PDA

View Full Version : Haythams true inspiration! [spoilers]



TrueAssassin77
11-14-2012, 05:01 AM
[]AlexHutchinsonCreative Director

[We really wanted to invest in the villains in AC3. We felt that in previou sgames we could have done a better job of establishing the villains, letting you know who they are, giving them colour, so we decided to invest heavily in a prologue that was essentially setting them up. Haytham came out of that: he was always the evil James Bond to us, and that's a far easier character to cast and develop than Connor. Glad you liked him!



HA! In you haythem supporters faces! Haythem is a cliche character jus like some of us said. Haythem was intentionally created to be evil james bond! Ezio is
Similar to a good james bond..,.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-14-2012, 05:54 AM
[–]AlexHutchinsonCreative Director

[We really wanted to invest in the villains in AC3. We felt that in previou sgames we could have done a better job of establishing the villains, letting you know who they are, giving them colour, so we decided to invest heavily in a prologue that was essentially setting them up. Haytham came out of that: he was always the evil James Bond to us, and that's a far easier character to cast and develop than Connor. Glad you liked him!


HA! In you haythem supporters faces! Haythem is a cliche character jus like some of us said. Haythem was intentionally created to be evil james bond! Ezio is
Similar to a good james bond..,.

Of course his personality is cliche, that's why a lot of people like him. Bond has been written to have a likable personality. And to be cool. Haytham is both. The fact remains that there are a number of people who were disappointed in Connor for a number of reasons and who wouldn't mind playing more games/DLCs as Haytham. And Haytham is a lot more like Bond than Ezio is. IMO, and yes the British part helps :)

Aphex_Tim
11-14-2012, 06:38 AM
HayTHAM, d*mnit! Why can't anyone spell his name right?

DarkDreamer95
11-14-2012, 08:18 AM
Haytham, you magnificent ****** :)

Rankya_94
11-14-2012, 08:19 AM
HayTHAM, d*mnit! Why can't anyone spell his name right?
I can.... Haytham :3

BBALive
11-14-2012, 09:10 AM
[–]AlexHutchinsonCreative Director

[We really wanted to invest in the villains in AC3. We felt that in previou sgames we could have done a better job of establishing the villains, letting you know who they are, giving them colour, so we decided to invest heavily in a prologue that was essentially setting them up. Haytham came out of that: he was always the evil James Bond to us, and that's a far easier character to cast and develop than Connor. Glad you liked him!



HA! In you haythem supporters faces! Haythem is a cliche character jus like some of us said. Haythem was intentionally created to be evil james bond! Ezio is
Similar to a good james bond..,.

Everybody already knows that Haytham is colonial James Bond. That's why people like him. I wouldn't call him evil though.

LightRey
11-14-2012, 01:36 PM
I liked Haytham. He was a good character and really helped emphasize in how many ways the Templars still are good, honorable people.

zerocooll21
11-14-2012, 02:29 PM
I liked Haytham. He was a good character and really helped emphasize in how many ways the Templars still are good, honorable people.

HA!

TrueAssassin77
11-14-2012, 04:39 PM
So there are ppl who can relate to james bond?

Hmm

xboxauditore
11-14-2012, 06:18 PM
I really like Haytham because like James Bond he remained calm all the time.

"Well, I was Leaving"

"And now?"

"Now, I'm going to feed you your Teeth"

I hope one day we get a DLC where we can learn a bit more about Haytham.

vivaxardas
11-14-2012, 06:42 PM
Yes, Haytham is great. I strongly believe he was meant to be a main character, with the surprising twist at the end. His name means "young eagle" in Arabic, and "Kenway" - "royal fighter" from Old English (it is from Animus database, I hope I remember it right). And missions in the game make more sense for him. For example, why a hell CONNOR would chaise missing pages for the guy he never met??? Sad that the devs changed their minds and created Connor, who is either angry, or boring, and without a single shred of humor.

zerocooll21
11-14-2012, 06:55 PM
, and without a single shred of humor.

He was funny once! At the tavern when he interrogated that guy. I got a chuckle out of it anyway :p

jamgamerforever
11-14-2012, 08:44 PM
Huh, I never got a James Bond vibe from him. I didn't find his character cliched, either. I though there was quite a bit of depth to his character, and the way he acted.

Apirka
11-14-2012, 09:15 PM
Oh noes. He fits an archetype. And clearly you can't ever do something interesting with an archetype. We just really should stop trying to tell stories.

...You do know that one can break down everything into archetypes and tropes? Using the James Bond archetype, no matter how much contempt you apparently have for it, does not mean that a writer can't still make that character deep and interesting. And no, before you start again, I don't think that Haytham necessarily has more depth than Connor -- I just disagree that the writers were so callous as to deliberately write an inconsistent character for a Red Herring and then had a book written about that same character. That'd be abysmal writing.

