PDA

View Full Version : Are you satisfied with the Assassins/Templars aspect ? (spoilers)



killzab
11-09-2013, 12:20 PM
It kinda feels like the series is back to AC2's level of lack of moral ambiguity.


Or at least ACR's level.


In ACIII, one of the most interesting points about the story was the fact that you could argue the templars were right. Or that their ideals were wrong but their actions were the most beneficial course. Whereas the Assassins, with all their good intentions, Connor's at least, screwed up big time and caused the death of many people by starting a war that could've been avoided.


But it all seems to be gone in ACIV, all we know is that they want to find the Observatory and control people. End of story.


Edward is told by Mary Read that the templars are evil and they don't really go much more in depth, or at least I didn't catch it.


Like his explanation to Anne Bonny about how the templars work. Is he saying all this because Mary told him or did he reach his own conclusions ?


The templars' presence is felt in the story, but mostly because we're told they're templars. But what were they up to actually ? Apart from looking for the Observatory, what did they actually do ? If someone got a better hold of the story, I'd like to know. Because it felt to me they were pretty inactive.


It feels like we are just supposed to accept they're evil and not question it. But I didn't see any proof... And they seem to lack any ambiguity...

MIA SILENT
11-09-2013, 12:30 PM
The Templars (as underdeveloped and forgettable as they were in ACIV) still thought that the crystal skull could be used to bring order and justice. I think some of Torres' dialogue showed this. So their ideologies were still intact. They spent a lot of time trying to locate and capture The Sage.

killzab
11-09-2013, 02:28 PM
I wished they were a little more fleshed out, but I think we're meant to assume they're evil, not really question it.

MIA SILENT
11-09-2013, 02:44 PM
I wished they were a little more fleshed out, but I think we're meant to assume they're evil, not really question it.

True, this game didn't really make a point of showing the Grey Morality between the Templars and Assassins, but past games (especially AC3) have kind of instilled in me that sense of ambiguity, and so I'm not sure it's necessary that all games have to keep trying to make it clear.

AdamPearce
11-09-2013, 03:07 PM
AC2 Templars were WAAAAY better.

Those one are ACB-like.

I think the problem with the game is that it's focusing only on Edward and Pirates, so we don't have those 'morality speech' we use to had in the other games. But we can see that they've tried to do something, especially with all the slave thing, but unfortunately it wasn't pushed enough like it was in AC1 or AC3.

EaglePrince25
11-09-2013, 04:02 PM
I think these, while not being as developed as those of AC3 and still suffering from a lack of combat ability, still have the best intentions and reasoning behind their actions (Besides the AC3 Templars) But yeah the lack of focus on the Templars is probably because Edward himself didn't focus on becoming an Assassin.

roostersrule2
11-09-2013, 04:03 PM
I didn't care for AC4's ones, I didn't hate them like I hated Cesare or Rodrigo, I didn't agree with them like Ahmet or John Pitcairn and I wasn't intrigued or scared by them like Garnier. The worst Templar cast IMO, it's moral ambiguity wasn't at AC1 or AC3 level and but was better then AC2 and ACB's, it was basically ACR style but the villains were worse.

Toa TAK
11-09-2013, 04:33 PM
AC2 Templars were WAAAAY better.

Those one are ACB-like.

I think the problem with the game is that it's focusing only on Edward and Pirates, so we don't have those 'morality speech' we use to had in the other games. But we can see that they've tried to do something, especially with all the slave thing, but unfortunately it wasn't pushed enough like it was in AC1 or AC3.
Hopefully Freedom Cry fixes tihs.

Assassin_M
11-09-2013, 04:44 PM
They're better than ACB and AC II Templars, barely as good as ACR's, but worse than AC III's and AC I's.

The Templars in AC IV were definitely honorable and good people. Torres argued slavery with Prinz and Rogers sincerely wanted to bring the pirates back into society. I think the problem that I had with AC IV's templars is the dialogue...like before Torres dies, he tells Edward "We could'v had this power all to ourselves" and "we shall plot the next scheme" some of it may be taken out of context and induce and evil aura coming from this person or that one, but there's just straight up "I'M EVIL MUHAHAHA" talk in there, which I didn't like honestly, couple with that the lackluster death speeches for most of them...I liked Du Casse's and Rogers' only (mentioning just Templars)

they were just okay...not AC II and ACB level (that would'v been alarming) but not exactly AC I or AC III level. I'd place them in this order.

