PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed 3: Ending Backlash? *-SPOILERS-*



Shad0wmancer1
11-24-2012, 08:09 PM
*LISTEN...I'M NOT HATING OR BEING NEGATIVE.* Assassin's Creed is my favorite game series in existence. I liked Assassin's Creed 3 very much. As a die-hard fan, I felt I am entitled to give my opinion on Ubisoft's game, which I have invested in since the beginning of the series. If you were unhappy with the ending, or didn't care either way, please read my reasoning for being unhappy with this before you judge. I love Assassin's Creed and after finishing the latest game I feel like I've read a fantastic book with an exceedingly frustrating ending.

My problem is how Ubisoft chose to end the game. The problem, for me, is that I became, over 6 years and 5 games, attached to the characters they presented, resulting in my love of the series. The player lived through Ezio Auditore's entire life and when Revelations came to an end, I was sad and would miss Ezio, but got my share of closure and was ready to move on.

This is not what I had in mind. While I thought that Connor had great potential as a character, it seemed wasted to me. Ezio had three games and almost 30 sequences of memory with tons of side missions and extra story bits, when all was said and done. Connor had about 8 shortish sequences of memory in which he did not have much of a personality - he talks in something of a monotone and doesn't even really seem to understand that which he is fighting for. The entire introduction to the Templars vs. Assassins in this game was given by Achilles in a loading screen before which he said "One day..." -LOADING SCREEN- "And that's the story of the Templars."

This game felt very rushed to me and I didn't feel that Ubisoft even cares about the integrity of its series anymore in terms of what it has presented to its fans for the past 5 years. I won't just pick on Connor, because I like the character and the setting very much, and I love the gameplay as well. My complaint with Connor is simply that you do not go nearly as deep into his personality and struggles as you did with Ezio, resulting in the player being undeniably less emotionally attached to him. A naive, optimistic character is a great embarking point, it sets the stage for his philosophies to be challenged by both the Templars and Assassins, especially when you consider his father was a Templar, which I thought was a great twist. But...while they do challenge it, he never sees the other side, he never evolves as a character. He has the exact same mindset at the end of his story as when it begins. I remember well, and will never forget, how Ezio evolved. He went from a young hothead who wanted revenge to an old, wise, Grand Master Assassin. In the end, the Assassins vs. Templars, the secret war that Ubisoft is so famous for creating, didn't even matter. The First Civilization took precedence over this, and I buy the Assassin's Creed games for the historical wars between the Assassins and Templars - to be an Assassin and live by the Creed. Connor undoubtedly didn't have much of a Creed, at least one that was revealed to the players. Remember this quote, Ubi?

"To say that 'nothing is true', is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that 'everything is permitted', is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

This epic quote from Ezio is the direction I wish the AC games kept moving in. I felt such 'Assassin Pride' when Ezio said that, and I did not feel that the Creed, or the Assassin/Templar war even mattered in AC3, and I really didn't see how Connor could understand what he was fighting for the way Ezio did.

But enough of that. The real problem to me...is the ending of the game. Imagine if the Halo series killed Master Chief, or if The Legend of Zelda killed Link. I know that not everyone agrees with this, but for me personally, it feels like that is what you have done, Ubisoft. Desmond's whole story in AC3 is completely wasted potential. The First Civilization stuff is all well and good, okay, Juno's the new bad guy. I wouldn't have a problem with that if Desmond was still the hero. I really had a problem with his death, and here's why.

Because...well, think back to AC2. What was the entire point of reliving the memories of Desmond's ancestors? Besides looking for the pieces of Eden, they stated it was to train Desmond, so that he could become a Master Assassin like his powerful ancestors, and help to turn the tide of the war, but this entire plotline is completely non-existent in AC3. Not only is the Assassins vs. Templars war almost non-existent (except as a convenient resistance for Desmond to obtain the power sources) but the main character is now DEAD. I think that it would've been perfect to relive the memories of Altair, Ezio, and Connor, to become the ultimate assassin so that Desmond could save the world in a modern-day game. This whole series, living the lives of your ancestors, training to be the ultimate assassin through the Bleeding Effect, saving the world, the Assassins vs. the Templars, all of it, built up to a climax in which Desmond Miles, who was supposed to be a sort of "Chosen One," touches a glowy ball and dies, which somehow saves the planet. Great.

I felt a bit insulted at the end of this game the way I might feel after reading a long, fantastic book with a horrid ending. After investing countless hours and hundreds of dollars to play what has become my favorite game series ever, I felt seriously wronged. Maybe I'm being too severe, maybe people do not feel the same way, and if that's so, I apologize for the long length of my post and would ask that you please ignore it. However, if I'm not alone in this feeling, please respond, thumbs up, or share this with others; it would be great if we could at least draw the tiniest bit of attention to this. I've never posted anything on these forums before but I really wanted to say something about this, as I am a longtime Assassin's Creed die-hard fan. And as the Creed used to state, Nothing is True, and Everything is Permitted.

Thanks.

LoyalACFan
11-24-2012, 11:35 PM
Give Connor another chance. You talk about the epic Ezio quotes at the end of Revelations, but you seem to have forgotten that it took 3 games and over 40 years to get him to that point. In ACR, he's a wise old man. In AC2, which is analogous to AC3 in terms of character development, you'd be hard-pressed to find a clever line from him that wasn't a sex joke. Going from the sage that Ezio had become in ACR back to an emotional young kid again in AC3 was an unsettling jolt that the franchise hasn't had before, but Connor actually matured quite a bit as a character in those 8 short sequences. Give him some time, and I'm sure he'll become special in his own way just like Ezio did.

zerocooll21
11-25-2012, 12:32 AM
I feel yah man. So much time an energy invested. So much emotion tied to Desmond for to be offed like that. I'm cool with the killing of him and moving on to someone new but the way they did it was lacking.

Please come here an share your thoughts;

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

Shad0wmancer1
11-25-2012, 12:36 AM
Give Connor another chance. You talk about the epic Ezio quotes at the end of Revelations, but you seem to have forgotten that it took 3 games and over 40 years to get him to that point. In ACR, he's a wise old man. In AC2, which is analogous to AC3 in terms of character development, you'd be hard-pressed to find a clever line from him that wasn't a sex joke. Going from the sage that Ezio had become in ACR back to an emotional young kid again in AC3 was an unsettling jolt that the franchise hasn't had before, but Connor actually matured quite a bit as a character in those 8 short sequences. Give him some time, and I'm sure he'll become special in his own way just like Ezio did.

I see what you're saying, and I WOULD give Connor another chance. The problem is...Desmond's dead. How can we go back into Connor's story if Desmond is dead? Besides, in the Epilogue, it seemed that Connor's tale was closed after he took the hatchet from the post, experienced closure with his people's disappearance, etc. Plus, I'm hearing all kinds of rumors about the next game being with a female, or in the First Civilization, or being AC4 already...there's so many rumors I'm not sure what to take seriously.

Espenx1
11-25-2012, 03:02 AM
..His dad maybe? Just maybe.

Elegana
11-25-2012, 05:07 AM
I see what you're saying, and I WOULD give Connor another chance. The problem is...Desmond's dead. How can we go back into Connor's story if Desmond is dead?
His father still lives. Who's to say that he can't go back as Connor? There is also the chance that the new protagonist could have Connor as his/her ancestor such as Clay. Clay (Subject 16) was forced to relive the memories of Ezio, yet he was not directly related to Desmond.


Besides, in the Epilogue, it seemed that Connor's tale was closed after he took the hatchet from the post, experienced closure with his people's disappearance, etc.
Connor removing the hatchet did not mean his tale was closed. In Sequence 6, when he does slam the hatchet into the post, he tells Achilles that the hatchet is removed when the threat is gone. Just because one threat is gone, it does not mean a new one cannot arise.


Plus, I'm hearing all kinds of rumors about the next game being with a female, or in the First Civilization, or being AC4 already...there's so many rumors I'm not sure what to take seriously.
Those are not rumors - it's speculation. You're going to get that after every game that's in the series. The only proof people have is from games. For example, I have said that the next game with Connor could be in France during the French Revolution simply because Lafayette tells Connor (when you speak to him), that France's heart is black, stuff's going on, and he wants to make it glow once more. AC3 ends in 1783 and the French Revolution begins in 1789. If it was a rumor, then I would have said "Oh, I heard from a Ubisoft Montreal Dev that the next game will be in X".

agentpoop
11-25-2012, 01:12 PM
bravo OP... bravo. very well put

Will_Lucky
11-25-2012, 05:11 PM
Give Connor another chance. You talk about the epic Ezio quotes at the end of Revelations, but you seem to have forgotten that it took 3 games and over 40 years to get him to that point. In ACR, he's a wise old man. In AC2, which is analogous to AC3 in terms of character development, you'd be hard-pressed to find a clever line from him that wasn't a sex joke. Going from the sage that Ezio had become in ACR back to an emotional young kid again in AC3 was an unsettling jolt that the franchise hasn't had before, but Connor actually matured quite a bit as a character in those 8 short sequences. Give him some time, and I'm sure he'll become special in his own way just like Ezio did.

Actually his speech when he decided he didn't want to kill Rodrigo anymore because it wouldn't achieve anything outpaced anything Connor did in this game.

DemonLordSparda
11-25-2012, 09:22 PM
Actually his speech when he decided he didn't want to kill Rodrigo anymore because it wouldn't achieve anything outpaced anything Connor did in this game.

Yeah because he totally didn't spend time with his father and try and understand what the Templars were about. Ezio was always so very willing to talk to Templars and see things from their point of view right? Hell Conor almost didn't want to kill his father because of the things Haythem told him. But he had to to end the Templar threat.

