison Juno, especially since he is the one that released her, even if it was to save lives. There is something more to this story that we aren't going to know until the release of the next game, of that much I am certain.

pirate1802
11-15-2012, 09:08 AM
I have no problem with this ending, but that is because I know that Desmond is still part of the story, because I'm positive that he will be the one to defeat Juno. I don't believe that UBI would actually kill him off in this way, or at this time. I feel like UBI has been teasing us from the very first game, by deliberately limiting the information they are giving us in the modern day story, and steeping the story in mystery, and to me, that is part of the lure of this franchise, it keeps me coming back for more. I beileve that this is not a bad story at all, and that it is deliberately incomplete to make us think, "WTF". Yes, it's a cliff hanger, and it probably means that we are nearing the end of the franchise, which might end in the next game. I really think that when Minerva says, "It will destroy you", that she is referring to the aftermath of releasing Juno, as if to say, this future will be the end of freedom, and the destruction of the Assassin order. It's really about the context in which the words were used, after which, Desmond ordered the others to leave. So, why do that, why make them leave if Minerva and Juno meant, "you will be electrocuted if you touch the blue glowy ball thing"? I'm sorry, but that is way too simple for Assassin's Creed, and given the lack of emotion from the other Assassins, it was almost like, "Yep, this is what we were expecting". If it really cost a human life to release Juno, and, "there is no other way, I think that Desmond's father would push him aside, and place his own hand on the mechanism, having the same DNA, to keep his son from killing himself, especially after Desmond single handedly raided Abstergo to save him. Neither Minerva, or Juno are truly benevolent toward human beings, and they each have their own agendas, neither of them being trust worthy. I remember Desmond making a brief comment or two about this during the course of the series, and you know that he wouldn't condemn humanity to slavery, so he has to believe that he can defeat, or re-imprison Juno, especially since he is the one that released her, even if it was to save lives. There is something more to this story that we aren't going to know until the release of the next game, of that much I am certain.

Not sure whether it would be ultimately be Desmond to defeat Eve (my guess is that it will be Eve) but yes I agree. I don't think we have seen the last of Desmond yet. In some form or other, we'll see more of him in future ACs.

zerocooll21
11-15-2012, 01:19 PM
I agree that the most frustrating plot point dropped is the Truth mentions of Eve. Such an interesting concept, and they still haven't addressed it..

We are not done with that plot point yet. With the ending of liberation its clear they haven't given up on the Eve part. I forget which pod cast it was but one of the devs was asked about the Tree in TLA an IIRC it was hinted towards being connected to Edan. I said a while ago but I really do hope they go back to the first civ's time. We'll probably have to, thru eve, find a way to stop juno.

dxsxhxcx
11-15-2012, 05:20 PM
how much do you want to bet that they'll bring Desmond (at least his body) back as the new vessel for Juno... :p Minerva said he would be destroyed if he touched that thing in the end, but his body remained intact after he did that, if Juno was an AI like twenty_glyphs said and was capable to transfer her mind to other objects what's stopping her from doing that again with Desmond's body that is "empty" now? This or she has her body safe at some place inside the Grand Temple...

zhengyingli
11-15-2012, 09:34 PM
how much do you want to bet that they'll bring Desmond (at least his body) back as the new vessel for Juno... :p Minerva said he would be destroyed if he touched that thing in the end, but his body remained intact after he did that, if Juno was an AI like twenty_glyphs said and was capable to transfer her mind to other objects what's stopping her from doing that again with Desmond's body that is "empty" now? This or she has her body safe at some place inside the Grand Temple...
Just to add to that, what if the data of Desmond within the memory core grabs hold of the hacker at the end of the game?

zerocooll21
11-15-2012, 11:21 PM
Good idea but I think its more them trying to push the idea of not needing a present day ancestors to relive memories.

mashroot
11-16-2012, 04:25 AM
how much do you want to bet that they'll bring Desmond (at least his body) back as the new vessel for Juno... :p Minerva said he would be destroyed if he touched that thing in the end, but his body remained intact after he did that, if Juno was an AI like twenty_glyphs said and was capable to transfer her mind to other objects what's stopping her from doing that again with Desmond's body that is "empty" now? This or she has her body safe at some place inside the Grand Temple...

Well, Juno hates humans, so she probably doesn't want to use a human body, and she probably doesn't want to become mortal, so she will likely want an immortal machine for a vessel instead. Also, she is a woman, so she probably wants a womanly form, and Desmond is a man. So, I think that she might use a female android body, and I think that whole part about pivots, and uploading Desmond's genetic memories to "the cloud", is a very good indication that his body is still connected to his mind, and Abstergo has him now.


We are not done with that plot point yet. With the ending of liberation its clear they haven't given up on the Eve part. I forget which pod cast it was but one of the devs was asked about the Tree in TLA an IIRC it was hinted towards being connected to Edan. I said a while ago but I really do hope they go back to the first civ's time. We'll probably have to, thru eve, find a way to stop juno.