1) 18th century North American Colonies Templars
2) 12th century Holy Land Templars
3) 16th Century Constantinople Templars
4) 15th Century Italian Templars.

Landruner
11-09-2013, 05:44 PM
I do not care about the Assassin Vs. Templar conflict. The all Templars plot is obsolete since AC3. They should move on and give another foes to fight.

Besides the Templars were originally cool and badass medieval monks that got eradicated by the French king and the pope for money. Beware UBISOFT!:rolleyes:

Landruner
11-09-2013, 05:46 PM
I do not care about the Assassin Vs. Templar 's conflict. The all Templar's plot is obsolete since AC3. Ubisoft should move on and give another foes to fight.

Besides the Templars were originally cool and badass medieval monks that got eradicated by the French king and the pope for money and because they were too powerful. Beware UBISOFT!:rolleyes:

Assassin_M
11-09-2013, 05:49 PM
I do not care about the Assassin Vs. Templar 's conflict. The all Templar's plot is obsolete since AC3. Ubisoft should move on and give another foes to fight.

But..but..why? how are they obsolete?

roostersrule2
11-09-2013, 05:55 PM
I do not care about the Assassin Vs. Templar 's conflict. The all Templar's plot is obsolete since AC3. Ubisoft should move on and give another foes to fight.

Besides the Templars were originally cool and badass medieval monks that got eradicated by the French king and the pope for money and because they were too powerful. Beware UBISOFT!:rolleyes:What? No!

You can't just add a new faction where would they come from? How would no one have heard of them? The Templars still have so much more potential too.

Assassin_M
11-09-2013, 06:25 PM
What? No!

You can't just add a new faction where would they come from? How would no one have heard of them? The Templars still have so much more potential too.
I would go on to credit Ubisoft, which I rarely do, and say they probably created one of the best antagonistic factions in Gaming history..

roostersrule2
11-09-2013, 06:29 PM
I would go on to credit Ubisoft, which I rarely do, and say they probably created one of the best antagonistic factions in Gaming history..Indeed.

Not many other games can put the antagonist in an almost better light then the protagonist.

Hans684
11-09-2013, 10:13 PM
They're better than ACB and AC II Templars, barely as good as ACR's, but worse than AC III's and AC I's.

The Templars in AC IV were definitely honorable and good people. Torres argued slavery with Prinz and Rogers sincerely wanted to bring the pirates back into society. I think the problem that I had with AC IV's templars is the dialogue...like before Torres dies, he tells Edward "We could'v had this power all to ourselves" and "we shall plot the next scheme" some of it may be taken out of context and induce and evil aura coming from this person or that one, but there's just straight up "I'M EVIL MUHAHAHA" talk in there, which I didn't like honestly, couple with that the lackluster death speeches for most of them...I liked Du Casse's and Rogers' only (mentioning just Templars)

they were just okay...not AC II and ACB level (that would'v been alarming) but not exactly AC I or AC III level. I'd place them in this order.

1) 18th century North American Colonies Templars
2) 12th century Holy Land Templars
3) 16th Century Constantinople Templars
4) 15th Century Italian Templars.

It does not have to mean straight up evil, what Torres said can be looked like this: "We could'v had this power all to ourselves" = they want to controll who that uses it so it does not fall in the hands of someone like Roberst(or the assassins). He said himself in the begging that with it's power there would be no more liers/secrets/corruption. That dosen't exactly scream evil. And "we shall plot the next scheme" = getting ridd of all the liers/secrets and corrupt and of course with it's power they can olso create theire 'new world'/utopia, all that without taking over the people's minds.

Assassin_M
11-09-2013, 10:17 PM
It does not have to mean straight up evil, what Torres said can be looked like this: "We could'v had this power all to ourselves" = they want to controll who that uses it so it does not fall in the hands of someone like Roberst(or the assassins). He said himself in the begging that with it's power there would be no more liers/secrets/corruption. That dosen't exactly scream evil. And "we shall plot the next scheme" = getting ridd of all the liers/secrets and corrupt and of course with it's power they can olso create theire 'new world'/utopia, all that without taking over the people's minds.
I know and I understand what was meant. It's just that subconsciously these impressions are printed in the player's head. subtle words in the dialogue can really alter a player's perception of things. I liked AC IV's Templars for the record. I don't think they can do as terribly as ACB or AC II again.....at least I hope not.

