PDA

View Full Version : Is AC4 better than AC3?



Pages : [1] 2

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-15-2013, 09:42 AM
Leave your bias at the door.

AC3 was okay. I, personally, enjoyed Connor's character. I know a lot didn't. I thought his story was a good one. Was he likable? Not in the same way as Ezio but not every character needs to be. He was interesting and compelling to me. I also liked the main plot of the game and how Templars were less mustache-twilingly evil like they were during Ezio's time. I find the time period interesting but it also was one of the major reasons I didn't enjoy AC3 as much as previous entries: it was meh.

The cities were too accurate to the time period and back then, the cities would not have been fun for parkour. More over, the two cities weren't even substantially different from one another. Both very flat cities with wide streets and very few towers to climb. Both were varying shades of brown and gray. That's probably one of the biggest faults. For me, AC has always been about the parkour (and assassination of course). AC3 definitely improved some things: the parkour animations got a very nice facelift and became more fluid and they even added in vaulting which is just awesome; combat became a bit more challenging than ACB/ACR because instead of just holding RT and mashing X, you now had to do a few different things for different enemies...it's still fairly easier but it was enjoyable and atleast harder than ACB/ACR; some small things like the low profile assassination were made FAR better and meant way more sense when connected to the blending aspect -- you would now quickly stab someone and keep walking away as their body fell...that's a fantastic change;

Now... I will say, I have not played the game but I'm wondering if people can help be get a bit better of an idea.

AC3 had the benefit of being a time period I was interested in prior to release. It's not my favorite period of history but it's interesting. Of course, the setting, 1770's America was also ultimately one of it's biggest downfalls because it harmed gameplay too much. So I'm wondering how much, if at all, AC4 has improved...


I disliked the cities. Boston and NY were too flat, too brown, and had way too many wide streets. Havana looks a lot nicer but I also heard it's underused and fairly small. Is the square mileage around the size of Boston/NY or Florence/Venice, give or take? Or is it significantly smaller? I think it LOOKS nicer and definitely will be more fun for parkour. Kingston looks very similar to Boston or NY but has the benefit of being set in the Caribbean and thus isn't just shades of brown, it looks a bit nicer looking, visually. As for parkour... I'm still undecided. It looks like Boston but with a few more trees to facilitate movement from place to place. Thoughts on Kingston and whether I might enjoy it or not?
I didn't really enjoy naval too much. It was fun the first few times but ultimately grew stale. To me, it's not what AC is about. So you can imagine my thoughts on an AC where it's even MORE prevalent. But wait. Let's be fair; I didn't dislike the naval JUST because it wasn't a "core" element from previous entries. To me, it felt tacked on. It felt completely disconnected from the rest of the game. You go to the homestead, go to the Aquila, talk to the guy, and pick a mission and VOILA! You were now in a random part of the Atlantic and you battled a handful of ships in a small piece of the ocean, back at the homestead all of a sudden. To me, it just felt very disconnected and lame. But AC4 on the other hand allows you to sail the ocean freely and explore islands. In this game, it's like the ocean is it's "frontier" to explore and hunt. That means, theoretically, if I see enemy boats, I could sail the other way and avoid a fight if I wish OR actively engage them and loot them. This sounds significantly better. I still don't think it's core to AC but it looks more fun since they applied the exploration and stuff to the ocean this time. So what is it? Does the game feature naval and that stuff TOO much for my tastes do ya reckon? Or is it a good balance?
Story-wise...this is probably one you won't help with. I know some criticized it for being just a pirate game with a tacked on AvT element and First Civ element but this is hard to pinpoint and will most likely be something I can only judge for myself. The other things are already hard enough.
Character-wise...same thing more or less. I liked Connor, some didn't. Some seem to like Edward, some didn't. Will have to decide myself, really.
Other things: Have they gotten rid of hive minded guards? I hated how, in AC3 especially, you'd be chased by some enemies, round a corner and somehow the enemies up ahead know what's going on. It was the worst in AC3 because of the sheer amount of guards and how there were like 3 guards on rooftops instead of 1 like it used to be making exploration, parkour, and fleeing/chase scenes a lot less fun. Blending... It seems they got rid of the dynamic blending from AC3 (like leaning against a wall or observing a merchant stall, or sitting on the dock while people fish, etc. That kind of sucks.


Anyway. Basically what I want to know is: What has AC4 really improved from AC3? What has it kept the same? What has it done worse?

SixKeys
12-15-2013, 11:10 AM
Leave your bias at the door.


This doesn't seem like an honest way to open the thread, TBF. Am I biased if I genuinely think AC3 was a bad game and have no problem saying so?

Personally I think AC4 was better in every conceivable way except for a few things:

-Less interesting Templars
-Animations were sloppier
-No rock-climbing
-Less innovation (then again, I'm partial to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - I'd rather have a game with a tried and tested formula than one that's broken)

AC4's problems were mostly in the story/characters department and too much borrowing of stale gameplay elements from the Ezio saga. The enemy AI is no longer a hivemind like in AC3 which I think significantly improves the overall enjoyment factor. However, taken on its own and not compared to its predecessor, the AI was definitely dumbed down too much, back to AC2 level. Enemies still stand around politely waiting for their turn instead of attacking in pairs and kill animations take way too long.

I don't think I'm being biased if I say that despite AC3 getting some things right and despite AC4 taking some steps backwards in terms of innovation, I can't help but compare the two. I would choose AC4 over AC3 any day because it brought back the fun to the series. AC3 was simply a little too ambitious for its own good.

misterB2001
12-15-2013, 02:08 PM
i will simply say that AC3 did many things right IMO (technical upgrades, animation and story) but completely forgot to pay any attention to its gameplay. It was horrid and uninteresting.

AC4:BF concentrated on making fun gameplay loops and making sure everything had a purpose. It really felt very refined.

For example, the Almanac pages and the Sea Shanty pages are exactly the same, chase a sheet down a pre-determined path and try to catch it. i hated it in AC3, but quite liked it in AC4. Why, because in AC4 there was a good reason to collect them... Sea Shanites!!

Any good open world game needs a solid monetary system and a useful upgrade system. AC3 failed on all aspects of this, AC4 didn't.

Ultimately we play games to have fun, and AC4 nails it.

ProletariatPleb
12-15-2013, 02:20 PM
Yes.

/thread

Charles_Phipps
12-15-2013, 02:34 PM
Prior to Assassin's Creed 4, I thought Assassin's Creed 3 was the best of the series. After the cartoon villainy of the Borgias and the horrific disappointment of Assassin's Creed: Revelations, Connor's story was a breath of fresh air.

Why I liked Assassin's Creed 3

I can see why people had a problem with the gameplay, though, because it was seemingly one tutorial after another. Likewise, both Connor and Desmond's stories ended in a way which was bound to be controversial.

Still, I think AC3 managed to revive the moral ambiguity of the Templar vs. Assassins conflict while also showing the latter aren't always going to be the most effective of figures. Connor Kenway is a figure who chooses to support the Revolutionary cause on idealogical grounds but the results for him, as a Native American as well as Assassin, are underwhelming to say the least. I much preferred this to the unambiguous triumph of both Altair and Ezio's storylines.

Likewise, I'm a huge fan of the character of Haytham Kenway who manages to be one of the more intriguing protagonists of the games. He's a Templar of conscience who, while still doing some pretty awful things (organizing the Boston Massacre, plotting George Washington's assassination, and so on), still manages to come off as an anti-hero as opposed to a straight-up villain.

The "America Yay!" element of Assassin's Creed 3 is something I can take or leave. The game comes across with a decidedly mixed feeling toward American patriotism, highlighting the warts and hypocrisy of the Revolution but rarely acting as if Connor shouldn't be supporting them 100%.

Indeed, I know many players who were disappointed Connor didn't make his own attempt to assassinate George Washington when it was discovered he ordered an attack on their village. The Tyranny of King Washington didn't satisfy my Foundercidal tendencies because the alternate history required Connor not to know the First President or his many personal misdeeds against him.

I was rather sick of Ezio climbing the ancient structures of Europe and the Middle East, however, with Revelations being particularly egregious. Somehow, they managed to make Istanbul's architecture and its convoluted politics boring. This is quite the accomplishment given both are some of the most notable in the world. So the forests and modest structures of the Americas were quite the improvement for me.

Overall, I gave Assassin's Creed a 10 out of 10 but this is on a scale which measures the amount of enjoyment I got out of the game. Is it possible for a game to go to the 11? In which case, the answer is yes.

Why I LOVED Assassin's Creed 4

I wasn't particularly excited about Assassin's Creed: Black Flag because I'd felt Assassin's Creed 3 was a sufficient ending point for the series. Yes, the series still had the release of Juno but Desmond Miles' story was complete and the conflict between the Templars and Assassins was now thoroughly stale. AC3 had thoroughly deconstructed the battle to the point the Assassins didn't look that much better than their age-old enemies. Which is quite the accomplishment when the first game says Hitler and Stalin were both Templars.

Worse, the setting was about pirates. I love pirates. Don't get me wrong. However, pirates are an easy cash-in for people. Given I was hoping for a story about a older Connor involving himself in the French Revolution, this was a trifle disappointing. Likewise, having read Assassin's Creed: Forsaken, I can't say I was enthused about playing Edward Kenway. It seemed incongruous to play a figure we know ends ignominiously before having his legacy betrayed by his son.

I was wrong.

Assassin's Creed 4 is the best of the series, surpassing Assassin's Creed 3 by leaps and bounds. A repeated statement about the game is that it didn't need to be an Assassin's Creed game, which is a sure sign it's actually just a good game period. AC 4 is an awesome pirate game which just happens to be set in the AC universe. Given I have long lamented the lack of a "serious" pirate game, this is a great remedy.

I admit, though, part of the fun for long-time Assassins Creeds fans will be the game's extensive ****-take at the entire conflict between the Templars and Assassins. If Connor's story deconstructed the idea of "Assassins Good, Templars" evil then Black Flag shoots it out of the water with Edward's take on the two sides being "Assassins stupid, Templars irrelevant."

It's fascinating to see the Templars power having waned to the point they can barely keep control over their minions. Likewise, the modern day segment has the Templars in control of a video game corporation and so blindingly incompetent that you have to wonder why we need a secret society of Arabic ninjas to fight them. If this offends your sensibilities about the series and its mythology, the game may not be for you.

Really, at times, the game feels like "Grand Theft Galleon" with Edward being the most brutal and selfish protagonist in the series. He's a more murderous pirate than the vast majority of the historical pirates he hangs out with, killing hundreds of British and Spanish sailors in cinematic Eroll Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks-like duels. He's interested in coin and pleasure as opposed to freeing the world from supernatural conspiracies.

The game nicely deconstructs the horrible history of Disney's pirates. Blackbeard the Pirate is actually one of the most soft-hearted pirates around while the inspiration for Captain Jack Sparrow was one of the most incompetant. There's even a bit of fun with Tortuga being one of the most heavily guarded plantations around. History is stranger than fiction with the most famous pirates of history all hanging around and knowing each other.

Gameplay-wise, the game doesn't hold your hand and while there's no real glorious architecture to climb, that's more than made up for by the excellent parkour opportunities to be found in climbing sailing ships as well as the occasional Mayan ruin. I felt the parkour was also a little easier with there always being something for Edward to climb or run across, making the chases all the more dynamic.

It is a great-great game.

DinoSteve1
12-15-2013, 04:09 PM
lol in every way possible AC4 is miles better than AC3.

Megas_Doux
12-15-2013, 04:41 PM
AC IV is, to me, way better than AC III in almost every gameplay wise department except of combat, for which AC III along with AC I are still my favorite. But everything else, mission design, quantity and quality of assassinations, side activities, naval stuff- duhhh-, soundtrack/ambient music and the whole world are not only better implemented but also plain funnier. Before AC IV the franchise always lacked in the open world/free roaming experience department in comparison to Red dead redempton and GTA, but let me tell you, the Caribbean is a highlight and can compete.

As Charles pphips said "Grand theft galleon" really does justice....

However I take AC III┤s story, I just CANT oversee how much I like the grey tone of templars vs Assassins we got. The Almighty God among men of Haytham kenway, Charles Lee, Achilles, the tragedy of almost lost since the beginning struggle of Connor.

PD I like AC IV story.

MadJC1986
12-15-2013, 04:42 PM
I think AC3 was a lot better than AC4. But I know there are only very few agreeing with me.

pirate1802
12-15-2013, 04:45 PM
The Almighty God among men of Haytham kenway,

Peace be upon him

Fatal-Feit
12-15-2013, 05:00 PM
AC:3's story was miles ahead of AC:IV and the game itself was A LOT more next gen but less refined. I'm a story driven gamer so despite how fun AC:IV was, it didn't top AC:3 for me.

Charles_Phipps
12-15-2013, 05:07 PM
I think AC3 was a lot better than AC4. But I know there are only very few agreeing with me.

I think AC3 is an acquired taste but it had a lot of really good selling points.

DinoSteve1
12-15-2013, 05:26 PM
AC:3's story was miles ahead of AC:IV and the game itself was A LOT more next gen but less refined. I'm a story driven gamer so despite how fun AC:IV was, it didn't top AC:3 for me.
I disagee, I didn't care at all about what was happening in the Conner parts of AC3.

pirate1802
12-15-2013, 05:40 PM
I'd say AC3's core story was definitely better than AC IV's. But in presentation they mucked up, whats with the two prologues and infinite "six months later"s. In contrast, AC IV had a simpler story to tell, and they nailed it in execution.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-15-2013, 06:03 PM
No.

Best Assassin: AC3
(Connor!!!!!!!!)

Best Character Cast: AC4
(Legendary pirates)

Best Mission Variety: AC3
(Finding big foot..running through a war zone...commanding an army..infultrating forts...taking a doctor to a pregnant woman...letting everyone know the british is coming, epic chases, marrying people, burrying achillies :()

Most satisfying Assassination missions: AC4
(open ended not cunscene)

Best World: AC3
(Frontier > ocean)

Best Cities: AC4
(Brought back the classic feel)

Most Organic: AC3
(Could climb cliffs and stuff! Grab bottles during combat and smack people with em!)

Best Combat: AC3
(super smooth and satisfying + interactive surroundings)

Best Hunting: AC3
(couldnt just put a waypoint on an animal to make it spawn - had to actually HUNT)

Most Innovating: AC3
(Do I need to explain this? :D Organicness - tree climbing - rock climbing - naval - rope darts!!! - hunting - forts!!)

Best Present Day Story: AC3
(Sorry still believe Desmond is more interesting than make believe movie making)

Best Overall Story: AC3
(AC4s story wasnt bad - just didnt feel as involving. I didn't care for anyone except blackbeard </3)

Best Naval: AC4
(Because it was open world naval :D)

9 - 4

AC 4 was a great game.
But to me though large - it had a very filler game feel in terms of its campaign length and copy and paste mission design.

Fatal-Feit
12-15-2013, 06:18 PM
AC 4 was a great game.
But to me though large - it had a very filler game feel in terms of its campaign length and copy and paste mission design.

The copy and paste mission designs are the developers' attempt to give the players more freedom. I think it's much better than AC:3's broken and linear mission structures.


I disagee, I didn't care at all about what was happening in the Conner parts of AC3.