Also killing Rodrigo would have accomplished things. Rodrigo is still a Templar and still the Pope with a hell of a lot of power. So Ezio gives him a free pass to continue to be a terrible human being? Also Cessare found out about Ezio and his villa because of Rodrigo. Sure Rodrigo didn't want him to attack, but had Ezio killed Rodrigo Mario might still be alive.

Conor took his time and asked about the Templars and decided by himself that they were a threat to freedom and continued his mission. Ezio was told Templars were bad and just killed them all without exploring their ideals at all and he made a rash decision while he was young that cost other people their lives. So yeah Ezio had growth, but so did Conor.

Will_Lucky
11-25-2012, 09:52 PM
Rodrigo was a broken man after AC2, discovering he wasn't the prophet nearly destroyed him. He wasn't that much of a threat anymore, Cesare had taken that mantle and he was a threat his father the pope or not.

And actually Ezio was engaged in learning/training for a couple of years when he arrived in Monteriggioni where he read the library ect. And the Templars of Ezios era were plain all out evil...they were not Templars they were simply evil men who coveted power even Abstergo admitted they had lost their way during that era and were Templar only in name. The Templars of Revelations were very much in line with the ideal Templar and Ezio did listen to them and those particular ideas through Manual and Ahmet.

Ezio had very little experience with genuine Templars other than his 1512 adventures.

twenty_glyphs
11-26-2012, 01:47 AM
I've been thinking more about this, and came to this conclusion — this story literally has no main characters left to care about. They have literally killed every single main character from the first four games and left the story with no main characters to fill it. Basically, Juno is now the main character in the series. How stupid is that?

Worse, everyone's death has been mostly meaningless with no emotional payoff of any kind. Desmond? Dead because he pushed a button that released a new threat as big as the threat he was trying to prevent. Lucy? Dead without any story context at the time, with very poor story follow up. Subject 16? Very interesting setup, then brought back to life so he could be erased without any mention of his previous role in the story. Vidic? Not even killed by Desmond himself, just shot by someone under control of the Apple. There was no real reason or payoff for his death. Then William tells us his death probably meant little to Abstergo anyway. Great payoff there! Daniel Cross? Once again, excellent setup thrown away. The comics set him up as an awesome agent with great training, but mentally and emotionally unstable. When he finally appears in the games, we only see the unstable side of him as he just bumbles through the story with no purpose. His death is meaningless because he has no connection or relevance to Desmond from Desmond's perspective.

So now we're only left with Shaun, Rebecca, William and Juno as characters in the modern story. All of them are supporting characters with no real chance of being good main characters. Why should I care about what happens anymore when there are no characters left to care about?

zerocooll21
11-26-2012, 01:59 AM
It would appear ubi has a thing for disregarding main characters like disposable cups.

Shad0wmancer1
11-26-2012, 02:03 AM
I've been thinking more about this, and came to this conclusion — this story literally has no main characters left to care about. They have literally killed every single main character from the first four games and left the story with no main characters to fill it. Basically, Juno is now the main character in the series. How stupid is that?

Couldn't agree with you more man. And now, it seems even Connor may not return in the next game. Imagine if the next game features a brand new female assassin with no references to the Creed? I wouldn't even buy it. The main characters we came to know and love are dead.

Will_Lucky
11-26-2012, 02:07 AM
Couldn't agree with you more man. And now, it seems even Connor may not return in the next game. Imagine if the next game features a brand new female assassin with no references to the Creed? I wouldn't even buy it. The main characters we came to know and love are dead.

If its Connor again I'll purposely buy a used copy. I'd rather take the female assassin over him. Honestly AC4 needs a new stance, new characters, new location ect. And some things like combat need an actual overhaul.

Durakken
11-26-2012, 02:13 AM
You people that want companies to change the endings to their games disgust me. Art is not about what you like or don't like and the artist has no duty to fulfill some wish that you have.

Will_Lucky
11-26-2012, 02:19 AM
You people that want companies to change the endings to their games disgust me. Art is not about what you like or don't like and the artist has no duty to fulfill some wish that you have.

I don't want to change the ending, but there is nothing stopping them from retconning it like they did with previous game endings.

TrueAssassin77
11-26-2012, 02:20 AM
i agree with everything except your connor analysis

zerocooll21
11-26-2012, 02:36 AM
nah they just need to listen to what we are saying and make sure it doesn't happen again. Thats the best we can hope for realistically.

Shad0wmancer1
11-26-2012, 02:40 AM
You people that want companies to change the endings to their games disgust me. Art is not about what you like or don't like and the artist has no duty to fulfill some wish that you have.

"Art" loses its beauty when the "artist" that used to take his time painting his masterpiece...rushes out a masterpiece in less than a year with very little thought and care. The once-masterpiece then becomes a sloppy, ugly mess that represents a shadow of it's former glory.

Durakken
11-26-2012, 03:00 AM
"Art" loses its beauty when the "artist" that used to take his time painting his masterpiece...rushes out a masterpiece in less than a year with very little thought and care. The once-masterpiece then becomes a sloppy, ugly mess that represents a shadow of it's former glory.

You know nothing of art. Speed and whether something is good or bad do not relate. There is a general correlation but there isn't a causation there.
You are also implying that the developers didn't put as much thought or care in this product as the last one or the one before that or the one before that or the one before that all of which were released within a year of each other. You don't like whatever it is you don't like and are trying to figure out why, but more than likely it is just that you don't like it due to something based on your own preferences or like most artists they make tons of stuff and not all is equal good...and some are just horrible... You have to remember when dealing with creativity that for ever "masterpiece" there are thousands upon thousands of garbage pieces. In writing for example a lot of writers say that you have to write 10,000 pages of garbage before you start writing good.which is around 34 novels. Or 34 standard seasons of US TVor around 700 movie scripts...and around 10 to 30 games depending on their length. Of course most artists don't follow this and it just happy coincidence that they end up creating something good or great.

pirate1802
11-26-2012, 03:45 AM
I've been thinking more about this, and came to this conclusion — this story literally has no main characters left to care about. They have literally killed every single main character from the first four games and left the story with no main characters to fill it. Basically, Juno is now the main character in the series. How stupid is that?

There is Connor. Yes, he will be probably dead too a few games later but then we'll have someone else. We ay also get a new main character next game who might be more interesting than Desmond. The show carries on. I like it that nobody is immortal. The die and get replaced by someone else. I can see why others may not like it, but I do.


I don't want to change the ending, but there is nothing stopping them from retconning it like they did with previous game endings.

Ignoring some plot points from previous games =/= retconning an ending..

Jexx21
11-26-2012, 03:46 AM
They haven't even retconned any important plot details anyway..

aishikawa
11-26-2012, 04:02 AM
Every good story has an ending and Assassin's creed reached it's end. It's getting commom in modern times to create branches from original stories to mantaim them alive and, less honorably, keep profiting from it, but it tends to taint the main story, what was really good, what really meant something. We must learn to read a narrative, feel it's experience, get to a conclusion and move on. I really liked assassin's creed's conclusion, I'm still reflecting what would I've done if I could make that choice Desmond was forced to made, and that is really meaningful, that is what they brought to us, what have we learned over these years, are we assassins and seek peace through freedom or templars who seek peace through control? Desmond made a choice, and I'm still thinking whether I agree with him or not. All this reflections can be brought to real world, to our been, what do we do whit our lives, how do we treat people around us? Do you seek to control them or to free them? wake makes the world better? what brings war? we live in a world full of war and who is right, who is wrong? is there right or wrong? stop wainting someone to tell you a conclusion and conclude it youself. Do things for yourself or for others, dosn't matter, just don't keep wainting answers to be given, seek them. In the end, what matter is that, now you are not the same as you were before assassin's creed,

about Connor, as was said before, he is an inesperient assassin, you can't expect him to have all those years of development Ezio had nor his personalitty. Ezio was from another time, another culture, he used to be a rich boy, flerting all day, in time where that was commom for him, Connor is an innocent one, revealed when he was captured, he tried to talk that other guy's crimes, that was neat. Connor, is also brutal and lacks refinement as an assassin but is peerless as a hunter, that is his mark, that made Connor a distinct character. his role in the assassin's creed's series was already told, no need to go back on him. for me, it's over, and it's over in the best way it could.

and about the game's innovations, naval war is AWESOME, climbing system AWESOME, safe free-run in the woods is... very nice indeed, after all, no one likes to fall for death :), and many others things just give this game a unique touch. I really appreciated it.

twenty_glyphs
11-26-2012, 05:53 AM
They haven't even retconned any important plot details anyway..

It's not official, but I believe they retconned Alta´r and Ezio's Apple of Eden being the same in Revelations. AC2 heavily hints that they are the same Apple. It outright says that Alta´r sent his Apple to Cyprus, and then we are led to believe the Templars recover the Apple from Cyprus. In AC2 this plot point was fine, but then Brotherhood had Desmond recovering the same Apple and people started mentioning that Lucy said the Apple from Masyaf had been destroyed in the Denver accident. I think that's why Revelations' climax reveals that Alta´r hid the Apple in Masyaf and lied about sending it to Cyprus. It solves the continuity error but leaves the whole point of the Templars finding an Apple in Cyprus anyway very vague and unsatisfying. I used to have discussions about that issue and defend Ubisoft, but I now can't help but think they screwed up the continuity in Brothherhood and then retconned it in Revelations by saying we were lied to previously by Alta´r. It was a good retcon solution, but after seeing how they pulled off the story in AC3, it really seems like they have been rather directionless with the story.

