PDA

View Full Version : What was the Templar plan in AC2 [spoilers]



Farlander1991
11-03-2013, 09:43 AM
Okay, so, I didn't think about this previously, but while writing some drafts for my AC2 blog post mini-series, I actually got wondering... why does Rodrigo need Florence and Venice? The failing of those conspiracies didn't stop him from becoming the Pope and getting access to the vault, which means that he didn't need them to succeed in the first place. And, well, by becoming the Pope he would have much easier time taking control of Italy and beyond for the Templar Order (be it for a higher purpose or just because "UNLIMITEEEEEEED POWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!"), so why did he need those take overs of the cities in the first place, and at that time and not at a later date? Would that make his ascension to Papacy easier? I'm not really sure that it mattered, as long as Rodrigo had influence over the Papal conclave, which he did.

Am I missing something?

roostersrule2
11-03-2013, 10:05 AM
Why does it matter why he wanted them? The game released 4 years ago, why do you always feel the need to discredit everything about AC2?

It's rather obvious why he wanted Florence though, Lorenzo de'Medici was Assassin backed by Giovanni and to a lesser extent Ezio. So Rodrigo obviously wanted to get rid of him and to stop another ruler coming in and being pro-Assassin he wanted to put his own people in. It also puts a whole city under Templar rule, that is tempting enough for a group like the Templars as they want power. So having power over two of the biggest cities in the world at the time seems rather logical.

lothario-da-be
11-03-2013, 11:12 AM
It does matter, its a good question. Why wouldn't we discuss previous games anymore?

roostersrule2
11-03-2013, 11:20 AM
It does matter, its a good question. Why wouldn't we discuss previous games anymore?I'm not saying lets not discuss them, I'm just saying this thread would have been more relevant 4 years ago.

pirate1802
11-03-2013, 11:28 AM
He wanted not just to be the Pope and the Vault, but also to unite all of Italy under the Papal rule. Don't forget the Duke of Milan was assassinated shortly before the events of AC2. Milan, if my history serves correctly, was the military ally of Florence. Florence had no standing army and relied on Milan for protection. So he cut of its military arm and then tried to replace the present leadership with a more compliant Pazzi leadership. And then he tried to do the same thing in Venice.

Da Vinci's Demons (if you haven't watched it already) is a great TV show and almost feels like a televised version of AC2. There, too, the Pope wants control over Italy and his Cesare lookalike cousin does the exact same thing: Kill the duke of Milan and try to replace the Medici by the Pazzi. Ofourse there, Da Vinci pours water over their plans instead of Ezio. :D Watch it, it helps understand the actions of Templars of AC2 better. And what's more, it too features an ancient faction who protect a sacred treasure which the pope is after. Can't wait for season 2!

Farlander1991
11-03-2013, 11:47 AM
The game released 4 years ago, why do you always feel the need to discredit everything about AC2?

So what, just because something wasn't released this year means we can't talk about it or discuss it?

And AC2 has a number of my favourite scenes from the entire series (and is generally speaking really awesome), so, no, I don't feel the need to discredit everything about AC2. :p Just Sequences 9, 10, the broken pacing in the second half of the story, bad Templars, and some little things related to some pointless characters and missions. :p


It's rather obvious why he wanted Florence though, Lorenzo de'Medici was Assassin backed by Giovanni and to a lesser extent Ezio. So Rodrigo obviously wanted to get rid of him and to stop another ruler coming in and being pro-Assassin he wanted to put his own people in.

Didn't both Giovanni and Rodrigo learn about each other only after the conspiracy was in motion?


He wanted not just to be the Pope and the Vault, but also to unite all of Italy under the Papal rule. Don't forget the Duke of Milan was assassinated shortly before the events of AC2. Milan, if my history serves correctly, was the military ally of Florence. Florence had no standing army and relied on Milan for protection. So he cut of its military arm and then tried to replace the present leadership with a more compliant Pazzi leadership. And then he tried to do the same thing in Venice.