I didn't hear that podcast, or play Liberation, because I don't have a Vita, but I hope to god that Clay's Truth messages are really hints of what is to come! If that is the case, then we will probably visit the precursor race era, and discover a piece of Eden that can stop Juno, which is my best guess at least, and with most of Clay's cryptic messages focusing on the early 20th century, we might get redirected into an ancestor in that era that befriends and helps Nikola Tesla, maybe he witnesses the Tunguska blast of 1908 that destroyed a Templar base, so as to tie in further with the story in Assassin's Creed The Fall, and it might wrap up with us fighting the Thule Society Nazis for that piece of Eden the Czar used as a staff, because the Nazis were after the Spear of Destiny, which could turn out to be the staff. Maybe, it will be the key to defeating Juno, and the modern Assassins need to recover it.

I know, I'm reading far too much into this, and we will almost certainly return to Connor, but I also think that Connor's story ended perfectly in ACIII, and it seems like the main purpose of Haytham/Connor was to get the key to free Juno, but now that we need to stop her it really doesn't make any sense, at least in my opinion, for us to follow Connor in the next game, unless Desmond is trapped in Connor's memory like he was in Ezio's.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-16-2012, 04:57 AM
Good idea but I think its more them trying to push the idea of not needing a present day ancestors to relive memories.But there will still be modern protagonists & story anyway. The "Juno reveal" in AC3 pretty much burried all hope that they would wrap up the modern story and just let us jump into historical periods without modern frame. So I'm not sure if it even makes a difference that someone could hack steal Desmond/someone else's memories.

pirate1802
11-16-2012, 05:01 AM
Maybe its so that they don't need a direct descendant to view the memories?

RatonhnhakeFan
11-16-2012, 05:12 AM
Maybe its so that they don't need a direct descendant to view the memories?
It could open up a bit more possibilities but in the end, it doesn't change much. The modern frame is still gonna be there, who uses the Animus is just a consequence of its presence. And it ain't like we needed anyone to 'hack' into Desmond's memories to continue Ratonhnhaké:ton's story, I mean, Desmond's not the sole only descendant of his. And even if he was, there are still things like Memory Seals or Shroud of Eden that could just as well bypass Desmond.

mashroot
11-16-2012, 06:00 AM
It could open up a bit more possibilities but in the end, it doesn't change much. The modern frame is still gonna be there, who uses the Animus is just a consequence of its presence. And it ain't like we needed anyone to 'hack' into Desmond's memories to continue Ratonhnhaké:ton's story, I mean, Desmond's not the sole only descendant of his. And even if he was, there are still things like Memory Seals or Shroud of Eden that could just as well bypass Desmond.

Desmond's father says that he used the animus in the intro of ACIII.

zerocooll21
11-16-2012, 01:08 PM
But there will still be modern protagonists & story anyway. The "Juno reveal" in AC3 pretty much burried all hope that they would wrap up the modern story and just let us jump into historical periods without modern frame. So I'm not sure if it even makes a difference that someone could hack steal Desmond/someone else's memories.

True. IDK, It just seems more special that the modern day is reliving THEIR ancestors. For me anyway.

thePhilCasper
11-19-2012, 07:48 PM
[SPOILERS]

I think that the ending was generally disappointing to most people. I have only heard good of it from one person. The ending for Desmond was so short, and seemed weird to me. Why did he have to die? Why couldn't he just save the world?
Edit: Okay. I see now that I would hate for someone to ask me for a new ending, but at least a longer more detailed ending that shows the people from a few different countries reacting to the solar flare and then the shield coming up and then more reactions so it feels like we accomplish something with the sacrifice.
As it stands, it didn't seem like they cared too much. Nobody did, not even the characters. No goodbye,no hugs, nothing. They did nothing but leave. As far as we know, they didn't even come back to check on him. We don't get to see much. I just want them to extend the ending and add a lot more detail to it. I don't mean epic exactly, but a bit more forceful and impacting.

Here the petition is: https://www.change.org/petitions/ubisoft-montreal-ubisoft-change-the-ending-of-desmond-miles-in-assassin-%CC%81s-creed-iii-video-game?utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=34369292

Shingram
11-20-2012, 11:42 PM
Created an account just to chime in on this, as I think that it is a very sad state of affairs when players demand a new ending.

You are NOT entitled for an ending you like. You are entitled to a game and a story. Nothing more. You are fully in your rights to not like the ending, just please try not to forget the hours of playtime you enjoyed getting to the ending.

Its unfair to ask a writer for a do over. Imagine how crappy films, books, games would be if they had to factor in the fact that a small segment of people may not like it.

Again, don't like it, totally your right, and I'm sure that many would loved to see the ending you describe, but the game, like life, doesn't work that way. Bottom line is that the same team (I believe) has worked on this for a long time, and I'm sure that they knew what they were doing.

Everyone has the right to love or hate, just as the developers have the right to end THEIR STORIES the way they like.

Umm you DO realize you have every right to demand a different ending, you may not get one, but you can seek one out. Keep tooting that facist horn though because of the garbage reasoning that "oh it's not fair to the writer meehhh" It's not fair we had to put up with this atrociously presented pile of dog puke called the resolution of major AC plot points and twists.

Shingram
11-20-2012, 11:50 PM
So I get all that, but it's really hard to put that together based on what the story presents to us. I still think this is an interesting premise, and now based on the ending to Liberation, it seems like there was a faction of TWCB who may have wanted to free humanity and so set up Eve to be able to lead them to freedom. It's likely they engineered humanity's freedom, and included Tinia and Minerva, and would explain why they worked so hard to let Desmond save the world even after they were gone.