And I don't want them to change the ending, but I would hesitate to call games art. They are entertainment. There's a fine line between art and entertainment, but entertainment is meant to entertain the audience, and AC3 came nowhere close for me. I don't want them to change it, but I will be very reluctant to give them my money for content on this brand in the future like DLC, comic books, etc. until they show me improvement. Heck, the story is a huge issue for me, but not even my biggest gripe about AC3.

LoyalACFan
11-26-2012, 07:00 AM
It's not official, but I believe they retconned Alta´r and Ezio's Apple of Eden being the same in Revelations. AC2 heavily hints that they are the same Apple. It outright says that Alta´r sent his Apple to Cyprus, and then we are led to believe the Templars recover the Apple from Cyprus. In AC2 this plot point was fine, but then Brotherhood had Desmond recovering the same Apple and people started mentioning that Lucy said the Apple from Masyaf had been destroyed in the Denver accident. I think that's why Revelations' climax reveals that Alta´r hid the Apple in Masyaf and lied about sending it to Cyprus. It solves the continuity error but leaves the whole point of the Templars finding an Apple in Cyprus anyway very vague and unsatisfying. I used to have discussions about that issue and defend Ubisoft, but I now can't help but think they screwed up the continuity in Brothherhood and then retconned it in Revelations by saying we were lied to previously by Alta´r. It was a good retcon solution, but after seeing how they pulled off the story in AC3, it really seems like they have been rather directionless with the story..

Actually, we were told outright in AC1 that Altair's Apple was destroyed in an accident when Abstergo tried a prototype of the satellite they intended to launch in 2012. Lots of people assumed that they had retconned that bit of dialogue when Ezio found an Apple, but it was never really implied that they were one and the same. And the Codex never said Altair sent the Apple to Cyprus, it actually ended with him contemplating using it again. Revealing that his Apple was in Masyaf all along wasn't a retcon so much as it was just setting the record straight.

LightRey
11-26-2012, 11:30 AM
Actually, we were told outright in AC1 that Altair's Apple was destroyed in an accident when Abstergo tried a prototype of the satellite they intended to launch in 2012. Lots of people assumed that they had retconned that bit of dialogue when Ezio found an Apple, but it was never really implied that they were one and the same. And the Codex never said Altair sent the Apple to Cyprus, it actually ended with him contemplating using it again. Revealing that his Apple was in Masyaf all along wasn't a retcon so much as it was just setting the record straight.
Exactly.

uk-peeps
11-26-2012, 06:25 PM
BRILLIANT analysis. A real BIG thank you for this post

Shad0wmancer1
11-27-2012, 10:01 PM
BRILLIANT analysis. A real BIG thank you for this post

I appreciate it man, I thought long and hard about it and it's too bad not many people seem to agree.

Torvaldesq
11-27-2012, 11:39 PM
Give Connor another chance. You talk about the epic Ezio quotes at the end of Revelations, but you seem to have forgotten that it took 3 games and over 40 years to get him to that point. In ACR, he's a wise old man. In AC2, which is analogous to AC3 in terms of character development, you'd be hard-pressed to find a clever line from him that wasn't a sex joke. Going from the sage that Ezio had become in ACR back to an emotional young kid again in AC3 was an unsettling jolt that the franchise hasn't had before, but Connor actually matured quite a bit as a character in those 8 short sequences. Give him some time, and I'm sure he'll become special in his own way just like Ezio did.

Ezio was a much better character after his first game than Connor is. Most of the problem has nothing to do with rushing, it's just poor characterization. Connor has tons of cinematic time in this game, lots of interactions. But he never becomes much more than the avatar for the player. He's a boring, one dimensional character. If he had been one of those multiplayer characters, with a paragraph mentioning that his mother died in a fire, he's have been about as developed as he was being the central figure of the single-player mode of this game.

I have no problem with multiple games for a character, but when a character's initial outing is squandered this badly, it's time to move on to an original character. I don't want a game devoted to rehabilitating that bad writing of Connor. The death of Desmond making Connor more unlikely (though not impossible) is one of the few good things about Desmond's death.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 12:29 AM
Ezio was a much better character after his first game than Connor is. Most of the problem has nothing to do with rushing, it's just poor characterization. Connor has tons of cinematic time in this game, lots of interactions. But he never becomes much more than the avatar for the player. He's a boring, one dimensional character. If he had been one of those multiplayer characters, with a paragraph mentioning that his mother died in a fire, he's have been about as developed as he was being the central figure of the single-player mode of this game.

I have no problem with multiple games for a character, but when a character's initial outing is squandered this badly, it's time to move on to an original character. I don't want a game devoted to rehabilitating that bad writing of Connor. The death of Desmond making Connor more unlikely (though not impossible) is one of the few good things about Desmond's death.

factually wrong about both ezio and connor.
please replay AC2 and 3

Torvaldesq
11-28-2012, 01:27 AM
factually wrong about both ezio and connor.
please replay AC2 and 3

Sorry, not wrong. Plugging your ears and saying it's not true or that others are "factually wrong" when they aren't will not make it any less true. Connor's background gave him great potential, and it was squandered. Ezio's potential was not squandered. Ezio was well developed by the end of AC 2. When Brotherhood was released, you basically started out with a developed character who was on his way to becoming a leader of the Order. In a Connor sequel, you'd have the game trying to do the job that the first game SHOULD have done, but lacking the tools that are most needed (the relationships that are most formative not being available because they were already squandered in the first game).

Connor not being well written wasn't a case of running out of time. It was a case of the writing just not being good. Connor had many opportunities in the time he was given to be a better character.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 01:36 AM
Sorry, not wrong. Plugging your ears and saying it's not true or that others are "factually wrong" when they aren't will not make it any less true. Connor's background gave him great potential, and it was squandered. Ezio's potential was not squandered. Ezio was well developed by the end of AC 2. When Brotherhood was released, you basically started out with a developed character who was on his way to becoming a leader of the Order. In a Connor sequel, you'd have the game trying to do the job that the first game SHOULD have done, but lacking the tools that are most needed (the relationships that are most formative not being available because they were already squandered in the first game).

Connor not being well written wasn't a case of running out of time. It was a case of the writing just not being good. Connor had many opportunities in the time he was given to be a better character.
you are wrong because you said connor is one-dimensional. that is factually wrong. end of discussion
you are wrong because you implie that ezio is an original charceter, and that connor is not. that is wrong. ezio is widely known to be an arch-type of "james bond" or even "tony Stark". end of discussion
you are wrong because you are mistaking your opinion for fact. end of discussion

Torvaldesq
11-28-2012, 02:02 AM
you are wrong because you said connor is one-dimensional. that is factually wrong. end of discussion
you are wrong because you implie that ezio is an original charceter, and that connor is not. that is wrong. ezio is widely known to be an arch-type of "james bond" or even "tony Stark". end of discussion
you are wrong because you are mistaking your opinion for fact. end of discussion


Really pushing on the whole "plugging your ears and saying your mantra" thing, aren't you?

I'm wrong because I imply that Ezio was an original character? Then you try to say that's not true because he relies on archtypes? Stop and realize how absurd you look here. EVERY character is a combination of various tropes. If your standard for saying a character is "original" is that it doesn't make use of well established tropes, you're in for a heaping pile of disappointment in just about any story you ever get into. Original, as a word, is judged on context. In the context of whether Ezio is a character unlike others I've seen in fiction, I've not said that Ezio is original. In the context of whether he's a character originated by Ubisoft, he is original. Connor is original as well, just not well done.

And yes, Connor is a bland, one dimensional character. Calling that "factually wrong" doesn't strengthen your case. He basically stumbled from one revolution event to the next, with little to no emotional connection and no notable character growth. By the end of the game, you've basically only gotten to know one side of Connor. The "I'm mildly irritated with everyone around me and will kill because the player is pushing the kill button" side. He never rises to the occasions around him.

zerocooll21
11-28-2012, 02:06 AM
http://www.evoxforums.com/forums/images/smilies/Jackson_popcorn.gif

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 02:19 AM
Really pushing on the whole "plugging your ears and saying your mantra" thing, aren't you?

I'm wrong because I imply that Ezio was an original character? Then you try to say that's not true because he relies on archtypes? Stop and realize how absurd you look here. EVERY character is a combination of various tropes. If your standard for saying a character is "original" is that it doesn't make use of well established tropes, you're in for a heaping pile of disappointment in just about any story you ever get into. Original, as a word, is judged on context. In the context of whether Ezio is a character unlike others I've seen in fiction, I've not said that Ezio is original. In the context of whether he's a character originated by Ubisoft, he is original. Connor is original as well, just not well done.

And yes, Connor is a bland, one dimensional character. Calling that "factually wrong" doesn't strengthen your case. He basically stumbled from one revolution event to the next, with little to no emotional connection and no notable character growth. By the end of the game, you've basically only gotten to know one side of Connor. The "I'm mildly irritated with everyone around me and will kill because the player is pushing the kill button" side. He never rises to the occasions around him.





The below quote is from a well-known member of this forum.

"Connor was a Child. a normal Child. He lived his life as he should. Playing, learning and growing. You feel the Innocence which is something that was absent from Ezio, because you`re quickly thrown in with the line "Your sister seemed quite satisfied with the handling I gave her earlier". I never expected another Ezio and I`m glad that I was not disappointed. Connor`s Innocence is quickly stolen by the ensuing events. He grows into a humble, powerful Young man that seemingly has no Weaknesses but his Naivete.

In a way, Connor is still a child. His reactions to some of the actions of others` make any one laugh, but he simply finds it disgusting. His solutions to very complicated matters is Pure. "i`ll tell them I`m Innocent" - Connor.