Well, truth be told, I thought approximately the same thing too (because, you know, simple motivations of just taking control of the whole Italy, seems simple enough), but then there are Silvio's dying words which reveal that they don't care about the Doge's seat, that all that was just a distraction. To find the Apple and get it from Cyprus to Venice, as later we learn. Which is why the question has appeared in the first place. Was the whole taking of Florence just a distraction too? (and as I said a paragraph earlier, did Rodrigo know about the Assassin presence in Florence to actually know to distract them there if that's the case?) Does Rodrigo care about them? And if it's all just a distraction, why make it in the first place? Not trying to overthrow the control of Venice until getting the Apple and the Staff wouldn't have attracted unwanted attention to that city in the first place (which we know is important for Rodrigo because that's where the Prophet who he thought was him would appear and receive the Apple).

roostersrule2
11-03-2013, 12:17 PM
And AC2 has a number of my favourite scenes from the entire series (and is generally speaking really awesome), so, no, I don't feel the need to discredit everything about AC2. :pThen why are you writing a mini-series on it's problems?


Didn't both Giovanni and Rodrigo learn about each other only after the conspiracy was in motion?I'm not sure but when someone's in power and goes against the Templars or has ideals that don't suit theirs they'd be a target.

Edit: I was reading this again and I though you said Lorenzo. I'm not sure though, it's never stated when it all starts.


Well, truth be told, I thought approximately the same thing too (because, you know, simple motivations of just taking control of the whole Italy, seems simple enough), but then there are Silvio's dying words which reveal that they don't care about the Doge's seat, that all that was just a distraction. To find the Apple and get it from Cyprus to Venice, as later we learn. Which is why the question has appeared in the first place. Was the whole taking of Florence just a distraction too? (and as I said a paragraph earlier, did Rodrigo know about the Assassin presence in Florence to actually know to distract them there if that's the case?) Does Rodrigo care about them? And if it's all just a distraction, why make it in the first place? Not trying to overthrow the control of Venice until getting the Apple and the Staff wouldn't have attracted unwanted attention to that city in the first place (which we know is important for Rodrigo because that's where the Prophet who he thought was him would appear and receive the Apple).I think it was a distraction that had a win-win scenario. The distraction was always going to work even if they do or don't get Venice so not only do they get the apple but control of Venice also.

Rodrigo did know about the Assassins in Florence, he got in a fight with Giovanni in AC: Lineage.

pirate1802
11-03-2013, 12:26 PM
Didn't both Giovanni and Rodrigo learn about each other only after the conspiracy was in motion?

Don't quite remember, must watch Lineage again. While Rodrigo actually met Giovanni after the plan was initiated, he probably had knowledge of Lorenzo's allegiance? Scumbag teplars have knowledge about everything.


but then there are Silvio's dying words which reveal that they don't care about the Doge's seat, that all that was just a distraction.

Well that complicates things.


To find the Apple and get it from Cyprus to Venice, as later we learn. Which is why the question has appeared in the first place. Was the whole taking of Florence just a distraction too? (and as I said a paragraph earlier, did Rodrigo know about the Assassin presence in Florence to actually know to distract them there if that's the case?) Does Rodrigo care about them? And if it's all just a distraction, why make it in the first place? Not trying to overthrow the control of Venice until getting the Apple and the Staff wouldn't have attracted unwanted attention to that city in the first place (which we know is important for Rodrigo because that's where the Prophet who he thought was him would appear and receive the Apple).

Well my guess is they caused the distraction in Florence to keep the Assassins at bay, and they got Giovanni in the process. Two birds with one stone. Then they did their stuff in Venice to ensure the smooth transaction of the Apple, confident that the Assassins are on the backfoot. But there was Ezio. I don't seem to recall the exact chronology of events of AC2, been a while since I last played the game. :S

Farlander1991
11-03-2013, 04:23 PM
Then why are you writing a mini-series on it's problems?

Why not? :p Well, the reasons are as follows:
a) Second half of the paragraph, which you didn't put in your quote.
b) There's nothing wrong with enjoying something and at the same time pointing out flaws, inconsistencies, or simply things that you don't like.
c) There has been a very big amount of conversations about AC2 since the AC4 announcement (and most of them I didn't even join on purpose, they just fell upon me), and I gathered instead of repeating myself over and over in those discussions I'd just write a small series and be done with it (i.e. same thing that happened in regards to AC3's level design)
d) People have been asking me to do this.