So you're saying that You have to pick up the more poorly done side games for systems you may not have, DLC AND strategy guides to get information that still doesnt lead to this garbage making any sense...I really really think I'm buying AC used from now on. Sick of supporting game companies that screw the fans to sell more product (EA sports probably being the worst offender)

zerocooll21
11-21-2012, 12:22 AM
Both points are valid to each person, But this game isn't a new article that can be rewritten. This game is more inline with a movie and you don't see people petitioning for different movie endings.

pirate1802
11-21-2012, 05:02 AM
Umm you DO realize you have every right to demand a different ending, you may not get one, but you can seek one out. Keep tooting that facist horn though because of the garbage reasoning that "oh it's not fair to the writer meehhh" It's not fair we had to put up with this atrociously presented pile of dog puke called the resolution of major AC plot points and twists.

No better way to counter your opponent's arguments than labeling it fascist/communist/capitalist/imperialist/bourgeoise eh?

But ontopic: Yes people can demand anything. I can demand to turn AC into a manga cartoon series. Doesn't mean they have to be justified. When we play a game/read a book/watch a movie, it is implicitly assumed the story may or may not go in a direction according to our wishes. We pay money to experience a game Ubisoft has created, according to their own imagination. If we like it, well and good. If we don't, we vote with our wallet and decide not to give our money to those who don't deserve it. And yes, it is not fair to bend the developers down to confirm to your wishes. It is their story and it is 100% their right how to conclude (or not conclude) the series. It's bad that you don't like the ending. I'm sorry for that. Take it as a learning experience and don't invest in the series any further. Vote with your wallet; that's our right and we should do that.

I think Ubisoft should include this disclaimer in their trailers henceforth:
"The following videogame was created by a group of people who may or may not conclude the series in a way you desire. Buy the game at your own risk."

Assassin_M
11-21-2012, 05:13 AM
No better way to counter your opponent's arguments than labeling it fascist/communist/capitalist/imperialist/bourgeoise eh?

But ontopic: Yes people can demand anything. I can demand to turn AC into a manga cartoon series. Doesn't mean they have to be justified. When we play a game/read a book/watch a movie, it is implicitly assumed the story may or may not go in a direction according to our wishes. We pay money to experience a game Ubisoft has created, according to their own imagination. If we like it, well and good. If we don't, we vote with our wallet and decide not to give our money to those who don't deserve it. And yes, it is not fair to bend the developers down to confirm to your wishes. It is their story and it is 100% their right how to conclude (or not conclude) the series. It's bad that you don't like the ending. I'm sorry for that. Take it as a learning experience and don't invest in the series any further. Vote with your wallet; that's our right and we should do that.

I think Ubisoft should include this disclaimer in their trailers henceforth:
"The following videogame was created by a group of people who may or may not conclude the series in a way you desire. Buy the game at your own risk."
Or "It`s Our Story..Sorry you may not like it, but it`s our story..K B ??"

Jexx21
11-21-2012, 06:21 AM
I leikcheese

pirate1802
11-21-2012, 06:55 AM
I leikcheese

Make a petition to include more Cheese in AC3.

redka243
11-21-2012, 12:34 PM
The ending is stupid and makes no sense. When i saw desmonds two choices i thought, of course he'll choose to take the hit then have mankind be free rather than enslave them to juno which is what a templar might do.... When he chose to let juno enslave mankind i was like what the ****? Agreed that having desmond die served no pupose as far as the story was concerned. They could have just decided that him touching the orb would free juno then desmond would be one among many enslaved. Also why did he have to touch the orb and william couldnt do it for example. Also haytham was a cool character. Im pissed they killed him. This ending was both terrible and too short. The stupid ending credits were much too long and unskippable :(.

How can the game be so good and the ending/story so
bad?

zerocooll21
11-21-2012, 12:52 PM
... I can demand to turn AC into a manga cartoon series.

That would be friggen awesome. Love me some cartoons.


Make a petition to include more Cheese in AC3.


HA! AC3 Y U no have better ChEESE!?

pirate1802
11-21-2012, 01:27 PM
The ending is stupid and makes no sense. When i saw desmonds two choices i thought, of course he'll choose to take the hit then have mankind be free rather than enslave them to juno which is what a templar might do.... When he chose to let juno enslave mankind i was like what the ****?

Because him letting everyone die would have totally achieved everything Desmond wanted to do since game 1 and a totally sane decision..

LightRey
11-21-2012, 04:31 PM
Because him letting everyone die would have totally achieved everything Desmond wanted to do since game 1 and a totally sane decision..
That, and the fact that making such a decision would go against everything the order stands for. Risking losing freedom is something the Assassins will always choose before limiting such freedom themselves. If Desmond had decided not to save the world, he would have been responsible for the deaths of billions of innocents only for something that doesn't even directly threaten freedom. The Assassins achieve their goals by eliminating direct threats to freedom and never indirect threats.

ACfan443
11-21-2012, 09:41 PM
No better way to counter your opponent's arguments than labeling it fascist/communist/capitalist/imperialist/bourgeoise eh?