His Gestures when Talking to people is what drew me to like him. Standing and holding his 2 hands together when talking to Homesteaders, polite, labeling them as his friends and not his townsfolk, BUT THEN he just barges into a certain Character`s house, shoving that certain Character`s arm away, not once, but thrice, was Hilarious. The contrast was Brilliant. He is somewhat like his father, in a way that those he deemed friends would get the best out of him, but those he deemed Unimportant or viewed them in a somewhat negative light would be shrugged off.

The thing is that Connor possesses Noble Qualities, but is Not a Noble. He`s just so Humble and respectful that you cannot help, but like him and enjoy his Conversations. He has respect to every man and believes that every man is equal and that every is entitled respect.

With Connor, I actually tried hard NOT to kill people and Coincidentally, it was revealed that he dislikes excessive or Unnecessary killing. He values rights Immensely that So many moments of anger might seem light to us, but I think he was entitled to every bit rage he showed.

The only Emotional face I saw with Ezio, was when Cristina Died. With Connor, I saw that so many times. It connected emotionally with me and every time I just saw that face and those sorrowful eyes, I actually feel it.

In the end, in terms of Connor, you find yourself killing in the same site you played in and it proves for nothing. He is Imperfect, He made mistakes, He has flaws, he does not Joke, he is a jerk to some, but as soft as a teddy bear to others. he rages and sorrows. He made me ask questions, HE asked questions. and THAT is what makes this Character such a genius Creation. "


i take no credit for the above post. i will not tell you who unless he himself feels the need to reveal himself

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 02:20 AM
some of your points are opinionated... but alot of it is factually wrong

pirate1802
11-28-2012, 03:36 AM
http://www.evoxforums.com/forums/images/smilies/Jackson_popcorn.gif

lolol.

pirate1802
11-28-2012, 03:41 AM
From what little I've played of Connor, he seems reserved, driven and stoic. He is naive and innocent (his conversations with Achilles about repairing the homestead) yet he is ferocious, even as a child (him asking Charles Lee for his name), and a very humble young man (no doubt because of his upbringing in the tribes). Not one dimensional at all. I simply love him.

Will_Lucky
11-28-2012, 04:14 AM
The below quote is from a well-known member of this forum.

"Connor was a Child. a normal Child. He lived his life as he should. Playing, learning and growing. You feel the Innocence which is something that was absent from Ezio, because you`re quickly thrown in with the line "Your sister seemed quite satisfied with the handling I gave her earlier". I never expected another Ezio and I`m glad that I was not disappointed. Connor`s Innocence is quickly stolen by the ensuing events. He grows into a humble, powerful Young man that seemingly has no Weaknesses but his Naivete.


Yeah but we didn't see Ezio as a child, hell no I'll reverse it. Sure we see Connor playing, but about an hour later we see him borderline threatening Charles Lee for strangling him and then proceed to get the nice vision of his village burned down and mother killed....

Yeah I'll say Ezio was more innocent going off that.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 04:18 AM
Yeah but we didn't see Ezio as a child, hell no I'll reverse it. Sure we see Connor playing, but about an hour later we see him borderline threatening Charles Lee for strangling him and then proceed to get the nice vision of his village burned down and mother killed....

Yeah I'll say Ezio was more innocent going off that.

*mouth is hanging open in disbelief*

are you joking?!

Will_Lucky
11-28-2012, 04:21 AM
*mouth is hanging open in disbelief*

are you joking?!

What? I mean seriously everything I stated happened.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 04:23 AM
so you think... ezio was more innocent... than connor....?

Will_Lucky
11-28-2012, 04:24 AM
Well not in his later life, but initially yeah sure I'll take that option.

montagemik
11-28-2012, 04:25 AM
Ezio was a much better character after his first game than Connor is. Most of the problem has nothing to do with rushing, it's just poor characterization. Connor has tons of cinematic time in this game, lots of interactions. But he never becomes much more than the avatar for the player. He's a boring, one dimensional character. If he had been one of those multiplayer characters, with a paragraph mentioning that his mother died in a fire, he's have been about as developed as he was being the central figure of the single-player mode of this game.

I have no problem with multiple games for a character, but when a character's initial outing is squandered this badly, it's time to move on to an original character. I don't want a game devoted to rehabilitating that bad writing of Connor. The death of Desmond making Connor more unlikely (though not impossible) is one of the few good things about Desmond's death.


If you saw no characterisation throughout connors story , i'm not sure if you were paying the story much attention.
Connor was one of the more Human characters in his first outing than most if not all of the AC games characters in my opinion.
Connor was constantly torn between his duty to his people , the spirits , The order & his own desire for revenge & retribution.
And after the things he'd been through showed amazing strength of character to accomplish these things throughout.
Connor still has 'his' equivalent of Brotherhood /revelations to mature through (if they choose to) & can only get better as he develops.

Ezio by comparrison virtually had all he needed handed to him on a plate . Resources / allies / information . Only towards Brotherhood did ezio begin to really grow up & do what was needed for the greater good , not just for his own desires or retribution. (That's how i read ezio in AC-2 & early Brotherhood)

& i believe the neccessity for a modern day Bloodline relative of the ancestors is passed - Due to various plotpoints we've only seen the beginnings of at the moment.
Desmond's role as the main playable protagonist brought to an End , being the first.
( i'm not entirely convinced as yet we've heard the last from Desmond though - 1st civ tech & animus have some strange capabilities, if we've learned anything so far)

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 04:25 AM
@ will
so ezio... at the age of 17-18... was more innocent than connor... at the age of 5.....

is that what you are saying

Torvaldesq
11-28-2012, 07:04 AM
If you saw no characterisation throughout connors story , i'm not sure if you were paying the story much attention.
Connor was one of the more Human characters in his first outing than most if not all of the AC games characters in my opinion.
Connor was constantly torn between his duty to his people , the spirits , The order & his own desire for revenge & retribution.
And after the things he'd been through showed amazing strength of character to accomplish these things throughout.
Connor still has 'his' equivalent of Brotherhood /revelations to mature through (if they choose to) & can only get better as he develops.

Ezio by comparrison virtually had all he needed handed to him on a plate . Resources / allies / information . Only towards Brotherhood did ezio begin to really grow up & do what was needed for the greater good , not just for his own desires or retribution. (That's how i read ezio in AC-2 & early Brotherhood)

& i believe the neccessity for a modern day Bloodline relative of the ancestors is passed - Due to various plotpoints we've only seen the beginnings of at the moment.
Desmond's role as the main playable protagonist brought to an End , being the first.
( i'm not entirely convinced as yet we've heard the last from Desmond though - 1st civ tech & animus have some strange capabilities, if we've learned anything so far)


I paid close attention to the storyline. If you saw characterization there, you were delusional. Imagining levels of complexity and depth that simply were not there. Like someone playing a 16-bit game with a silent hero and imagining all sorts of things because the animators bothered to include an eyebrow movement.

The argument isn't over resources that Ezio had. It's simply over the utter lack of character Connor shows throughout the game (which makes him a weaker character overall than the previous AC protagonist). He has moment after moment presented to him where he can develop, mature, and show careful consideration of his situation. The failure to do that isn't a mark of wonderful innocence. It's the writers dropping the ball. Whether it's the major political fight between the British and Connor where he astoundingly fails to grasp the situation of his people with regards to the colonials (despite the fact that the tribes involved understood the situation quite a bit in actual history), or the wooden and weak relationships he has with just about every character who graces his presence, he's a contrived and robotic mess. The character who highlight conflicting duties tend to show where Connor is failing to be developed rather than highlighting development.

The comments of the earlier quoted poster about being naive and pure and all that remind me quite a bit of the comments I heard from people after seeing Star Wars Episode I way back. Most fans left it initially talking about how great the movie was. I heard a bunch defend the awful handling of Anakin in the movie, saying the movie was just trying to show us that Anakin was pure and good and naive once. It took years for those fans to recognize how poorly written things were.

Connor is not a good character. He's not even close. His script is awful. It's really too bad a better writers wasn't hired for the game, because there was lots of potential there. One of the best signs of how badly he was handled is that the people styling themselves as fans of him are saying he needs another game or didn't get enough time in this one to be developed and mature. At the end of AC 2, Ezio was developed. People weren't asking for Brotherhood saying that Ezio needed to have more development. Ezio's character development in Brotherhood is extremely minuscule compared to his character development in AC 2. There's a story to the second game, and the little development Ezio gets does put him in the top leadership role of the Assassins, but Ezio's personality and maturity are pretty well solidified before Brotherhood begins. Connor is 27 when AC 3 ends (27 is a plenty mature age, especially if we're talking 18th century). The childlike qualities of his mentality aren't laudable, they're symbols of the writers creating a simplistic script that had Connor go from one revolutionary event to the next with little care about the story, concerned only with getting him to the next gameplay mission. They had cinematic time to create good dialogue, they just failed to use it well. Connor's background was squandered. His relationships squandered. Much better to drop him than try to rehabilitate him.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 04:39 PM
I paid close attention to the storyline. If you saw characterization there, you were delusional. Imagining levels of complexity and depth that simply were not there. Like someone playing a 16-bit game with a silent hero and imagining all sorts of things because the animators bothered to include an eyebrow movement.

The argument isn't over resources that Ezio had. It's simply over the utter lack of character Connor shows throughout the game (which makes him a weaker character overall than the previous AC protagonist). He has moment after moment presented to him where he can develop, mature, and show careful consideration of his situation. The failure to do that isn't a mark of wonderful innocence. It's the writers dropping the ball. Whether it's the major political fight between the British and Connor where he astoundingly fails to grasp the situation of his people with regards to the colonials (despite the fact that the tribes involved understood the situation quite a bit in actual history), or the wooden and weak relationships he has with just about every character who graces his presence, he's a contrived and robotic mess. The character who highlight conflicting duties tend to show where Connor is failing to be developed rather than highlighting development.