The Connor parts are my favorite. The missions with him teaming up with Haythem are of the best written in an AC game, IMO.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-15-2013, 06:26 PM
The copy and paste mission designs are the developers' attempt to give the players more freedom. I think it's much better than AC:3's broken and linear mission structures.



The Connor parts are my favorite. The missions with him teaming up with Haythem are of the best written in an AC game, IMO.

I may be the only one that feels this way but id rather have linear missions if it means variety (Though i have no idea how ac iv isnt linear? You litteraly have to follow a target on a set path and then sneak through a secluded narrow area the whole time mission after mission)

pirate1802
12-15-2013, 06:34 PM
You litteraly have to follow a target on a set path and then sneak through a secluded narrow area the whole time mission after mission)

Because it isn't a set path. And mostly those tail missions are the prologues, you hear stuff or get a key after which the real mission starts, that boring sneaky sneaky stuff. Contrast it to Haytham's Opera house "assassination" Or the Pitcairn assassination where you'd desync if you stray a little ahead of the intended path. Now those are set paths.

Kagurra
12-15-2013, 08:23 PM
At least two hundred times better. I just wish Havana was bigger or there was another city... Nassau really isn't a full fledged city IMO, even though I do like what's there.

pirate1802
12-15-2013, 08:27 PM
Yeah, Nassau was a disappointment, slightly. It seems to be like a slightly bigger fishing village.

Kagurra
12-15-2013, 08:37 PM
Yeah, Nassau was a disappointment, slightly. It seems to be like a slightly bigger fishing village.

Yeah, agreed. I like the building architecture though, with the slanted roofs and what not. It's fun to free-run on, there's just not that many buildings.

roostersrule2
12-15-2013, 08:40 PM
Is Gandhi better then Hitler?

shobhit7777777
12-15-2013, 08:45 PM
pfft...Am I Batman?
Let me put it this way, tactfully, don't want to ruffle any feathers do we...

AC3 sucked a big fat ****

AC4 was owner of said ****

Too subtle?

AC3 = ****

AC4 = awesome

DinoSteve1
12-15-2013, 08:45 PM
For me AC3 was a chore to play because of the uninteresting story and clumsy gameplay, I almost quit it four or five times only that I wanted to see what happened with Desmond in the end, I'd never have finished it. The best part of AC3 was the Haytham bit at the very start, he was the only interesting character.

shobhit7777777
12-15-2013, 08:46 PM
Is Gandhi better then Hitler?

Of course. Gandhi had substantially better muscle tone and mass. Dude, was ripped.

Kagurra
12-15-2013, 08:46 PM
Is Gandhi better then Hitler?

I guess.

roostersrule2
12-15-2013, 08:47 PM
Of course. Gandhi had substantially better muscle tone and mass. Dude, was ripped.But Hitler had a hat, it's gotta count for something?

pirate1802
12-15-2013, 08:47 PM
Yeah, looking back, the best parts of AC3 were when Haytham was present.

Sushiglutton
12-15-2013, 08:51 PM
AC3 is around 6-7, AC4 a solid 9. These are facts.

Open missions, functional stealth, seamless naval integration, working economy/upgrade loop and sideactivities relying on core mechanics.

shobhit7777777
12-15-2013, 09:07 PM
But Hitler had a hat, it's gotta count for something?

*Checks notepad*

Nope. Nothing. Hitler gets 0 for the hat.

Your badass factor is inversely proportionate to the amount of clothing articles:

Gandhi:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Gandhi_spinning.jpg


Notice - harldy any clothes. Notice - Pecs

roostersrule2
12-15-2013, 09:13 PM
I stand corrected.

Shahkulu101
12-15-2013, 09:31 PM
The animations in AC3 are some of the best I've seen in a video game - the only aspect where it trumps AC4. And no, it's not just because the magnificent Animation director was Scottish.

pirate1802
12-15-2013, 09:34 PM
The quality of the Templar cast might be another area where AC3 trumps AC4.

Shahkulu101
12-15-2013, 09:35 PM
The quality of the Templar cast might be another area where AC3 trumps AC4.

Oh yeah definitely

AND combat. And protagonist. There I'm done.

Kagurra
12-15-2013, 09:37 PM
Oh yeah definitely

AND combat. And protagonist. There I'm done.

Protagonist...?

Edward is so much better than Connor.

Toa TAK
12-15-2013, 09:39 PM
I think overall, AC4 is better than AC3. I much prefer the story of AC3 over AC4, but gameplay-wise, AC4 destroys AC3. In everything.

Megas_Doux
12-15-2013, 09:39 PM
I think overall, AC4 is better than AC3. I much prefer the story of AC3 over AC4, but gameplay-wise, AC4 destroys AC3. In everything.

This!!!!!

pirate1802
12-15-2013, 09:39 PM
Oh yeah definitely

AND combat. And protagonist. There I'm done.

Do all these have Scottish people behind them?

Shahkulu101
12-15-2013, 09:42 PM
Do all these have Scottish people behind them?

No, mainly just a tremendously deceptive Australian and Corey (Canadian?) wrote Connor.

MnemonicSyntax
12-15-2013, 09:44 PM
I think one of the things that people forget about AC3 is that it gave us a lot more options that we didn't have in previous installments. While a lot of people "hate" on AC3, it gave us tree-running, better stealth, better combat (as far as it's system, not it's difficulty) better animations, better movement, and I actually liked the "mobile eavesdrop" which seems a bit more realistic. Also animals, children, etc. It made the world feel lively. While I love 4 and think it's probably the best AC for various reasons, a lot of stuff came from 3 and I think that's an important point to remember.

Of course some things like animations shouldn't be recycled, but my point is more of what 3 gave us, and what it improved on, not what it faltered in.

pirate1802
12-15-2013, 09:51 PM
I think Jexx was correct, AC3 did have a good stealth system, the only problem was the missions itself didnt allow much use of it. The more I think the more AC3 seems like a demo of AC4..

Sushiglutton
12-15-2013, 09:59 PM
I think one of the things that people forget about AC3 is that it gave us a lot more options that we didn't have in previous installments. While a lot of people "hate" on AC3, it gave us tree-running, better stealth, better combat (as far as it's system, not it's difficulty) better animations, better movement, and I actually liked the "mobile eavesdrop" which seems a bit more realistic. Also animals, children, etc. It made the world feel lively. While I love 4 and think it's probably the best AC for various reasons, a lot of stuff came from 3 and I think that's an important point to remember.

Of course some things like animations shouldn't be recycled, but my point is more of what 3 gave us, and what it improved on, not what it faltered in.


Yeah AC3 was far more innovative. In AC4 they figured out how all the new pieces should fit together in a great game.

Shahkulu101
12-15-2013, 10:03 PM
Protagonist...?

Edward is so much better than Connor.

Are you aware Kagurra, that human beings have varying opinions.

Kagurra
12-15-2013, 10:05 PM
Are you aware Kagurra, that human beings have varying opinions.

Yeah, but in this case somebody has to step in just a little bit...

killzab
12-15-2013, 11:07 PM
I think Jexx was correct, AC3 did have a good stealth system, the only problem was the missions itself didnt allow much use of it. The more I think the more AC3 seems like a demo of AC4..

Except it had broken AI ... but if it had 6 more months of development...

Instead of going all Assassin's Greed ...

roostersrule2
12-15-2013, 11:22 PM
I think Jexx was correct, AC3 did have a good stealth system, the only problem was the missions itself didnt allow much use of it. The more I think the more AC3 seems like a demo of AC4..It had stealth options, but as you said the missions never allowed it and the AI made it near impossible. Some of the new mechanics for stealth though like the moving carts were so unnecessary, the only time that I thought to use it we were encouraged by an optional objective to not use it.

AC3 really does feel like a tech demo for AC4 though, the same way AC1 does for AC2, although it's different for AC1 as it was the first in the series.

pirate1802
12-15-2013, 11:26 PM
Lol I don't remember a SINGLE time I used those moving hays during a mission..

Kagurra
12-15-2013, 11:33 PM
Lol I don't remember a SINGLE time I used those moving hays during a mission..

Well there was that one mission where you sneak into the camp that Haytham gets himself captured at, and for the optional objective it said "Don't use the moving hay cart". I know it said to not use it... but that's just an instance where it was in a mission. I thought it was neat in the cities though. Really no place for it in AC4 though.

Charles_Phipps
12-15-2013, 11:37 PM
I think Assassin's Creed 4 is an interesting argument against the "Darker is Better" trend in storytelling. Despite the fact there's a bunch of death and sadness in the game, much like all good adventure fiction, the story is more or less a rousing tale of being a pirate as well as coming to believe in something greater than yourself.

Assassin's Creed 3 is about sacrifice and the fact that good intentions may not always mean the best result in the end. It's a melancholy story from beginning to end with Connor never quite achieving the same level of satisfaction Ezio did.

(I'd argue that Connor illustrates why revenge is unsatisfying and stupid)

People like Edward because he's an unstoppable badass and hard drinking ladies man.

People dislike Connor because he's an idealist who gets **** on by life, repeatedly.

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 12:57 AM
People like Edward because he's an unstoppable badass and hard drinking ladies man.

People dislike Connor because he's an idealist who gets **** on by life, repeatedly.

No, I disliked Connor because his voice actor sounded so bored the entire time.

AC3 had a good idea for its main story, it just didn't really go deep enough with them. Yes, Connor got s**t on throughout his whole life and I probably would have been more sympathetic towards his plight if they had actually explored the whole being-an-outsider thing that the trailers promised. But no, Achilles just goes "lol, you look Spanish enough, nobody's gonna care" and then Connor spends the rest of the game doing favors for anyone who asks. It was kind of important that Connor come to realize that everyone was taking advantage of him BEFORE the credits rolled, but no. You spend the entire game watching him help the people he knows killed his mother, then you sit through 45 minutes of end credits and get two scenes of him going: "Hey, waaaait a minute..."

killzab
12-16-2013, 01:03 AM
I'd say AC3's core story was definitely better than AC IV's. But in presentation they mucked up, whats with the two prologues and infinite "six months later"s. In contrast, AC IV had a simpler story to tell, and they nailed it in execution.

This, exactly !

XLT sMasHerZZX
12-16-2013, 01:47 AM
There was major improvements to the naval combat, in AC3 I dreaded it and avoided it at every point I could, whereas I completely enjoy it.

ForgedWings
12-16-2013, 01:51 AM
Guys please vote on this pole: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/811016-Duncan-Walpole-Assassin-Outfit ubi is watching and said they would possibly do something.

Kagurra
12-16-2013, 01:52 AM
But no, Achilles just goes "lol, you look Spanish enough, nobody's gonna care" and then Connor spends the rest of the game doing favors for anyone who asks. It was kind of important that Connor come to realize that everyone was taking advantage of him BEFORE the credits rolled, but no. You spend the entire game watching him help the people he knows killed his mother, then you sit through 45 minutes of end credits and get two scenes of him going: "Hey, waaaait a minute..."

This made me laugh... <3

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 02:16 AM
No, I disliked Connor because his voice actor sounded so bored the entire time.

AC3 had a good idea for its main story, it just didn't really go deep enough with them. Yes, Connor got s**t on throughout his whole life and I probably would have been more sympathetic towards his plight if they had actually explored the whole being-an-outsider thing that the trailers promised. But no, Achilles just goes "lol, you look Spanish enough, nobody's gonna care" and then Connor spends the rest of the game doing favors for anyone who asks. It was kind of important that Connor come to realize that everyone was taking advantage of him BEFORE the credits rolled, but no. You spend the entire game watching him help the people he knows killed his mother, then you sit through 45 minutes of end credits and get two scenes of him going: "Hey, waaaait a minute..."

Poppycock.

roostersrule2
12-16-2013, 02:22 AM
AC3 had a good idea for its main story, it just didn't really go deep enough with them. Yes, Connor got s**t on throughout his whole life and I probably would have been more sympathetic towards his plight if they had actually explored the whole being-an-outsider thing that the trailers promised. But no, Achilles just goes "lol, you look Spanish enough, nobody's gonna care" and then Connor spends the rest of the game doing favors for anyone who asks. It was kind of important that Connor come to realize that everyone was taking advantage of him BEFORE the credits rolled, but no. You spend the entire game watching him help the people he knows killed his mother, then you sit through 45 minutes of end credits and get two scenes of him going: "Hey, waaaait a minute..."It's funny because it's true.

Syr.Jake
12-16-2013, 02:26 AM
There were a lot of things about AC3 that I didn't like.

First and foremost was the horrific voice acting for Connor. I don't know did the voice, but the computer voice of Joshua in the original War Games movie had more emotion then Connor.

Second was the setting. Sure the American Revolution sounds cool for a game, until you play it and realize that the developers forced Connor into a lead role in every single encounter, except the attempted turn over of West Point.

The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere? OMG, I wanted to choke the &*^% out of him.

Chasing Almanac pages, I tried one or 2, then gave up and never went after the rest.

Feathers? Please, just pick them up off the ground, no need to platform up into trees to take one from a nest.

Running around the Homestead trying to make people happy? UGH, with that horribly painful voice acting for Connor, it was like watching a bottom of the barrel for scum to molt and had absolutely nothing to do with Connor being an assassin. It was all junky filler in the game to pad the hours.

The horses were amusing in a cringing way. When you looked at them, they looked fine, until you Mounted up, and realized the horses back stretched out 2x its natural length, resulting in the back of the horse looking like a dachshund with a saddle without even getting into the actual animation for the horses, or the fact that they followed you around everywhere once you dismounted.

Running and Mounting used the same key, so if you ran past a horse, you automatically mounted the damn thing. Forcing you to either ride, or dismount, resulting in the horse now trying to follow you as you ran through the town/city.

Connor had "years of training" for which we saw none of it.

I managed to eek out 89% sync with AC3, with AC4, I hit 96% before starting a new game.

Other than the couple of chase missions in AC4, which I absolutely hate, all of the optionals were easy to understand, and with a little bit of thought, were easy to accomplish.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 03:12 AM
I like AC3 because I can relate to it, because of my Native heritage. AC4 I like the game so far, I've not yet finished playing the game yet.. I may end up liking both games equally.


People like Edward because he's an unstoppable badass and hard drinking ladies man.

People dislike Connor because he's an idealist who gets **** on by life, repeatedly.
Altair was an interesting character, however in AC1 that American accent did him no favours lol. Well Cas voiced him well in Revelations, and AC:R Altair held his character in a better light.

I dislike Ezio he was far too arrogant and egotistical. Guys who act like Casanova's irritate me.

Edward I can just about like his character as I've read through the AC4BF book and I now have a better understanding of Edward.

The character who was most relatable was Connor because he had been through a lot in his short 27 years, I understand the struggle as it is too my history. However in general Connor's personality held more integrity and he was true to himself and this was admirable because his character & personality was realistic. Connor was down to earth and genuine.


No, I disliked Connor because his voice actor sounded so bored the entire time.
Sounds like you were board not Noah. tbh..


First and foremost was the horrific voice acting for Connor. I don't know did the voice, but the computer voice of Joshua in the original War Games movie had more emotion then Connor.
Disagree. People who complain about an Actor's Acting when if given the chance to act wouldn't have a clue how to perform to be that character. The person who complain doesn't have a clue. - Just an example since people are complaining about acting..