But ontopic: Yes people can demand anything. I can demand to turn AC into a manga cartoon series. Doesn't mean they have to be justified. When we play a game/read a book/watch a movie, it is implicitly assumed the story may or may not go in a direction according to our wishes. We pay money to experience a game Ubisoft has created, according to their own imagination. If we like it, well and good. If we don't, we vote with our wallet and decide not to give our money to those who don't deserve it. And yes, it is not fair to bend the developers down to confirm to your wishes. It is their story and it is 100% their right how to conclude (or not conclude) the series. It's bad that you don't like the ending. I'm sorry for that. Take it as a learning experience and don't invest in the series any further. Vote with your wallet; that's our right and we should do that.

I think Ubisoft should include this disclaimer in their trailers henceforth:
"The following videogame was created by a group of people who may or may not conclude the series in a way you desire. Buy the game at your own risk."

I don't mind the direction they take with the ending. Desmond dies, fine, I don't have a problem with that. But if you're gonna kill off a lead character who's featured in a franchise spanning 5 years, and is dragging a load of loose threads on his shoes, you better do it damm well. And that's what I feel they failed to do, the execution.

MCRMJ
11-22-2012, 02:07 AM
Juno possessing Desmond, besides being an odd choice, could possibly have been hinted at, Juno does say that reversing the vessel transfer took "Something wrong". What's more wrong than killing someone and using their body for themselves.

I'd love a little more explanation in game, especially if it can be mentioned in a guide (to be honest, a hell of a lot of stuff in the game is not explained, game mechanics included). Revelations was a slight let down as it didn't actually reveal all that much. But now to leave another game with another hastily reached conclusion, it does make me worry.

I'm finding myself feeling as I did after ME3 in some ways, unless they have some major story points in the DLC to come, I don't know how I'm supposed to care about the reasoning behind it. Desmond is dead, so if it's going back in Connors past to flesh things out, why should I care, it would be of no consequence to the over arching story. If it build on things and explains a bit more (as the Da Vinci DLC did with ACB) then you are left to ask the question, why wasn't this included in the main game.

pirate1802
11-22-2012, 05:47 AM
I don't mind the direction they take with the ending. Desmond dies, fine, I don't have a problem with that. But if you're gonna kill off a lead character who's featured in a franchise spanning 5 years, and is dragging a load of loose threads on his shoes, you better do it damm well. And that's what I feel they failed to do, the execution.

Yes. I'm not saying the ending was perfect, neither am I defending it. it has its flaws. Infact my complaint is same as yours; execution. But the point is not that. If you ask ten people what they don't like in AC III's endings they'll tell you ten different things. Some don't like Desmond's death, some don't like his decision, some don't like it that we didn't get to choose, some don't like Juno being set free, some don't like the cliffhanger and unanswered questions. And then there are also people who liked the ending. Different people have different opinions on what to fix. That's the problem. Take an example of Connor. Some people find him as interesting as a potato, some adore him. So what if those who despise him forced Ubisoft to make him more "interesting" ? I loved ACR's ending. Absolutely adored it. But I understand there are people who hated it. Had they lobbied Ubisoft into changing ACR's ending I would have been angrier than a mad monkey. Once you start accepting people's petitions for things they don't "like", you open a can of worms. Ubisoft did make errors, definitely. But I think its best they understand their mistakes and ensure that doesn't happen in the future, rather than changing or adding to the ending. (And that is not even taking into account the feasibility of making such an end-changing DLC..)

I hope I made my point clearly amidst all this ranting. :P

thePhilCasper
11-23-2012, 11:56 PM
Yes. I'm not saying the ending was perfect, neither am I defending it. it has its flaws. Infact my complaint is same as yours; execution. But the point is not that. If you ask ten people what they don't like in AC III's endings they'll tell you ten different things. Some don't like Desmond's death, some don't like his decision, some don't like it that we didn't get to choose, some don't like Juno being set free, some don't like the cliffhanger and unanswered questions. And then there are also people who liked the ending. Different people have different opinions on what to fix. That's the problem. Take an example of Connor. Some people find him as interesting as a potato, some adore him. So what if those who despise him forced Ubisoft to make him more "interesting" ? I loved ACR's ending. Absolutely adored it. But I understand there are people who hated it. Had they lobbied Ubisoft into changing ACR's ending I would have been angrier than a mad monkey. Once you start accepting people's petitions for things they don't "like", you open a can of worms. Ubisoft did make errors, definitely. But I think its best they understand their mistakes and ensure that doesn't happen in the future, rather than changing or adding to the ending. (And that is not even taking into account the feasibility of making such an end-changing DLC..)

I hope I made my point clearly amidst all this ranting. :P

Yes. Everybody hates something else on the ending. I hate ending. Someone hates unanswered questions. Guess Why. Itīs probably because Ubisoft promised them answered. And to ACR ending. Someone hated the ending of ACR because I heard rumors that ACR is last of AC games. First I was angry too. But ACR was not last. I loved it too when i discovered that itīs not the last one. And it got perfect meaning to prepare us for ACIII. But ACIII ending was promised to be a conclusive one. FINALLY! So I thought first. But I think it wasnīt much conclusive, donīt you?

pirate1802
11-24-2012, 03:35 AM
Yes. Everybody hates something else on the ending. I hate ending. Someone hates unanswered questions. Guess Why. Itīs probably because Ubisoft promised them answered. And to ACR ending. Someone hated the ending of ACR because I heard rumors that ACR is last of AC games. First I was angry too. But ACR was not last. I loved it too when i discovered that itīs not the last one. And it got perfect meaning to prepare us for ACIII. But ACIII ending was promised to be a conclusive one. FINALLY! So I thought first. But I think it wasnīt much conclusive, donīt you?