Connor being a deep well written character does not mean people have to love or even like him. He's obviously getting a strong emotional response from quite a few people, and the negative ones can be just as much a sign of being a deep character than the positive ones. And being that still doesn't mean that he can't just bore some people. Because you know, sometimes a character just doesn't click with one.

(And as far as the Bond archetype goes: unpopular opinion here, but I think what they did in Licence to Kill was actually interesting.)

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-15-2012, 01:43 AM
So there are ppl who can relate to james bond?

Hmm

A lot of people want a character they can relate with, that they can imagine themselves as. Well, that's not the finality of a good character. A good character has to either be 1) likable or 2) detestable, or have likable and detestable characteristics. Thing is, for me it doesn't help if Connor is relatable if he's not likable. And, that's the issue for a lot of people. Sure, people can sympathize with the struggles he goes through with acceptance and dealing with the death of his mother, but he's not all that likable for some, including me. Haytham is a likable character, whose views, given the time period, make sense. Besides his being a Templar, he's cool. Not every character has to be some deep, overly flawed character that is portrayed as a real, everyday person. No, bond isn't relatable, but he as a character is cool, interesting, and likable.

I like Haytham because he has a likable personality, a sense of humor, extreme confidence even in the face of setbacks (no whining...), he can fight, he's pretty cool and collected for the most part, and he's the first Templar to actually articulate the goals of the Templars without adding something else on the side (like a desire for personal absolute power, seeking power for power's sake). Not to mention he actually had a goal that he was after.

Connor doesn't have a likable personality (he's always angry, always pouting, seems to hold a grudge against most characters he meets, like he has a chip on his shoulder), he isn't confident (when facing setbacks he lashes out in anger), sure he can fight and when fighting is pretty cool, but he has misguided goals, ideals, and perceptions (which perceptions turn out to be wrong, pretty much EVERY one of his assumptions). Pretty much the problem with Connor is that he isn't mature. Sure, what he has experienced should define him, but he doesn't grow up. He acts like an angry teenager. That's fine for when he's beginning his training and as he starts to be an assassin, but this going on for the entire game is annoying. Personality-wise, Connor reminds me of Anakin from the Star Wars prequel movies. Yeah, he has the skill/garments/tools to be an Assassin (much like Anakin had the skill/clothing/tools to be a Jedi), but really he isn't much of an Assassin because he's pretty immature (much like Anakin isn't mature).

After seeing what the story is, a non-Assassin becomes an Assassin after learning from a reclusive Assassin mentor and who ultimately faces his father who is the enemy but has connections to the Assassins, you can automatically tell that, unlike Alex Hutchinson's comparison, ACIII is much closer to Star Wars than it is to Star Trek. Here, Connor is supposed to be the Luke Skywalker, Achilles the Yoda, Haytham the Vader. Only, Connor is never the Luke Skywalker of this story, Luke who began his training as an immature kid, but who after training and going out into the galaxy, becomes a mature Jedi, a rebirth of the Jedi Order, one ready to be master of that order. No, Connor is Anakin, the one who is trained to be a Jedi, learns and develops all the skills, is given the weapons, but is too brash, too immature, too rebellious to be a true Jedi.

Make no mistake, Connor and Ezio, while having different personalities, both come from the background of joining the Brotherhood out of a sense and a desire for revenge, to avenge the ones they lost/care about. The real difference between Ezio and Connor is that Ezio matured. Yeah, we saw Ezio mature in part because he matured over time. But regardless he matured within his first game. For Connor, who we aren't even sure will have another game (doubtful, since Desmond's dead), he didn't mature in this game. And what gets me even more is that the game fails to convince players that Connor and the Assassin cause is justified. Connor ends up being wrong at the end of the game. His cause, his entire purpose for becoming an Assassin, killing the five Templars, ends up being all wrong. He blames the Templars for burning his village, killing his mother, trying to hurt his people, and siding with the British. The Templars don't burn his village, they don't kill his mother, they aren't trying to hurt his people for the sake of it but are trying to protect the land, the same that his people are doing, to protect the precursor site, and they aren't siding with the British. ALL of Connor's reasons for fighting and killing the Templars are wrong. There is no ultimate vindication of the hero. We are left with a hero who made mistakes, yet we are still supposed to take away the message that the Templars as an Order are the bad guys. What can really be taken away is that the Assassin's are blood-thirsty because they are losing their "war" with the Templars.