Feathers? Please, just pick them up off the ground, no need to platform up into trees to take one from a nest.
You've obviously not played previous AC games, had to assume so since feathers have history in AC games. I suggest you play previous AC games to find out why.


Connor had "years of training" for which we saw none of it.
Connor became an assassin by the age of 14 he is the youngest Assassin in the history of AC games & Connor is 27 yrs by the end of AC3.
So from the time when Connor met Achilles he was 12 -13 and Connor's training didn't need to be shown in the game.

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 03:23 AM
Disagree. People who complain about an Actor's Acting when if given the chance to act wouldn't have a clue how to perform to be that character. The person who complain doesn't have a clue. - Just an example since people are complaining about acting..

Lol, so there's no such thing as a bad actor in your view? Since you think nobody is ever allowed to criticize an actor's performance.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 03:28 AM
Lol, so there's no such thing as a bad actor in your view? Since you think nobody is ever allowed to criticize an actor's performance.
:rolleyes:

That's not what I meant.. everyone is a critic these days...

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 03:29 AM
You had no problem criticizing Alta´r's performance in AC1. It's only criticism when it's about Connor, apparently.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 03:34 AM
You had no problem criticizing Alta´r's performance in AC1. It's only criticism when it's about Connor, apparently.
That was a genuine problem, though for Altair in aC1 that voice didn't match his Syrian heritage.

Please try to understand from my perspective since I am Mohawk and I approve of Noah's acting for Connor. So obviously I am going to be a bit more sensitive to criticism towards Connor.

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 03:39 AM
I mention his name ONCE. And now, yet again there's another argument about Connor - I mean FFS you can't say you like his character without somebody ****t*ng on your opinion - likewise if you don't like him. It's not even a good discussion, just full of both passive and outright aggression. Never has anyone or anything been so polarizing to a fan base.

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 03:41 AM
That was a genuine problem, though for Altair in aC1 that voice didn't match his Syrian heritage.

Please try to understand from my perspective since I am Mohawk and I approve of Noah's acting for Connor. So obviously I am going to be a bit more sensitive to criticism towards Connor.

That was the director's fault, they specifically told Philip Shahbaz to use an American accent for the character.

You can be Mohawk and still criticize an actor for their performance. I get that you like Noah's performance, but please learn to accept that not everyone does.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 03:41 AM
I mention his name ONCE. And now, yet again there's another argument about Connor - I mean FFS you can't say you like his character without somebody ****t*ng on your opinion - likewise if you don't like him. It's not even a good discussion, just full of both passive and outright aggression. Never has anyone or anything been so polarizing to a fan base.
I wholeheartedly agree! Well said my friend! :)

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 03:42 AM
That was a genuine problem, though for Altair in aC1 that voice didn't match his Syrian heritage.

Please try to understand from my perspective since I am Mohawk and I approve of Noah's acting for Connor. So obviously I am going to be a bit more sensitive to criticism towards Connor.

Why? Please tell me why you are more sensitive to criticism simply because your cultures match?

Megas_Doux
12-16-2013, 03:43 AM
Despite his almost non existant arab accent, I prefer Altair┤s original voice 10000000000000000000 times over ACR┤s! And I also take Noah┤s performance on the DLC better, also.

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 03:44 AM
I mention his name ONCE. And now, yet again there's another argument about Connor - I mean FFS you can't say you like his character without somebody ****t*ng on your opinion - likewise if you don't like him. It's not even a good discussion, just full of both passive and outright aggression. Never has anyone or anything been so polarizing to a fan base.

I don't even hate Connor. I just don't think he's as good as the other protagonists and I don't care for his voice actor. Other people here can **** on ACB (my favorite game) and its characters all day long and I don't jump on them for every comment. They can hate the game all they want, it doesn't hurt my enjoyment. But as soon as anyone dares to say ONE bad word about Connor.....

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 03:46 AM
That was the director's fault, they specifically told Philip Shahbaz to use an American accent for the character.

You can be Mohawk and still criticize an actor for their performance. I get that you like Noah's performance, but please learn to accept that not everyone does.

I'm pretty sure they would have told Noah to speak with a Native American accent too. I mean that's why he sounds 'monotone' - it's just accuracy.

I kind of think his monotone voice sounds badass at points, sounds serious, a no ******** kind of attitude: "I will not die today, the same cannot be said for you." See what I mean?

Boulder_Av
12-16-2013, 03:47 AM
I like Connor and love Haytham that being said I think Ubisoft missed some major chances. First the thing that really peaked my intrest in AC3 was the story possiblies for a inner conflict between Connor's different heritages. A short sequence of Connor living with Haytham and adapting to Colonial life would have added great value to the story. Connor could have falsely come to believe Haytham was responsible for the burning of his village and the Achilles ark still happens. Also AC3 never seemed tho captailize on corrupt people on both sides. Instead we got a super American Freedom fighter instead of a person who sees both sides as bad and chooses to target both sides. I also think that Haytham's death at the hands of Connor was used more as a shock value in the story more than anything else. I liked the buildup of the idea that Assassins and Templars should work together but that was scrapped for a clear dividing line between the two.

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 03:48 AM
I don't even hate Connor. I just don't think he's as good as the other protagonists and I don't care for his voice actor. Other people here can **** on ACB (my favorite game) and its characters all day long and I don't jump on them for every comment. They can hate the game all they want, it doesn't hurt my enjoyment. But as soon as anyone dares to say ONE bad word about Connor.....

I know that, which is why I specified it in my post... "likewise if you say don't like him".

About BH, I love it too and dislike the criticism it gets. P.S anyone who says Rome is bland is kind of insane.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 03:48 AM
You can be Mohawk and still criticize an actor for their performance. I get that you like Noah's performance, but please learn to accept that not everyone does.
I understand that but I see nothing to critize about Noah's performance. My 84 yr old grandmother who is full Mohawk approved Noah's performance when speaking in our language & in the way Noah spoke throughout the game.


Why? Please tell me why you are more sensitive to criticism simply because your cultures match?
It's because Connor's character holds integrity to our culture it's important because in the first time in many years we have been represented in terms of our cultural history and traditions the right way & not the stereotypical view of Natives.

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 03:49 AM
I'm pretty sure they would have told Noah to speak with a Native American accent too. I mean that's why he sounds 'monotone' - it's just accuracy.


I don't accept this argument for one reason: Kanentˇ:kon has a much more emotive voice and his voice isn't even a professional actor.

Megas_Doux
12-16-2013, 03:51 AM
I
About BH, I love it too and dislike the criticism it gets. P.S anyone who says Rome is bland is kind of insane.

I dislike ACB and find Rome uber dull :P

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 03:52 AM
I understand that but I see nothing to critize about Noah's performance. My 84 yr old grandmother who is full Mohawk approved Noah's performance when speaking in our language & in the way Noah spoke throughout the game.


It's because Connor's character holds integrity to our culture it's important because in the first time in many years we have been represented in terms of our cultural history and traditions the right way & not the stereotypical view of Natives.

Okay, I totally get that. It was great to see a different kind of protagonist like the native Connor.

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 03:53 AM
I understand that but I see nothing to critize about Noah's performance. My 84 yr old grandmother who is full Mohawk approved Noah's performance when speaking in our language.


It's because Connor's character holds integrity to our culture it's important because in the first time in many years we have been represented in terms of our cultural history and traditions the right way & not the stereotypical view of Natives.

I understand that representation is important to you, but it doesn't mean a single thing when you say your grandmother approved of Noah's performance. Unless she's an actor herself, she's not an expert on performances. Simply being part of the same race doesn't give you any kind of authority to decide who is and isn't a good actor. I'm not saying *I* am any more of an authority, but think of it like this: I'm a white person. If I approve of another white actor's performance in a movie, does that mean my opinion is objectively good and unquestionably true?

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 03:53 AM
I don't accept this argument for one reason: Kanentˇ:kon has a much more emotive voice and his voice isn't even a professional actor.

I liked the monotone as I said in the same post...

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 03:55 AM
I liked the monotone as I said in the same post...

Different strokes then.

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 03:58 AM
Different strokes then.

Yeah, sometimes I did roll my eyes a bit (especially in the homestead) but for the most part I loved Connor's portrayal.

MnemonicSyntax
12-16-2013, 03:59 AM
It seemed to me that most of the Mohawk characters in 3 were monotone and only expressed emotion when it was necessary. In a way, it reminded me a lot like Vulcans, which isn't a bad thing.

A lot of people seem to not like Connor because they don't put themselves in his shoes. And that's fine and all, but it's almost like everyone is either against him, or wants to use him, then turns against him.

Every time he turns around, he's stabbed in the back.

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 04:00 AM
I dislike ACB and find Rome uber dull :P

Yeah, I knew you were a culprit. :p NOW HOW THE HELL DID YOU REACH SUCH A CONCLUSION?

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 04:02 AM
Okay, I totally get that. It was great to see a different kind of protagonist like the native Connor.
Thank you and I agree. :)


I understand that representation is important to you, but it doesn't mean a single thing when you say your grandmother approved of Noah's performance. Unless she's an actor herself, she's not an expert on performances. Simply being part of the same race doesn't give you any kind of authority to decide who is and isn't a good actor. I'm not saying *I* am any more of an authority, but think of it like this: I'm a white person. If I approve of another white actor's performance in a movie, does that mean my opinion is objectively good and unquestionably true?
My Grandmother knows our culture, language and traditions she's an expert in our culture and I trust her with what she has said for Connor's character, Noah & our ethnicity being represented the right way for AC3. Being part of an ethnicity does count and when you know your own heritage.

Actor's performances are subjective to the person who is the critic. I stand by what I have said about Noah and I approve of his acting for Connor.

Fatal-Feit
12-16-2013, 04:14 AM
I understand that representation is important to you, but it doesn't mean a single thing when you say your grandmother approved of Noah's performance. Unless she's an actor herself, she's not an expert on performances. Simply being part of the same race doesn't give you any kind of authority to decide who is and isn't a good actor. I'm not saying *I* am any more of an authority, but think of it like this: I'm a white person. If I approve of another white actor's performance in a movie, does that mean my opinion is objectively good and unquestionably true?

Noah's performance was spot on for Connor. It fits his persona perfectly. Connor would speak bland and use ''are not'' or ''should not'' because English was never his native language. He's very humble, down to earth and it shows. Also he speaks and argue with gentlemen like George Washington, Sam Adams, Achillies, Haythem, etc, etc . It's important for him to speak as such. It'll just be ridiculous and cringe worthy to see him make useless one-liners about women when arguing with Haythem on the rooftops.

And you listen to these whenever you've the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1KeUWEVa4

Kagurra
12-16-2013, 04:17 AM
My Grandmother knows our culture, language and traditions she's an expert in our culture and I trust her with what she has said for Connor's character, Noah & our ethnicity being represented the right way for AC3. Being part of an ethnicity does count and when you know your own heritage.

Actor's performances are subjective to the person who is the critic. I stand by what I have said about Noah and I approve of his acting for Connor.

This again? It's almost all the time...

MnemonicSyntax
12-16-2013, 04:19 AM
This again? It's almost all the time...

The same could be said about how you feel about Connor. You "corrected" someone on an opinion earlier.

Honestly, it seems to come from both sides equally, and it's kinda tiring, really.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 04:22 AM
This again? It's almost all the time...
:rolleyes:

It was in context as per previous posts. It's only "almost" the amount of times I've seen when people criticize Connor's character with the fanbase on these forums.

Megas_Doux
12-16-2013, 04:47 AM
Yeah, I knew you were a culprit. :p NOW HOW THE HELL DID YOU REACH SUCH A CONCLUSION?

In terms of Rome being dull, I like its ruins and Il Vaticano, but the Centro District is plain and boring. All the Churches look EXACTLY the same, which is a shame considering how gorgeous they are in real life, also the color scheme does not stand at all, it was like Tuscany and Firenze had a big ugly baby, just for the sake of being big. I dont know, to me everything that made AC II┤s cities great, was somehow absent within Rome, Although I have to say that Castel Sant'Angelo and the Colosseum are two of the best landmarks in the series.

Now in regards of the game, I despite its combat for being UBER easy, even for AC standarts, the story and villians are on par with some of the worst scooby doo episodes, and I think I answered above why I cant freeroam as muchin Rome.

I expected ALOT from that game, I was hyped and I ended up being dissapointed.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 04:50 AM
Noah's performance was spot on for Connor. It fits his persona perfectly. Connor would speak bland and use ''are not'' or ''should not'' because English was never his native language. He's very humble, down to earth and it shows. Also he speaks and argue with gentlemen like George Washington, Sam Adams, Achillies, Haythem, etc, etc . It's important for him to speak as such. It'll just be ridiculous and cringe worthy to see him make useless one-liners about women when arguing with Haythem on the rooftops.

And you listen to these whenever you've the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1KeUWEVa4
I agree! Well said! :)

Wolfmeister1010
12-16-2013, 04:52 AM
In terms of Rome being dull, I like its ruins and Il Vaticano, but the Centro District is plain and boring. All the Churches look EXACTLY the same, which is a shame considering how gorgeous they are in real life, also the color scheme does not stand at all, it was like Tuscany and Firenze had a big ugly baby, just for the sake of being big. I dont know, to me everything that made AC II┤s cities great, was somehow absent within Rome, Although I have to say that Castel Sant'Angelo and the Colosseum are two of the best landmarks in the series.

Now in regards of the game, I despite its combat for being UBER easy, even for AC standarts, the story and villians are on par with some of the worst scooby doo episodes, and I think I answered above why I cant freeroam as muchin Rome.

I expected ALOT from that game, I was hyped and I ended up being dissapointed.
That scooby doo line made my day

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 05:43 AM
Noah's performance was spot on for Connor. It fits his persona perfectly. Connor would speak bland and use ''are not'' or ''should not'' because English was never his native language. He's very humble, down to earth and it shows. Also he speaks and argue with gentlemen like George Washington, Sam Adams, Achillies, Haythem, etc, etc . It's important for him to speak as such. It'll just be ridiculous and cringe worthy to see him make useless one-liners about women when arguing with Haythem on the rooftops.

And you listen to these whenever you've the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1KeUWEVa4

Why do people always assume there can only be two extremes? Just because I find Connor to be dull doesn't mean I want him to be like Ezio, throwing around one-liners and flirting with women. My favorite assassin is still Alta´r. Some people think he's dull, and that's okay. I don't give a crap. But some people on these forums speak of Connor as if he were a real person. It's okay to dislike a fictional character. I'm sure Noah Watts is a very nice person. That still doesn't mean I have to like every performance in his acting career. For what it's worth, somebody once posted a clip with Noah from an episode of CSI and he was actually pretty good in it.

And I have listened to that podcast already. Again, I'm sure he's a nice person. He's even surprisingly animated when he's not acting. I wish he had brought more of that emotion and energy into Connor's role. Some people liked his performance. I didn't. Get over it.

Wolfmeister1010
12-16-2013, 05:48 AM
Why do people always assume there can only be two extremes? Just because I find Connor to be dull doesn't mean I want him to be like Ezio, throwing around one-liners and flirting with women. My favorite assassin is still Alta´r. Some people think he's dull, and that's okay. I don't give a crap. But some people on these forums speak of Connor as if he were a real person. It's okay to dislike a fictional character. I'm sure Noah Watts is a very nice person. That still doesn't mean I have to like every performance in his acting career. For what it's worth, somebody once posted a clip with Noah from an episode of CSI and he was actually pretty good in it.