Going by the poll, "everyone" doesn't hate the ending. :P That wasn't the intention of my post anyway. I meant to say among those who hate it, do so for different reasons. AC III was never advertised as the final conclusive game of the series, so I wasn't expecting all my questions answered anyway.

Layytez
11-24-2012, 05:16 AM
Even if you're not going to answer the questions, at least give an indication that you are going to answer them.

legends7788
11-24-2012, 05:20 AM
I loved the ending. If you dont like it youre just a hater. How else does ac3 rack up so many sales? SMH

pirate1802
11-24-2012, 05:29 AM
Even if you're not going to answer the questions, at least give an indication that you are going to answer them.

I think they did indicate that..

legends7788
11-24-2012, 05:31 AM
oh here we are again with the whiners

14 pages already, pushing 15

cmon people

thePhilCasper
11-24-2012, 09:52 AM
Going by the poll, "everyone" doesn't hate the ending. :P That wasn't the intention of my post anyway. I meant to say among those who hate it, do so for different reasons. AC III was never advertised as the final conclusive game of the series, so I wasn't expecting all my questions answered anyway.

ACIII was advertised as the final conclusive game to everything we know in AC and Desmondīs story. Thatīs called trilogy. And new trilogy must be new if you want to call it so.

thePhilCasper
11-24-2012, 09:53 AM
I loved the ending. If you dont like it youre just a hater. How else does ac3 rack up so many sales? SMH

Because game is GREAT, except for ending.

thePhilCasper
11-24-2012, 09:54 AM
I think they did indicate that..

How?

pirate1802
11-24-2012, 09:56 AM
ACIII was advertised as the final conclusive game to everything we know in AC and Desmondīs story. Thatīs called trilogy. And new trilogy must be new if you want to call it so.

Nope sorry. AC was never advertised as the end to "everything we know in AC". Never. It was only advertised as the final piece in Desmond's personal story. They stated it many times they meant to continue the story past Desmond.

pirate1802
11-24-2012, 09:57 AM
How?

Liberation ending. Eve is mentioned there.

AC3 MP files. Erudito features quite heavily.

So it is obvious they intend to do something with these two plot points in the future, or they wouldn't bring them up again.

thePhilCasper
11-24-2012, 09:58 AM
Going by the poll, "everyone" doesn't hate the ending. :P That wasn't the intention of my post anyway. I meant to say among those who hate it, do so for different reasons. AC III was never advertised as the final conclusive game of the series, so I wasn't expecting all my questions answered anyway.

I meant from those who hate it, actually everyone hates something different. I didnīt say that those who voted "Loved it" actually hated it. Iīm not idiot. And yes. The last game of the TRILOGY must be conclusive and answer all the questions. And new trilogy must give new questions to us. And then I may call it good new trilogy.

thePhilCasper
11-24-2012, 10:06 AM
Nope sorry. AC was never advertised as the end to "everything we know in AC". Never. It was only advertised as the final piece in Desmond's personal story. They stated it many times they meant to continue the story past Desmond.

AC3 was advertised as the ending of the best trilogy ever and ending of trilogy demands to end whole tihng around it. I still canīt understand it. Minerva told Desmond in AC2 that he can save the world if he will find the temples. Then he goes in the Temple in AC3 and same Minerva tells him... that he canīt?! Itīs the proof that somewhere between AC2 and AC3 Ubisoft decided to drag it. Why couldnīt Desmond just come in the Temple with Templars on his tail (he doesnīt know it) and save the world with some twist before it? Ubisoft is masters of twists. Why they couldnīt make one. No flashbacks in the end?! No memories of his ancestors and his life if this game is about memories? No Templars in the ending? Thatīs weirder than opinion that Desmond should have been found by them. And do you know why is ending what it is? Because Ubisoft lost respect like they had in the past games. They just threw all past games away and theyīre going to do new...

pirate1802
11-24-2012, 10:11 AM
Iīm not idiot.
I didn't imply you were. Apologies if i came across as such.


The last game of the TRILOGY must be conclusive and answer all the questions. And new trilogy must give new questions to us. And then I may call it good new trilogy.
Only IF they plan on ending the whole overarching story in one trilogy and make another new trilogy, which clearly they didn't intend to, and neither did they promise they'll end ALL the conflicts in this one game. I seriously think you didn't follow the dev interviews before the release. (again, not meaning to insult you)

Either way, ubisoft ditched the trilogy structure long ago. For all we know, a new AC may be out next year. Where does one trilogy end and another start? Its more of a continuous series of games than a trilogy now.

pirate1802
11-24-2012, 10:23 AM
AC3 was advertised as the ending of the best trilogy ever and ending of trilogy demands to end whole tihng around it. I still canīt understand it. Minerva told Desmond in AC2 that he can save the world if he will find the temples. Then he goes in the Temple in AC3 and same Minerva tells him... that he canīt?! Itīs the proof that somewhere between AC2 and AC3 Ubisoft decided to drag it. Why couldnīt Desmond just come in the Temple with Templars on his tail (he doesnīt know it) and save the world with some twist before it? Ubisoft is masters of twists. Why they couldnīt make one. No flashbacks in the end?! No memories of his ancestors and his life if this game is about memories? No Templars in the ending? Thatīs weirder than opinion that Desmond should have been found by them. And do you know why is ending what it is? Because Ubisoft lost respect like they had in the past games. They just threw all past games away and theyīre going to do new...

