PDA

View Full Version : Should AC be transitioning to standalone ancestor stories?



LoyalACFan
03-29-2014, 09:28 AM
For me, the historical stories of AC have always been far more appealing than the modern one. I was pretty OK with Desmond's story, but now that it's over, I can't help but feel that the overarching plot is just sputtering along for the sake of it, not really having anything else interesting to say, but still desperately hanging onto life simply because it's always been there. I mean, I've seen plenty of people interested in Desmond, but nobody seems to be that invested in the new modern developments of AC4. I, for one, have completely lost interest.

Previously, we've seen ancestors whose entire lives basically existed for the sole purpose of helping Desmond's quest. After a point, the idea of everything being preordained and connected began to feel really contrived to me. A mythical space god manipulated a series of events across centuries for the sake of one dude in 2012? Meh. But we finally got away from that, to an extent, with the stories of Edward and Adewale. Personally, I thought these stories were at their best when they focused on the character's actual personal struggles, not some convenient plot device that made them relevant to future generations. Popping out of the Animus at scripted points, which once would have been a welcome change of pace in the first few games, became really jarring and unwanted in AC4. And Edward's quest for the Observatory felt more like a feeble attempt at explaining Abstergo's interest in Edward rather than a meaningful part of the plot.

My hope for future AC's is that our protagonists' stories will come to the forefront instead of being overshadowed by clumsy plot devices that exist solely for the purpose of justifying a connection to a present-day story that I don't care about anymore. The modern stuff can continue, but the trend of conveniently connecting every single ancestor's crowning life achievement to modern times is starting to feel detrimental to the development of the historical characters. I'm not interested in Abstergo's quest for the POE Arnaud will inevitably find, I'm interested in Arnaud's story. I don't want that story to serve the sole purpose of spawning a fetch quest in 2014. I want to see these games present historical stories as vertical slices of the ongoing Assassin-Templar war, not awkwardly struggle to make the ancestors immediately relevant to our times with convenient MacGuffins and underdeveloped plot contrivances.

Thoughts?

andreycvetov
03-29-2014, 09:38 AM
IMO it should when they wrap up all the modern day stuff,the juno plot and the overall story thats going on right now.

deskp
03-29-2014, 09:53 AM
In my opinion they just need a new modern day protagonist and give that some real gameplay.

i think the mdoern day should be the carrot that ties all the history together.

Calvarok
03-29-2014, 09:57 AM
Assassin's Creed's historical story has been about powerful artifacts. Even if there were no modern connection, there would be no reason for that to change. It's not like the animus layer is what causes the AC universe to be home to mysterious and powerful devices, and removing it wouldn't magically make them disappear. The ways in which such things are added into the story can, sure, and I think they've been doing a pretty good job of it. Various things like The Observatory, Juno's mission, and Sages are all different from a simple "find the artifact because powerful".

I think they work fine as their own self-contained stories already, there's just a modern layer about people gleaning knowledge and information from them.

Black Flag is like AC1. it's a good place for people to hop on, and it slowly establishes what this new modern arc is going to be. It's not "sputtering along". it's just gearing up for the next chapter. For now, it's pretty much as subtle as it's ever been, and you can engage with it as deeply or not as you feel like. it's most interesting if you engage with it. I do think that it needs a new protagonist, one who's more suited to a parallel story, having their own complete arc over the course of the game.

Many AC fans love the modern part, and it has great potential to show us how the orders we see in history eventually end up in the present, and the legacy left behind by the ancestors we control.

So, no. I love all the layers of AC's story, and I'd prefer it didn't sacrifice part of what makes it so unique simply to be inoffensive. I'd instead prefer that they kept trying to make the modern story more and more interesting, hopefully converting its detractors and delighting those who already like it. "Safe" things get made and do well and are forgotten. Weird and ambitious stuff is memorable, and past sales have proven there's a market for AC's brand of weird ambition.

Farlander1991
03-29-2014, 10:32 AM
And Edward's quest for the Observatory felt more like a feeble attempt at explaining Abstergo's interest in Edward rather than a meaningful part of the plot.

I don't know, I feel the Observatory actually connects really well with Edwards arc. It's the representation of his desires - the ultimate treasure after finding which Edward can become a man of quality and go home. In the end, there has to be a macguffin for Edward's arc to work storywise - we can get as much gold as we want during gameplay, so there has to be an elusive goal that the character really wants to reach that's ultimately his downfall before rising up again.