And I have listened to that podcast already. Again, I'm sure he's a nice person. He's even surprisingly animated when he's not acting. I wish he had brought more of that emotion and energy into Connor's role. Some people liked his performance. I didn't. Get over it.

I love Connor and his voice acting, but I agree that there are times when he could have been more animated.

Gibbs: WHAT'S OUR COURSE, CAPTAIN?!

Connor: Due. North. Of. Here.

Wolfmeister1010
12-16-2013, 05:50 AM
If you guys want to hear some TRUE hilariously awful voice acting, then watch this vid!:


http://youtu.be/VRhDmUzWuBI

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 05:53 AM
Why do people always assume there can only be two extremes? Just because I find Connor to be dull doesn't mean I want him to be like Ezio, throwing around one-liners and flirting with women. My favorite assassin is still Alta´r. Some people think he's dull, and that's okay. I don't give a crap. But some people on these forums speak of Connor as if he were a real person. It's okay to dislike a fictional character. I'm sure Noah Watts is a very nice person. That still doesn't mean I have to like every performance in his acting career. For what it's worth, somebody once posted a clip with Noah from an episode of CSI and he was actually pretty good in it.

And I have listened to that podcast already. Again, I'm sure he's a nice person. He's even surprisingly animated when he's not acting. I wish he had brought more of that emotion and energy into Connor's role. Some people liked his performance. I didn't. Get over it.
Like Noah mentioned in the podcast, I'll paraphrase: Connor's childhood shaped the man he became and he wouldn't be a happy go lucky guy all the time it wouldn't be right.

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 05:54 AM
If you guys want to hear some TRUE hilariously awful voice acting, then watch this vid!:


http://youtu.be/VRhDmUzWuBI

To be fair, most of these are from PS1 era. Voice acting wasn't exactly high on anybody's list back then. :p (It was all about the graphics.)

Wolfmeister1010
12-16-2013, 05:54 AM
Like Noah mentioned in the podcast, I'll paraphrase: Connor's childhood shaped the man he became and he wouldn't be a happy go lucky guy all the time it wouldn't be right.

I think he understands that. He does not think connor should be happy go lucky all the time. He is entitled to his opinion.

Wolfmeister1010
12-16-2013, 05:55 AM
To be fair, most of these are from PS1 era. Voice acting wasn't exactly high on anybody's list back then. :p (It was all about the graphics.)

Now bare my arctic blast!

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 05:56 AM
Like Noah mentioned in the podcast, I'll paraphrase: Connor's childhood shaped the man he became and he wouldn't be a happy go lucky guy all the time it wouldn't be right.

Again, why the extreme? He doesn't have to be happy-go-lucky, but he doesn't have to be surly all the time either.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 06:04 AM
I think he understands that. He does not think connor should be happy go lucky all the time. He is entitled to his opinion.
I agree.


Again, why the extreme? He doesn't have to be happy-go-lucky, but he doesn't have to be surly all the time either.
Connor's emotions were more geniune because that was his nature, when he smiled it meant more they were subtle emotions but there were there. During the Homestead missions really showed different aspects of Connor's personality. There were times when Connor had a beaming smile on his face after he flipped Norris over just when Norris told Connor that he was getting married to Myriam. The other time was when Warren told Connor that Prudence is pregnant Connor smiled and was really happy for them. Those two examples of times when he would smile. Another time during ToKW when Connor spoke of Edward, Connor laughed. Those times meant more for his laughter and smiles it was more genuine.

pirate1802
12-16-2013, 06:05 AM
P.S anyone who says Rome is bland is kind of insane.

Have I ever told you the definition of insanity? Its requesting the same thing, again and again, expecting Ubisoft to change.


Yeah, sometimes I did roll my eyes a bit (especially in the homestead) but for the most part I loved Connor's portrayal.

Connor: What. do. you. ..women .like?
Me: facepalm

I loved the Homestead missions but gawd did he act like a robot in some of them, both voice acting and body animations. Its robotic even by the standards of AC3.




..and I must be the only one who felt more connected to Edward compared to Connor. His story felt surprisingly personal to me.

Kagurra
12-16-2013, 06:05 AM
I'm so sick of this same exact discussion over and over and over again. Just quit it, both sides. :mad: It never goes anywhere.

Charles_Phipps
12-16-2013, 07:18 AM
I think AC 3 needed Forsaken's coda.

Which is Connor accepts the situation and STILL: think its worth it.

killzab
12-16-2013, 11:35 AM
I agree.


Connor's emotions were more geniune because that was his nature, when he smiled it meant more they were subtle emotions but there were there. During the Homestead missions really showed different aspects of Connor's personality. There were times when Connor had a beaming smile on his face after he flipped Norris over just when Norris told Connor that he was getting married to Myriam. The other time was when Warren told Connor that Prudence is pregnant Connor smiled and was really happy for them. Those two examples of times when he would smile. Another time during ToKW when Connor spoke of Edward, Connor laughed. Those times meant more for his laughter and smiles it was more genuine.

This argument again about " genuine emotions"...It's not because Connor is an introvert and shy that his emotions are any more real than Edward or Ezio...

Ezio would smile and laugh a lot because that's who he was. A more out-going guy. Doesn't mean it's all fake.

Just like Edward, who's actually more like Ezio than Connor ( not talking about his motivations here).

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 11:44 AM
This argument again about " genuine emotions"...It's not because Connor is an introvert and shy that his emotions are any more real than Edward or Ezio...

Ezio would smile and laugh a lot because that's who he was. A more out-going guy. Doesn't mean it's all fake.

Just like Edward, who's actually more like Ezio than Connor ( not talking about his motivations here).
I never said any of the other Assassin characters were "fake" as you say.. you missed out Altair btw..

Connor wasn't an introvert he had friends & he wasn't shy either, he talked to people easily.

Farlander1991
12-16-2013, 11:46 AM
Connor wasn't an introvert he had friends & he wasn't shy either, he talked to people easily.

One of the reasons why I personally related to Connor was precisely because he was an introvert.

Introvert does not equal not having friends.

ProletariatPleb
12-16-2013, 11:49 AM
One of the reasons why I personally related to Connor was precisely because he was an introvert.

Introvert does not equal not having friends.
INTP here, cannot relate.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 11:52 AM
One of the reasons why I personally related to Connor was precisely because he was an introvert.

Introvert does not equal not having friends.
I'd say that Connor was more focused and that lead on to his loneliness, which others had bought on to Connor because the amount of times he was backstabbed by people he thought he could trust. Connor was alone by circumstance.

pacmanate
12-16-2013, 11:52 AM
One of the reasons why I personally related to Connor was precisely because he was an introvert.

Introvert does not equal not having friends.

But you aren't real!

Farlander1991
12-16-2013, 11:58 AM
I'd say that Connor was more focused and that lead on to his loneliness, which others had bought on to Connor because the amount of times he was backstabbed by people he thought he could trust. Connor was alone by circumstance.

What you just said in no way, shape or form disproves that Connor's an introvert (in fact I'm not even sure that's related to the matter in question).


But you aren't real!

Oh no! My whole life was a lie!

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 12:07 PM
What you just said in no way, shape or form disproves that Connor's an introvert (in fact I'm not even sure that's related to the matter in question).
Hmm.. I was talking in general.

It was related, but anyway everything we saw that happened to Connor was based on people who backstabbed him after that it would be hard to trust anyone. The homestad people game him hope, Connor had the type of personality of he would always try to see the good in people no matter what.

Farlander1991
12-16-2013, 12:10 PM
Hmm.. I was talking in general.

It was related, but anyway everything we saw that happened to Connor was based on people who backstabbed him after that it would be hard to trust anyone. The homestad people game him hope,

Well, Connor didn't get backstabbed that much until the very end of the story (in fact, he wasn't backstabbed at all until the story was coming to its conclusion, he had a traumatic event in childhood but no betrayals). He still was an introvert all that time (most likely due to said traumatic event, though, you know, reasons can vary). The homesteaders were essentially the people who he let in his introvert bubble, which is why the way he acts in the homestead and the way he acts in the main campaign with a lot of other people is so different.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 12:21 PM
Well, Connor didn't get backstabbed that much until the very end of the story (in fact, he wasn't backstabbed at all until the story was coming to its conclusion, he had a traumatic event in childhood but no betrayals). He still was an introvert all that time (most likely due to said traumatic event, though, you know, reasons can vary). The homesteaders were essentially the people who he let in his introvert bubble, which is why the way he acts in the homestead and the way he acts in the main campaign with a lot of other people is so different.
True. for the most part. All this just reflects how sad Connor's life was he was 27 by the end of AC3 and yet so much stuff happened to him, poor guy. Which is why I relate to his struggle. :(

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 12:22 PM
Yes.

DinoSteve1
12-16-2013, 12:23 PM
I don't get this arguing over Conner's personaility, because he had none I have seen blocks of wood with more personality.

ProletariatPleb
12-16-2013, 12:24 PM
I don't get this arguing over Conner's personaility, because he had none I have seen blocks of wood with more personality.
http://i.minus.com/isvkpekA1PDub.jpg
Have to agree. AC3 had some...ATROCIOUS writing.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 12:24 PM
I don't get this arguing over Conner's personaility, because he had none I have seen blocks of wood with more personality.
Disagree. Connor did have a personality something that you obviously didn't understand because you couldn't relate to his struggles in life.

ProletariatPleb
12-16-2013, 12:34 PM
Disagree. Connor did have a personality something that you obviously didn't understand because you couldn't relate to his struggles in life.
because characters I can't relate to totally cannot have a personality.

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 12:40 PM
My life is full of struggles, i got up at 8am today EIGHT A M!!
i had to leave my flat to go buy some food, and it was rather chilly if i do say!
And now i have to tidy my flat, oh how difficult my life is, i am the oppressed, my tortured soul cannot take it, it has built so much character though.

dinesen68
12-16-2013, 12:45 PM
Disagree. Connor did have a personality something that you obviously didn't understand because you couldn't relate to his struggles in life.

Hi

pacmanate
12-16-2013, 12:50 PM
My life is full of struggles, i got up at 8am today EIGHT A M!!
i had to leave my flat to go buy some food, and it was rather chilly if i do say!
And now i have to tidy my flat, oh how difficult my life is, i am the oppressed, my tortured soul cannot take it, it has built so much character though.

6:30am for me :|

DinoSteve1
12-16-2013, 12:53 PM
Disagree. Connor did have a personality something that you obviously didn't understand because you couldn't relate to his struggles in life.

http://i40.tinypic.com/10ncikj.png
I hate this line of reasoning, "you didn't understand because you can't relate" anyone capable of empathy can understand, Conner is just badly written.

ProletariatPleb
12-16-2013, 12:55 PM
I hate this line of reasoning, "you didn't understand because you can't relate" anyone cable of empathy can understand, Conner is just badly written.
I wouldn't call it reasoning...

All the "you just don't understand him!" Connor fans remind me of these guys:
http://www.yourewinner.com/index.php?topic=37.0

pirate1802
12-16-2013, 12:55 PM
My life is full of struggles, i got up at 8am today EIGHT A M!!
i had to leave my flat to go buy some food, and it was rather chilly if i do say!
And now i have to tidy my flat, oh how difficult my life is, i am the oppressed, my tortured soul cannot take it, it has built so much character though.

You have my sympathies..

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 12:56 PM
6:30am for me :|

tbf, i was awake since 2, i only got up when the hunger pains became unbearable.

ProletariatPleb
12-16-2013, 12:56 PM
You have my sympathies..
and my axe!

pirate1802
12-16-2013, 12:58 PM
and my axe!

And Rooster's rotten fish?

Mr_Shade
12-16-2013, 01:05 PM
topic..

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 01:09 PM
topic..

Was "is AC4 better than AC3" which has no doubt been answered by now.

Mr_Shade
12-16-2013, 01:20 PM
Was "is AC4 better than AC3" which has no doubt been answered by now.
no, really?

So, best for people to stop posting / unrelated posts then..


simples ;)

If the thread is dead - does not mean people can use it for chit chat.. there's a thread for that already ;)

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 01:29 PM
I hate this line of reasoning, "you didn't understand because you can't relate" anyone capable of empathy can understand, Conner is just badly written.
No need for that picture. Fair enough, you just didn't like his character. I just still disagree with your subjective opinion.

MnemonicSyntax
12-16-2013, 03:21 PM
Ah, only a matter oft time before the trolls came out. Yay.

Connor was also used. Everyone used him to get their needs accomplished and it magically tied into how things would work out for him in the end. "Connor, dump this tea and it'll stop Johnson from getting money to buy your land" Nope.

It's no wonder he kept to himself. People were asking him to do "favors' for him and in the end, he pretty much single handedly fought the Revolution.


Was "is AC4 better than AC3" which has no doubt been answered by now.

Yes, by you. You've possibly answered it before. You're going to get new people joining this forum all the time, there's no need for you to come in and take it off topic.

I'd figured someone who has been here since 2009 would realize that as a forum, you'll be seeing a lot of the same topics over and over again. It's par for the course.

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 03:54 PM
Ah, only a matter oft time before the trolls came out. Yay.

Connor was also used. Everyone used him to get their needs accomplished and it magically tied into how things would work out for him in the end. "Connor, dump this tea and it'll stop Johnson from getting money to buy your land" Nope.

It's no wonder he kept to himself. People were asking him to do "favors' for him and in the end, he pretty much single handedly fought the Revolution.



Yes, by you. You've possibly answered it before. You're going to get new people joining this forum all the time, there's no need for you to come in and take it off topic.

I'd figured someone who has been here since 2009 would realize that as a forum, you'll be seeing a lot of the same topics over and over again. It's par for the course.

By "now" I meant in this thread, this 13 page long thread, which went way of topic long before i starting posting, a 13 page long thread for a simple yes or no question that like so many other threads devolved into a "i love/hate Connor" thread, a theme you are prolonging.

Mr_Shade
12-16-2013, 03:58 PM
By "now" I meant in this thread, this 13 page long thread, which went way of topic long before i starting posting, a 13 page long thread for a simple yes or no question that like so many other threads devolved into a "i love/hate Connor" thread, a theme you are prolonging.
Well if it's something that is prolonged - then people want to discuss it?

The topic is bound to evolve into talk of why one game is better than the other.. and that's all aspects..


If you don't like the thread - or - subject matter - best not to read /post in it ;)

MnemonicSyntax
12-16-2013, 04:04 PM
By "now" I meant in this thread, this 13 page long thread, which went way of topic long before i starting posting, a 13 page long thread for a simple yes or no question that like so many other threads devolved into a "i love/hate Connor" thread, a theme you are prolonging.

Because posting how cold your were when you went to get food or how you had to clean your flat isn't prolonging it either. In fact, it's keeping it bumped to the top.

If you want the thread to die, the best way, as Shade said, is to avoid it. So that way, even if you don't like the topic at hand, you don't have to read it.

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 04:07 PM
Well if it's something that is prolonged - then people want to discuss it?

The topic is bound to evolve into talk of why one game is better than the other.. and that's all aspects..