Well my guess is they caused the distraction in Florence to keep the Assassins at bay, and they got Giovanni in the process. Two birds with one stone. Then they did their stuff in Venice to ensure the smooth transaction of the Apple, confident that the Assassins are on the backfoot. But there was Ezio. I don't seem to recall the exact chronology of events of AC2, been a while since I last played the game. :S

The Venice Conspiracy started in parallel to the Florentine one, Giovanni was in Venice and spied on Marco in Lineage. The Venetian Conspirators were scared ****less after all the Pazzi have died, and have learned of Ezio's presence in Venice fairly quickly (even before the first assassination in Venice). Rodrigo even warned not to underestimate the Assassin. Plus Rodrigo knew there should be others, he even asked Ezio where are the rest during their confrontation in Venice (therefore he knew that dealing with Giovanni wouldn't have been the end of it). And it's a very strange distraction anyway, because it has led the people they were distracting straight to the thing that they were distracting them from, which wouldn't have happened if there was no distraction in that city to begin with (if there'd had been a conspiracy set elsewhere). It's really the distraction part that bugs me, because Venice was a really strong city-state so it makes sense to want control of it, and I want to know if I've missed something.

lothario-da-be
11-03-2013, 05:22 PM
This thread is interesting! i like it.

roostersrule2
11-03-2013, 05:23 PM
Why not? :p Well, the reasons are as follows:
a) Second half of the paragraph, which you didn't put in your quote.
b) There's nothing wrong with enjoying something and at the same time pointing out flaws, inconsistencies, or simply things that you don't like.
c) There has been a very big amount of conversations about AC2 since the AC4 announcement (and most of them I didn't even join on purpose, they just fell upon me), and I gathered instead of repeating myself over and over in those discussions I'd just write a small series and be done with it (i.e. same thing that happened in regards to AC3's level design)
d) People have been asking me to do this.
.Because

a) I felt no need as it had nothing to do with my reply and I disagree with it.
b) Indeed there isn't but this whole mini-series is about discrediting AC2's where as the AC3 one was on level design, why not do a level design one for AC2?
c) That seems useful then as you have a habit of telling people of how bad a game AC2 is.
d) People asked you to make AC2 look bad? I bet it was from people who didn't like AC2.

Rugterwyper32
11-03-2013, 05:32 PM
This doesn't really make AC2 look bad, y'know. AC2, good of a game as it is, has its flaws. Personally it is my least favorite for a few reasons, though it's still a fantastic game. But just as you can see the good, you should be able to see the flaws as well. And this is a part of the storyline which admittedly has some issues and ends up being more overly complicated than it needs to be. Just as I feel there's a similar issue with how there's a map of locations of codex pages which are all located in random buildings. Does the game have a very well done story? Yeah, but it's not without things like these.

roostersrule2
11-03-2013, 05:39 PM
This doesn't really make AC2 look bad, y'know. AC2, good of a game as it is, has its flaws. Personally it is my least favorite for a few reasons, though it's still a fantastic game. But just as you can see the good, you should be able to see the flaws as well. And this is a part of the storyline which admittedly has some issues and ends up being more overly complicated than it needs to be. Just as I feel there's a similar issue with how there's a map of locations of codex pages which are all located in random buildings. Does the game have a very well done story? Yeah, but it's not without things like these.Indeed it has flaws.

The codex one is a minor flaw that should hardly do anything to hinder the experience. The story never gets over complicated IMO, the story usually gets complaints for it's simplicity.

pirate1802
11-03-2013, 05:39 PM
This thread is interesting! i like it.

Indeed. Rooster, don't be so defensive. You are acting like dem Conno fangirls. :p


Does the game have a very well done story? Yeah, but it's not without things like these.

Agreed.

roostersrule2
11-03-2013, 05:45 PM
Indeed. Rooster, don't be so defensive. You are acting like dem Conno fangirls. :p
I know hehe

Farlander1991
11-03-2013, 05:46 PM
a) I felt no need as it had nothing to do with my reply and I disagree with it.