BATISTABUS
11-09-2013, 11:12 PM
AC2 Templars were WAAAAY better.

Ubisoft should move on and give another foes to fight.
One billion times NO to both of these. As long as AC is an IP, it will always be Assassins vs Templars. The ideological struggle is one of the top 3 most interesting things about the game. That's a large reason why AC1/AC3 have the best stories by a sizable margin.

As for AC4, they where no way near AC2/B level of simple/boring, but most of them were pretty forgettable. Torres and Hornigold were great though. Just as good as what I expect from the series. Since I went into AC4 with different narrative expectations, I was satisfied with the overall quantity/quality of this type of discussion.

AdamPearce
11-09-2013, 11:13 PM
Another problem would be that they are not enough Templars in the Storyline. I miss the 9 target thing, the problem that comes with this is that with less Templar we have less confrontation between and sometime not at all, to date, only AC1 and AC3 had real exchanges between the Assassin and the Target, otherwise it was just a cheap reminder of what was already said.

I'd like to have a 7+ Templar Order for once, so we can really push the confrontation foward. I feel like we are still at the same place, it's just the same story over and over.

Templars : Peace with control!
Assassin: Peace throught Liberty!
Templar: Human are sheeps!
Assassin: Humans are free to choose!
Templar: Freedom is chaos!
Assassin: Restriction is hmm, dammit...Liberty!!

over & over & over & over

AvK KiNgKoBrA
11-10-2013, 12:03 AM
I agree the whole Templar/Assassin conflict was pretty absent from the story 'cept for the beginning

xx-pyro
11-10-2013, 12:12 AM
The weakest part of the game was the story, but Edward's progression more than made up for it. It's pretty much the one thing that stops me from rating it a 10/10, the Templar cast (and Assassin cast to be frank) is forgettable, which is a real shame. A strong Templar cast would have truly brought the game together and made it near perfect, as it is they'll have to settle with an 8 or 9 out of 10 from me haha.

Landruner
11-10-2013, 12:37 AM
But..but..why? how are they obsolete?

Why I do not care about that conflict and it is obsolete to me, Well because

1/ I did not buy the all end of the world theory that the modern day implanted - I thought it was cheap, convenient to use a pop rumor based on the Mayan calendar. Ancient Alien's History channel's plots and else - However; it was set this way, so I dealt with it.

2/ Desmond story arc and the all Desmond that dies in order to save the world with his choice that he has to do - Juno, Minerva's choices - Desmond took the Juno choice fine that mean that we are still under the control of the Templar - but AC4 modern day does not help to see clearer in this matter really. (BTW, nope I am not a fan of Desmond, but I did not like the way things were rushed in AC3, which made me lost the faith in the all thing...)

So my point is that I will not have lost interest in that conflict if the developers had been more caring about that ending - What could have been nice if they have to come with leaving the player an option(s) Juno, Minerva...

... and Why not Jupiter (?) It would have been cool that they introduce a new order called the "Luppiterian" order, but that it is my sauce...

Then upon the AC3 player's choices

AC4 game uses the saves from AC3 choices:

A/ The ones that pick Minerva's advice happen to play Desmond as a post apocalypse survivor and tried to make-up his choice (change the past) in going back in his own DNA.

B/ The ones that choose Desmond & Juno have a new modern day character trying to fight the modern day Templars and tried to stop Juno dictatorship and control.

C/ The ones that did not play any of the AC before and have no save, well they happen to play the modern day as it is in AC4 and try to find the background story of Desmond if they want to.

While you play Edward and kill a Templar. the Templar's death and the way he/she had been eliminated influence directly on your modern day progression giving the player different possibilities of progression inside their modern day space.


3/ Now, the big problem I have with how the games of that franchise post AC3's ending are made. By AC3 's ending you just happen to know that the Templars were almost right in their cause and we understand that the rule of living always comes with a price (No freedom and control by Templar's dictatorship, control and obedience...slavery maybe?) and it was the best solution anyhow, ....maybe?.