If you don't like the thread - or - subject matter - best not to read /post in it ;)

Off topic posting is fine now? Great to know :cool:


Because posting how cold your were when you went to get food or how you had to clean your flat isn't prolonging it either. In fact, it's keeping it bumped to the top.

If you want the thread to die, the best way, as Shade said, is to avoid it. So that way, even if you don't like the topic at hand, you don't have to read it.

Let it die? God no, i like things to drag out in a painful and pathetic display.

MnemonicSyntax
12-16-2013, 04:12 PM
Off topic posting is fine now? Great to know :cool:



Let it die? God no, i like things to drag out in a painful and pathetic display.


Then you'd be the ideal one for that I suppose.

Ah well, back on topic.

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 04:14 PM
Then you'd be the ideal one for that I suppose.

Ah well, back on topic.

So, was AC4 better than AC3?

pirate1802
12-16-2013, 04:17 PM
No. Connor ftw

DinoSteve1
12-16-2013, 04:34 PM
No. Connor ftw
HA ha ha ha ha

Locket011
12-16-2013, 04:56 PM
No brainer for me, while I played through AC3 and enjoyed parts of it, AC4 is better in pretty much every way I can think of! I am totally addicted to playing it on my PS4 and it looks so pretty it is almost illegal! SO many things to do and places to see, and the Ship combat is brilliantly implemented in a way its actually fun to do, boarding is always a blast too :)

I am completely hooked and my missus doesn't like it one bit ;)

MnemonicSyntax
12-16-2013, 08:49 PM
So, was AC4 better than AC3?

I posted previously, but I think 3 made 4 what it is, and a lot of people tend to forget that.

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 08:50 PM
I posted previously, but I think 3 made 4 what it is, and a lot of people tend to forget that.
Exactly! Agreed!

Kagurra
12-16-2013, 09:03 PM
Exactly! Agreed!

3 as in the new mechanics, animations, and updates. Not Connor or any other character.

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 09:07 PM
Yeah, totally, 4 is built on 3.

...Literally, it uses the same engine, same mechanics and ev, and that's about it.

Hans684
12-16-2013, 09:11 PM
Yeah, totally, 4 is built on 3.

...Literally, it uses the same engine, same mechanics and ev, and that's about it.

Anvil = AC, AC2, ACB & ACR.

Anvilnext = AC3 & ACIVBF.

In short there is no need to complain about needing new engine yet.

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 09:17 PM
Anvil = AC, AC2, ACB & ACR.

Anvilnext = AC3 & ACIVBF.

In short there is no need to complain about needing new engine yet.

Never said there was, that wasn't my point, the engine is fine for the most part, she said AC4 was built on AC3, i was just saying that yes, it was, it was built on the same engine.

Fatal-Feit
12-16-2013, 10:12 PM
Anvil = AC, AC2, ACB & ACR.

Anvilnext = AC3 & ACIVBF.

In short there is no need to complain about needing new engine yet.

AnvilNext was designed for the Kenway Saga. It allowed Naval Warfare and a bunch of other stuff exclusive to their time-lines. Unless they plan on giving players a setting similar to the previous games, it's time they change the engine.

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 10:15 PM
What do we even need a new engine for? I think the current one is pretty excellent.

itsamea-mario
12-16-2013, 10:17 PM
Not particularly keen on the current combat system tbh.

killzab
12-16-2013, 10:18 PM
What do we even need a new engine for? I think the current one is pretty excellent.

Indeed, and it's held back by current-gen.

ProletariatPleb
12-16-2013, 10:20 PM
Anvil = AC, AC2, ACB & ACR.

Anvilnext = AC3 & ACIVBF.

In short there is no need to complain about needing new engine yet.
It is the same engine with slight modifications, jeez do people actually believe it's not just the old Scimitar engine getting modifications over time and rebranded?

adventurewomen
12-16-2013, 10:21 PM
3 as in the new mechanics, animations, and updates..
That is what I was referring to, not characters. Jeez..

Shahkulu101
12-16-2013, 10:22 PM
It is the same engine with slight modifications, jeez do people actually believe it's not just the old Scimitar engine getting modifications over time and rebranded?

But snow and rain doh

ProletariatPleb
12-16-2013, 10:40 PM
But snow and rain doh
Lol

SixKeys
12-16-2013, 10:51 PM
I posted previously, but I think 3 made 4 what it is, and a lot of people tend to forget that.

Yeah, as in AC3 feels like a tech demo for AC4.

I-Like-Pie45
12-17-2013, 12:52 AM
SixKeys, adventurewomen, I demand pics of you in heels and business suits if AC5 turns out to be better than AC4 and AC3

ze_topazio
12-17-2013, 12:58 AM
AC5 is going to be the best thanks to a new engine the AnvilNextBeyond.

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 12:59 AM
SixKeys, adventurewomen, I demand pics of you in heels and business suits if AC5 turns out to be better than AC4 and AC3
http://i.minus.com/ibabtSiD9KNuLJ.png

Sadly that "if" condition ruins it and makes it most likely impossible.


AC5 is going to be the best thanks to a new engine the AnvilNext2NextBeyond2SoulsScimitar
Fixed it for you.

I-Like-Pie45
12-17-2013, 01:00 AM
That's why you should read the really really small print.

It's there in the original post.

adventurewomen
12-17-2013, 01:08 AM
SixKeys, adventurewomen, I demand pics of you in heels and business suits if AC5 turns out to be better than AC4 and AC3
No, sorry.

marcbryan
12-17-2013, 03:38 AM
I think that AC3 deserves some criticism but not for the reasons most people are giving. The prologue alone is better than the majority of AC2. The series is only getting better. Not that what I'm saying is true because, you know, nothing is true.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 06:51 AM
I think that AC3 deserves some criticism but not for the reasons most people are giving. The prologue alone is better than the majority of AC2. The series is only getting better. Not that what I'm saying is true because, you know, nothing is true.AC3 deserves more criticism.

Also the majority of AC2 is better then the whole series.

Kagurra
12-17-2013, 07:38 AM
AC3 deserves more criticism.

Also the majority of AC2 is better then the whole series.

I still think AC4 is the best one. It was so fun playing for the first time going from Duncan's robes to the Jackdaw, then upgrading yourself and exploring the crap out of everything while slowly progressing with the story. It just felt more real and energetic than 2.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 07:58 AM
I still think AC4 is the best one. It was so fun playing for the first time going from Duncan's robes to the Jackdaw, then upgrading yourself and exploring the crap out of everything while slowly progressing with the story. It just felt more real and energetic than 2.I love AC4 too but AC2 is still my favourite.

I really don't like AC4's story, it's so simple and the first 2 or 3 sequences are a mess and for a game that focuses on story as much as AC does, it almost ruins the game. While The Jackdaw was fun to upgrade and exploring is easily more fun then any other AC game, it doesn't have the engrossing story that AC2 has. I also prefer AC2's cities and world although AC4's is more beautiful I still prefer the feel of Florence and Venice.

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 08:09 AM
The prologue alone is better than the majority of AC2.
While AC2 was pretty much 15th century Batman.

AC3? Better anything? Lol. I have absolutely now idea how walking 10 metres and pressing a button to trigger cutscenes is better.

pirate1802
12-17-2013, 08:11 AM
I really don't like AC4's story, it's so simple and the first 2 or 3 sequences are a mess and for a game that focuses on story as much as AC does, it almost ruins the game. While The Jackdaw was fun to upgrade and exploring is easily more fun then any other AC game, it doesn't have the engrossing story that AC2 has. I also prefer AC2's cities and world although AC4's is more beautiful I still prefer the feel of Florence and Venice.

On the contrary I LOVED sequence 2, not sure why you'd consider it a mess. Having fun in Havana, doing sneaky sneaky stuff, climbing around buildings? Classic AC stuff. One of my favourite sequences. Sequence 3 was a mess though, I'd agree, mostly because it was a large tutorial. But it picked up its pieces towards the end and ended with that brilliant mission.

Btw, personal opinions and all, but I fail to see how AC2's story could be considered complex. :p Its the super-cliched revenge story and 5 year old reader is familiar with.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 08:20 AM
While AC2 was pretty much 15th century Batman.

AC3? Better anything? Lol. I have absolutely now idea how walking 10 metres and pressing a button to trigger cutscenes is better.Indeed, who wouldn't love 15th century Batman?

But those cutscenes had cunnar the realest ashassin yet bro


On the contrary I LOVED sequence 2, not sure why you'd consider it a mess. Having fun in Havana, doing sneaky sneaky stuff, climbing around buildings? Classic AC stuff. One of my favourite sequences. Sequence 3 was a mess though, I'd agree, mostly because it was a large tutorial. But it picked up its pieces towards the end and ended with that brilliant mission.

Btw, personal opinions and all, but I fail to see how AC2's story could be considered complex. :p Its the super-cliched revenge story and 5 year old reader is familiar with.I forgot what sequence 2 even was hehe but the whole beginning was basically a mess so it gets included. Was the sequence 3 end mission the really stealth one in those fields at night? If so, well then yes it did end brilliantly.

AC2's isn't super complex either, but it's defs more complex then AC4. Also it would be the super cliched revenge story if not for the whole Templar, TWCB, POE, Renaissance Italy part, kinda makes it different from the rest.

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 08:23 AM
Indeed, who wouldn't love 15th century Batman?
Mai fathur and bruthursssssss

pirate1802
12-17-2013, 08:36 AM
I forgot what sequence 2 even was hehe but the whole beginning was basically a mess so it gets included. Was the sequence 3 end mission the really stealth one in those fields at night? If so, well then yes it did end brilliantly.

That was sequence 2, sequence 3 ended in that jungle assassination. And imo it started brilliantly. Right in the action from the get go. No modern day ********, no stupid recap. Like a good adventure drama should start, right in the thick of action and build from there.


AC2's isn't super complex either, but it's defs more complex then AC4. Also it would be the super cliched revenge story if not for the whole Templar, TWCB, POE, Renaissance Italy part, kinda makes it different from the rest.

Both are super simple. I'm not saying that AC4 was some complex storytelling. I just fund it funny when someone uses it as a complaint while simultaneously liking AC2. Its like someone trashing a game for bad mission design while saying he loves AC3 :p Let's not kid ourselves. Until the very late sequences Ezio was killing people because they killed his fathur and brothersssss not because they were evil dudes in hats or anything. So the entire Templar and TWCB stuff are mere background. The guy who killed my father ALSO happens to be a bad villain. So I'll kill him to avenge my family and pretend that I killed him cuz he was a bad guy..

And sure, if you look at it that way, every story has that 1% difference from others. So by that logic cliches don't exist and all stories are completely unique. Like Sid said, AC2 was basically 15th century Batman, or any number of other stories where the hero's family dies and he avenges them. You get quite a lot of them here in Bollywood, and all the directors claim they are unique because they have that tiny thing different than other movies.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-17-2013, 08:48 AM
Whew. Did not expect to get so many responses.

I'm sloooowly making my way through the replies but I have a follow up question: which was the better Assassin's Creed game? Which one felt more like AC? Obviously gameplay > story but I'm interested. I see that it works as NOT an AC game and is indicative of a good AC game. One thing I've always found bad about the series is that once you finished the main and side missions there were never any random encounters. Have they fixed this at all? Or is still, more or less, "once you're done, you're done" albeit just with more (since the game world is a lot larger)

Yeah if I had to grade the previous ACs, it goes like:

AC - 7: It started the series and was the basis for almost every single aspect -- the Animus, the white robes with red accents, the viewpoints, the climbing and parkour, assassinations of course, and the blend of historical fiction and science fiction but felt pretty unrefined. Poor side missions that couldn't even be repeated: save some civilians and then you were done, collect flags for intel (lolok...) and the repetitive aspect of eavesdropping, beating people up, and pickpocketing made it bland. Combat was also needlessly tedious and slow. Altair as a character was also pretty boring and only really got somewhat interesting toward the end when he finally stopped being an *** and thought for himself. He would go on to be much cooler as an enigmatic figure in AC2 with his work on the Codex, time with the Apple, reformation of the Brotherhood, and the armor he crafted plus the advancements he made to things like the hidden blade.

AC2 - 9: Still my favorite of the series. The character of Ezio was immediately more likable just because he was sarcastic and having fun. The story was sad but good though the Borgia couldn't be more evil if they sported comically overlarge mustaches and twirled them while kicking puppies. That said, I like that canonically, even the Templars hate the Borgias and consider that time a dark time. The game refined most of the tedious elements of the first game though by and large, the combat was still a lot more tedious than need be... though at least they gave us the quick disarm/kill abilitywhich is really the only way to have a somewhat less drawn out fight but of course they also have the guards who deflect your disarm. They got rid of the repetitive missions but the game also took a decidedly more linear approach with mission structure though...well, the worst would come later.

ACB - 8: Considering that this was a FULL 60 dollar game... well, I can see why one would be upset at the length. However, since I received each game as a gift for free, then that never really factored into my analysis. To me, the length of the story was decent but felt a LOT less varied than AC2 due to being trapped in one city. All you have is Rome and while you have the plains area, the city, and I *guess* the castel which can count as it's own area though really, that's just a part of the city as well versus AC2's Florence, Venice, Forli/Romagna, Tuscanny, Monteriggioni, etc. The variation in locations was a lot nicer however.. ACB really seems like the conclusion to AC2. It never felt like a different game to me but it did refine the mechanics a lot more making combat a LOT quicker, less tedious, and way more fun. But... it also sacrificed any semblance of difficulty and made it a laughably easy affair to drop 20 guys in one time with hardly a sweat. That said, it felt like a natural continuation, flowing directly from AC2's ending and continuing on. It felt like a good conclusion to the "Ezio vs Borgia" conflict by finally seeing the demise of Rodrigo (wish it had been by my hands haha) and the last significant Borgias likes Cesare and Lucrezia. The only new thing was recruiting Assassins which is cool and interesting but more or less just a "win" button. I used it sparingly.

ACR - 8: I originally didn't like this game. It felt like filler before AC3 and still is by most accounts but replaying it... I've appreciated it a lot more. First of all, Constantinople is like twice the size of Rome and is the most important thing: the city. Whereas a huge portion of the explorable terrain in Rome was just hilly expanse, this game uses that space and fills it with city (for the most part, not counting the large mass of water in between the two city sections). Barely any refinements were made to combat or other aspects and the biggest addition is one I'm meh about: hook blades. I like ziplining with it, made traversing the city a lot faster if one wished and felt realistic enough for AC. However, the way the hook blade augmented climbing by needlessly making it faster makes climbing ridiculously fake and awkward looking. I enjoy the parkour and climbing elements so having the climbing sped up by the hook blade was and still is a disappointment since it wasn't even that slow since AC2 granted us the leap and climb ability. ACR's plot didn't flow as well as ACB since it was almost entirely a separate story... no Borgias to get revenge on, he's left Italy's mainland, culture was a lot different, etc. However this was also good. While the beginning just kind of starts you off smack dab in the middle of his journey to Masyaf and doesn't start as naturally as ACB, the change in location meant that, despite technically being a THIRD renaissance game in a row -- it didn't FEEL like a renaissance game...the cultures of Rome, Venice, Florence, etc. were vastly different in terms of atmosphere, architecture, and clothing. Flashy and bright still but differently. The game also made Altair interesting by 1, replacing his original and bland voice with something more fitting and 2. just making him more compelling and I wish I had gotten more of the Altair sequences. The game as a whole was a nice "final" farewell to Ezio (Embers was aight but this was a cooler ending IMO) and a good sendoff to Altair as well. Like I said, a few years ago, my thoughts were drastically different.

