PDA

View Full Version : Extended Ending??



osinam14
01-05-2013, 05:02 AM
I personally liked the ending, but i thought it wasnt enough, i think it would have been better an ending with more depth, with more dialogue between desmond and his father, shawn and rebecca didnt say anything in this scene, i really liked the conclusion of Connor's story and i dont think this will be his last game. But the Desmond's story could have been better, i was fine with him dying, and juno taking control, so the cycle doesnt begin again, i think it was a good choice, the execution of the ending it is what bothers me.

This guy describes exactly how i feel about the ending, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5Hvoxw2n88
Do you guys think Ubisoft will make or release an extended ending of AC3?, just like BioWare did with MassEffect 3.

Assassin_M
01-05-2013, 05:05 AM
I hope they don't...

What`s done is done...They should focus on patches, DLCs and the next game...I too was disappointed with the execution, but I`m not going to ask for an extension for the ending simply because I was unsatisfied. as you said, it`s not the last game...

Toa TAK
01-05-2013, 05:09 AM
I'm not expecting an extended cut of some sort. For me it wasn't anywhere near as bad as ME3's ending. Plus, it's Assassin's Creed, an ending like this,(done well or not) was what I was expecting in some way. This franchise isn't done yet, and they'll continue the story from here on in.

Right now I just need that Tyranny of Washingmachine DLC. I need an excuse to keep playing ACIII, in a good way.

osinam14
01-05-2013, 05:17 AM
I just hope Ubisoft never uses Multiple Ending's, with one good ending, I'm happy with that.

AdrianJacek
01-05-2013, 06:34 AM
There's one difference between ME3's and AC3's ending. AC3's ending actually makes sense and it doeesn't contradict what the game was telling us before. Let's see - ME3 shows us that synthetics are not so bad with the Geth and then it's just like: "LALALA not listening, they're all evil! Cannot live in peace! LALALA!"
Now, AC3's story gives us an impression that Templars and Assassins are not so different, their goals are similar. And at the end Desmond chose a path that's similar to the Templar agenda.

Assassin_M
01-05-2013, 06:50 AM
There's one difference between ME3's and AC3's ending. AC3's ending actually makes sense and it doeesn't contradict what the game was telling us before. Let's see - ME3 shows us that synthetics are not so bad with the Geth and then it's just like: "LALALA not listening, they're all evil! Cannot live in peace! LALALA!"
Now, AC3's story gives us an impression that Templars and Assassins are not so different, their goals are similar. And at the end Desmond chose a path that's similar to the Templar agenda.
The Templars want THEMSELVES to be in control, though.They don't go around asking people "Hey, you wanna control the world ? yes ? here..have my balls":p

xx-pyro
01-05-2013, 06:54 AM
The Templars want THEMSELVES to be in control, though.They don't go around asking people "Hey, you wanna control the world ? yes ? here..have my balls":p


I'd rather the Templars be in control then some random guy on the street. Despite what people say they ARE sensible. Better them than fools.

EDIT: I just realized Pitcairn said something quite like this and I wholeheartedly agreed. There will always be leaders. Better they be intelligent people able to properly lead and take control.

EDIT 2: And no I'd say just leave the ending as it is. I'd enjoy a bit more depth but it should have been in the game, what's done is done. People would just get angry all over again.

Assassin_M
01-05-2013, 07:00 AM
I'd rather the Templars be in control then some random guy on the street. Despite what people say they ARE sensible. Better them than fools.

EDIT: I just realized Pitcairn said something quite like this and I wholeheartedly agreed. There will always be leaders. Better they be intelligent people able to properly lead and take control.
I found myself agreeing with ALL of the Templars in AC III.

When Connor says this to William "You speak of Salvation, but you were killing them ?" and William replies "AYE !! Because they would not listen" Isn't that what the Assassins do too ??
You already mentioned Pitcairn, Hickey was a greedy, lustful bastard, but he made sense regarding Connor`s hands being always empty and Church made a point regarding the subtle Hypocrisies of the Revolution. Biddle made similar remarks to Pitcairn.

Come to think of it, the only Assassin I seemed to agree with during the course of the entire game was Shaun

Jexx21
01-05-2013, 07:02 AM
You didn't agree with Connor or Achilles?

Assassin_M
01-05-2013, 07:08 AM
You didn't agree with Connor or Achilles?
Not always. Achilles once said "The Colonists` struggle is your struggle" While that`s true, because Connor is an Assassin above all else, he follows it with this when Connor says that The Colonists are winning "Then you have won. the land and your people are safe" but that was not the case, now was it ?

As for Connor, He gave too much to the Colonists. It should`v been apparent to him, and he even acknowledges it near the end, that the Colonists fight ONLY for themselves and no one else...They never gave a crap about the Iroquois, but Connor still hopes for a bright future under the Patriot leaders.