The downside is that you understand that the Assassins were fighting all those centuries for a lost cause that resulted in Dec 21st, 2012 in the victory of the Templars since Desmond made the choice of dying in order to save the humanity and leave it controlled by them. I know he said that someone will certainly come later to fight them and Juno...but when?, not in AC4 anyway. So my point who really wants to play a game or some games when you know that the heroes are fighting for a lost cause, do you?

In conclusion: The all Creed's story arc becomes obsolete since we know that if you kill the Templars or leave them alone nothing will change, the result stays the same and their cause is going to take over past December 21st, 2012

I hope I made sense to you? Please ask me question(s) if here is something you do not understand in my logic hidden by the spoiler:o

xx-pyro
11-10-2013, 12:40 AM
This isn't an RPG you don't get to choose how to progress your story. Go play Dragon Age if that's the kind of decision making power you want storywise.

Landruner
11-10-2013, 03:18 AM
This isn't an RPG you don't get to choose how to progress your story. Go play Dragon Age if that's the kind of decision making power you want storywise.

Well, I don't need your mindless piece mate - I just gave my thought (which was hidden) to another user (Assassin_M) because he asked me why? - Since it was hidden, you did not have to read it, and I do not care about your opinion, I even take a sit on it - Besides, believe or not the RPG 's question was on the wonder list of Ubisoft for the next AC entries and it was even question back kin time to leave player's choice(s) for AC3, so please, go back tolling on Youtube and give a break okay?!

Landruner
11-10-2013, 03:21 AM
Another problem would be that they are not enough Templars in the Storyline. I miss the 9 target thing, the problem that comes with this is that with less Templar we have less confrontation between and sometime not at all, to date, only AC1 and AC3 had real exchanges between the Assassin and the Target, otherwise it was just a cheap reminder of what was already said.

I'd like to have a 7+ Templar Order for once, so we can really push the confrontation foward. I feel like we are still at the same place, it's just the same story over and over.

Templars : Peace with control!
Assassin: Peace throught Liberty!
Templar: Human are sheeps!
Assassin: Humans are free to choose!
Templar: Freedom is chaos!
Assassin: Restriction is hmm, dammit...Liberty!!

over & over & over & over

Yep I agree with what you wrote, good point!

RzaRecta357
11-10-2013, 08:50 AM
Hmm I feel like I played a different game or this forum is just backwards from the rest of the internet. I see people complain about the ending here when everywhere else people love it on almost a RDR level.

i felt like they were very grey area in this one too. People complain about AC2.... But that's the history frig. That moment in time is like a black moment in the churches history even. Those weren't just bad Templars.. They were bad people and it reflected in the writing..

Comprehension skills and all that jazz.

RinoTheBouncer
11-10-2013, 08:59 AM
I thought the same as you. Now itís getting back to a typical Good Guys vs. Bad Guys story. I donít know why most american films adore and embrace this theme. I LOVE AC2, AC:B and AC:R but I think ACIII did a great job making you wonder if the Assassins are actually right or not and think over and over about the intentions of the Templars and how they might actually have a point after all.

rec0n09
11-10-2013, 09:10 AM
To me, it seemed like in ACIV BF, both sides (Assassin's and Templar's) felt that their causes were right. I don't like this. I like to think that the Templars are bad and the Assassin's are good.

Landruner
11-10-2013, 09:37 AM
Another problem would be that they are not enough Templars in the Storyline. I miss the 9 target thing, the problem that comes with this is that with less Templar we have less confrontation between and sometime not at all, to date, only AC1 and AC3 had real exchanges between the Assassin and the Target, otherwise it was just a cheap reminder of what was already said.

I'd like to have a 7+ Templar Order for once, so we can really push the confrontation foward. I feel like we are still at the same place, it's just the same story over and over.

Templars : Peace with control!
Assassin: Peace throught Liberty!
Templar: Human are sheeps!
Assassin: Humans are free to choose!
Templar: Freedom is chaos!
Assassin: Restriction is hmm, dammit...Liberty!!

over & over & over & over

I expand my previous response to you

The problem I have with the Templars and I try to explain to post response to Assassin_M - is that I do not see the point of fighting against them or assassinate them -
(The all philosophy behind the all conflict between the two fractions and the outcome of it that I don't any longer believe in).