Disagree with everything you said. Show me where they said AC3 was supposed to be the absolute end of the trilogy. Heck it isn't a trilogy anymore, just putting a number after the name doesn't make one.And Ubisoft never lost "respect" or anything, they didn't threw the past games away. they just steered the series in a new direction. Some didn't like it, some did. To each his own.

EDIT: You just now discovered Ubisoft is dragging it? lol I thought it was amply clear when they started putting out yearly games. Ubisoft is a corporation, they are here to make money, not to entertain us. They will make money whichever way they can, and they were like that when they made AC1 and they are like that now. Nothing has changed.

zerocooll21
11-24-2012, 04:44 PM
oh here we are again with the whiners

14 pages already, pushing 15

cmon people


Oh look, and a hipster whiner.... Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

pirate1802
11-24-2012, 04:57 PM
Oh look, and a hipster whiner.... Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Dun reply to him.. he a well-known troll xD

Shingram
11-24-2012, 05:49 PM
No better way to counter your opponent's arguments than labeling it fascist/communist/capitalist/imperialist/bourgeoise eh?

But ontopic: Yes people can demand anything. I can demand to turn AC into a manga cartoon series. Doesn't mean they have to be justified. When we play a game/read a book/watch a movie, it is implicitly assumed the story may or may not go in a direction according to our wishes. We pay money to experience a game Ubisoft has created, according to their own imagination. If we like it, well and good. If we don't, we vote with our wallet and decide not to give our money to those who don't deserve it. And yes, it is not fair to bend the developers down to confirm to your wishes. It is their story and it is 100% their right how to conclude (or not conclude) the series. It's bad that you don't like the ending. I'm sorry for that. Take it as a learning experience and don't invest in the series any further. Vote with your wallet; that's our right and we should do that.

I think Ubisoft should include this disclaimer in their trailers henceforth:
"The following videogame was created by a group of people who may or may not conclude the series in a way you desire. Buy the game at your own risk."

Actually the word fascist was thrown in there to make fun of you for being close minded and overreactive and was not nearly the best counter point to your lack of logic and plethora of drama. try reading the other 100 or so words all put together to form a coherent, valid, correct critique of you. Writing the entire thing THATS actually the better way to counter an arguement not just one word. I'd expect an adult to know that.

You just posted a baffingly contradictory post which indicates you are either a troll or honestly just ignorant. You are that hypocritical that you say "Vote with your wallet" which would obviously mean not giving the devs money and costing them their livelihoods and while you advocate for THIS you simultaneously say "It's not fair to use words to petition them to put out a better product (choc full of better presentation and a conclusive, satisfying ending whether good in outcome for the protagonist or bad in outcome it doesnt matter as long as it's actually done well). Just brilliant (sarcasm) dude let's deprive them of livelihood so we can spare their feelings with our words, criticisms and petitions...just astounding

Keep fantasizing about how you're a champion for good and you are totally correct in your hardline stance against legitamately criticizing a product people paid for.

This ending and MUCH of the resolution and characterization in this series SUCKS flat out. This has been a consistent problem. They routinely throw out major plot points with little to no explanation or hide the answers in text walls, optional easy to miss side convos/bios, poorly done side games for niche systems, comic books, etc. They'll put giant effort into the trailer and then no part of the game ever comes close to the awesomeness in their trailer. They want to advertise and sell 10/10 material but provide only 7.5 or 8/10 material and thats going to piss people off the more they do it. "God forbid they work hard and come up with a brand new direction for the assassins series after coming up with a satisfying CONCLUSIVE ending after FIVE main games and several side games" (paraphrased from game reviewer angryjoe)

Copy and paste the same gameplay mechanics from AC1 -ACRV. I actually had more trouble with this games jump/climb detection and horse riding then any other AC game. The running and sneak assassinations were reduced in quality and efficacy (especially the running assassination). The buildup and hype of ALL of the modern day story from Cross to first civ ALL of it was poorly explained, poorly executed, nonsensical and oftentimes annoying. They made the overworld large. But frankly it wasn't much bigger then any of the others. In fact all of the different areas in AC1 or AC2 might have added up to MORE overall area. Red Dead was on e HUUUUUGE overworld. AC3...not. Crafting was boring and unrewarding and came with little to no explanation. I really dont know where they put their effort with this game except for the naval stuff which was addicting and satisfying as all hell.