Dome500
03-29-2014, 04:03 PM
In my opinion the future stories should be like Desmonds story, just dealing with different topics, different threats, different organizations (Templars, Assassins (Erudito, Sages?)) and different protagonist. Every protagonist should have 2 - 3 games where he does modern day stuff while the ancestors are of course in the foreground. The purpose behind it would be to show different perspectives of different MD protagonist the same way the AC series always did with ancestors. Each protagonist has his own story-arc dealing with something different. A Templar threat, and Assassin threat, a non-T/A-related threat, a plot dealing with a natural catastrophe, a plot dealing with a Templar who starts to think the Assassins might be better and wants to switch, or the other way around, a plot with a normal guy being in the wrong place at the wrong time and then Templars are after him and he and his 2 - 3 friends are escaping (like Shauns story, just that they do not find the Assassins immediately), etc, etc. Every protagonist tells his own story, every story is connected to the MD plot but only very loosely to allow for creative freedom.

IN the end we would have lots of games separated into 2-game-series or trilogies and every new trilogy new people could hop in and be "introduced" to the AC overall story. SO every 2 - 3 games the games would be totally accessible for every newcomer but we would keep and interesting MD story telling the story of another unique MD protagonist alike to the ancestors, just with the difference that every MD protagonist would have 2 - 3 games to develop and conclude his storyarc.

GreySkellig
03-29-2014, 04:35 PM
I don't know, I feel the Observatory actually connects really well with Edwards arc.

I want to agree...on paper, the Observatory seemed like a good objective. But for whatever reason, in the game itself it just feels like a MacGuffin to keep me from getting distracted and shanking pirate hunters all day. To be honest, I haven't really been interested by a "find the artifact" plotline since Revelations. Surely there are other things we can glean from the past besides the location of baubles. A Master Assassin's final resting place, or a journal with valuable information...getting sick of Predecessor artifacts which superficially motivate the story and then never appear again.

RatonhnhakeFan
03-29-2014, 06:57 PM
Previously, we've seen ancestors whose entire lives basically existed for the sole purpose of helping Desmond's quest. After a point, the idea of everything being preordained and connected began to feel really contrived to me.This is one of my biggest pet peeves. The usual counter-argument here is "well after few generations everyone has thousands of ancestors, totally not unrealistic". And yet it's still Desmond who just so happens to conviniently have every most important assassin in history to be his direct descendant. Compare that to Abstergo emails from other ordinary people: "I have a grand-grand-grand-father in my memories who was part of American Civil War and nothing else really". Suspension of desbelief works in fiction when the probability of events appears to be realistic. It was ok to buy that Desmond had Altair and Ezio memories, but then it got blown up to entire Kenway uber-important clan and now most likely Arno and French Rev as well. Why can't it be Rebecca? It's a bit of catch 22 with the series turning desmond into a Messiah second coming of Jesus figure yet wanting to move away from it (after AC3) and make the ancestor stories feel independent/significant without its significance relying solely on Desmond's life and modern story, very hard to do.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-29-2014, 07:12 PM
TBH I wouldn't mind Assassins Creed ending and doing a spin off of ancestor stories

Sushiglutton
03-29-2014, 08:32 PM
Yeah I have also lost interest in the modern day, so I'd like to see it gone. As you say it leads to some repetition in the historical parts as you are constantly chasing another vault/artifact.

I would like the historical assassins to connect more though. Something I thought was super cool in Revelation was how Ezio studied Altair and then (literary) walked in his footsteps. That link trhough time was very powerful and I'd love to see more like that.

Radman500
03-29-2014, 08:34 PM
no....the whole backbone of the story is the TWCB

Dome500
03-29-2014, 09:19 PM
Yeah I have also lost interest in the modern day, so I'd like to see it gone. As you say it leads to some repetition in the historical parts as you are constantly chasing another vault/artifact.

I would like the historical assassins to connect more though. Something I thought was super cool in Revelation was how Ezio studied Altair and then (literary) walked in his footsteps. That link trhough time was very powerful and I'd love to see more like that.

On the other hand, if they would be a little bit more creative with the MD portion I am sure they could think of dozens of different reasons to make a game partially MD and mostly animus-historical.