- In AC4, (Which is a really good game) I felt like: Ah!... that guy is a Templar, so, I have to kill him because if I want to progress in the main story, well, I have to do it (Now the good point of the game is that I had fun to do it because the game allowed me and gave me the freedom to use 2 or 3 possibilities to choose from how to eliminate my target, which is a good point) Otherwise; I had no other motivation to eliminate my target because I had to and I know anyway that his death won't change the outcome 3 centuries later - The Templars are just generic target templates.

Landruner
11-10-2013, 10:11 AM
This isn't an RPG you don't get to choose how to progress your story. Go play Dragon Age if that's the kind of decision making power you want storywise.

That is not a RPG I was referring in my post to Assassin_M - the choice I was proposing was more a possibility to expand the interactivity between the players and their games leaving them a direct impact on the outcome of the future entries of the franchise in order to make their own and interactive Modern day story depending of the choice they made from AC3.
For instance in AC4 the fact of eliminating a Templar and how that target had been eliminated would have been influencing directly the modern day parts with algorisms set in some ways that the outcome could be different for one player to another days in bringing some variants even if they pick the same choice from AC3 - For Ubisoft it could have been some formidable opportunities to introduce a new arc concept and open with online communities between the 2 fractions for a deeper immersion in the AC universe beyond the borders of the games themselves. For the player it would have been more motivating to eliminate a Templar since his death would impact on your modern day progression and the modern days would have been more interesting that the way they are actually implanted.

Landruner
11-10-2013, 10:54 AM
What? No!

You can't just add a new faction where would they come from? How would no one have heard of them? The Templars still have so much more potential too.

Well, new fraction or not the all thing with the Templars is a total dead end now and goes in sock's juice to me - Read what I wrote to Assassin_M in that same thread and you got my point on it and let me know what you think "Connor"? LOL! :rolleyes: No seriously mate let me know what you think....

roostersrule2
11-10-2013, 11:13 AM
Well, new fraction or not the all thing with the Templars is a total dead end now and goes in sock's juice to me - Read what I wrote to Assassin_M in that same thread and you got my point on it and let me know what you think "Connor"? LOL! :rolleyes: No seriously mate let me know what you think....What thread? What?

Landruner
11-10-2013, 10:04 PM
What thread? What?

Since you and Assassin_M asked yesterday why I posted that I believe the all Assassin vs. Templar is obsolete,
I post it bellow

1/ I did not buy the all end of the world theory that the modern day implanted - I thought it was cheap, convenient to use a pop rumor based on the Mayan calendar. Ancient Alien's History channel's plots and else - However; it was set this way, so I dealt with it.

2/ Desmond story arc and the all Desmond that dies in order to save the world with his choice that he has to do - Juno, Minerva's choices - Desmond took the Juno choice fine that mean that we are still under the control of the Templar - but AC4 modern day does not help to see clearer in this matter really. (BTW, nope I am not a fan of Desmond, but I did not like the way things were rushed in AC3, which made me lost the faith in the all thing...)

So my point is that I will not have lost interest in that conflict if the developers had been more caring about that ending - What could have been nice if they have to come with leaving the player an option(s) Juno, Minerva...

... and Why not Jupiter (?) It would have been cool that they introduce a new order called the "Luppiterian" order, but that it is my sauce...

Then upon the AC3 player's choices

AC4 game uses the saves from AC3 choices:

A/ The ones that pick Minerva's advice happen to play Desmond as a post apocalypse survivor and tried to make-up his choice (change the past) in going back in his own DNA.

B/ The ones that choose Desmond & Juno have a new modern day character trying to fight the modern day Templars and tried to stop Juno dictatorship and control.

C/ The ones that did not play any of the AC before and have no save, well they happen to play the modern day as it is in AC4 and try to find the background story of Desmond if they want to.

While you play Edward and kill a Templar. the Templar's death and the way he/she had been eliminated influence directly on your modern day progression giving the player different possibilities of progression inside their modern day space.


3/ Now, the big problem I have with how the games of that franchise post AC3's ending are made. By AC3 's ending you just happen to know that the Templars were almost right in their cause and we understand that the rule of living always comes with a price (No freedom and control by Templar's dictatorship, control and obedience...slavery maybe?) and it was the best solution anyhow, ....maybe?.