The comments of the earlier quoted poster about being naive and pure and all that remind me quite a bit of the comments I heard from people after seeing Star Wars Episode I way back. Most fans left it initially talking about how great the movie was. I heard a bunch defend the awful handling of Anakin in the movie, saying the movie was just trying to show us that Anakin was pure and good and naive once. It took years for those fans to recognize how poorly written things were.

Connor is not a good character. He's not even close. His script is awful. It's really too bad a better writers wasn't hired for the game, because there was lots of potential there. One of the best signs of how badly he was handled is that the people styling themselves as fans of him are saying he needs another game or didn't get enough time in this one to be developed and mature. At the end of AC 2, Ezio was developed. People weren't asking for Brotherhood saying that Ezio needed to have more development. Ezio's character development in Brotherhood is extremely minuscule compared to his character development in AC 2. There's a story to the second game, and the little development Ezio gets does put him in the top leadership role of the Assassins, but Ezio's personality and maturity are pretty well solidified before Brotherhood begins. Connor is 27 when AC 3 ends (27 is a plenty mature age, especially if we're talking 18th century). The childlike qualities of his mentality aren't laudable, they're symbols of the writers creating a simplistic script that had Connor go from one revolutionary event to the next with little care about the story, concerned only with getting him to the next gameplay mission. They had cinematic time to create good dialogue, they just failed to use it well. Connor's background was squandered. His relationships squandered. Much better to drop him than try to rehabilitate him.

bro everything you said is a opinion... a minority opinion based on threads and polls. but still an opinion you are entitled to.

oh and ezio not needing another game? if anything, that's a sign of bad character story-writing. people didn't want to know what type of person he'd become. It was obvious, it could be predicted. it was cliche. how many in depth conversations have there ever been about ezio of AC2? not a lot IMO, because he was a very surface hero. there was no hidden feelings, he never had mixed feelings. he was never indecisive. There was no deeper meaning to his character. What did he represent as a character? The Rich? The man who lost everything? the perfect assassin? the perfect personality? You never saw his development, it was one day he was suddenly wise. it was one day he was suddenly a leader. he didn't morph into a leader through character development. he morphed into a leader because that's what the writers wanted him to become. he literally said one day " Lets rebuild the brotherhood" that's it. Ezio was developed.... but ezio never needed development... his character is cliche, nothing to devolpe. all the devolpers needed to do was put that pre-set/cliche character in a interesting setting. there are thousands upon thousands of ezios in stories, books, Television, etc. Hes the suave guy, the cool kid, the ladies man... how many Connors do you see?

SteelCity999
11-28-2012, 05:58 PM
Ezio was far better written. He had character flaws in the beginning and you saw him mature from minute one of AC2 to and thru AC:R. He made mistakes and we saw the consequences. Connor had no such arc in his life and yet we saw just as much in years. We went from little kid to full blown assassin in the time it takes for a loading screen to appear and be gone. No development at all. We were asked to take what we saw and accept it or not without knowing the why - except for his mother dying in the fire.

Gotta agree with a good bit of what Torvaldesq is saying.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 06:04 PM
once again. you are using ACR and ACB as evidence.... of course ezio would have an advantage if you use all 3 of his games....

Oh and you never saw ezios growth. it JUST HAPPENED. in a loading screen, in a "# years later" and in between games......................... true story.

you actually see connors growth. ezio didn't get character devolpement until ACR

Torvaldesq
11-28-2012, 08:45 PM
bro everything you said is a opinion... a minority opinion based on threads and polls. but still an opinion you are entitled to.

oh and ezio not needing another game? if anything, that's a sign of bad character story-writing. people didn't want to know what type of person he'd become. It was obvious, it could be predicted. it was cliche. how many in depth conversations have there ever been about ezio of AC2? not a lot IMO, because he was a very surface hero. there was no hidden feelings, he never had mixed feelings. he was never indecisive. There was no deeper meaning to his character. What did he represent as a character? The Rich? The man who lost everything? the perfect assassin? the perfect personality? You never saw his development, it was one day he was suddenly wise. it was one day he was suddenly a leader. he didn't morph into a leader through character development. he morphed into a leader because that's what the writers wanted him to become. he literally said one day " Lets rebuild the brotherhood" that's it. Ezio was developed.... but ezio never needed development... his character is cliche, nothing to devolpe. all the devolpers needed to do was put that pre-set/cliche character in a interesting setting. there are thousands upon thousands of ezios in stories, books, Television, etc. Hes the suave guy, the cool kid, the ladies man... how many Connors do you see?

A minority opinion? What, from a thread poll with a forum for some fans? Yeah, not very convincing. And, in any case, unimportant. Maybe you missed my Star Wars fan comparison. And stating that something is "opinion" is, in itself, an extremely weak retort. Writing quality is something where critical appraisal is done all the time, there are such things as standards, Connor falls below the ones that should have existed for this game. If you want to just say, "Oh, what you said is all opinion," then more power to you. Something being an opinion does not prevent it from being a well-founded opinion.

And you completely missed the point I made with regard to Ezio. I said that no one was asking for another game for him because he needed more development. That's because he was well developed already from AC 2. There is, of course, nothing wrong with making a sequel using a character who's already well developed. Movies and TV shows and novels do it all the time. It doesn't mean the character can't be developed more either (As I said, Ezio developed in the leadership department in the following games). The reason the comparison is damaging to Connor is that so many fans of Connor are asking for a sequel because they feel he was not sufficiently developed in this game. That's not a boon to the character, that's an indictment of the writing. Connor goes from being a child to being 28 (and, as I said, in the 18th century that's plenty mature as an age), and has lots of script to make use of. It wasn't used well.

The discussion about Connor's character has not made him appear deep. It's made him appear undeveloped. It doesn't come across as peeling away at layers of complexity, it comes across as trying to fill a dull, blank slate based on the background he had which COULD have made him an interesting character, but ultimately didn't. I'm not saying Ezio is all that deep and complex - games rarely can get a character to that level - but Ezio has the benefit of not being a boring blank slate at the end of AC 2. Ezio's personality is known, his growth accomplished. AC 2 had a stronger story focus on the development of Ezio as a character, Brotherhood and AC: R were more about taking that developed character and giving him more adventures. An AC 3 sequel using Connor would not have that benefit, it would be trying to do the job that the first game SHOULD have done.

Shad0wmancer1
11-28-2012, 09:42 PM
And yes, Connor is a bland, one dimensional character. Calling that "factually wrong" doesn't strengthen your case. He basically stumbled from one revolution event to the next, with little to no emotional connection and no notable character growth. By the end of the game, you've basically only gotten to know one side of Connor. The "I'm mildly irritated with everyone around me and will kill because the player is pushing the kill button" side. He never rises to the occasions around him.

Absolutely correct, and the last point makes me laugh because it's so extremely true. At the same time it makes me sad that ubisoft screwed up their protagonist so badly.


I paid close attention to the storyline. If you saw characterization there, you were delusional. Imagining levels of complexity and depth that simply were not there. Like someone playing a 16-bit game with a silent hero and imagining all sorts of things because the animators bothered to include an eyebrow movement.

The argument isn't over resources that Ezio had. It's simply over the utter lack of character Connor shows throughout the game (which makes him a weaker character overall than the previous AC protagonist). He has moment after moment presented to him where he can develop, mature, and show careful consideration of his situation. The failure to do that isn't a mark of wonderful innocence. It's the writers dropping the ball. Whether it's the major political fight between the British and Connor where he astoundingly fails to grasp the situation of his people with regards to the colonials (despite the fact that the tribes involved understood the situation quite a bit in actual history), or the wooden and weak relationships he has with just about every character who graces his presence, he's a contrived and robotic mess. The character who highlight conflicting duties tend to show where Connor is failing to be developed rather than highlighting development.

The comments of the earlier quoted poster about being naive and pure and all that remind me quite a bit of the comments I heard from people after seeing Star Wars Episode I way back. Most fans left it initially talking about how great the movie was. I heard a bunch defend the awful handling of Anakin in the movie, saying the movie was just trying to show us that Anakin was pure and good and naive once. It took years for those fans to recognize how poorly written things were.

Connor is not a good character. He's not even close. His script is awful. It's really too bad a better writers wasn't hired for the game, because there was lots of potential there. One of the best signs of how badly he was handled is that the people styling themselves as fans of him are saying he needs another game or didn't get enough time in this one to be developed and mature. At the end of AC 2, Ezio was developed. People weren't asking for Brotherhood saying that Ezio needed to have more development. Ezio's character development in Brotherhood is extremely minuscule compared to his character development in AC 2. There's a story to the second game, and the little development Ezio gets does put him in the top leadership role of the Assassins, but Ezio's personality and maturity are pretty well solidified before Brotherhood begins. Connor is 27 when AC 3 ends (27 is a plenty mature age, especially if we're talking 18th century). The childlike qualities of his mentality aren't laudable, they're symbols of the writers creating a simplistic script that had Connor go from one revolutionary event to the next with little care about the story, concerned only with getting him to the next gameplay mission. They had cinematic time to create good dialogue, they just failed to use it well. Connor's background was squandered. His relationships squandered. Much better to drop him than try to rehabilitate him.

