PDA

View Full Version : Am I just an idiot or...? [SPOILERS]



snoogle20
11-07-2012, 09:09 AM
...am I alone in not picking up on the fact that Desmond is supposed to be dead? It wasn't until I read an end-of-game analysis article published on a gaming site that I even realized that was a notion. I watched a video of the ending again on YouTube and I certainly see that side of things now, but my initial gameplay interpretation of what happened didn't go there. My brain basically soaked in one part of the Desmond/Juno/Minerva discussion far differently than the vast majority of people I see commenting.

After Desmond is granted the vision of what will come and makes his decision, Minerva tells him he must not do it and then says, "If you free her, you'll be destroyed," and Juno immediately says, "It will happen in an instant. There will be no pain." I certainly now see how that led many to decide they were talking about Desmonds death, but, for some reason, I thought Minerva was simply saying humanity would be destroyed if we chose to let Juno out and Juno was merely saying that nothing bad would happen.

With my alternate view of events, I thought Desmond sent William, Rebecca and Shaun out just in case Minerva was right and Juno was a threat immediately, in that moment. When Desmond fell to the ground, I thought he had just passed out from the exertion of his body being used as part of the process. When I rewatch it all knowing that most everyone saw it as a death, I definitely and fully see that, but part of me cannot let go of my initial reaction because it was what my mind went to first.

So to restate my initial question: am I simply an idiot or did anyone else not see the ending the way it's been generally interpreted?

Layytez
11-07-2012, 09:25 AM
I knew he was dead because the achievment said "Desmonds fate". You don't say someones fate when something good happens.

LilyasAvalon
11-07-2012, 10:21 AM
In all honesty, we don't really know he's dead. Until someone from Ubisoft comes out and says 'yes, he's dead', all we have to gauge is fan reaction and what Minerva said.

For all we know, he may have survived in some form or another.

BlackRose1809
11-07-2012, 10:23 AM
...am I alone in not picking up on the fact that Desmond is supposed to be dead? It wasn't until I read an end-of-game analysis article published on a gaming site that I even realized that was a notion. I watched a video of the ending again on YouTube and I certainly see that side of things now, but my initial gameplay interpretation of what happened didn't go there. My brain basically soaked in one part of the Desmond/Juno/Minerva discussion far differently than the vast majority of people I see commenting.

After Desmond is granted the vision of what will come and makes his decision, Minerva tells him he must not do it and then says, "If you free her, you'll be destroyed," and Juno immediately says, "It will happen in an instant. There will be no pain." I certainly now see how that led many to decide they were talking about Desmonds death, but, for some reason, I thought Minerva was simply saying humanity would be destroyed if we chose to let Juno out and Juno was merely saying that nothing bad would happen.

With my alternate view of events, I thought Desmond sent William, Rebecca and Shaun out just in case Minerva was right and Juno was a threat immediately, in that moment. When Desmond fell to the ground, I thought he had just passed out from the exertion of his body being used as part of the process. When I rewatch it all knowing that most everyone saw it as a death, I definitely and fully see that, but part of me cannot let go of my initial reaction because it was what my mind went to first.

So to restate my initial question: am I simply an idiot or did anyone else not see the ending the way it's been generally interpreted?

You're not the only one. I thought of that too.. and I still do. I mean... yeah he's prob dead but that doesn't mean we can't play him again. I mean he could be like Clay and we can still play him in the other games because what other explanation do we have as in why we go back to Connor after Desmond dies?

I don't know why I didn't see it as death... I think maybe because of that and the way it just happens quickly...

weston_19
11-07-2012, 11:39 AM
After interaction with the device, energy bolts seemingly electrocuted his body. After he fell to the ground residual bolts were still arcing across his body. This could be eluding to juno taking possession of desmonds body, and not actually his own death. Desmond could have swapped conciousness with juno, or the device removed desmonds conciousness and placed it within whatever device that preserved junos essence, and juno was preparing the body for implantation. Desmond could be talking to himself at the end, seeking out something else Conner may needed to show Desmond something that will come in a DLC pack. The device that stores the essence of juno could be capable to allow Desmond to relieve memories like an animus. Or, Desmond is truely dead. Nothing is really absolute in this ending, and it has 1000 different ways it can be looked at and justified to one viewpoint or another. However i feel as though the writers just focused on Conner and hoped whatever they came up with concerning Desmond would be good enough, because the writing is pathetic. Conners story was profound, and emotional in many ways. Desmonds story towards the end as it ramped up to the climax, got more and more cheap and pathetic. Sorry Ubisoft but it truely is pathetic writing.

snoogle20
11-07-2012, 07:09 PM
We always knew this was supposed to be the last game with Desmond as the protagonist behind the protagonist, but I just can't see the purpose of being rid of him altogether. I'm somebody who's been as invested in the Desmond story as the ancestors since the beginning. I really nerded out on sneaking around the Abstergo lab and reading those e-mails in AC1. With AC2 and Brotherhood, his role grew each time and it was part of my extreme love for those two games. Revelations took the core, Ezio gameplay to a high level, but the Desmond/Clay stuff felt like the filler story it probably was. In ACIII, I was excited to actually be in the real world with Desmond again. A healthy chunk of why I love the games is the world building that comes from talking to my present-day Asssassin mates. (One conversation of which held what I hope was a hint for at least some part of a future game: First Civ times in the Animus.)

I realize that folks like me exist, but we've always been the minority. I accept that it would have been very risky to put a lot more Desmond in the game from that standpoint. But, for me, AC3 is the first game in the series where I wasn't engaged by the ancestor's story. Connor had a lot of possibility, but they didn't focus on him a whole lot and I couldn't get with the disjointed nature of the main plotline storytelling this time. That actually made me get more excited when I popped out of the Animus and it was time for a battery mission/Juno story, whereas normally I enjoyed both aspects equally. For something billed as Desmond's last hoorah as protagonist, I did expect just a little more.

If this really is to be the last we see of Desmond, it's a shame to go out so suddenly at the end and in a way that didn't come across definitive. Given the abrupt and cryptic nature of what happened with him, I never thought he wasn't coming back in some form (especially since I never even thought his physical body was dead). The big fear I have is that Desmond will fall to Lucy status and we'll only get piecemeal, after-the-fact answers that reek of retcon. She still seemed very much important at the end of Brotherhood, much as Desmond does now. The man can only have so many ancestors that are important in the interweaving of three timelines, so it really does makes sense for him not to be our proxy in future games. I just don't want him to drop off the radar completely.