This is why I like Haytham better than Connor. I feel like Ubisoft, in their quest to create a complex character with insecurities and deep hurts, instead created a character that has a rather bland personality, who, while skilled enough to be an Assassin, is ultimately incompetent and ill-suited to shape history and have the power of life and death in his hands. Whereas, Haytham is a character with skill, personality, purpose, direction, vision, and clarity.

vivaxardas
11-15-2012, 02:19 AM
I absolutely agree with the post above. What killed Connor as a character is his decision concerning the templars and his tribe. I wasn't happy, but I was OK with Connor up to S10.

First, I got an impression that he really was given to hate after Haythem told him the truth about Washington. It looks like he simply could not handle the truth and turned against the only man who actually cared enough not to deceive Connor and did not try to con Connor into working for him. Before that he was willing to work with the templars, now he hated them so much that he destroyed his own tribe.

For Native Americans there were two ways to keep their lands. 1. To buy it from the government, and to become a landowner. Some tribes were wise enough to do it, and so they never lost their lands and enjoyed peace. 2. To fight so madly, that the price of a conflict would be much more than the price of the land. Seminole in Florida are an example. They fought, made a treaty, and kept their lands.

So the templars, who wanted to preserve a precursor site for the future generations of the templars, started with the safe way - to buy the land. Connor prevented it. Then the templars wanted to replace Washington. Lee would let Mohawk to live in peace. Connor prevented it as well. After that, knowing about Washington's plans to remove Mohawk from their lands in the Mohawk Valley, the templars wanted for Mohawk to start a war. Strategically, it was a perfect timing - Washington was an incapable commander, and he was already over his head with the British. He wouldn't be able to fight Mohawk rebellion, and would have signed a treaty. So Mohawk would have kept their lands, at least for a time being. What does Connor do? He proclaimed that it was wrong, and he prevented his tribesmen from fighting, thus abandoning his initial goal - to save his tribe. Essentially he destroyed his tribe by preventing every attempt to save them. Lee was perfectly correct when he said that Connor betrayed his people. Not because Connor wanted to, sure, but because he was too stupid (or immature) to think clearly, and to discover the real intentions of the people around him. But stupidity IS NOT an excuse for treason or betrayal.

I do not really know what another game with Connor would accomplish. He is already too old to become smarter, and I do not want to play again as some psychotic immature jerk with an axe, and with unshakable believe that he is always right.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-15-2012, 02:33 AM
I absolutely agree with the post above. What killed Connor as a character is his decision concerning the templars and his tribe. I wasn't happy, but I was OK with Connor up to S10.

First, I got an impression that he really was given to hate after Haythem told him the truth about Washington. It looks like he simply could not handle the truth and turned against the only man who actually cared enough not to deceive Connor and did not try to con Connor into working for him. Before that he was willing to work with the templars, now he hated them so much that he destroyed his own tribe.

For Native Americans there were two ways to keep their lands. 1. To buy it from the government, and to become a landowner. Some tribes were wise enough to do it, and so they never lost their lands and enjoyed peace. 2. To fight so madly, that the price of a conflict would be much more than the price of the land. Seminole in Florida are an example. They fought, made a treaty, and kept their lands.

So the templars, who wanted to preserve a precursor site for the future generations of the templars, started with the safe way - to buy the land. Connor prevented it. Then the templars wanted to replace Washington. Lee would let Mohawk to live in peace. Connor prevented it as well. After that, knowing about Washington's plans to remove Mohawk from their lands in the Mohawk Valley, the templars wanted for Mohawk to start a war. Strategically, it was a perfect timing - Washington was an incapable commander, and he was already over his head with the British. He wouldn't be able to fight Mohawk rebellion, and would have signed a treaty. So Mohawk would have kept their lands, at least for a time being. What does Connor do? He proclaimed that it was wrong, and he prevented his tribesmen from fighting, thus abandoning his initial goal - to save his tribe. Essentially he destroyed his tribe by preventing every attempt to save them. Lee was perfectly correct when he said that Connor betrayed his people. Not because Connor wanted to, sure, but because he was too stupid (or immature) to think clearly, and to discover the real intentions of the people around him. But stupidity IS NOT an excuse for treason or betrayal.

I do not really know what another game with Connor would accomplish. He is already too old to become smarter, and I do not want to play again as some psychotic immature jerk with an axe, and with unshakable believe that he is always right.

It all came down to this: Connor loved the cause of the colonists more than he loved his people. When it came down to him choosing between his people and the colonists, he chose the colonists. If Connor were a real person, he'd be someone I wouldn't want to be associated with.

rocketxsurgeon
11-18-2012, 01:44 AM
To be honest, i didn't relate to Connor at all, i found his personality really inconsistant. I much prefered Haytham, definately my favourite character in this game, by a long way.