GunnerGalactico
03-29-2014, 09:38 PM
This is one of my biggest pet peeves. The usual counter-argument here is "well after few generations everyone has thousands of ancestors, totally not unrealistic". And yet it's still Desmond who just so happens to conviniently have every most important assassin in history to be his direct descendant. Compare that to Abstergo emails from other ordinary people: "I have a grand-grand-grand-father in my memories who was part of American Civil War and nothing else really". Suspension of desbelief works in fiction when the probability of events appears to be realistic. Why can't it be Rebecca? It's a bit of catch 22 with the series turning desmond into a Messiah second coming of Jesus figure yet wanting to move away from it (after AC3) and make It was ok to buy that Desmond had Altair and Ezio memories, but then it got blown up to entire Kenway uber-important clan and now most likely Arno and French Rev as well.the ancestor stories feel independent/significant without its significance relying solely on Desmond's life and modern story, very hard to do.

I agree, you made 2 excellent points

Realistically, it is possible that a person can have many ancestors but only one or two will stand out and make their mark in history. I also find it very convenient that Desmond comes from a lineage that produces the best Assassins and they all played a vital role in history. Basically, Desmond has the best ancestors- one lived during the Holy Crusade, the other during the Italian Renaissance, one was a pirate and the other lived during the American Revolution.... and it looks like the latest one lived during the French Revolution.

RatonhnhakeFan
03-29-2014, 09:50 PM
No to mention that conviniently Desmond is also a descendant of Altair/Ezio/Edward/Haytham/Raton/Arno's children that got concieved AFTER the assassins already achieved something super-important, despite the fact that many of them had multiple kids. So yeah... It didn't bother me with Ezio/Altair. Raton was pushing it IMO but I could accept it if it was JUST Raton. But they made up an entire new big hugely important family clan of assassin/templars......

SixKeys
03-29-2014, 09:53 PM
No to mention that conviniently Desmond is also a descendant of Altair/Ezio/Edward/Haytham/Raton/Arno's children that got concieved AFTER the assassins already achieved something super-important, despite the fact that many of them had multiple kids. So yeah...

All so that Desmond could be born in the future and place his hand on a pedestal for 5 seconds. :|

RatonhnhakeFan
03-29-2014, 09:56 PM
All so that Desmond could be born in the future and place his hand on a pedestal for 5 seconds. :|And we may basically start wondering if Juno was getting busy pre-planning who should Altair/Ezio, Kenway clan and Desmond's grandma sleep with so it would all line up in Desmond, which is just :nonchalance:

RinoTheBouncer
03-30-2014, 11:02 AM
I agree with you that nobody is invested in modern day story after Desmond’s journey ended. With Desmond, people were divided into HUGE fans who invested so much time connecting the dots and focusing on every detail whether in the dialogues between Desmond and others or the Rifts or any other related data, like myself while others were just not interested in playing as “some random guy in a hoodie”. But now, I don’t see many people enjoying modern day, at all. Especially that it has become a cheap, reductive version of it’s former self and I felt -as you said- that it’s existence is only to justify the revisiting and the historical POE elements are only there to justify reason to go to the past.

However, I think that the solution shouldn’t be omitting modern day, but improving it, instead. I believe creating a 3rd person character and recording some dialogues for him/her for 10% portion of the game isn’t really that problematic. It doesn’t have to be WATCH_DOGS-ported-into-AC kinda complex modern day, but something like AC:B or ACIII or even ACII and ACI. I guess having a face, an identity for the protagonist is much better than a silent, floating camera that I should pretend that it’s me while I honestly felt more like me playing as Ezio or Desmond (both 3rd person and FPS in AC:R) or Lara Croft than I ever have with this cheap idea of a floating camera.

I just don’t understand the need to make it feel so connected to real life. What’s wrong with a 3rd persona protagonist in the year 2025 or 1989? Darby’s excuses were LAME. One moment he says “there’s enough time for annual releases” then he tells me, personally that “time and resources constraints made us trim down modern day” and then he says “It’s hard to create a 3rd person character each year and keep up with the real life time and game time” so why are you doing that, then? just defeat Juno and let’s move onto some other plot about AC set sometime in modern times and some time in historical times.

If they start working on a game 2 or 3 years prior to it’s announcement, then I doubt that it’s such a complex thing to do to add those few minor but meaningful segments to the fans and I doubt that the people who don’t like modern day won’t be able to tolerate 30 minutes or 1 hour modern day missions out of a 15 hour of historical gameplay.