Also a fantastic point and a thank you for this post. I especially liked your connection to Star Wars which fits perfectly in this situation. This whole post is 100% true.


bro everything you said is a opinion... a minority opinion based on threads and polls. but still an opinion you are entitled to.

oh and ezio not needing another game? if anything, that's a sign of bad character story-writing. people didn't want to know what type of person he'd become. It was obvious, it could be predicted. it was cliche. how many in depth conversations have there ever been about ezio of AC2? not a lot IMO, because he was a very surface hero. there was no hidden feelings, he never had mixed feelings. he was never indecisive. There was no deeper meaning to his character. What did he represent as a character? The Rich? The man who lost everything? the perfect assassin? the perfect personality? You never saw his development, it was one day he was suddenly wise. it was one day he was suddenly a leader. he didn't morph into a leader through character development. he morphed into a leader because that's what the writers wanted him to become. he literally said one day " Lets rebuild the brotherhood" that's it. Ezio was developed.... but ezio never needed development... his character is cliche, nothing to devolpe. all the devolpers needed to do was put that pre-set/cliche character in a interesting setting. there are thousands upon thousands of ezios in stories, books, Television, etc. Hes the suave guy, the cool kid, the ladies man... how many Connors do you see?

This guy's out of his right mind. AC2 is, and will forever be, the pinnacle of this game series. "People didn't want to know what type of person he'd become." DUDE!? "PEOPLE" LOVED AC2. If you want to look at Connor and see his lip twitch and assume he's undergoing an emotional epiphany that you just can't see, then do it on your own time. But you don't insult Ezio Auditore. In all my years of gaming I have only seen one Ezio and never will see an equal in my eyes. On the other hand, I can draw a stick figure in my notebook while I'm bored to death in class, and see a character with about as much of a personality as Connor had.

TrueAssassin, get outta here. Go back to your fanboy forum and talk about how great AC3 was while the adults have a grown-up discussion. You find personality traits in Connor that simply don't exist and then you insult Ezio Auditore. You, my friend, are factually wrong.

Will_Lucky
11-28-2012, 10:06 PM
Oh agreed, Ezio was one of those characters I can't see being emulated over the next few years. That character was just fantastic absolutely fantastic during AC2 and was expanded upon in the other sequels to be even better.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 11:08 PM
once again. that is all your opinions.

but Will, you are factually wrong when you say ezio is one of a kind. factually wrong and simply clueless.

ezio was devolped because he is a pre-set character. pre-set is my way of saying cliche. ezio is not one of a kind.

LightRey
11-28-2012, 11:23 PM
once again. that is all your opinions.

but Will, you are factually wrong when you say ezio is one of a kind. factually wrong and simply clueless.

ezio was devolped because he is a pre-set character. pre-set is my way of saying cliche. ezio is not one of a kind.
You know if you're going to argue a point you shouldn't base your counterargument on premises not accepted by your opponent.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 11:25 PM
explain

LightRey
11-28-2012, 11:27 PM
explain
Your opponent will obviously not agree on the premise that Ezio is a pre-set character.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 11:29 PM
hm. makes sense. so, what exactly should i do?

LightRey
11-28-2012, 11:36 PM
hm. makes sense. so, what exactly should i do?
Find premises you both agree on and reach your conclusion from there.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 11:54 PM
@ team ezio

okay... so we both can agree that connor is less devolped than ezio. but i think the reason for this is obvious in my point of view. Ezio was suppose to be a one-shot wonder. he was designed to be featured in that one game. he should be devolped by the end of it. it would simply be bad writing if he wasn't. but the devs intentionally left connor undevolped. they wanted to give connor room to grow if they did indeed go unto a sequel for him. though they did say that it is based on fan reaction, i simply don't believe that BS lol. If the devs wanted to keep there One AC game a year plan, they'd have had to already started a seperate team to devolpe the next game. if they relied on fan reaction, they'd probably get behind schedule. AC has one of the biggest devolpement teams in gaming today, it would be a simple matter to have splinter off a team to research and start planning the next story. i think its safe to suspect that connor will be getting another game. Ezio on the otherhand was indeed intially planned to go for one game. Ezio is also older than connor by the end of AC2 than connor was by the end of AC3, thus another reason for his superior devolpment. If you ask me, the devs had planned to make a second connor game way before asking us lol. btw, don't you think it would be strange, that the devs created a revolutionary tree climbing mechanic... just to use it for 3/4 of one game?

btw i say 3/4 because haythams part, didn't include the tree climbing mecahnic

twenty_glyphs
11-29-2012, 01:41 AM
@ team ezio

okay... so we both can agree that connor is less devolped than ezio. but i think the reason for this is obvious in my point of view. Ezio was suppose to be a one-shot wonder. he was designed to be featured in that one game. he should be devolped by the end of it. it would simply be bad writing if he wasn't. but the devs intentionally left connor undevolped. they wanted to give connor room to grow if they did indeed go unto a sequel for him. though they did say that it is based on fan reaction, i simply don't believe that BS lol. If the devs wanted to keep there One AC game a year plan, they'd have had to already started a seperate team to devolpe the next game. if they relied on fan reaction, they'd probably get behind schedule. AC has one of the biggest devolpement teams in gaming today, it would be a simple matter to have splinter off a team to research and start planning the next story. i think its safe to suspect that connor will be getting another game. Ezio on the otherhand was indeed intially planned to go for one game. Ezio is also older than connor by the end of AC2 than connor was by the end of AC3, thus another reason for his superior devolpment. If you ask me, the devs had planned to make a second connor game way before asking us lol. btw, don't you think it would be strange, that the devs created a revolutionary tree climbing mechanic... just to use it for 3/4 of one game?

btw i say 3/4 because haythams part, didn't include the tree climbing mecahnic

Okay, so if Connor was intentionally undeveloped just so they can use him in sequels, that's absolutely terrible storytelling as well, and you're admitting he's undeveloped. Mass Effect was planned as a trilogy, and Commander Shepherd wasn't an undeveloped character just so they could hold back for the second game -- and he's not even a very interesting character, but he's more interesting than Connor (in execution, not potential). I don't come into a story in any format, be it movie, video game or book, and forgive characters for being uninteresting or undeveloped based on what might happen in the sequel. Tell me a good story in this one sitting, and I'll come back for the sequel. Tell me an undeveloped story just to hold things back for the sequel, and good luck getting me back for the sequel. Besides, the developers have claimed all along that Connor's story has a beginning, middle and end, so according to their own words they were trying to tell a complete story here.

TrueAssassin77
11-29-2012, 01:54 AM
Okay, so if Connor was intentionally undeveloped just so they can use him in sequels, that's absolutely terrible storytelling as well, and you're admitting he's undeveloped. Mass Effect was planned as a trilogy, and Commander Shepherd wasn't an undeveloped character just so they could hold back for the second game -- and he's not even a very interesting character, but he's more interesting than Connor (in execution, not potential). I don't come into a story in any format, be it movie, video game or book, and forgive characters for being uninteresting or undeveloped based on what might happen in the sequel. Tell me a good story in this one sitting, and I'll come back for the sequel. Tell me an undeveloped story just to hold things back for the sequel, and good luck getting me back for the sequel. Besides, the developers have claimed all along that Connor's story has a beginning, middle and end, so according to their own words they were trying to tell a complete story here.

never played ME3... but isn't he a user created/edited/rpg-like hero?????????

and i don't agree with you opinion, if you look at it as one singlar game, than it simply looks like unfinished writing... but if you look at over a multiple games it's a master piece. if you read a book series, if the hero stops devolping after the 1st book... than its bad writing.

if you look at one book, and the hero stops devolping at the 1st chapter... its bad writing.

twenty_glyphs
11-29-2012, 07:04 AM
never played ME3... but isn't he a user created/edited/rpg-like hero?????????

and i don't agree with you opinion, if you look at it as one singlar game, than it simply looks like unfinished writing... but if you look at over a multiple games it's a master piece. if you read a book series, if the hero stops devolping after the 1st book... than its bad writing.

if you look at one book, and the hero stops devolping at the 1st chapter... its bad writing.

In Mass Effect you only create the main character's look and choose from a few different background story choices, then you make some choices as the story goes along. The Shepherd character is still pretty much defined by the writers. The choices you make are mostly superficial, or just chosen from specific ways the main character handles some situations.

You're missing my point about AC3 being the start of some multiple game arc for Connor. I can't look at it as the start of some grand character development, I can only look at it for what it is right now. You're also assuming that future Connor stories would somehow handle Connor as a character better, which is not a given. Look at the original Star Wars trilogy. Luke Skywalker grew and developed a whole lot beyond the first movie, but he was still a developed character in the original movie. He wasn't the most interesting or exciting character then, but he had a character arc and grew as the story of the first movie progressed. He was developed enough after one movie to be interesting and warrant further stories. Those future stories developed his character even further as he grew more as a character. Yet he was still a complete character at the end if his first story.

You saying a hero has to continue developing after the first chapter of a book is true, but misses the point. If that first chapter presents the character as dull and doesn't do much with them, why would I want to continue reading? Besides, one full game story is more comparable to a full book, not just a chapter. Sequences in the AC games are more comparable to chapters in books. And AC3 does exactly what you say is bad writing — Connor stops developing after his first chapter, which is Sequence 4. He barely develops as a character any more after his initial appearance in Sequence 4. That is my complaint.

pirate1802
11-29-2012, 09:00 AM
Shepard is a pretty boring character if you take out the player customization and view him/her as the writer intended them to be. He is your average white space marine righting wrongs and traveling the galaxy, and bedding sexy aliens along the way. As generic as it gets IMO. I'd take Connor over the writer-defined Shepard any day.

montagemik
11-29-2012, 09:30 AM
Absolutely correct, and the last point makes me laugh because it's so extremely true. At the same time it makes me sad that ubisoft screwed up their protagonist so badly.



Also a fantastic point and a thank you for this post. I especially liked your connection to Star Wars which fits perfectly in this situation. This whole post is 100% true.