Auztinito
11-24-2012, 06:34 PM
People who like the mostly like the ending is because they hated Desmond as a character.It's Ubisoft's way giving some people the low blow & listening to their fans on forums.Also a way of milking the series.Give crappy ending to main character add a cliffhanger.I had a bad feeling after brotherhood & I knew I should not have bought this game for the modern day story of Desmond but for the time periods.I would love it if Desmond was not dead & to the least a permanent supporting character.First,Lucy was killed & then Desmond.I will be expecting a BIGGER low blow of a death in future games.

thePhilCasper
11-24-2012, 06:59 PM
I didn't imply you were. Apologies if i came across as such.


Only IF they plan on ending the whole overarching story in one trilogy and make another new trilogy, which clearly they didn't intend to, and neither did they promise they'll end ALL the conflicts in this one game. I seriously think you didn't follow the dev interviews before the release. (again, not meaning to insult you)

]Either way, ubisoft ditched the trilogy structure long ago. For all we know, a new AC may be out next year. Where does one trilogy end and another start? Its more of a continuous series of games than a trilogy now.

Yes, it is... And thatīs what I sought to explain.

pirate1802
11-25-2012, 04:21 AM
Actually the word fascist was thrown in there to make fun of you for being close minded and overreactive and was not nearly the best counter point to your lack of logic and plethora of drama. try reading the other 100 or so words all put together to form a coherent, valid, correct critique of you. Writing the entire thing THATS actually the better way to counter an arguement not just one word. I'd expect an adult to know that.

You just posted a baffingly contradictory post which indicates you are either a troll or honestly just ignorant. You are that hypocritical that you say "Vote with your wallet" which would obviously mean not giving the devs money and costing them their livelihoods and while you advocate for THIS you simultaneously say "It's not fair to use words to petition them to put out a better product (choc full of better presentation and a conclusive, satisfying ending whether good in outcome for the protagonist or bad in outcome it doesnt matter as long as it's actually done well). Just brilliant (sarcasm) dude let's deprive them of livelihood so we can spare their feelings with our words, criticisms and petitions...just astounding

Its simple business. They didn't give a product I like, they won't get my money. That's what any person who doesn't like a book/movie does. He takes his money somewhere else. He doesnt force the writer/director to change his story to suit his tastes.


Keep fantasizing about how you're a champion for good and you are totally correct in your hardline stance against legitamately criticizing a product people paid for.

Okay, show me where in my post, did I say anything about criticizing a product. Criticize the **** out of it. My post was only against petitioning to remove anything and everything you don't like.

Mega8BitPanda
11-25-2012, 04:43 PM
People who like the mostly like the ending is because they hated Desmond as a character.It's Ubisoft's way giving some people the low blow & listening to their fans on forums.Also a way of milking the series.Give crappy ending to main character add a cliffhanger.I had a bad feeling after brotherhood & I knew I should not have bought this game for the modern day story of Desmond but for the time periods.I would love it if Desmond was not dead & to the least a permanent supporting character.First,Lucy was killed & then Desmond.I will be expecting a BIGGER low blow of a death in future games.

Actually, I loved Desmond and he was the soul reason I invested into AC3 from day one. However I like the idea of the ending, I just don't like its execution and that's the point behind many others. We can all accept Desmond has to die, big actions require rather paramount sacrifices. Him dying isn't the issue for the majority, not because we hate him, but because of how he went out. If he went out with a climatic battle between Cross or Warren I highly doubt many would be complaining that much, honestly I do believe that. It's what I wanted the most out of this game but all I got was a simplified chase and QTE to kill both. Then I pressed a button and died.

Had they reworked it to be something more meaningful and satisfying as Altair and Ezio; there wouldn't be so much outcry, I guarantee it. Look at Zerocool's petition, for example.

Assassin's Creed has killed off four central characters at this point, three prior this game, no-one is all that safe as far as plot is concerned and quite frankly; I'm happy they are breaking away from the stereotypical 'The protagonist, Desmond, is safe until the end' as it always takes away tension in films and games. Now, whoever we play as in the next AC, I'll feel a sense of tension that they could well be dead by the end of it.

Again, it isn't a low blow that Desmond is dead, it is how he is dead that the majority are annoyed at when you look at the ending poll and most posts concerning the matter. By no means am I saying you are not allowed to feel that it isn't a good ending because he died and not how but dying in general. However, the majority disagrees and Ubisoft's obligation is the please the fans on the forums as they are the ones providing feedback, those who buy the games and don't give themselves a voice are subject to being walked over, yes.

In regards to being milked; franchises have managed to continue and satisfy costumers for over 60 years, look at the comic book industry, why can't games do this exactly?

zerocooll21
11-25-2012, 05:31 PM
Dun reply to him.. he a well-known troll xD

Haha, gotcha. Thanks bud :)


Had they reworked it to be something more meaningful and satisfying as Altair and Ezio; there wouldn't be so much outcry, I guarantee it. Look at Zerocool's petition, for example.

In regards to being milked; franchises have managed to continue and satisfy costumers for over 60 years, look at the comic book industry, why can't games do this exactly?