Dome500
03-30-2014, 02:16 PM
I agree with you that nobody is invested in modern day story after Desmond’s journey ended. With Desmond, people were divided into HUGE fans who invested so much time connecting the dots and focusing on every detail whether in the dialogues between Desmond and others or the Rifts or any other related data, like myself while others were just not interested in playing as “some random guy in a hoodie”. But now, I don’t see many people enjoying modern day, at all. Especially that it has become a cheap, reductive version of it’s former self and I felt -as you said- that it’s existence is only to justify the revisiting and the historical POE elements are only there to justify reason to go to the past.

However, I think that the solution shouldn’t be omitting modern day, but improving it, instead. I believe creating a 3rd person character and recording some dialogues for him/her for 10% portion of the game isn’t really that problematic. It doesn’t have to be WATCH_DOGS-ported-into-AC kinda complex modern day, but something like AC:B or ACIII or even ACII and ACI. I guess having a face, an identity for the protagonist is much better than a silent, floating camera that I should pretend that it’s me while I honestly felt more like me playing as Ezio or Desmond (both 3rd person and FPS in AC:R) or Lara Croft than I ever have with this cheap idea of a floating camera.

I just don’t understand the need to make it feel so connected to real life. What’s wrong with a 3rd persona protagonist in the year 2025 or 1989? Darby’s excuses were LAME. One moment he says “there’s enough time for annual releases” then he tells me, personally that “time and resources constraints made us trim down modern day” and then he says “It’s hard to create a 3rd person character each year and keep up with the real life time and game time” so why are you doing that, then? just defeat Juno and let’s move onto some other plot about AC set sometime in modern times and some time in historical times.

If they start working on a game 2 or 3 years prior to it’s announcement, then I doubt that it’s such a complex thing to do to add those few minor but meaningful segments to the fans and I doubt that the people who don’t like modern day won’t be able to tolerate 30 minutes or 1 hour modern day missions out of a 15 hour of historical gameplay.

Absolutely agreed.

On the one hand they say they have enough time for annual releases, on the other hand they say MD had to be cut because there was not enough time and resources to come up with a good MD story. I mean seriously....

The interesting thing with AC for me personally was always the parallels between MD and history. Not the actual Desmond-plot. I seriously didn't mind that.
I would have been fine with a "Desmond visits ancestors, is trained to be an Assassin, tries to stop Tempalr satellite, find apples and do other stuff" plot.
I would not have minded that.

The whole "end of the world" thing was over the top and forced them to end the Desmond era in a way that was inappropriate. And I do not mean because he died, but rather because what AC4 has now as MD, which is not more than a little bit fan service for those who liked MD, but actually almost no one likes it now.

I mean, there were so many way to do it. Continue with another Assassin, continue with a Templar, continue with someone outside and in-between those organizations.

I just really hope all they wanted to achieve with AC4 was buying time to come up with a GOOD MD part. If not, well, then the series looses yet another layer of what made it so interesting for me.

RinoTheBouncer
03-30-2014, 02:38 PM
Absolutely agreed.

On the one hand they say they have enough time for annual releases, on the other hand they say MD had to be cut because there was not enough time and resources to come up with a good MD story. I mean seriously....

The interesting thing with AC for me personally was always the parallels between MD and history. Not the actual Desmond-plot. I seriously didn't mind that.
I would have been fine with a "Desmond visits ancestors, is trained to be an Assassin, tries to stop Tempalr satellite, find apples and do other stuff" plot.
I would not have minded that.

The whole "end of the world" thing was over the top and forced them to end the Desmond era in a way that was inappropriate. And I do not mean because he died, but rather because what AC4 has now as MD, which is not more than a little bit fan service for those who liked MD, but actually almost no one likes it now.

I mean, there were so many way to do it. Continue with another Assassin, continue with a Templar, continue with someone outside and in-between those organizations.

I just really hope all they wanted to achieve with AC4 was buying time to come up with a GOOD MD part. If not, well, then the series looses yet another layer of what made it so interesting for me.

Absolutely! not to mention that they still have time to improve and expand the Multiplayer segment and even release downloadable contents for it. So the time is there, the resources are there. It’s just the dedication that isn’t there. They’re trying to make it as mainstream as possible with all generic locations, well-known historical periods and themes, I mean American Revolution? Washington? Pirates? Slavery? French Revolution? don’t tell me next is 9/11 or Pearl Harbor... please!