Well, the point of any such endeavour is to promote discussion and exchange of thoughts and opinions. Because, as we all know, nothing is true.

If you disagree with something - that's fine, nobody forces you to agree, or to discuss anything for that matter. And there's nothing wrong with just saying that you disagree. But if you disagree with something and your only point of argumentation that you keep pushing is 'stop discrediting AC2' or the likes - well, you're not doing neither AC2 nor yourself any credit. My post regarding Sequence 9 is already up, you're welcome to state your points if you want to.

Plus, I did not even try to criticize AC2 in this thread, I just wanted to clarify something, and you took it as an attack on your favourite game of the series.


b) Indeed there isn't but this whole mini-series is about discrediting AC2's where as the AC3 one was on level design, why not do a level design one for AC2?

Wait, let me get this straight, your problem with the series is that it takes me several posts to list and argument EVERYTHING I find at fault in AC2, while for AC3 I needed a series twice as long for just ONE aspect of the game? You do know that this paints AC2 in a much better light, right?

Anyway, I'm not going to do a level design one for AC2 because generally speaking AC2 doesn't have such deep problems with level design as AC3 does, and where it does - I'm mentioning it in the posts (like, for example, the Marco Barbarigo assassination from Sequence 9). Also, I'm not trying to compare AC2 level design to AC3 level design, so there's no reason to keep the series' points equal.


d) People asked you to make AC2 look bad? I bet it was from people who didn't like AC2.

No, people saw some of my points that I made in regards to AC2 and said, 'hey, that makes sense, it would be cool to read about it more and in detail'. Your problem is that you see all this as 'making AC2 look bad'. If you feel that what I say does that, then, heck, there must be at least some truth to what I say then.

Rugterwyper32
11-03-2013, 05:53 PM
Indeed it has flaws.

The codex one is a minor flaw that should hardly do anything to hinder the experience. The story never gets over complicated IMO, the story usually gets complaints for it's simplicity.

I can see what you mean. Personally, the codex has always bugged me but I can still overlook that because, y'know, it's a pretty fun game. And yeah, it usually gets complaints for simplicity, maybe complicated isn't the word... But it does feel, at least in my opinion, that the motivations for these templars end up being unclear when it comes to taking over the cities beyond the "POWER, UNLIMITED POWER". So it's either too simple and it leaves the templars looking like even more of mustache-twirling villains than they already looked like in this game, or it turns them into the masters of convoluted plans that end up backfiring badly because of the Ezio factor they didn't, for one second, take into account until it was too late for them.

Admittedly, my main, biggest issue with AC2 isn't really story-wise, but gameplay-wise, and that's the lack of main mission replay. Had that been added, I'd easily be ranking it much higher, but that single factor is something I find immensely frustrating about the game. So yeah, there's that.

Mr_Shade
11-03-2013, 06:01 PM
Marked thread as a spoiler.. please remember this in future.

roostersrule2
11-03-2013, 06:07 PM
Well, the point of any such endeavour is to promote discussion and exchange of thoughts and opinions. Because, as we all know, nothing is true.

If you disagree with something - that's fine, nobody forces you to agree, or to discuss anything for that matter. And there's nothing wrong with just saying that you disagree. But if you disagree with something and your only point of argumentation that you keep pushing is 'stop discrediting AC2' or the likes - well, you're not doing neither AC2 nor yourself any credit. My post regarding Sequence 9 is already up, you're welcome to state your points if you want to.I already did in another thread, shan't be doing it again.


Plus, I did not even try to criticize AC2 in this thread, I just wanted to clarify something, and you took it as an attack on your favourite game of the series.Sorry I thought it just blended in with the on going AC2 criticism by you.


Wait, let me get this straight, your problem with the series is that it takes me several posts to list and argument EVERYTHING I find at fault in AC2, while for AC3 I needed a series twice as long for just ONE aspect of the game? You do know that this paints AC2 in a much better light, right?There's nothing wrong with faulting AC2, it just gets annoying when you constanly post over and over about them and I never read the AC3 one.


