PDA

View Full Version : [ spoilers] Why I think Abstergo isn't evil and why they want the apple



Death_Angel733
11-11-2012, 08:30 AM
The apple has a hidden power: It can turn a human's thoughts into reality. It can materialize your imagination.

Examples of these were when Giovanni froze Fiora Cavazza (The Courtesan) with the apple. http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Giovanni_Borgia#Apple_of_Eden

Another one is when Ezio and The Mentor used this to create illusions of themvselves.

The First Civ attempted to stop the First Disaster by launching apples into orbit and forcing the humans to chant "We are Safe".They failed however.

I'm guessing this is what Abstergo is trying to do. They'll launch a satellite and force us to chant "We are Safe" life the First Civ. That's why they need the only known apple, Ezio's apple. I'm guessing they want to play hero then control people.

The problem in the AC games is the story is way too bias to the Assassins. We never heard much about the Templars. Based from AC3, I feel like the Templars were less brutal/evil than before. Which raises the question: Could the Assassins be just a group with a different view? What if they're just trying to ruin the Templars?

I doubt the Templars wants to enslave the human race. It's counter-productive. I'm assuming they want a strict control.

Thoughts anyone?

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 08:46 AM
Yeah. Templars aren't evil. Their goal is the same as that of the Assassins. Its just that the game is shown from an Assassin's PoV. Given a chance I'd be a Templar rather than an Assassin. Their philosophy is brutal but practical.

Aphex_Tim
11-11-2012, 08:54 AM
That's something i really like about both AC1 and AC3, eventually you start doubting if you're actually doing the right thing as an Assassin.

LinkAndLoad
11-11-2012, 09:07 AM
That's something i really like about both AC1 and AC3, eventually you start doubting if you're actually doing the right thing as an Assassin.

I can only second this.

LieutenantJojo
11-11-2012, 09:18 AM
That's something i really like about both AC1 and AC3, eventually you start doubting if you're actually doing the right thing as an Assassin.

Yup, same here. AC3 really shows again that both assassins and templars want the same (being peace), but just differ in their methods.

AC3 also showed us that templars aren't as bad as previous games made us believe. Haytham and the others really wanted to do good, but they wanted to do it by establishing order, which is actually pretty logical and the way it's always been. Haytham's speech about freedom leading to chaos pretty much nailed it.

Honestly, if I had to categorize myself at this point, I'd be a templar.

LinkAndLoad
11-11-2012, 09:23 AM
Yup, same here. AC3 really shows again that both assassins and templars want the same (being peace), but just differ in their methods.

AC3 also showed us that templars aren't as bad as previous games made us believe. Haytham and the others really wanted to do good, but they wanted to do it by establishing order, which is actually pretty logical and the way it's always been. Haytham's speech about freedom leading to chaos pretty much nailed it.

Honestly, if I had to categorize myself at this point, I'd be a templar.


But Juno showed us that it will fail, just like all others that came before, it failed.

weston_19
11-11-2012, 09:25 AM
Nobody thats human has any idea that the power of the apple is. They can wield it in a limited capacity, only TWCB can use it to its potential. And its elaborated very in depth to the justifications in the first game. Al Mualim himself explains to Altair because he himself sees this gray area of the Templars may have good intentions. How or why ubi has blurred these lines so much can only mean one thing. Assassins and Templars will be working together in the future. Back to Al Mualim, he points out regardless of there intentions its the effects they wreck on humanity in conquest to get it. And thats mainly robbing people of there freewill to make them do what they want. Replay the first game, it kinda re-iterates the whole justification scenario.

Abstergo sees some goal that nobody else can really be expected to see, and will stop at nothing to see these goals reached. But ultimatwly they perpetuate that they knew better than everybody and they are going to tell people they wont have a choice. Its the assassins that stand for this freewill. But this is why i hate what ubisoft is doing here. They establish a conflict, and then in this game blured the lines that they established in blood in the last game. Ezios family was killed because if the plot was uncovered the scheme was foiled. Anwser? Kill everyone. I know it ses like ezio is doing the same thing, and he kinda is. Hes finding his way. Which is why he never kills rodrigo. It showed how he had a moral compass. Once again remember that about this time alot of fundamental social evolutions are going on. People are generally smarter. The templars are sinking into the backround more and more. The more brutal and open they are the further they expose themselves to the world. Theres been alot of leaps from ezios time to connors. The villians are still bad guys, its just most of there plot is never uncovered, you dont really know what there doing. (and i didnt really care) I really only got hooked into conners plot because i wanted to help the yanks win, and beat the british. The templar plot is completely secondary. They almost flip roles here, as its the templars trying to stop somthing from happening by assassinating. Regardless, the templars never really matter.

zhengyingli
11-11-2012, 09:32 AM
That's something i really like about both AC1 and AC3, eventually you start doubting if you're actually doing the right thing as an Assassin.
AC1's discussions on both factions took center stage in both the Altair sessions and Desmond parts. But ACIII actually discussed very little during the Desmond's parts, only in passing conversations. I kind of wish they discussed as much as they did in AC1, but they probably weren't the mood for it with the sun flaring up, and all. Did appreciate Desmond's wish for the two factions to become friends, though. As for Connor's experience with the Templars, it was very eye-opening, as they weren't actually bad guys, just that people like the Borgias gave them a bad name.

Come to think of it if they ever decided to do a Templar's Creed, we should play as Robert de Sable rounding up his brotherhood in the search of the first POE we were introduced to.

kuled2012
11-11-2012, 09:34 AM
World war 2 was evil though, they're responsible for the deaths of millions of lives. What they want is good, but they strive at too great a cost. And what if they achieve this New World? They'd be exactly like TWCB, no free will, under the apple's control forever..those 700 people immune to the apple would be killed and no one would stop them..It's madness. Haytham really is the only reasonable Templar in the series so far.

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 09:35 AM
I second, third, fourth and fifth the motions in this thread. I want more morally ambiguous ACs like AC1 and AC3?

Remember that conversation of Altair with Garnier de Naplouse (hope I spelled it right) "But I want to play with fire father!" God that sentence really had me asking myself whether I'm doing the right thing. Also the conversation between Ahmet and Ezio in ACR. I found myself siding with Ahmet. Ezio didn't even have a proper response to him, just some moralistic rhetoric.

So, more neutral ACs please!

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 09:36 AM
Haytham really is the only reasonable Templar in the series so far.

I liked Ahmet too.

kuled2012
11-11-2012, 09:40 AM
I didn't really get a connection vibe with the ACR characters apart from Sofia to be honest :(

Aphex_Tim
11-11-2012, 11:23 AM
I liked Ahmet too.

To me, the way Ahmet was portrayed he appeared like your every day action film villain. Especially when he started about kidnapping Sofia.