Nothing against any of those locations nor belittling the severity of those tragedies, but I’m saying that the game is trying too hard to appeal to everybody, while the first game was original, daring, well-planned and executed, thrilling and unique.

Modern Day can be anything. It can be a 3rd person Assassin, Templar, or even a Gamer at Abstergo Entertainment who accidentally stumbles upon something that he shouldn’t have discovered in a game and then he’s dragged into the madness of the Templars, Assassins, Juno..etc. I think they almost did that in ACIV but they ruined it with FPS and a faceless protagonist. What we need for the game is to have an identity. This isn’t a virtual reality project, this is an action/stealth/thriller/conspiracy video game, a heavily story-driven experience, so dear Ubisoft, don’t kill it with those gimmicks because one you start selling only 4 million copies, there’s NO WAY IN HELL you’re going back to selling 14 million or 10 or even 8 million copies.

RatonhnhakeFan
03-30-2014, 06:18 PM
I don't think the 'excuse' was lame because it is true, they have limited resources & time. While Ubisoft DOES give each team 2-3 years to make each game and thus avoid the mistake Eidos made with annual Tomb Raider releases in the 90s (same team worked on all sequels = only 1 year dev time) it is also the fact that there is NO room for extra time/delays to add something more or fix bugs. We saw how it ends with more innovative/complex entries in the franchise like AC3. So they don't have unlimited time & manpower to do everything.

However, I agree that their current solution is not really working. This "you" main character just doesn't really work and I can't see people's perspective changing about it. And for all the talking how they don't wanna do cell-phone/modern windows models because they have no use in historic portion, they still did them for AC4. And they still had modern speaking characters with little arcs. So why not real modern protagonist? Or 2? If they don't wanna stick to 1 and get into the entire Desmond situation, they could prefectly have Shaun and/or Rebecca be "playable" to move around and hack computers etc. Or someone else from Assassin order. It could be an ensemble of less super-important modern playable characters all coming together in the grander "stop Juno" arc.

DumbGamerTag94
03-30-2014, 06:24 PM
I say we just abandon MD. This opens the door for just about any setting we want. There's no longer the need to shoehorn the entire thing into Desmond's lineage, or connect the whole thing in some way to the ancesters that follow or MD itself. We can still have POE's TOWCB and their relationship with humanity and the Assassin/Templar orders, and none of it has to be "speaking across time" or shoehorning history into this overall theme. We would actually be able to have historic events that weren't a direct result of Assassin vs Templar fight or Actions of TOWCB. Events that actually exist independently of these things. Idk I just feel things would be a lot less predicable, less shoehorned, and overall just fresh and less confusing since the MD story is scattered all over the place and disjointed anyway. I feel it would free the series to do anything we want in my personal opinion.

Dome500
03-30-2014, 11:18 PM
I say we just abandon MD. This opens the door for just about any setting we want. There's no longer the need to shoehorn the entire thing into Desmond's lineage, or connect the whole thing in some way to the ancesters that follow or MD itself. We can still have POE's TOWCB and their relationship with humanity and the Assassin/Templar orders, and none of it has to be "speaking across time" or shoehorning history into this overall theme. We would actually be able to have historic events that weren't a direct result of Assassin vs Templar fight or Actions of TOWCB. Events that actually exist independently of these things. Idk I just feel things would be a lot less predicable, less shoehorned, and overall just fresh and less confusing since the MD story is scattered all over the place and disjointed anyway. I feel it would free the series to do anything we want in my personal opinion.


Total bullsh**. We do not need to "shoehorn" anything into Desmonds lineage. IMO AC4 was the last Desmond-DNA based game (at least that's my hope). I do not see a single logical reason why Ubisoft is restricted in their creative freedom by Modern Day. Not a single one.

DumbGamerTag94
03-31-2014, 12:06 AM
Total bullsh**. We do not need to "shoehorn" anything into Desmonds lineage. IMO AC4 was the last Desmond-DNA based game (at least that's my hope). I do not see a single logical reason why Ubisoft is restricted in their creative freedom by Modern Day. Not a single one.

We don't need to shoehorn? Isn't that all we've been doing? Important event? Lets add Desmond's ancestor, and only Desmond's ancestors, and make them the reason things are the way they are today, and make every ancestor look like him.