This guy's out of his right mind. AC2 is, and will forever be, the pinnacle of this game series. "People didn't want to know what type of person he'd become." DUDE!? "PEOPLE" LOVED AC2. If you want to look at Connor and see his lip twitch and assume he's undergoing an emotional epiphany that you just can't see, then do it on your own time. But you don't insult Ezio Auditore. In all my years of gaming I have only seen one Ezio and never will see an equal in my eyes. On the other hand, I can draw a stick figure in my notebook while I'm bored to death in class, and see a character with about as much of a personality as Connor had.

TrueAssassin, get outta here. Go back to your fanboy forum and talk about how great AC3 was while the adults have a grown-up discussion. You find personality traits in Connor that simply don't exist and then you insult Ezio Auditore. You, my friend, are factually wrong.


"GO AWAY WHILE THE ADULTS HAVE A GROWN UP DISCUSSION" ....................Then you proceed to use points on STAR WARS as validation of viewpoints .....mmmmmmmmmm I'm seeing something wrong there but can't quite put my finger on it yet .. :rolleyes:

You clearly know little about true characterisation - If ezio was some kind of deep well rounded personality for you & Connor 1 sided .

But then the 'STICK MAN DRAWING IN CLASS' comment cleared things up for me . Now your post makes perfect Adult sense.
Well done , have a cookie.


(& please don't waste your Adult words on me - I'm just not ******* worthy )

pirate1802
11-29-2012, 10:06 AM
Whoa. Somebody got his pants on fire.

Assassin_M
11-29-2012, 10:37 AM
Shepherd...LOL

pirate1802
11-29-2012, 11:38 AM
Shepherd...LOL


Didn't see that haha

TrueAssassin77
11-29-2012, 04:59 PM
the mere fact he uses shepherd as an argument means something? but what? hm

anyhow:

characters that are fully developed by the end of the 1st chapter of a book.... is bad writing.
characters that are fully developed by the end of the 1st book of a intended series.... is also bad writing

twenty_glyphs
11-29-2012, 06:38 PM
Shepard is a pretty boring character if you take out the player customization and view him/her as the writer intended them to be. He is your average white space marine righting wrongs and traveling the galaxy, and bedding sexy aliens along the way. As generic as it gets IMO. I'd take Connor over the writer-defined Shepard any day.

My point was that Shepard was generic, but I found him to be more defined and developed than Connor after one game, despite having a less interesting premise than Connor. I'm not that fond of Mass Effect, I'm just using him as one example.


the mere fact he uses shepherd as an argument means something? but what? hm

anyhow:

characters that are fully developed by the end of the 1st chapter of a book.... is bad writing.
characters that are fully developed by the end of the 1st book of a intended series.... is also bad writing

I did not expect Connor to be "fully" developed by the end of the first game, I merely expected him to be developed in some capacity. He's not. The whole point of my last post was that good characters in a long series are still developed in interesting ways by the end of their first story. Ezio wasn't fully developed as a character at the end of AC2, but he developed as a character within that one story in a satisfying way. Luke Skywalker was nowhere near fully developed after the first Star Wars movie, but he developed and grew inside that story. My complaint is simply that Connor was not developed enough for a single story. Good writing rarely involves laying out several stories and character development paths for a character ahead of time. It's simply telling a satisfying story with good character development at the time.

If Ubisoft held back on doing more with Connor simply because he might get used in a sequel, it was lazy, cheap, and bad writing. A good writer can find ways to develop a character in unplanned, satisfying ways in the future.

gyigyo
11-29-2012, 07:06 PM
Hey dude you overreacting this..

gyigyo
11-29-2012, 07:11 PM
*LISTEN...I'M NOT HATING OR BEING NEGATIVE.* Assassin's Creed is my favorite game series in existence. I liked Assassin's Creed 3 very much. As a die-hard fan, I felt I am entitled to give my opinion on Ubisoft's game, which I have invested in since the beginning of the series. If you were unhappy with the ending, or didn't care either way, please read my reasoning for being unhappy with this before you judge. I love Assassin's Creed and after finishing the latest game I feel like I've read a fantastic book with an exceedingly frustrating ending.

My problem is how Ubisoft chose to end the game. The problem, for me, is that I became, over 6 years and 5 games, attached to the characters they presented, resulting in my love of the series. The player lived through Ezio Auditore's entire life and when Revelations came to an end, I was sad and would miss Ezio, but got my share of closure and was ready to move on.

C
This is not what I had in mind. While I thought that Connor had great potential as a character, it seemed wasted to me. Ezio had three games and almost 30 sequences of memory with tons of side missions and extra story bits, when all was said and done. Connor had about 8 shortish sequences of memory in which he did not have much of a personality - he talks in something of a monotone and doesn't even really seem to understand that which he is fighting for. The entire introduction to the Templars vs. Assassins in this game was given by Achilles in a loading screen before which he said "One day..." -LOADING SCREEN- "And that's the story of the Templars."

This game felt very rushed to me and I didn't feel that Ubisoft even cares about the integrity of its series anymore in terms of what it has presented to its fans for the past 5 years. I won't just pick on Connor, because I like the character and the setting very much, and I love the gameplay as well. My complaint with Connor is simply that you do not go nearly as deep into his personality and struggles as you did with Ezio, resulting in the player being undeniably less emotionally attached to him. A naive, optimistic character is a great embarking point, it sets the stage for his philosophies to be challenged by both the Templars and Assassins, especially when you consider his father was a Templar, which I thought was a great twist. But...while they do challenge it, he never sees the other side, he never evolves as a character. He has the exact same mindset at the end of his story as when it begins. I remember well, and will never forget, how Ezio evolved. He went from a young hothead who wanted revenge to an old, wise, Grand Master Assassin. In the end, the Assassins vs. Templars, the secret war that Ubisoft is so famous for creating, didn't even matter. The First Civilization took precedence over this, and I buy the Assassin's Creed games for the historical wars between the Assassins and Templars - to be an Assassin and live by the Creed. Connor undoubtedly didn't have much of a Creed, at least one that was revealed to the players. Remember this quote, Ubi?

"To say that 'nothing is true', is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that 'everything is permitted', is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

This epic quote from Ezio is the direction I wish the AC games kept moving in. I felt such 'Assassin Pride' when Ezio said that, and I did not feel that the Creed, or the Assassin/Templar war even mattered in AC3, and I really didn't see how Connor could understand what he was fighting for the way Ezio did.

But enough of that. The real problem to me...is the ending of the game. Imagine if the Halo series killed Master Chief, or if The Legend of Zelda killed Link. I know that not everyone agrees with this, but for me personally, it feels like that is what you have done, Ubisoft. Desmond's whole story in AC3 is completely wasted potential. The First Civilization stuff is all well and good, okay, Juno's the new bad guy. I wouldn't have a problem with that if Desmond was still the hero. I really had a problem with his death, and here's why.

Because...well, think back to AC2. What was the entire point of reliving the memories of Desmond's ancestors? Besides looking for the pieces of Eden, they stated it was to train Desmond, so that he could become a Master Assassin like his powerful ancestors, and help to turn the tide of the war, but this entire plotline is completely non-existent in AC3. Not only is the Assassins vs. Templars war almost non-existent (except as a convenient resistance for Desmond to obtain the power sources) but the main character is now DEAD. I think that it would've been perfect to relive the memories of Altair, Ezio, and Connor, to become the ultimate assassin so that Desmond could save the world in a modern-day game. This whole series, living the lives of your ancestors, training to be the ultimate assassin through the Bleeding Effect, saving the world, the Assassins vs. the Templars, all of it, built up to a climax in which Desmond Miles, who was supposed to be a sort of "Chosen One," touches a glowy ball and dies, which somehow saves the planet. Great.

I felt a bit insulted at the end of this game the way I might feel after reading a long, fantastic book with a horrid ending. After investing countless hours and hundreds of dollars to play what has become my favorite game series ever, I felt seriously wronged. Maybe I'm being too severe, maybe people do not feel the same way, and if that's so, I apologize for the long length of my post and would ask that you please ignore it. However, if I'm not alone in this feeling, please respond, thumbs up, or share this with others; it would be great if we could at least draw the tiniest bit of attention to this. I've never posted anything on these forums before but I really wanted to say something about this, as I am a longtime Assassin's Creed die-hard fan. And as the Creed used to state, Nothing is True, and Everything is Permitted.

Thanks.

Hey i think you overreacting this many main hero died in videogames and cimema.
I personally liked the ending

Shad0wmancer1
11-29-2012, 11:33 PM
"GO AWAY WHILE THE ADULTS HAVE A GROWN UP DISCUSSION" ....................Then you proceed to use points on STAR WARS as validation of viewpoints .....mmmmmmmmmm I'm seeing something wrong there but can't quite put my finger on it yet .. :rolleyes:

You clearly know little about true characterisation - If ezio was some kind of deep well rounded personality for you & Connor 1 sided .

But then the 'STICK MAN DRAWING IN CLASS' comment cleared things up for me . Now your post makes perfect Adult sense.
Well done , have a cookie.

Hahahaha.

Don't worry - I won't waste a single breath on you. I'll take that cookie, thanks.

& I forgot that we adults were too cool for Star Wars! I'll take note of that.


Hey i think you overreacting this many main hero died in videogames and cimema.
I personally liked the ending

That is completely your right.

Now, what are others' opinions on the ending of the game? This thread is not just about Connor's personality.

pirate1802
11-30-2012, 04:31 AM
thread is not just about Connor's personality.

Where did he talk about Connor? O.O

Shad0wmancer1
12-03-2012, 06:44 PM
Where did he talk about Connor? O.O

Not saying him specifically, just that the majority of the 8 pages of this thread have been discussing Connor, and much of my OP dealt with the game's ending, and I am interested in others' opinions on that as well.