I only disagree with Connor and Achilles, because it turned out in the end that ultimately, the Templars were the ones being accurate about the Patriots since the very beginning..

xx-pyro
01-05-2013, 07:09 AM
I found myself agreeing with ALL of the Templars in AC III.

When Connor says this to William "You speak of Salvation, but you were killing them ?" and William replies "AYE !! Because they would not listen" Isn't that what the Assassins do too ??
You already mentioned Pitcairn, Hickey was a greedy, lustful bastard, but he made sense regarding Connor`s hands being always empty and Church made a point regarding the subtle Hypocrisies of the Revolution. Biddle made similar remarks to Pitcairn.

Come to think of it, the only Assassin I seemed to agree with during the course of the entire game was Shaun

Johnson I agreed with halfway, because he did start killing them. "Because they would not listen" doesn't excuse that for me, but his intentions I don't doubt and believe he was at heart trying to do what was right. Hickey is probably the only Templar I see nothing good about. Yes he was right about Connor searching for something he could never have, but Hickey was to me a representation of a lot of what is wrong with people. Then again he wasn't exactly a Templar so I suppose that makes sense.

As for Jexx, personally while I loved Connor (probably my favourite Assassin) he was incredibly naive (although I personally believe the entire Assassin Order is naive) and Achilles was a stubborn old man who was unwilling to accept compromise. He never let Connor forget that he had to kill his own dad. Mind you I loved his character though.

Anyways this is all off-topic. :(

Assassin_M
01-05-2013, 07:16 AM
Johnson I agreed with halfway, because he did start killing them. "Because they would not listen" doesn't excuse that for me, but his intentions I don't doubt and believe he was at heart trying to do what was right. Hickey is probably the only Templar I see nothing good about. Yes he was right about Connor searching for something he could never have, but Hickey was to me a representation of a lot of what is wrong with people. Then again he wasn't exactly a Templar so I suppose that makes sense.

As for Jexx, personally while I loved Connor (probably my favourite Assassin) he was incredibly naive (although I personally believe the entire Assassin Order is naive) and Achilles was a stubborn old man who was unwilling to accept compromise. He never let Connor forget that he had to kill his own dad. Mind you I loved his character though.

Anyways this is all off-topic. :(
don't care:p

This is one of the many reasons Connor is my favorite too. We can actually talk about him, his actions, his role, his goals and it can be so deep.

I don't necessarily find what Johnson did morally justifiable, it simply raised a question. "You act as you have some right to JUDGE" -Haytham. Just makes Connor look very Ironic. HE also is killing Templars because they would not listen. Remember Achilles ? "Haytham may listen, but will he understand ? and even if he does, will he agree ?" The Assassins` Ironies are perfectly represented in the character of Connor. His naivete, Romanticized view and his hope. The Assassins have hope more than anything if they so strongly believe in the freedom of humanity and that one day, the Human race can CHOOSE to do the right thing by themselves...

Hope is the most important factor in the Assassin ideology and Connor represents that perfectly..

xx-pyro
01-05-2013, 07:33 AM
don't care:p

This is one of the many reasons Connor is my favorite too. We can actually talk about him, his actions, his role, his goals and it can be so deep.

I don't necessarily find what Johnson did morally justifiable, it simply raised a question. "You act as you have some right to JUDGE" -Haytham. Just makes Connor look very Ironic. HE also is killing Templars because they would not listen. Remember Achilles ? "Haytham may listen, but will he understand ? and even if he does, will he agree ?" The Assassins` Ironies are perfectly represented in the character of Connor. His naivete, Romanticized view and his hope. The Assassins have hope more than anything if they so strongly believe in the freedom of humanity and that one day, the Human race can CHOOSE to do the right thing by themselves...

Hope is the most important factor in the Assassin ideology and Connor represents that perfectly..

It's exactly why if I had to make the choice I would side with the Templars every time. Sure I believe literal mind control (ie. Apple in the sky) is definitely excessive and wouldn't support it, I just flat out can't bring myself to believe that the world can ever be as the Assassin's want it. Would I prefer it? Of course I would. Do I believe it's worth fighting for if it's borderline unobtainable? I don't think so. I'd rather fight for having figureheads who know what they are doing in charge of society. And I completely agree, Connor's attitude lined up perfectly with the Assassin ideal and he was created in such a way that he really was a representation of them through and through. I honestly felt nothing but sorrow for him throughout the game because of what he had to go through, when in my eyes it was basically all for naught.

AjinkyaParuleka
01-05-2013, 07:44 AM
No,we don't want an extended ending,we need patches for pc,The Tyranny of Washingmachine(lol i copied this) and a new game.I am gonna buy a pirated ME2..since i lost the torrent version of it.And yeah Assassins and Templar want freedom but different type,Assassins want a freedom where humanity is flawed,if it is flawless then it really be super dull.Templar wants a forced freedom,a flawless one similiar to Obito's idea in Naruto...see the difference?yeah.