ACU will be another of Desmond's ancestors I am sure. The email in AC4 mentioned an ancestor in the French Revolution on Desmond's mother's side. Also the stills of Arno's face have been placed side by side with Connor, Ezio, Desmond's faces and they look nearly the same so I feel its a safe bet we see everything still leading to Desmond as always.

If we are stuck with Desmond like we are I feel we may never leave Europe and North America. I want a more exotic setting like you and everyone else I'm just pointing out how tying everything to Desmond and his really stupid 3 part appearance in literally like 1/20th of the overall series is rather ridiculous. Also Desmond doesn't seem to have any Indian or Chinese relations so I guess we will just never see that area in an AC.

I'm not saying there isn't POTENTIAL to have diverse settings and include modern day. But as things stand presently we are stuck with Desmond and his crummy half heartledly developed story and as a result we have not had unlimited freedoms with our settings as we are bound by his lineage because of him being some kind of messiah that is related to THE ONLY important Assassins in history. That is what I mean by MD is restricting our settings. I understand what you mean that they could just change MD protagonists, or other factors of the MD to suit just about any period. But that freedom DEPENDS SEVERELY on the assumption that they somehow introduce a new MD protagonist. Something that would be nice and would in fact free us from the constraints I mentioned before. However I do not see any indication from Ubi thus far that they intend to abandon Desmond, and it seems that all the evidence points to the next installment of ACU to also stars one of his ancestors as always.

Yes they can keep the MD alive with a new protagonist or other story changes to suit any period they choose, but they have already given us most of Desmond's lineage now, so unless we leave him we will never see an AC India, or AC China,(I think japan is in his lineage but that's the only Asian option). Do you understand what I mean.

I hope they abandon Desmond's line soon and Introduce a new MD protagonist, that would be nice. However there is no evidence that that is what they are doing, or that is what they have planned. To say otherwise is purely speculation and high hopes. As things stand Desmond is our bread and butter still for the foreseeable future(I'm not happy about this either I'm just saying what we have evidence for), and that does constrain us, which is why I feel if they are not willing to severely change MD they should just do away with it so we can see any setting we desire without having to shoehorn them into Desmond's lineage, or god forbid they start adding different characters, but they help Desmond's ancestors so its still shoehorning to his line(case in point: Adelawe and Aveline help Connor and Edward).

Jexx21
03-31-2014, 12:12 AM
Nope. Modern-day is always interesting, would be a shame to discard it.

RatonhnhakeFan
03-31-2014, 12:24 AM
They should've cut Desmond's ancestors after Ezio. 2 of the most important Assassins ever was already big enough. Why couldn't Kenway clan be related to Rebecca instead? Or Lucy's sister or something? I agree that it is very likely Arno is yet another Desmond ancestor based on the AC4 email we saw and all the plot efforts to keep Desmond's DNA

DumbGamerTag94
03-31-2014, 12:39 AM
They should've cut Desmond's ancestors after Ezio. 2 of the most important Assassins ever was already big enough. Why couldn't Kenway clan be related to Rebecca instead? Or Lucy's sister or something? I agree that it is very likely Arno is yet another Desmond ancestor based on the AC4 email we saw and all the plot efforts to keep Desmond's DNA

Exactly what I've been trying to say! Connecting everything to Desmond is worse Shoehorning than anything in AC3 by comparison of scale. Unlimited MD protagonists means unlimited ancestors and locations, while Desmond being the only thing ties us to Desmond's lineage, and their locations(not to mention it is becoming far more ridiculous with the addition of each All Powerful ancestor).

They are keeping his story going even after everyone's interest died in him(By AC3) and even after He LITERALLY died. I thought we would finally get a new lineage to look at. But nope "we broke into a super secret Precursor Temple, found his body, and collected his DNA so we can keep using him, and only him FOREVER". hahaha its becoming absurd and is restricting us.

LoyalACFan
03-31-2014, 09:10 AM
Total bullsh**. We do not need to "shoehorn" anything into Desmonds lineage. IMO AC4 was the last Desmond-DNA based game (at least that's my hope). I do not see a single logical reason why Ubisoft is restricted in their creative freedom by Modern Day. Not a single one.