AC3 - 6: Like I discussed earlier... the cities of this game were the WORST of the series. They were accurate which was nice but TOO accurate and boring and very homogenous looking -- variations of brown and neither city seemed that different. The frontier was interesting for awhile but if the cities aren't good, well you already lose a huge amount of appeal to me. I liked the historical/animus story but hated how they ruined Desmond's story. I loved the refinements to combat by making it still fun like ACB/ACR but at least made it a bit more challenging than the previous two games. Connor was not as likable but I also don't want every character to just be a copy/paste of the same character which is why I'm hesitant about Edward. However, it also sounds as though Edward is a very morally gray character (who likes sex and fun) while Ezio was a very "righteous" man who steps up and grows into a wise person without ever finding it too hard to be "the bigger person" except initially (who likes sex and fun). So hopefully that is a sufficient enough difference so long as it really comes across that way. ANYWAY.... I loved the return to the more gray aspect to both Assassins and Templars with Achilles who, in many ways, gave up the cause because, well look at his experiences. Is it hard to blame him? Likewise, Haytham did bad things for the "right" reasons or ARGUABLY the right reasons and that's a big change from the Borgias. Naval was meh -- felt tacked on, was only fun for the first few times but quickly grew repetitive and was very linear...speaking of. The game was "open world" in the sense that having to drive to work is "open world." I mean yeah, there's a whole world to explore but unless you want to be fired (or desynchronized) you better get to work (or to the waypoint). That was annoying and one of the worst things they could have done.


So with AC4...sounds like it's a nice "return to form." Taking the cool things from AC3 and continuing them, mostly doing away with the poor things AC3 brought, refining elements like naval and fitting it into an open world, less linear assassinations, more things to do, and better looking cities. Modern is a toss up. On one hand, I really enjoyed Desmond, Rebecca, and Shaun but they also screwed it up big time in AC3 so whatevs. I'm interested in what it's like but yeah.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 08:52 AM
That was sequence 2, sequence 3 ended in that jungle assassination. And imo it started brilliantly. Right in the action from the get go. No modern day ********, no stupid recap. Like a good adventure drama should start, right in the thick of action and build from there.

Both are super simple. I'm not saying that AC4 was some complex storytelling. I just fund it funny when someone uses it as a complaint while simultaneously liking AC2. Its like someone trashing a game for bad mission design while saying he loves AC3 :p Let's not kid ourselves. Until the very late sequences Ezio was killing people because they killed his fathur and brothersssss not because they were evil dudes in hats or anything. So the entire Templar and TWCB stuff are mere background. The guy who killed my father ALSO happens to be a bad villain. So I'll kill him to avenge my family and pretend that I killed him cuz he was a bad guy..

And sure, if you look at it that way, every story has that 1% difference from others. So by that logic cliches don't exist and all stories are completely unique. Like Sid said, AC2 was basically 15th century Batman, or any number of other stories where the hero's family dies and he avenges them. You get quite a lot of them here in Bollywood, and all the directors claim they are unique because they have that tiny thing different than other movies.I forget the jungle assassination, so I can't have loved it.

I never said AC2's wasn't simple, I was just saying AC4's is more simple, it's a pirate version of Where's Wally, with all dat searching and ****. Indeed, he was just killing the evil dudes but the whole codex story and the stories ties to more historical events gave it more depth. All of AC's stories though would be similar to other plots though if you strip it all down.

AC1: A man righting his wrongs.
AC2: The cliche revenge story.
ACB: Good guy stopping a bad guy.
ACR: A man in search of lost treasure
AC3: The cliche revenge story, renamed as justice though lel
AC4: A man in search of cash.

Farlander1991
12-17-2013, 08:59 AM
I just want to say that tropes (as well as story-creating paradigms, as pretty much all numbered AC games follow the same Hero's Journey paradigm) shouldn't be confused with cliches. Tropes are good, cliches are not. Cliches ARE tropes, but tropes AREN'T necessarily cliches, only if used badly. AC2 story uses quite a lot of common tropes, but not in a bad way, ergo they're not cliches.

(It still suffers greatly during Venice but that's got more to do with story structure and plot rather than trope use, and no, I'm not going to let that go :p )

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 08:59 AM
AC1: A man righting his wrongs.
AC2: The cliche revenge story. YOU WILL PAY FOR BHAT YOU'VE DUNN.
ACB: A cliche revenge story continued. THAY APPOL YOU STOLE FROM MARIOAUDITORE LED ME HEEYUR.
ACR: A man in search of lost treasure. SALUTE CLAUDIA, I NOW HAVE A NAME.
AC3: The cliche revenge story V3 with a barely ******** claims about freedom and justice themes, actually just a secret build up to playing Bocche with Washington...who happen to have been the guy who burned your village and single-handedly winning the american revolution.
AC4: A man in search of cash.
Fixed it for ya.

Okay I'm being facetious but still >_>

pirate1802
12-17-2013, 09:04 AM
I forget the jungle assassination, so I can't have loved it.

First person I'm seeing who doesn't like the Du Casse assassination.


Indeed, he was just killing the evil dudes but the whole codex story and the stories ties to more historical events gave it more depth.

Same can be said of AC IV. All that observatory, Sage and crystal skull **** and the cast of historical characters gave it depth, more than a Where's Wally story (not saying it actually does, just saying what you said for AC2 equally applies for AC IV too :p)

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 09:19 AM
First person I'm seeing who doesn't like the Du Casse assassination.

Same can be said of AC IV. All that observatory, Sage and crystal skull **** and the cast of historical characters gave it depth, more than a Where's Wally story (not saying it actually does, just saying what you said for AC2 equally applies for AC IV too :p)Oh yea Du Casse I remember him, it was nothing special apart from the scenery. Wasn't bad by any means, but wasn't amazing IMO.

I thought the Sage was stupid though, it's the cringiest plot point of AC yet, the Crystal Skulls are a poor mans Apple of Eden and while it had historical characters it had little to no events. AC2 mixed fiction and reality perfectly IMO, not to many historical events so that it dictates the story and gameplay like AC3 but not too little events like AC4 so that it loses a lot of its history appeal.

Farlander1991
12-17-2013, 09:36 AM
AC4 is very much rooted in history, there's a lot of historical events/situations in it (and I think that it's not noticeable is a testament to how seamless it's woven in). It's just that AC4 doesn't deal with epic battles like Arsuf or Bunker Hill or noble/aristocrat dealings like the public assassination attempt on Lorenzo.

pirate1802
12-17-2013, 09:40 AM
Oh yea Du Casse I remember him, it was nothing special apart from the scenery. Wasn't bad by any means, but wasn't amazing IMO.

Having an assassination mission with complete freedom isn't anything amazing? With how AC3 was?


while it had historical characters it had little to no events.

Or maybe you just didnt recognize those events?


AC2 mixed fiction and reality perfectly IMO,

Same as AC4. You know what were the original fates of Roberts, Bonny and Reads? And how did it happen in game?


but not too little events like AC4 so that it loses a lot of its history appeal.

Too little events? Seriously.. :rolleyes:

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 09:44 AM
AC4 is very much rooted in history, there's a lot of historical events/situations in it (and I think that it's not noticeable is a testament to how seamless it's woven in). It's just that AC4 doesn't deal with epic battles like Arsuf or Bunker Hill or noble/aristocrat dealings like the public assassination attempt on Lorenzo.There are historical moments like, the Mary Read and Anne Bonnie jail part and James Kidd being Mary Read but other then that I can't remember any other historical events. I wouldn't call it a testament either, I think it signifies that it didn't inspire people to read about pirates more, depends on how you look at things though.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 09:47 AM
Having an assassination mission with complete freedom isn't anything amazing? With how AC3 was?

Or maybe you just didnt recognize those events?

Same as AC4. You know what were the original fates of Roberts, Bonny and Reads? And how did it happen in game?

Too little events? Seriously.. :rolleyes:Complete freedom should be an AC standard, it was a solid assassination.

Maybe I didn't recognize them because I didn't care to look at any Pirate history or Pirates, strengthening my point about underdeveloped characters.

No I do not know what happened to them.

Yes too little events, I want more historical splosions!!!

pirate1802
12-17-2013, 09:54 AM
Maybe I didn't recognize them because I didn't care to look at any Pirate history or Pirates, strengthening my point about underdeveloped characters.

No, strengthening you point about you not finding any historical events because you didn't know of any. :p


Yes too little events, I want more historical splosions!!!

The escape from Nassau was not historical enough? Neither Blackbeard's death spectacle? Or being marooned with Vane? Or the betrayal by Rakham? Or the Pardon and the defection of Hornigold? Or the siege of Charles Towne? Literally every sequence had a historical event. Still can't take this complaint seriously.

Farlander1991
12-17-2013, 09:55 AM
First, please use spoilers as this thread doesn't have a spoiler tag in it (also created by a guy who wants to avoid AC4 spoilers). The historical events of AC4:

First, the whole creation and fall of the Pirate Republic on Nassau, alongside with the King's pardon and Woodes Rogers' overtaking it, while not a specific event, is still history.

1. The sinking of the Spanish Treasure Fleet in the hurricane
2. Blackbeard's siege of Charleston.
3. Blackbeard's death in North Carolina.
4. Vane breaking the blockade on Nassau.
5. Vane getting betrayed by Rackham and marooned on the island.
6. As you mentioned, Anne Bonny and Mary Read's trial.
7. Woodes Rogers getting sent back to England (which is when we try to assassinate him)
8. Famous exploits of Barthalomew Roberts including how he became a captain while on Principe.
9. How he got the Royal Fortune.
10. As well as his final stand in West Africa.
11. Hornigold getting shipwrecked. (not to mention the whole deal of him becoming a pirate hunter and all that)

As well as playing on Laurens' Prins and Laureano Torres' deaths.

And this list ain't even full yet.

Heck, remove anything related to the Assassin/Templar struggle and the First Civ/Observatory, and for the most part you really don't need to read anything about pirates as you'll pretty much know the whole story about them :p

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 10:06 AM
No, strengthening you point about you not finding any historical events because you didn't know of any. :pThe escape from Nassau was not historical enough? Neither Blackbeard's death spectacle? Or being marooned with Vane? Or the betrayal by Rakham? Or the Pardon and the defection of Hornigold? Or the siege of Charles Towne? Literally every sequence had a historical event. Still can't take this complaint seriously.
First, please use spoilers as this thread doesn't have a spoiler tag in it (also created by a guy who wants to avoid AC4 spoilers). The historical events of AC4:First, the whole creation and fall of the Pirate Republic on Nassau, alongside with the King's pardon and Woodes Rogers' overtaking it, while not a specific event, is still history.1. The sinking of the Spanish Treasure Fleet in the hurricane2. Blackbeard's siege of Charleston.3. Blackbeard's death in North Carolina.4. Vane breaking the blockade on Nassau.5. Vane getting betrayed by Rackham and marooned on the island.6. As you mentioned, Anne Bonny and Mary Read's trial.7. Woodes Rogers getting sent back to England (which is when we try to assassinate him)8. Famous exploits of Barthalomew Roberts including how he became a captain while on Principe.9. How he got the Royal Fortune.10. As well as his final stand in West Africa.11. Hornigold getting shipwrecked. (not to mention the whole deal of him becoming a pirate hunter and all that)As well as playing on Laurens' Prins and Laureano Torres' deaths.And this list ain't even full yet.Heck, remove anything related to the Assassin/Templar struggle and the First Civ/Observatory, and for the most part you really don't need to read anything about pirates as you'll pretty much know the whole story about them :pOkay so maybe my lack of Pirate knowledge made me think the story had very little historical events but it still doesn't excuse the fact that story was weak.

Charles_Phipps
12-17-2013, 10:07 AM
Oh yea Du Casse I remember him, it was nothing special apart from the scenery. Wasn't bad by any means, but wasn't amazing IMO.

I thought the Sage was stupid though, it's the cringiest plot point of AC yet, the Crystal Skulls are a poor mans Apple of Eden and while it had historical characters it had little to no events. AC2 mixed fiction and reality perfectly IMO, not to many historical events so that it dictates the story and gameplay like AC3 but not too little events like AC4 so that it loses a lot of its history appeal.

AC2 is a great game but it's kind of ******* in terms of historical accuracy. Ezio Auditore being a hitman for Lorenzo d'Medici and later helping prop up the Sultanate of Istanbul is one of those things that, if you know anything about either group, really comes across as making him look like a gigantic jerk. I think Ubisoft is aware of this too since AC: Forsaken contains a pretty lengthy scene highlighting what collossal *******s the Sultans were.

Nice job, Ezio.

As for the Sage, I think he was good because I'm sick of killing Templars. They're simply too nice by comparison to RL leaders during many centuries. You can't exceed history's RL monsters for pure evil.

pirate1802
12-17-2013, 10:09 AM
Okay so maybe my lack of Pirate knowledge made me think the story had very little historical events but it still doesn't excuse the fact that story was weak.

put my quotes in spoiler tags >.>

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 10:13 AM
AC2 is a great game but it's kind of ******* in terms of historical accuracy. Ezio Auditore being a hitman for Lorenzo d'Medici and later helping prop up the Sultanate of Istanbul is one of those things that, if you know anything about either group, really comes across as making him look like a gigantic jerk. I think Ubisoft is aware of this too since AC: Forsaken contains a pretty lengthy scene highlighting what collossal *******s the Sultans were.

Nice job, Ezio.

As for the Sage, I think he was good because I'm sick of killing Templars. They're simply too nice by comparison to RL leaders during many centuries. You can't exceed history's RL monsters for pure evil.Hitman? He was killing Templars, or people who conspired against his family. If Lorenzo turned up on that list or was a Templar he'd be dead too and he was never even close to being a hitman for the Sultans, he wanted kill Ahmet and would have if his brother didn't.

The Templars aren't meant to be bad though, it's why they seem "nice", they're cause is as noble as the Assassins one.

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 10:15 AM
Whew. Did not expect to get so many responses.

snip*

If your question is which felt more assassiny, it would have to be AC1 after all it set the base line of what Assassins Creed should be. But the one I felt least like an Assassin was 3, I felt like had Conner not been an Assassin that game could have played out entirely the same.

Charles_Phipps
12-17-2013, 10:15 AM
Hitman? He was killing Templars, or people who conspired against his family. If Lorenzo turned up on that list or was a Templar he'd be dead too and he was never even close to being a hitman for the Sultans, he wanted kill Ahmet and would have if his brother didn't.

The Templars aren't meant to be bad though, it's why they seem "nice", they're cause is as noble as the Assassins one.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to getting that analyzed even further in future games. Being a Templar=murder got nicely deconstructed in both AC3 and Black Flag. It's hard to think the Assassins should be killing folk like Torres and Rogers when there's people like Prins and the monarchs of Europe doing so much worse.

Which is why I liked Roberts. Juno and the Sage are some excellent new villains.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-17-2013, 10:19 AM
I forget the jungle assassination, so I can't have loved it.