Assassin_M
01-05-2013, 07:48 AM
It's exactly why if I had to make the choice I would side with the Templars every time. Sure I believe literal mind control (ie. Apple in the sky) is definitely excessive and wouldn't support it, I just flat out can't bring myself to believe that the world can ever be as the Assassin's want it. Would I prefer it? Of course I would. Do I believe it's worth fighting for if it's borderline unobtainable? I don't think so. I'd rather fight for having figureheads who know what they are doing in charge of society. And I completely agree, Connor's attitude lined up perfectly with the Assassin ideal and he was created in such a way that he really was a representation of them through and through. I honestly felt nothing but sorrow for him throughout the game because of what he had to go through, when in my eyes it was basically all for naught.
Indeed. It`s basically the case with me as well.

So many reasons why I think AC III has the most deep and complex story of all the games..(disregarding the end)

xx-pyro
01-05-2013, 07:54 AM
Indeed. It`s basically the case with me as well.

So many reasons why I think AC III has the most deep and complex story of all the games..(disregarding the end)

I don't particularly mind the ending (I'm assuming we're talking about Desmond's ending here), especially when compared to other people who enjoy ranting about it, however it definitely didn't leave me satisfied. As for story complexity, definitely; especially because it wasn't complex out of convolution but complex in terms of character motivations and story progression.

Assassin_M
01-05-2013, 07:59 AM
I don't particularly mind the ending (I'm assuming we're talking about Desmond's ending here), especially when compared to other people who enjoy ranting about it, however it definitely didn't leave me satisfied. As for story complexity, definitely; especially because it wasn't complex out of convolution but complex in terms of character motivations and story progression.
The entirety of Connor`s story left me satisfied, yet unsatisfied..does that make sense ? I enjoyed it`s ambiguity and how it felt...different than most other ancestor endings. It definitely left me wanting more Connor. Connor`s ending was perfect..

I did not mind Desmond`s ending. I actually like the Idea and I`m not too bugged about it. It just felt so anti-climatic..Something was wrong in the presentation itself, not the context. I did not mind what everyone was saying about how we never got to be the ultimate assassin and whatnot...I was promised a wrap for Desmond and I got that..I wanted nothing more..

AdrianJacek
01-05-2013, 08:58 AM
Come to think of it AC3 had so pure and some corrupt Templars. It's a nice way to end a trilogy when in AC1 we had mostly purity and in AC2s the was a lot of corruption. Though I CAN kinda accept AC2s' ******baggy Templars because the Renaissance was not the prettiest period in the history of humanity. People were stabbing each other in the backs in broad daylight.

AjinkyaParuleka
01-05-2013, 09:26 AM
Come to think of it AC3 had so pure and some corrupt Templars. It's a nice way to end a trilogy when in AC1 we had mostly purity and in AC2s the was a lot of corruption. Though I CAN kinda accept AC2s' ******baggy Templars because the Renaissance was not the prettiest period in the history of humanity. People were stabbing each other in the backs in broad daylight.
One cannot simply end AC.

avk111
01-05-2013, 10:04 AM
Well to be honest,

AC3 opened a wide philosophy debate in, do you believe ethics should be implemented or ruled out.

On one hand you have the child who cries doesn't want to go to school, would u listen to that child or enforce your idea and take him to school knowing its better for his future.

the same concept lies with the Templars.

On the other hand,

You want to accomplish things in your life and be more than you are, but constraints are holding u back whether its ur family friends society religion.

you need freedom,

thats the concept of he assassins,

Now to say which one is true is a stupid question. But the AC 3 title opened the door for this argument.

would have the village and the people really have lived prosperously with the assassins or the Templars.

we shall know soon...

in philosophy they say nothing is right nothing I wrong , it's just what it is, that's similar to the Buddhist concept.

maybe both Templars and assassins should Learn this or maybe just maybe a new organization is introduced

to the franchise that is a merge and new idea. I think this is a perfect time for Ubisoft to introduce a new organization

That stands out and battles both the previous concepts.

what do you guys think ?

ElDoucherino
01-05-2013, 11:25 AM
No, it is what it is. The execution of the ending was horrific but the ending itself was somewhat expected. More emotions and a bit more information about what saved the world would've made it epic. I rather see them taking notes of AC3, what they did good (Connors story) and bad (Desmonds story, some level designs) and make ACIV or the upcoming Connor-sequal (most likely) and make it as good as I know they can.

lothario-da-be
01-05-2013, 11:48 AM
No, it is what it is. The execution of the ending was horrific but the ending itself was somewhat expected. More emotions and a bit more information about what saved the world would've made it epic. I rather see them taking notes of AC3, what they did good (Connors story) and bad (Desmonds story, some level designs) and make ACIV or the upcoming Connor-sequal (most likely) and make it as good as I know they can.
Desmonds story was always done in a boring way IMO