While I agree that they don't necessarily have to shoehorn anything into Desmond's lineage (hence Aveline and Adewale) I absolutely do believe it hinders their creative freedom by constantly having to center the ancestor's story on an artifact/location for the sake of the modern plot. It essentially turns the entire historical segment into a giant, bloated fetch quest. It wasn't as obvious in AC2 and AC3 since the artifacts themselves were absent and unmentioned for large portions of the narrative, and that whole aspect of the plot was overshadowed by the historical character's story (Ezio's revenge and Connor's revolution, respectively). It was more interesting to me in AC2 because the novelty of the sci-fi plot hadn't worn off yet, but still, I can't help but think that the stories would be stronger if the ancestors weren't just hunting Easter eggs for the sake of Abstergo.

That's not to say that modern AC needs to die. They could go back to using the Animus as a kind of training device like they did in AC2, without needing to constantly yank us out of the ancestor's story because of some stupid contrived MacGuffin.

LatinaC09
03-31-2014, 12:59 PM
I definitely understand the OP's original post. On one hand I would like to see individual stories of assassins and templars without the MD plot because it would be more interesting and more realistic. On the other hand, I think it's too late in the series for them to go back. They've already established that the main reason for the story (other than the Assassin vs. Templar conflict) is the MD with Juno, the first civilization, etc. Honesty I would be happy to see it gone because I really don't have a huge interest in it. The main reason I even started playing Assassin's Creed is because of the historical aspect of the series. The alien modern day is drag to me now. For the first few games (AC1 & AC2) the MD was interesting but now I just really hope they do something better with it or attempt to get it out of the series. Again though, I think it's just too late for them to go back.

RatonhnhakeFan
04-03-2014, 09:33 PM
While I agree that they don't necessarily have to shoehorn anything into Desmond's lineage (hence Aveline and Adewale) I absolutely do believe it hinders their creative freedom by constantly having to center the ancestor's story on an artifact/location for the sake of the modern plot. It essentially turns the entire historical segment into a giant, bloated fetch quest. It wasn't as obvious in AC2 and AC3 since the artifacts themselves were absent and unmentioned for large portions of the narrative, and that whole aspect of the plot was overshadowed by the historical character's story (Ezio's revenge and Connor's revolution, respectively). It was more interesting to me in AC2 because the novelty of the sci-fi plot hadn't worn off yet, but still, I can't help but think that the stories would be stronger if the ancestors weren't just hunting Easter eggs for the sake of Abstergo.

That's not to say that modern AC needs to die. They could go back to using the Animus as a kind of training device like they did in AC2, without needing to constantly yank us out of the ancestor's story because of some stupid contrived MacGuffin.This is a good point IMO, especially for "more-standalone" approach they want to take the series to. Gonna bring Titanic example here hehe.

In case someone didn't watch the movie/doesn't remember the movie, the structure works in a very similar way to AC series actually. There's a group of modern-day scientists searching for a diamond neckle worth fortune that was lost when Titanic sank. They manage to get 100-years old Titanic survivor who owned the neckle on board their ship and tell them her story and (hopefully) help them find the diamond. That's where the historic part of the movie comes, 100-years old Rose reminescents her memories of Titanic disaster and the diamond neckle. The action comes back to modern day several times throughout the film. Eventually the historic part concludes with Titanic sinking blah blah and at the end of the movie we see modern granny Rose throwing the diamond (which she had with herself all the time) into ocean and the movie ends.

Now, there is a deleted extended version of this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2tYHcXNwAk) with the scientists "catching" Rose and trying to stop her from throwing away millions of $$$. James Cameron said that the reason why this was deleted was that (paraphrasing) he thought it was pointless eventually. That the "MacGuffin plot" of the scientists searching for the diamond was no longer relevant to the audience nor to the point of the movie itself, that the audience didn't really care anymore to see the scientists "succeed" in getting their priceless diamond nor did he think the scientists themselves carred anymore for the diamond after hearing Rose's personal story. He was correct, no one complained about the 'modern diamond plot' being basically thrown into the bin at the end. It ultimately wasn't the point of the movie, Rose's life and lessons from it were and thus the diamond is the true MacGuffin, just an excuse to tell the story but not the point of it.

This is where AC should go. Tell historic stories instead of UPS quests with part of the 'delivery road' taking place in the historic part. Modern-day animus set ups and MacGuffing can still perfectly have their place but they can't be the point of the story, otherwise they ultimately overshadow the historic portion regardless of having less "screentime"