Thanks man, I've enjoyed reading all your well thought out responses on these forums. Cheers

Dangerzone50
11-25-2012, 05:47 PM
My main gripe is not with the ending itself so much... just that i had a feeling that this is how it would end throughout most of the game... For months up till release they said this would be Desmond's last game, the opening video speaks in past tense about Desmond, heck the game even spoils its own ending about halfway though if you do all the optional conversations with the other 3 modern assassins... what i loved about ALL the previous endings is that they were unpredictable mindf***ks...

and as a writer I can totally see how this was not the original intended ending to Desmond's story, and that they are intentionally trying to extend the life of the series into the next console generation... even the developers make numerous passing comments about how the series has been changed and rewritten several times now

Part me kinda wanted to see the game end by revealing that one of Desmond decedents was reliving his life several generations later... pulling the player into a totally new "modern era" and setting up the next series of stories... but alas no, Desmond touches a ball, simultaneously saves and dooms the world, then croaks

pirate1802
11-25-2012, 05:48 PM
I've enjoyed reading all your well thought out responses on these forums. Cheers

Me too xD

LightRey
11-25-2012, 06:35 PM
Let me just add that I do not support this petition. As much as I dislike how this game has failed to give the dramatic moments such as the ending the appropriate drama and tension, changing a story like that is always a bad thing.

Everan Shepard
11-25-2012, 07:02 PM
Been readin alot of the comments, agree and disagree, so I came to this one:
I loved the whole idea of the ending, but I guess I was expecting more of cutscenes, visuals, and music. I was expecting more in the line of the Revelations ending, with the solar flare destruction and in just in time the shield comes up and saves everyone. I had that idea in the head and not seeing it was dissapointing.
However, the whole Juno plan was excellent, and the new AC games will be interesting if they continue after this whole incident.

Desmond, well, I really hope he didn't die, but who knows. So I'd be open with a DLC with cutscenes and such, but do not change anything at all. And that's that :p

LightRey
11-25-2012, 07:06 PM
Been readin alot of the comments, agree and disagree, so I came to this one:
I loved the whole idea of the ending, but I guess I was expecting more of cutscenes, visuals, and music. I was expecting more in the line of the Revelations ending, with the solar flare destruction and in just in time the shield comes up and saves everyone. I had that idea in the head and not seeing it was dissapointing.
However, the whole Juno plan was excellent, and the new AC games will be interesting if they continue after this whole incident.

Desmond, well, I really hope he didn't die, but who knows. So I'd be open with a DLC with cutscenes and such, but do not change anything at all. And that's that :p
That's because there was no shield. That's not how they saved the world.

Everan Shepard
11-25-2012, 07:15 PM
Well, the green thing aroudn the planet, whatever that was. Thought it was some sort of shield.

LightRey
11-25-2012, 07:55 PM
Well, the green thing aroudn the planet, whatever that was. Thought it was some sort of shield.
That was the aurora borealis. It appears when the plasma of a solar flare comes into contact with the atmosphere. Usually it only appears near the poles because the earth's electromagnetic field deflects it to them, but if a flare is strong enough, or if the electromagnetic field fails, it can be seen all over the world (though that has never happened before as far as is known to science).

The game was (quite sadly) not clear on that at all.

Layytez
11-25-2012, 09:18 PM
Then how was the world saved ? Please don't tell me that trancendance bs....

LightRey
11-25-2012, 09:31 PM
Then how was the world saved ? Please don't tell me that trancendance bs....
Something to do with manipulating time stuff or something. The game was very vague on that too and it's one of the reasons I dislike how they did the ending.

Dangerzone50
11-25-2012, 10:02 PM
It was actually the "first solution" that saved them, the towers... juno mentioned that they sought to automate the building of them, once released she activated them... although the end credits seems to imply that they were not 100% effective, as the solar flare still had some impact on the world

although, usually the endings get better once the next game comes out... i loved the end of revelations, but i was hesitant to embrace every single ending before it, and came to love them all once the next game came out (although ac3's end is the first that i have outright disliked on many levels, the others just needed time to sink in and make more sense in context)

and... lets face it, these games always have multiple endings anyways, look at what they did with the dlc in brotherhood, how des fell into his coma at the end and the animus crashed, showing the first tease of the black room

AdrianJacek
11-25-2012, 10:38 PM
I think the world was saved by... MATH.

LightRey
11-25-2012, 11:05 PM
It was actually the "first solution" that saved them, the towers... juno mentioned that they sought to automate the building of them, once released she activated them... although the end credits seems to imply that they were not 100% effective, as the solar flare still had some impact on the world

although, usually the endings get better once the next game comes out... i loved the end of revelations, but i was hesitant to embrace every single ending before it, and came to love them all once the next game came out (although ac3's end is the first that i have outright disliked on many levels, the others just needed time to sink in and make more sense in context)

and... lets face it, these games always have multiple endings anyways, look at what they did with the dlc in brotherhood, how des fell into his coma at the end and the animus crashed, showing the first tease of the black room
I don't think that's true. They only automated the build of one of the towers. The others were never completed (or started on for that matter). Besides, Minerva explains that the Eye does something different entirely.

zerocooll21
11-25-2012, 11:12 PM
Me too xD

u2 :p


Let me just add that I do not support this petition. As much as I dislike how this game has failed to give the dramatic moments such as the ending the appropriate drama and tension, changing a story like that is always a bad thing.


+1

Layytez
11-26-2012, 12:27 AM
So the Eye calculated time ? Tamed time and somehow saved the world ? Sigh...