The downside is that you understand that the Assassins were fighting all those centuries for a lost cause that resulted in Dec 21st, 2012 in the victory of the Templars since Desmond made the choice of dying in order to save the humanity and leave it controlled by them. I know he said that someone will certainly come later to fight them and Juno...but when?, not in AC4 anyway. So my point who really wants to play a game or some games when you know that the heroes are fighting for a lost cause, do you?

In conclusion: The all Creed's story arc becomes obsolete since we know that if you kill the Templars or leave them alone nothing will change, the result stays the same and their cause is going to take over past December 21st, 2012
:cool:

roostersrule2
11-10-2013, 10:44 PM
Since you and Assassin_M asked yesterday why I posted that I believe the all Assassin vs. Templar is obsolete,
I post it bellow

1/ I did not buy the all end of the world theory that the modern day implanted - I thought it was cheap, convenient to use a pop rumor based on the Mayan calendar. Ancient Alien's History channel's plots and else - However; it was set this way, so I dealt with it.

2/ Desmond story arc and the all Desmond that dies in order to save the world with his choice that he has to do - Juno, Minerva's choices - Desmond took the Juno choice fine that mean that we are still under the control of the Templar - but AC4 modern day does not help to see clearer in this matter really. (BTW, nope I am not a fan of Desmond, but I did not like the way things were rushed in AC3, which made me lost the faith in the all thing...)

So my point is that I will not have lost interest in that conflict if the developers had been more caring about that ending - What could have been nice if they have to come with leaving the player an option(s) Juno, Minerva...

... and Why not Jupiter (?) It would have been cool that they introduce a new order called the "Luppiterian" order, but that it is my sauce...

Then upon the AC3 player's choices

AC4 game uses the saves from AC3 choices:

A/ The ones that pick Minerva's advice happen to play Desmond as a post apocalypse survivor and tried to make-up his choice (change the past) in going back in his own DNA.

B/ The ones that choose Desmond & Juno have a new modern day character trying to fight the modern day Templars and tried to stop Juno dictatorship and control.

C/ The ones that did not play any of the AC before and have no save, well they happen to play the modern day as it is in AC4 and try to find the background story of Desmond if they want to.

While you play Edward and kill a Templar. the Templar's death and the way he/she had been eliminated influence directly on your modern day progression giving the player different possibilities of progression inside their modern day space.


3/ Now, the big problem I have with how the games of that franchise post AC3's ending are made. By AC3 's ending you just happen to know that the Templars were almost right in their cause and we understand that the rule of living always comes with a price (No freedom and control by Templar's dictatorship, control and obedience...slavery maybe?) and it was the best solution anyhow, ....maybe?.

The downside is that you understand that the Assassins were fighting all those centuries for a lost cause that resulted in Dec 21st, 2012 in the victory of the Templars since Desmond made the choice of dying in order to save the humanity and leave it controlled by them. I know he said that someone will certainly come later to fight them and Juno...but when?, not in AC4 anyway. So my point who really wants to play a game or some games when you know that the heroes are fighting for a lost cause, do you?

In conclusion: The all Creed's story arc becomes obsolete since we know that if you kill the Templars or leave them alone nothing will change, the result stays the same and their cause is going to take over past December 21st, 2012
:cool:I disagree. So you're saying that the Templars are better then the Assassins but if they did control the world it'd be wrong? It's not a lost cause anyway the Assassins can still win.

Landruner
11-10-2013, 10:49 PM
I disagree. So you're saying that the Templars are better then the Assassins but if they did control the world it'd be wrong? It's not a lost cause anyway the Assassins can still win.

I am not saying that the Templars are better... you missed my point there, but yes, I meant that the Assassin's cause was a lost cause and AC4 does not offer an opportunity to even start any change neither...

Assassin_M
11-11-2013, 12:01 AM
Since you and Assassin_M asked yesterday why I posted that I believe the all Assassin vs. Templar is obsolete,
I post it bellow

1/ I did not buy the all end of the world theory that the modern day implanted - I thought it was cheap, convenient to use a pop rumor based on the Mayan calendar. Ancient Alien's History channel's plots and else - However; it was set this way, so I dealt with it.

2/ Desmond story arc and the all Desmond that dies in order to save the world with his choice that he has to do - Juno, Minerva's choices - Desmond took the Juno choice fine that mean that we are still under the control of the Templar - but AC4 modern day does not help to see clearer in this matter really. (BTW, nope I am not a fan of Desmond, but I did not like the way things were rushed in AC3, which made me lost the faith in the all thing...)