AdrianJacek
12-16-2012, 03:21 PM
I just remembered something.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110706063449/assassinscreed/images/thumb/f/f6/PL-Shrine.png/250px-PL-Shrine.png

"Giovanni drops to the floor, unconscious. I kneel beside him. His eyes suddenly open, but a stranger gazes at me. Giovanni's face alters before my very eyes!"
―Maria with Giovanni in the temple.

When Giovanni and Maria Amiel traveled to the Temple of Pythagoras in the later 16th century, the Vault within it reacted to Giovanni as it would to a descendant of the First Civilization; shining with symbols and glyphs.
When Giovanni fell unconscious, and awoke soon after, his face had changed into that of a seemingly ancient entity. He spoke in a distant and unfamiliar voice, and claimed himself to be Consus, the Erudite God.


Well, doesn't that sound familiar...

protesthishero
12-17-2012, 01:23 PM
I'm not very optimistic about the general direction in which the AC series seems to be heading. Plot-holes, story inconsistencies and bugs are increasingly making their presence felt as each new game is rolled out annually like clockwork but what is even more disconcerting is how the ultra-fanboys are ready to jump on literally anyone with a -justifiably- negative opinion, calling their well-presented arguments "factually wrong" and if that statement is met with a reasonable and well thought-out response, the follow up is usually something along the lines of "well...uh...that's just your opinion!". wUt?
Literally every aspect of the series other than the graphics and a few gameplay mechanics have become weaker ever since Revelations was hastily ejected out to the masses and that's a fact( not an opinion)! The story was the main draw for myself( and a lot of other people) and the mystifying aspect of it has been stomped away by over-simplified borderline-retcon-level rushed explanations that absolutely destroy any remnants of immersion to the game. Right from the start of the new game where the main present-day characters seem almost detached and don't even talk to each other the way normal human beings do (William Miles is just - for lack of a better word - "there") it became quite clear that something went wrong during the development stages. I don't know if the reason why these inconsistencies are so readily apparent is because the people behind the story were trying to package a great deal of story content into a single game or if it was just...bad writing. Either way, I'm not invested in this new game the same way I was for AC2 and ACB because it just seems like the latest games have had a bad case of "Hey, here's a cool character with promising story possibilities...But we can't figure out how to actually implement them....so...Whoops! Sorry, he/she's dead." Even this very forum used to be full of enthusiasm and excitement as people tried to decipher the hidden mysteries of the AC universe back when the series still held that mystique and now it's just...dead. But the most heart-breaking thing that I take away (as a former fan) from all this is the fact that as long as there are people who are willing to defend this sad excuse for a once-amazing game, we will be seeing more games like ACR and AC3 'cause as long as the money keeps coming in for Ubi, dem AC barrels be rolliin' down da hill! And that my friends, is a true f***in' tragedy.

avk111
12-17-2012, 02:39 PM
I'm not very optimistic about the general direction in which the AC series seems to be heading. Plot-holes, story inconsistencies and bugs are increasingly making their presence felt as each new game is rolled out annually like clockwork but what is even more disconcerting is how the ultra-fanboys are ready to jump on literally anyone with a -justifiably- negative opinion, calling their well-presented arguments "factually wrong" and if that statement is met with a reasonable and well thought-out response, the follow up is usually something along the lines of "well...uh...that's just your opinion!". wUt?
Literally every aspect of the series other than the graphics and a few gameplay mechanics have become weaker ever since Revelations was hastily ejected out to the masses and that's a fact( not an opinion)! The story was the main draw for myself( and a lot of other people) and the mystifying aspect of it has been stomped away by over-simplified borderline-retcon-level rushed explanations that absolutely destroy any remnants of immersion to the game. Right from the start of the new game where the main present-day characters seem almost detached and don't even talk to each other the way normal human beings do (William Miles is just - for lack of a better word - "there") it became quite clear that something went wrong during the development stages. I don't know if the reason why these inconsistencies are so readily apparent is because the people behind the story were trying to package a great deal of story content into a single game or if it was just...bad writing. Either way, I'm not invested in this new game the same way I was for AC2 and ACB because it just seems like the latest games have had a bad case of "Hey, here's a cool character with promising story possibilities...But we can't figure out how to actually implement them....so...Whoops! Sorry, he/she's dead." Even this very forum used to be full of enthusiasm and excitement as people tried to decipher the hidden mysteries of the AC universe back when the series still held that mystique and now it's just...dead. But the most heart-breaking thing that I take away (as a former fan) from all this is the fact that as long as there are people who are willing to defend this sad excuse for a once-amazing game, we will be seeing more games like ACR and AC3 'cause as long as the money keeps coming in for Ubi, dem AC barrels be rolliin' down da hill! And that my friends, is a true f***in' tragedy.


you know what they say right ? The voice of the people is the voice of god.

So majority loves Connor, this is the direction Ubisoft will head. In terms of story and inconsistencies , I think it's there but in a good manner, for some reason I think people who don't really look beyond the out shell of things won't really like this game, as it has so much depth and philosophy behind it. That is what makes it so darn captivating. Not to mention the gameplay and other technical terms.

Again when it comes to Desmond I don't think that folks understand that. Desmond is a backbone of the story, as an analogy who would you find more dramatizing in thier death? Ash or Pikachu. He is just a backbone with more or less decent story telling, it's not amazing however the main focus here is the ancestor.

pirate1802
12-17-2012, 02:42 PM
as long as there are people who are willing to defend this sad excuse for a once-amazing game, we will be seeing more games like ACR and AC3 'cause as long as the money keeps coming in for Ubi, dem AC barrels be rolliin' down da hill! And that my friends, is a true f***in' tragedy.

I'm sorry but what is great and what is not is solely up to individual tastes. I might find something great which you find abominable (like AC3), and the same other way. And yes, no matter how bad people may find it, I'll defend a game I like, and pay ubi moar moneyz to make similar games. If that's a tragedy then so be it. :p

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 08:45 PM
Love it when People drop bombs of Revelation..

Oh The series is dying
Oh Ultra fan-boys` fault

So be it then....

infamous_ezio
12-18-2012, 08:13 AM
Wah wah, you're all a bunch of little girls..

kriss3d
12-18-2012, 08:44 AM
My personal beef with the ending is this:

Through the fantasstic series its all been leading up to Desmond doing somthing awsome. From .. Well at least AC2 where he is told by Lucy that he needs the bleeding effect to become an assassin himself in order to defeat the mighty Templars.

Id like to know exactly where in AC3 he ever gets to use those skills learned.

Throughout the series (Ac1 and 2 + 2.5) Desmond gets bits and pieces of Subject 16. He was just not present in Ac3 and we were given no anwers or anything from him.

There is NO ORDER in AC3. The entire Assassins vs Templars consists of Connor and his father. Sure Achillies were an assassin but its not like he ever accepts you into the order. "Now you can put on the clothes" doesnt really count as official acceptance into such an ancient order.

Sorry but being an errand boy for the entire game really and truly had me pulled by the leg the entire time. Every mission im thinking: Any moment now.. any moment the real stuff starts to happen. Any moment we get to see Desmond actually DOING somthing. Or Connonor meeting up with the other assassins to be accepted into the Creed..

But noooooo.. that never happens..

Only redeeming thing I HOPE we get is that Juno speaks of her husband whos mind was put into a stronger vessel. Now if that orb have put Desmond into such one or at least in coma it can save this otherwise horrible ending of a frankly tedious and boring game. Sorry but it was worse than Ac1 missionwise..

pirate1802
12-18-2012, 09:07 AM
There is no Order in AC3 because that is exactly how the writers meant to portray it. It is not a negative point, well.. to some people it is, but not to me. It is W.A.D (working as designed.) The Assassin order was wiped out by Haytham & Co. and Achilles was spared by him on condition that he will give up his assassin-y activities and live a secluded life.

Rabid-Ross
03-15-2013, 03:19 PM
I think that was one of my main problems with AC3, the lack of assassin order. Achillies just didn't give a ****, there was no real 'You're an assassin now' moment. Hell Ezio puts on his fathers robes, but that didn't make him an assassin, you spent most of the game learning to be one by doing until you were officially inducted. Connor is just, loading screen, robes, Boom done. There isn't even a classic assassin colour dye for the robes either, no just white and red. the closest to it has an obnoxious blue shirt thats there to remind you that you're fighting for america not the assassins.
I actually found myself on the templars side for once, they made more sense in the end.

ReaperSaga
03-15-2013, 06:52 PM
I kinda agree, that AC3 was pretty much too rushed and directionless. Especially when the company decides to kill every character that brings some excitement to the story. I still haven't finished the single player's last sequences, because it's not, you know, interesting or addicting anymore. Playing it became more frustrating and while playing I kinda just lose my focus. Maybe it's because of the era, in which I wasn't too interested in, but still AC3 is one of the most biggest disappointments what have happened to me regarding to games. From my point of view, Connor was just too boring and the story wasn't that "special" or "interesting". The game itself seemed like a bad ripoff from some action game just to make some money. It didn't have that epic and exciting atmosphere, like in previous games. Being an assassin or a templar meant nothing. Even though I deeply hated Ezio at first, he got my full attention and interest halfway AC2 playthrough. In AC3, playing as Connor was just meh'ing all the way.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 09:09 PM
Connor was just too boring

Stopped reading after this

ReaperSaga
03-15-2013, 09:26 PM
Stopped reading after this

ok.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/devil_wears_prada_deal.gif

Assassin_M
03-16-2013, 09:04 AM
ok.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/devil_wears_prada_deal.gif
You`re so badass :O

/sarcasm