Your problem is that you see all this as 'making AC2 look bad'. If you feel that what I say does that, then, heck, there must be at least some truth to what I say then.No that's why I'm disagreeing with it.


I can see what you mean. Personally, the codex has always bugged me but I can still overlook that because, y'know, it's a pretty fun game. And yeah, it usually gets complaints for simplicity, maybe complicated isn't the word... But it does feel, at least in my opinion, that the motivations for these templars end up being unclear when it comes to taking over the cities beyond the "POWER, UNLIMITED POWER". So it's either too simple and it leaves the templars looking like even more of mustache-twirling villains than they already looked like in this game, or it turns them into the masters of convoluted plans that end up backfiring badly because of the Ezio factor they didn't, for one second, take into account until it was too late for them.

Admittedly, my main, biggest issue with AC2 isn't really story-wise, but gameplay-wise, and that's the lack of main mission replay. Had that been added, I'd easily be ranking it much higher, but that single factor is something I find immensely frustrating about the game. So yeah, there's that.That's my biggest problem with AC2, the generic villains. Not as bad as ACB but didn't have the moral ambiguity of the others. I could deal with not being able to replay missions as I played the story so many time, nevertheless it was a stupid idea by Ubi to not include it.

Farlander1991
11-03-2013, 06:22 PM
I already did in another thread, shan't be doing it again.

Sequence 9 is the Carnevale, not the thieves mission thing.


There's nothing wrong with faulting AC2, it just gets annoying when you constanly post over and over about them

If somebody wouldn't have started defending AC2 every time I'm just making an off-hand general statement, and those times I'm not even trying to criticize it, there would've been a lot less 'over and over' on these forums. :p

thekyle0
11-03-2013, 06:34 PM
I'm looking forward to the rest of your series. Your discussion of AC3's level design was spectacular, so I'll be following your blog posts for AC2 closely. My only concern is that you may struggle to find any explanation for what goes on in AC2 other than just poor writing.


That's my biggest problem with AC2, the generic villains. Not as bad as ACB but didn't have the moral ambiguity of the others.
Whoa whoa whoa, AC2 is the undisputed heavy weight champion for generic villains. ACB doesn't even surpass ACR in that regard. Out of AC2's entire cast there was only a few moments where Roderigo stood out with some gravitas and sinister authority. I'm thinking of his walk through Venice with the Barbarigos after the first assassination mission there. In ACB Cesare at least consistently exhibited some charisma such as when he addressed the Jubili party or talked down to his father. Even Roderigo was more interesting in ACB since he created conflict within his own faction trying to wrest power back from his son. I'll concede that the secondary villains from both games were equally bland and uninteresting, but AC2 may be the worse offender regardless because it had so many more of them.

SixKeys
11-03-2013, 11:50 PM
Whoa whoa whoa, AC2 is the undisputed heavy weight champion for generic villains. ACB doesn't even surpass ACR in that regard. Out of AC2's entire cast there was only a few moments where Roderigo stood out with some gravitas and sinister authority. I'm thinking of his walk through Venice with the Barbarigos after the first assassination mission there. In ACB Cesare at least consistently exhibited some charisma such as when he addressed the Jubili party or talked down to his father. Even Roderigo was more interesting in ACB since he created conflict within his own faction trying to wrest power back from his son. I'll concede that the secondary villains from both games were equally bland and uninteresting, but AC2 may be the worse offender regardless because it had so many more of them.

I have to disagree. Rodrigo's most powerful moment in AC2 was in Tuscany when he killed Jacopo. That's one scene that always comes to my mind when I think of memorable AC2 moments. I love ACB, but Cesare came across as a whiny child throughout the story and nothing more. Lucrezia was arguably more interesting than both her brother and her father (in ACB). The rest of ACB's villains weren't that memorable compared to some of AC2's like Silvio and Dante, Uberto Alberti and Carlo Grimaldi.

I-Like-Pie45
11-04-2013, 12:07 AM
My favorite Ezio trilogy villains were Rigatoni Pesto and Limoncello Fragolino, former minstrels who became Templars to get revenge on Ezio for his numerous abuses.