So my point is that I will not have lost interest in that conflict if the developers had been more caring about that ending - What could have been nice if they have to come with leaving the player an option(s) Juno, Minerva...

... and Why not Jupiter (?) It would have been cool that they introduce a new order called the "Luppiterian" order, but that it is my sauce...

Then upon the AC3 player's choices

AC4 game uses the saves from AC3 choices:

A/ The ones that pick Minerva's advice happen to play Desmond as a post apocalypse survivor and tried to make-up his choice (change the past) in going back in his own DNA.

B/ The ones that choose Desmond & Juno have a new modern day character trying to fight the modern day Templars and tried to stop Juno dictatorship and control.

C/ The ones that did not play any of the AC before and have no save, well they happen to play the modern day as it is in AC4 and try to find the background story of Desmond if they want to.

While you play Edward and kill a Templar. the Templar's death and the way he/she had been eliminated influence directly on your modern day progression giving the player different possibilities of progression inside their modern day space.


3/ Now, the big problem I have with how the games of that franchise post AC3's ending are made. By AC3 's ending you just happen to know that the Templars were almost right in their cause and we understand that the rule of living always comes with a price (No freedom and control by Templar's dictatorship, control and obedience...slavery maybe?) and it was the best solution anyhow, ....maybe?.

The downside is that you understand that the Assassins were fighting all those centuries for a lost cause that resulted in Dec 21st, 2012 in the victory of the Templars since Desmond made the choice of dying in order to save the humanity and leave it controlled by them. I know he said that someone will certainly come later to fight them and Juno...but when?, not in AC4 anyway. So my point who really wants to play a game or some games when you know that the heroes are fighting for a lost cause, do you?

In conclusion: The all Creed's story arc becomes obsolete since we know that if you kill the Templars or leave them alone nothing will change, the result stays the same and their cause is going to take over past December 21st, 2012
:cool:
1) I don't see why it was cheap, honestly, but okay.

2) We were always under the Control of the Templars, though. The ending of AC III had nothing to do with eradicating Templar control. it was about saving the world or let it burn and start over, there's no guarantee that if Desmond chose Minerva's option there'd be no Templars. there will always be those who want control. better to continue on with what they'v already built over thousands of years than start over.

But AC is not an RPG nor a choice based story line like Beyond 2 souls or Heavy Rain or even GTA now. the story NEVER gave you a choice. this isn't our story to shape. It's Desmond's story shaped by the writers. they had a story to tell and you're watching it. I'd understand if the story gave us choices before, but it never did, I don't see why after 5 games, they'd give you a VERY important choice like that, ESPECIALLY since they planned on making more games. it's a direction of narration and not one is better than the other. you may prefer one over the other, but i'm just telling you why the lack of choice makes sense.

Meh...too much. it'd be unnecessary since Jupiter and Minerva seemed on the same page and adding another faction would just make everything seem convoluted

Yes, AC has choice on HOW you approach an end goal, but not a choice of different end goals. no matter HOW, you'll always get the same outcome. it's not a choice driven narrative.

3) How does it say that they're right?? AC III's ending is the PERSONIFICATION of the most important Assassin ideal. Faith in humanity. faith in humanity to be peaceful on its own, faith in humanity to be free without anarchy, faith in humanity that they'll stop an impeding catastrophe, faith in humanity that they'll be able to stop Juno. that's ALL AC III's ending says. to me at least.

It's not really a lost cause. the death of one Assassin is not the end of the world (no pun intended) The Assassins and Templars will ALWAYS be fighting and existing. that's basically what the Glyphs were made for. to tell us "don't expect this to be over anytime soon" fact of the matter. Templars and Assassins will always exist. EVERYWHERE and EVERY TIME. they're both destined to be at war. It's a lost cause for BOTH, because neither is ever going to win. it's just who has the upper hand...it just so happens in in the 21st century, the Templars have the upper hand and it's not like the Assassins didnt have some victories. they eliminated 3 pretty important figures. Vidic, Lucy and Daniel.

Like I said, the war was NEVER intended to be over. they'll always be fighting.

thanks for that...it was nice making bigass posts again xD