I never said AC2's wasn't simple, I was just saying AC4's is more simple, it's a pirate version of Where's Wally, with all dat searching and ****. Indeed, he was just killing the evil dudes but the whole codex story and the stories ties to more historical events gave it more depth. All of AC's stories though would be similar to other plots though if you strip it all down.

AC1: A man righting his wrongs.
AC2: The cliche revenge story.
ACB: Good guy stopping a bad guy.
ACR: A man in search of lost treasure
AC3: The cliche revenge story, renamed as justice though lel
AC4: A man in search of cash.

I don't really think Connor was after revenge though. I mean, yes, Charles Lee attacked him and the fire ended up killing his mom but his path wasn't really focused on getting revenge so much as it was a side affair. Whereas Ezio gains immediate revenge on the family "friend" who betrayed his father and brothers and was the one there to kill them and proceeds to systematically take out each conspirator -- he constantly discusses his family and how he is seeking vengeance. Finally, when he gets to the man who orchestrated it -- he has grown enough and decided it's just not worth it anymore. But for the majority of the game, that is pretty much his primary goal.

However, Connor -- wants revenge as a child but after years of growing up in the tribe and then a long time training under Achilles, his main goal is the naive idea of having true freedom for all: abolishing slavery outright, whites/blacks/natives/whoever exactly and peacefully equal. etc. While Ezio would jump at the chance to assassinate the conspirators, Connor did everything in his power NOT to kill them and when shown the pictures of the conspirators in AC3 by Achilles, he doesn't even do anything when he sees Charles Lee. His endgame is peace and freedom; something he won't get. I honestly don't think it was cliche revenge nor was it cliche revenge disguises as justice. Revenge played a role in it, sure... but that was not his primary goal or the main driving plot device of the game. At least not IMO.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 10:22 AM
Yeah, I'm looking forward to getting that analyzed even further in future games. Being a Templar=murder got nicely deconstructed in both AC3 and Black Flag. It's hard to think the Assassins should be killing folk like Torres and Rogers when there's people like Prins and the monarchs of Europe doing so much worse.

Which is why I liked Roberts. Juno and the Sage are some excellent new villains.From the start of the series the Templar's have been promoted as a noble group, AC2 and ACB went away from this but the other games have had the Templar's on a pedestal just as high as the Assassins, especially in AC1 and AC3. Also Assassins are probably stopping the European monarchs, we just haven't explored it yet.

Charles_Phipps
12-17-2013, 10:22 AM
\
From the start of the series the Templar's have been promoted as a noble group, AC2 and ACB went away from this but the other games have had the Templar's on a pedestal just as high as the Assassins, especially in AC1 and AC3. Also Assassins are probably stopping the European monarchs, we just haven't explored it yet.

Actually, wasn't it a thing the Assassins were screwing up by focusing on Templars over everything else? I thought that was a theme of AC3.

MIA SILENT
12-17-2013, 10:28 AM
\

Actually, wasn't it a thing the Assassins were screwing up by focusing on Templars over everything else? I thought that was a theme of AC3.

That was just Minerva telling us off for squabbling - even though she encouraged it.

Fatal-Feit
12-17-2013, 10:29 AM
I don't really think Connor was after revenge though. I mean, yes, Charles Lee attacked him and the fire ended up killing his mom but his path wasn't really focused on getting revenge so much as it was a side affair. Whereas Ezio gains immediate revenge on the family "friend" who betrayed his father and brothers and was the one there to kill them and proceeds to systematically take out each conspirator -- he constantly discusses his family and how he is seeking vengeance. Finally, when he gets to the man who orchestrated it -- he has grown enough and decided it's just not worth it anymore. But for the majority of the game, that is pretty much his primary goal.

However, Connor -- wants revenge as a child but after years of growing up in the tribe and then a long time training under Achilles, his main goal is the naive idea of having true freedom for all: abolishing slavery outright, whites/blacks/natives/whoever exactly and peacefully equal. etc. While Ezio would jump at the chance to assassinate the conspirators, Connor did everything in his power NOT to kill them and when shown the pictures of the conspirators in AC3 by Achilles, he doesn't even do anything when he sees Charles Lee. His endgame is peace and freedom; something he won't get. I honestly don't think it was cliche revenge nor was it cliche revenge disguises as justice. Revenge played a role in it, sure... but that was not his primary goal or the main driving plot device of the game. At least not IMO.

****ing hell, you beat me to it. Welp, it's not like I could of said it any better.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 10:29 AM
Actually, wasn't it a thing the Assassins were screwing up by focusing on Templars over everything else? I thought that was a theme of AC3.Might of been, I can't remember it but I haven't played AC3 in ages.

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 10:30 AM
The Assassin and Templer fight is one of ideology, which often ends in blood. Templers believe people should be controlled, and through the control we will have peace, but the Assassins believe people should be free to choose, and through that choice will come understanding and that will lead to peace. While the end goal is the same the ideology is different.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 10:38 AM
I don't really think Connor was after revenge though. I mean, yes, Charles Lee attacked him and the fire ended up killing his mom but his path wasn't really focused on getting revenge so much as it was a side affair. Whereas Ezio gains immediate revenge on the family "friend" who betrayed his father and brothers and was the one there to kill them and proceeds to systematically take out each conspirator -- he constantly discusses his family and how he is seeking vengeance. Finally, when he gets to the man who orchestrated it -- he has grown enough and decided it's just not worth it anymore. But for the majority of the game, that is pretty much his primary goal.

However, Connor -- wants revenge as a child but after years of growing up in the tribe and then a long time training under Achilles, his main goal is the naive idea of having true freedom for all: abolishing slavery outright, whites/blacks/natives/whoever exactly and peacefully equal. etc. While Ezio would jump at the chance to assassinate the conspirators, Connor did everything in his power NOT to kill them and when shown the pictures of the conspirators in AC3 by Achilles, he doesn't even do anything when he sees Charles Lee. His endgame is peace and freedom; something he won't get. I honestly don't think it was cliche revenge nor was it cliche revenge disguises as justice. Revenge played a role in it, sure... but that was not his primary goal or the main driving plot device of the game. At least not IMO.I can see your point, but I think Connor was after revenge which is why he fixated on Charles Lee and by killing his supporters he was completing his goal, like Ezio though his goal aligned with Assassin's though. The only person Connor was reluctant to kill was Haytham and he was his father, so you can see why he'd be hesitant to take his life.

I also think Connor realised that he couldn't kill Washington no matter what, well he could but the consequences would be unfathomable. He was hanged (or supposed to be) for being falsely accused of conspiring to kill him. If Connor exacted revenge he'd be hunted and killed and I think his people would be treated similarly to how they were treated in TOKW

Charles_Phipps
12-17-2013, 10:40 AM
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2013/12/assassins-creed-3-vs-assassins-creed-4.html

I wrote up a lot of my thoughts from this thread on my blog.

Edward vs. Connor

I've long felt Connor was a rebuttal to Ezio Auditore. The protagonist of Assasin's Creed's "middle trilogy" more or less spends the majority of his life getting revenge and it works out pretty well for him. Likewise, he allies with some of history's nastiest figures but because we see it from his perspective, they come off as heroes.

Connor is a good antidote to that as the entirety of his story is a lengthy analysis of not only how involvement in shaping history is rarely clean and dry but how change is often ambiguous in its results. Connor successfully helps create a Republican government by serving as the Assassin's Creed universe equivalent of John Paul Jones crossed with Francis Marion (except more Natty Bumpo than slave-holding terrorist) but suffers blowback for his decisions.

I also like the fact that Connor's war on Charles Lee is misguided from the start. The true center of his wrath is George Washington but if our hero killed him, he would have plunged the newly formed nation of America into a civil war. In the end, Connor chooses to stick with killing Templars and puts aside his personal vendetta to embrace the broader Assasin's idealogy. Even so, he's left with the knowledge his choices may not have been the correct ones.

The ambiguity of Connor is something I really enjoyed. He's a tragic hero who wants to make the world a better place but a tool of forces beyond his control. Whether Haytham, Juno, or Washington--he's also forced to end up choosing the lesser of two evils rather than the greatest good. It adds a touch of melancholy to his character arc, even if I think a lot of players thought Connor wasn't aware of these facts.

I think Connor was *deeply* aware of all these manipulations but was powerless to do anything about them. Even Achilles, his fatherly mentor, was using Connor the same way Obi-Wan Kenobi used Luke Skywalker--as a weapon to revenge himself on the boy's father. Still, no one wants to feel like a pawn and it sucks to be Connor Kenway. Indeed, he's the only Assassin who doesn't even get a love interest at the end of the story.

By contrast, being Edward Kenway is awesome for 90% of the game. Edward Kenway is a dashing pirate, a ladies man, and his early achievements include getting not only a Cool Ship but a gigantic Caribbean villa filled with a surprisingly large number of beautiful women. Edward's motivations are coin, corsets, and killing with a large amount of rum in-between. Abstergo's trailer isn't all that inaccurate for the early part of Edward's life.

The carefree and bloody life of a pirate is a direct contrast to Connor, who is always dwelling under an auspice of doom. We all know what happens to the Native Americans, leaving Connor's story to be bittersweet at the best of times but Edward Kenway has an unbridled joy that invokes all the fun of Disney's Pirates of the Carribean combined with earlier Douglas Fairbanks and Eroll Flynn-style movies.

Eventually, the party winds down for Edward Kenway and things turn to complete garbage but he manages to end things on a seemingly happy note. I think this is another reason Edward Kenway was a more satisfying protagonist to follow. While his final scene with Haytham Kenway is filled with portents of doom, the opera house and our foreknowledge he'll be murdered by his own son, I think most saw it as our hero getting to live at least a short time with a loving family.

A happy ending doesn't mean bad storytelling. So, between the two, I give Edward the edge, even if I do love Connor's story.

Charles_Phipps
12-17-2013, 10:41 AM
I can see your point, but I think Connor was after revenge which is why he fixated on Charles Lee and by killing his supporters he was completing his goal, like Ezio though his goal aligned with Assassin's though. The only person Connor was reluctant to kill was Haytham and he was his father, so you can see why he'd be hesitant to take his life.

I also think Connor realised that he couldn't kill Washington no matter what, well he could but the consequences would be unfathomable. He was hanged (or supposed to be) for being falsely accused of conspiring to kill him. If Connor exacted revenge he'd be hunted and killed and I think his people would be treated similarly to how they were treated in TOKW

Huh, we just posted very similar thoughts.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 10:47 AM
Huh, we just posted very similar thoughts.Maybe we're the same person.

Farlander1991
12-17-2013, 10:50 AM
I don't think comparing Achilles to Obi-Wan is fair. In fact, I'd say Achilles is one of the few people in Connor's life who never try to manipulate him or trick him into doing something. Achilles tells things as they are. You are too naive. You are too headstrong. You should not put your dreams of reconciliation in front. Things will not go in your favor if you keep acting like this. Achilles didn't see in Connor an opportunity to exact revenge. If he did, he wouldn't have hesitated to take Connor who eagerly wanted to train to become an Assassin. I think the relationship between the two is quite beautiful. The fact that Achilles gave him the name of his own dead son and how they eventually became very important for each other. Both had their misguided thoughts and biases, but... Achilles was a cynical old man with no hope left, and when Connor got into his life and gave him hope, he just wanted to raise a good person.

And the insistence to kill Haytham was never about revenge, it was, well, about the Assassin duties. And even then, before that, Achilles gave Connor chance to try and make peace with them when he heard his idea.

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 12:44 PM
"Is AC4 better than than AC3"?
I will found out in 3 days when I get to play it at last. :D

(Only thing I KNOW I'm going to disappointed with is related to a certain part of the story: Edward was proven to be a cheater according to various hints in the game. So I'm not gonna enjoy the story as much as I thought... :( I'm not into ladies' men and cheaters...

itsamea-mario
12-17-2013, 12:47 PM
"Is AC4 better than than AC3"?
I will found out in 3 days when I get to play it at last. :D

(Only thing I KNOW I'm going to disappointed with is related to a certain part of the story: Edward was proven to be a cheater according to various hints in the game. So I'm not gonna enjoy the story as much as I thought... :( I'm not into ladies' men and cheaters...

wow, just, wow....

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 12:48 PM
wow, just, wow....

wow what?

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 12:49 PM
Edward was proven to be a cheater according to various hints in the game. So I'm not gonna enjoy the story as much as I thought... :( I'm not into ladies' men and cheaters...
Let alone how ridiculous that sounds....his wife left him, not the other way round.

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 12:50 PM
But he was still married??

SixKeys
12-17-2013, 12:52 PM
"Is AC4 better than than AC3"?
I will found out in 3 days when I get to play it at last. :D

(Only thing I KNOW I'm going to disappointed with is related to a certain part of the story: Edward was proven to be a cheater according to various hints in the game. So I'm not gonna enjoy the story as much as I thought... :( I'm not into ladies' men and cheaters...


It's a shame they messed this up. It was against Darby's wishes. There were a couple of things that made it into the game that he said he would have removed had he known they were in the game before they shipped, specifically one scene that suggests Edward was cheating on his wife. It goes against how he wrote the character.

On the topic of AC3, I think it would have been better if Connor had found out about George Washington's betrayal after he killed Charles Lee. It would have been an even bigger revelation, like Connor wasted his entire life chasing the wrong man only to find out he wasn't the one responsible for his mother's death. And by the time he found out it was Washington, it was too late to go on a revenge quest because assassinating Washington would have plunged the country headlong back into chaos. It would have meant Connor having to make a huge sacrifice; sparing the man who was ultimately responsible for much of the misery in his life for the greater good. As it stands, it's just weird that they keep working together.

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 12:53 PM
It's a shame they messed this up. It was against Darby's wishes. There were a couple of things that made it into the game that he said he would have removed had he known they were in the game before they shipped, specifically one scene that suggests Edward was cheating on his wife. It goes against how he wrote the character.
Indeed. It was not Darby's fault. I've been reading blogs and many people are unhappy with what Ubisoft did with this.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 12:53 PM
wow, just, wow....Agreed.

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 12:55 PM
Agreed.
I'm glad to have amazed you, too. If you condone cheating that's fine with me...

SixKeys
12-17-2013, 12:56 PM
I'm glad to have amazed you. If you condone cheating that's fine with me...

I guess you condone murder then since you have no problem playing an assassin? :p

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 12:56 PM
I guess you condone murder then since you have no problem playing an assassin? :p
Yes, I murder people all the time. ;)

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 12:57 PM
But he was still married??
That...changes what exactly? They're attempting to realistically portray a character.


I'm glad to have amazed you, too. If you condone cheating that's fine with me...
Strawmanning...

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 12:57 PM
But he was still married??
and??

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 12:59 PM
and??
And what? He was married.


That...changes what exactly? They're attempting to realistically portray a character.
It changes the fact Ubi promised they would make him a LIKABLE character. Cheaters are not likable. For me at least.

SixKeys
12-17-2013, 01:01 PM
It changes the fact Ubi promised they would make him a LIKABLE character. Cheaters are not likable. For me at least.

But murderers are?

adventurewomen
12-17-2013, 01:01 PM
"Is AC4 better than than AC3"?
I will found out in 3 days when I get to play it at last. :D

(Only thing I KNOW I'm going to disappointed with is related to a certain part of the story: Edward was proven to be a cheater according to various hints in the game. So I'm not gonna enjoy the story as much as I thought... :( I'm not into ladies' men and cheaters...
Same here. Poor Caroline..:(

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 01:03 PM
I'm glad to have amazed you, too. If you condone cheating that's fine with me...Hahahaha

Wow

Farlander1991
12-17-2013, 01:03 PM
It's a shame they messed this up. It was against Darby's wishes.

Wasn't that only regarding those two random women we can interact with in Great Inagua? (one of which appears AFTER completing the game?)

At any rate, Darby never said Edward wasn't a cheater, even in the recent AC Initiates Q&A. And before the game was released, he did say that there's one special woman in his life, but several not so special as well.

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 01:04 PM
But murderers are?
It's not exactly the same for this reason: Think of any film, book that features a Hero. He kills people for whatever reason, then he repents etc blah blah... Would you feel the same way if the same Hero was, say, a rapist? Would you connect with a rapist?

Killers can still be likable if they have redeeming qualities.


Hahahaha

Wow

Ahahahaaa!!! LULZ

itsamea-mario
12-17-2013, 01:05 PM
After she left him thinking his dream was folly, he went off to make something of himself, to prove himself to her. But as we know he stopped writing to her after a while(note, he wrote to her, don't think it's ever said that she wrote back) so for all intents and purposes they were separated, not together anymore living their own lives on other ends of the world, only thing binding them being the law(and a daughter which edward knew nothing about) and you may not have noticed, but edward often breaks the law.

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 01:08 PM
Killers can still be likable
Boy, I sure like that man who murdered 6 million people of a particular religion not long ago. So likeable.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 01:09 PM
It's not exactly the same for this reason: Think of any film, book that features a Hero. He kills people for whatever reason, then he repents etc blah blah... Would you feel the same way if the same Hero was, say, a rapist? Would you connect with a rapist?

Killers can still be likable if they have redeeming qualities.

Ahahahaaa!!! LULZSo in your mind, it's okay to kill? And cheating and raping are on the same level of bad stuff?

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 01:09 PM
And what? He was married.
.

They were separated. Marrige is nothing more than a piece of paper.

SixKeys
12-17-2013, 01:09 PM
It's not exactly the same for this reason: Think of any film, book that features a Hero. He kills people for whatever reason, then he repents etc blah blah... Would you feel the same way if the same Hero was, say, a rapist? Would you connect with a rapist?

Killers can still be likable if they have redeeming qualities.

So killers can be likable if they have redeeming qualities, but cheaters with redeeming qualities can't. I'll join the "wow" crowd....

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 01:09 PM
Boy, I sure like that man who murdered 6 million people of a particular religion not long ago. So likeable.
see edited post. You missed the point. :|

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 01:10 PM
So killers can be likable if they have redeeming qualities, but cheaters with redeeming qualities can't. I'll join the "wow" crowd....

But how does he redeem himself from cheating in particular?

itsamea-mario
12-17-2013, 01:10 PM
Killers are lovely, people who think they are so much more worthy that they can happily take the lives of others are great, i love it when people murder others for just being in their way, makes me so happy, people should do it more often.

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 01:11 PM
They were separated. Marrige is nothing more than a piece of paper.
My turn to say wow...

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 01:11 PM
But how does he redeem himself from cheating in particular?

When did he cheat?

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 01:11 PM
Boy, I sure like that man who murdered 6 million people of a particular religion not long ago. So likeable.What a great fellow, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is menace for what he did. I hope he dies, right now!

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 01:11 PM
Killers are lovely, people who think they are so much more worthy that they can happily take the lives of others are great, i love it when people murder others for just being in their way, makes me so happy, people should do it more often.
:D I want to murder you my friend, slowly and painfully ;) when can we do it?


What a great fellow, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is menace for what he did. I hope he dies, right now!
http://i.minus.com/iSoX9rvsTPUXx.jpg

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-17-2013, 01:11 PM
****ing hell, you beat me to it. Welp, it's not like I could of said it any better.

Meh, I could have said it better -- less grammatical errors and whatnot but at least my point came through ;)

SixKeys
12-17-2013, 01:11 PM
But how does he redeem himself from cheating in particular?

He takes responsibility for his decisions and becomes a real dad to his daughter, whom he could have just abandoned (considering his wife never told him about her).

Farlander1991
12-17-2013, 01:16 PM
Quote from Darby:

He was probably unfaithful at some point... he was no angel, and she was separated from her for 8 years. Theres no merit in pretending sailors in the 18th century were angels.

That being said, I have no idea who made the interactive ladies in the Hideout. I wasn't even aware that they were there. So lets say its not cannonical.

So, Edward was never supposed to be fully faithful. He was just confused in regards to the 'interactive' ladies.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-17-2013, 01:17 PM
I can see your point, but I think Connor was after revenge which is why he fixated on Charles Lee and by killing his supporters he was completing his goal, like Ezio though his goal aligned with Assassin's though. The only person Connor was reluctant to kill was Haytham and he was his father, so you can see why he'd be hesitant to take his life.

I also think Connor realised that he couldn't kill Washington no matter what, well he could but the consequences would be unfathomable. He was hanged (or supposed to be) for being falsely accused of conspiring to kill him. If Connor exacted revenge he'd be hunted and killed and I think his people would be treated similarly to how they were treated in TOKW

Not really. He also participated in the Boston Tea Party in the hopes of screwing up the financial gains of the Templars who were seeking to purchase the land his people lived on. He did that, th9inking that by getting rid of their money, they couldn't buy the land and the whole ordeal can go without *too much* bloodshed. Achilles thinks he was stupid and naive for such a thought and lo and behold, what happens? William Johnson has the money anyway, forcing Connor to act not in preparation or with a choerent and well laid plan but in reaction, a knee jerk rebuttal was needed if he wanted to ensure his people were kept free and okay.

Had Connor just killed Johnson, the mess would have been a lot cleaner. Or would it? Because after he kills him, Johnson warns that the colonists would find an excuse to kick the natives off their lands and do much worse to them than the Templars would have. And guess what happened in history? But still, rather than having an opportune time to strike, that is, setting up the time HE wants, he was forced into a small time window because he refused to kill. Achilles and Connor even get into a fight over his reluctance to kill.

silvermercy
12-17-2013, 01:24 PM
He takes responsibility for his decisions and becomes a real dad to his daughter, whom he could have just abandoned (considering his wife never told him about her).
OK, I can accept that as a redeeming quality.
But it also makes me wonder if he was faithful to Tesha. He learned to be a good dad but did he learn to be a good husband? The only redemption that would count, for me at least, would be this in particular, and unfortunately they didn't show it. I was REALLY looking forward to them showing Tesha. I felt it was very important anyway. I was expecting a hint at least of them being a loving couple. And they didn't show Tesha. AT ALL! It was as if she was separated from him, non-existent, in another realm, with her being in a different place and all. I know that doesn't mean anything of course in regards to their relationship but this particular redeeming hint I was waiting for was NOT there.

edit: They didn't even have to show her actually... just a small hint that he loved her would be good enough.

Where is Charl...? Er... I mean, WHERE on Earth is Tesha?

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-17-2013, 01:25 PM
I don't think comparing Achilles to Obi-Wan is fair. In fact, I'd say Achilles is one of the few people in Connor's life who never try to manipulate him or trick him into doing something. Achilles tells things as they are. You are too naive. You are too headstrong. You should not put your dreams of reconciliation in front. Things will not go in your favor if you keep acting like this. Achilles didn't see in Connor an opportunity to exact revenge. If he did, he wouldn't have hesitated to take Connor who eagerly wanted to train to become an Assassin. I think the relationship between the two is quite beautiful. The fact that Achilles gave him the name of his own dead son and how they eventually became very important for each other. Both had their misguided thoughts and biases, but... Achilles was a cynical old man with no hope left, and when Connor got into his life and gave him hope, he just wanted to raise a good person.

And the insistence to kill Haytham was never about revenge, it was, well, about the Assassin duties. And even then, before that, Achilles gave Connor chance to try and make peace with them when he heard his idea.

Agreed. I thought the relationship was fantastic. Achilles had qualities of both Yoda and Obi-Wan but comparing his relationship to Connor to the one between Ben and Luke is not fair. Achilles never wanted to use him. He taught him the ways of the Assassin and yeah, would take umbrage when Connor, an ASSASSIN, decided "meh, I won't kill." An assassin who doesn't kill must be pretty frustrating after telling him the history of Templars and Assassins. It's like Machiavelli gets upset when Ezio didn't kill Rodrigo and warns him there'd be repercussions and...well, bye bye villa.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 01:26 PM
Not really. He also participated in the Boston Tea Party in the hopes of screwing up the financial gains of the Templars who were seeking to purchase the land his people lived on. He did that, th9inking that by getting rid of their money, they couldn't buy the land and the whole ordeal can go without *too much* bloodshed. Achilles thinks he was stupid and naive for such a thought and lo and behold, what happens? William Johnson has the money anyway, forcing Connor to act not in preparation or with a choerent and well laid plan but in reaction, a knee jerk rebuttal was needed if he wanted to ensure his people were kept free and okay.

Had Connor just killed Johnson, the mess would have been a lot cleaner. Or would it? Because after he kills him, Johnson warns that the colonists would find an excuse to kick the natives off their lands and do much worse to them than the Templars would have. And guess what happened in history? But still, rather than having an opportune time to strike, that is, setting up the time HE wants, he was forced into a small time window because he refused to kill. Achilles and Connor even get into a fight over his reluctance to kill.Perhaps but you could see this as historical events taking place ahead of the story, which is one of AC3's major problems. I still think Connor's story was more revenge then Justice but there were times when he chose the latter over the former.

ze_topazio
12-17-2013, 01:27 PM
Relieving his stress and natural needs with professional dancers, "Cheating" on a wife that abandoned him because he did not obey her. = unforgivable

Murdering thousands of innocent sailors and guards that were just doing their jobs, simply because they were between him and his gold. = forgivable

Edward redeems himself as an Assassin but he keeps all the treasure he amassed, so he never repents for his pirate deeds, but then while piracy was a crime it was at the same time considered a normal activity, a man having a couple of mistresses was also considered normal, so take the time period in consideration.

Charles_Phipps
12-17-2013, 01:27 PM
wow, just, wow....

Yeah, well their marriage was over by that point. Edward just fancied the delusion he'd win his wife back someday despite the fact he abandoned her to go become a pirate. It was only in his delusion they were still married and going to get back together and that seems like a thin delusion at best. Divorce was also a much bigger deal back then, even with King Henry VIII making it easier.

Honestly, I think the idea Edward would remain faithful is kind of stupid because it undermines what sort of man he was. He wasn't a good person, he was a murderer and a bandit. The idea he'll not have sex but rob galleons is ludicrous and unrealistic to me. It also would make him a WORSE person in my mind rather than a better one.

In short, yeah he's a cheater. It's one of the signs he's full of **** when he talks about how it's all for his wife. Edward wanted to be rich and famous so he left his wife and pretended it was her fault.

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 01:27 PM
I still don't understand how he was a cheater.

Charles_Phipps
12-17-2013, 01:47 PM
I still don't understand how he was a cheater.

He is a cheater. It's just that takes secondary importance to the fact Edward was married only in his head. He's a cheater because he at least believed he was married to her in his head.

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 01:50 PM
While he was still married at least for a while, thay were clearly seperated, she left him. So he can shag whoever he wants, he may still love his x-wife but the reality is they are separated.

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 01:53 PM
He is a cheater. It's just that takes secondary importance to the fact Edward was married only in his head. He's a cheater because he at least believed he was married to her in his head.
...........................................what

http://i.minus.com/ibvJsmDVrEtCot.jpg

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 01:55 PM
I know right.

Charles_Phipps
12-17-2013, 01:56 PM
Not really. He also participated in the Boston Tea Party in the hopes of screwing up the financial gains of the Templars who were seeking to purchase the land his people lived on. He did that, th9inking that by getting rid of their money, they couldn't buy the land and the whole ordeal can go without *too much* bloodshed. Achilles thinks he was stupid and naive for such a thought and lo and behold, what happens? William Johnson has the money anyway, forcing Connor to act not in preparation or with a choerent and well laid plan but in reaction, a knee jerk rebuttal was needed if he wanted to ensure his people were kept free and okay.

Had Connor just killed Johnson, the mess would have been a lot cleaner. Or would it? Because after he kills him, Johnson warns that the colonists would find an excuse to kick the natives off their lands and do much worse to them than the Templars would have. And guess what happened in history? But still, rather than having an opportune time to strike, that is, setting up the time HE wants, he was forced into a small time window because he refused to kill. Achilles and Connor even get into a fight over his reluctance to kill.

I think Achilles didn't have the answers anymore than Connor did. Connor was right to question the necessity of the Templars vs. Assassins fighting as well as if there was a better way. Killing Johnson and the other Templars didn't make the situation any better, though it arguably didn't make thing worse. Connor and Haytham both wanted to move beyond the conflict between Order and Chaos but weren't able to do it because of circumstances beyond their control.

I think that's a major theme of the game. The futility of the Templars vs. Assassins since Juno, the real enemy, is manipulating both.

Charles_Phipps
12-17-2013, 01:58 PM
I know right.

What's the confusion. Edward says he's married and thinks he is yet is bedding women left and right.

If he said he wasn't married anymore and let his wife go, he wouldn't be doing it.

But as long as he's claiming to be married, he's not acting like a husband should.

It's like he wants to be thought of as a husband without any of the responsibilities or duties.

marcbryan
12-17-2013, 02:01 PM
So we all agree that getting right into the action instead of developing the story makes it a great game. I think 3 should of started with Connor finding a chest in the village with an assassin's robes inside put it on and then assume the role immediately. Then maybe some courtesans in the village would teach him how to pick pocket while Ben Franklin sets up a courtyard full of dummies for Connor to practice assassination moves on.

itsamea-mario
12-17-2013, 02:05 PM
So we all agree that getting right into the action instead of developing the story makes it a great game. I think 3 should of started with Connor finding a chest in the village with an assassin's robes inside put it on and then assume the role immediately. Then maybe some courtesans in the village would teach him how to pick pocket while Ben Franklin sets up a courtyard full of dummies for Connor to practice assassination moves on.

Yes, we all agree, this is brilliant, you should make the next game.

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 02:06 PM
What's the confusion. Edward says he's married and thinks he is yet is bedding women left and right.

If he said he wasn't married anymore and let his wife go, he wouldn't be doing it.

But as long as he's claiming to be married, he's not acting like a husband should.

It's like he wants to be thought of as a husband without any of the responsibilities or duties.
I can claim and think I'm Superman doesn't make it a reality, saying something and thinking it doesn't make it true, the fact is they were separated and she left him, so he can do the hell what he wants.

ProletariatPleb
12-17-2013, 02:06 PM
assume the role immediately. Then maybe some courtesans in the village would teach him how to pick pocket while ben franklin sets up a courtyard full of dummies for connor to practice assassination moves on.
why?

ze_topazio
12-17-2013, 02:12 PM
Somehow this kind of threads always end up being about the inferiority complex Conan fans have about Enzio.

roostersrule2
12-17-2013, 02:16 PM
Somehow this kind of threads always end up being about the inferiority complex Conan fans have about Enzio.He is just too damn real, how could you not love Connorr