PDA

View Full Version : An Era Focused Story or An Assassin Focused One?



RinoTheBouncer
08-30-2014, 10:54 PM
Iíve been playing AC games since the very first game and Iíve noticed how the franchise began as a simulator and a story of the Assassins and Templars, the story of a character and how gradually the franchise started focusing more on the era and the historical figures more than the story of the game mythology.

I donít wanna name which games I like or dislike nor which games did it right or wrong because thatís not the point of the thread. But Iím asking whether you prefer a story that focuses on the protagonist, the assassin and his/her enemies or a story that focuses more on the time period and the real history?

To me, modern day and the sci-fi elements of the First Civ. were the main reason why I got into the franchise with the first game. I was told that Iím ďa guy in modern day that I use a device to relive the past to know stuff about the presentĒ and I bought the game and when I finished it and learned about the First Civ., thatís how I knew Iím digging this franchise and that itís definitely worthy investing my time in so I kept playing each new Assassinís Creed one after the other and I noticed how the latest installment focused more on secondary modes of gameplay, many weapons, the period itself and itís affairs and issues, the historical figures of that era..etc.

So I personally prefer a game that focuses on the the mythology of the franchise rather than the real life history that Iíve studied often, however, the historical background of the era is important as a background to the events of the game. Like for example, you can make a movie about Titanic, focusing on how the ship was made, who made it, who the captain was, what really happened to the ship, how it sank..etc. and focus on the things that really happened and on the other hand, you can talk about a love story aboard the Titanic, a story of two characters of your creation and though youíll tell the important facts about the ship and itís sinking, the main focus will be the lovers.

What I prefer is the latter in ACís case cause Iím here for what the writers have created not what we already know in history books. What about you? discuss.

Namikaze_17
08-30-2014, 10:59 PM
I pefer an Assassin focused story...but they use the historical things as a backdrop.

That is kinda what AC3 slightly failed at, and what Unity is doing right now.

SHADOWGARVIN
08-30-2014, 11:06 PM
I pefer an Assassin focused story...but they use the historical things as a backdrop.

That is kinda what AC3 slightly failed at, and what Unity is doing right now.

That is almost exactly what i was going to say. I completely agree.

Landruner
08-30-2014, 11:09 PM
I agree with you with the mythology part rather than being ultra realistic for a fantasy game. That they tried to be accurate with a time period is a good thing, but at the same time they limit themselves to be creative - However; I wrote yesterday, in trying to be historically accurate they got too serious the wrong ways and missed opportunities with real historical material, which could have been considered as pieces of myth or fantasy.

Megas_Doux
08-30-2014, 11:14 PM
I pefer an Assassin focused story...but they use the historical things as a backdrop.

That is kinda what AC3 slightly failed at, and what Unity is doing right now.

AC III shoehorned too many historical events/characters just because! Thing here is that with games being released annualy, now even TWO of them, at well the writers kinda run out of stories

Fatal-Feit
08-30-2014, 11:15 PM
Both. The setting is as interesting as the Assassin's story. If anything, they compliment each other well. (ei: Edward and the Golden Age of Piracy) They are nothing without the other, IMO.

RinoTheBouncer
08-30-2014, 11:15 PM
Exactly, I think that the latter games are trying too hard to be too historically accurate and also focus a lot on the mechanics, the multiplayer elements, the fancy weaponry, not to mention “hey, look, here’s that historical figure you’ve always read about” or “here’s that event that history books have been telling us about” rather than “here are the Assassins, the Templars, the protagonist and his story that is the main focus of the story”

I really want something about the Assassins and Templars. Something that focus on the creed while the rests is not more than a beautiful background. I can always read about history in history books or documentaries and I can still explore the areas in AC games or in real life but no one can tell me a good story about the Assassins, the Templars in modern day and history and the First Civilization other than AC games themselves.

So I can accept big cities, amazing monuments and all these fancy scenery because they’re good for historical tourism but I wouldn’t call the game an Assassin’s Creed game just because the guy wears a hoodie and wields a hidden blade, when all the focus is on the period not the person.

Namikaze_17
08-30-2014, 11:27 PM
Both. The setting is as interesting as the Assassin's story. If anything, they compliment each other well. (ei: Edward and the Golden Age of Piracy) They are nothing without the other, IMO.

Or Ezio with the Renaissance...they both compliment each other as well. Even Connor and the American Revolution made sense...philosophy-wise.

Namikaze_17
08-30-2014, 11:34 PM
AC III shoehorned too many historical events/characters just because! Thing here is that with games being released annualy, now even TWO of them, at well the writers kinda run out of stories

I agree with your point of TOO MANY events in the story. I kinda wish they were "look on from a distance as we're walking" kind of thing. For example, that mission with Paul Revere or battle of Lexington were very annoying and uneeded really. I thought Bunker Hill and battle of Shakespeare were alright, because they were actually a backdrop, and had something to do with the Assassin, Target, and Overall story.

Megas_Doux
08-30-2014, 11:37 PM
I agree with your point of TOO MANY events in the story. I kinda wish they were "look on from a distance as we're walking" kind of thing. For example, that mission with Paul Revere or battle of Lexington were very annoying and uneeded really. I thought Bunker Hill and battle of Shakespeare were alright, because they were actually a backdrop, and had something to do with the Assassin, Target, and Overall story.

Exactly!!!!

Connor being in not one but TWO continental congress?? Connor as a taxi driver for Paul Revere?????? Just too much, I hope that is not the case with AC Unity.....

Namikaze_17
08-30-2014, 11:47 PM
Exactly!!!!

Connor being in not one but TWO continental congress?? Connor as a taxi driver for Paul Revere?????? Just too much, I hope that is not the case with AC Unity.....


Yeah, Connor being there doing the declaration of independence signing bugged me a bit. It should've been like that artwork I saw once. Showing Connor in the Crowd instead of...there.

But yeah, fingers crossed this isn't the case in Unity.

Fatal-Feit
08-30-2014, 11:54 PM
Yeah, Connor being there doing the declaration of independence signing bugged me a bit. It should've been like that artwork I saw once. Showing Connor in the Crowd instead of...there.

But yeah, fingers crossed this isn't the case in Unity.

Most of important figures and events during the French Revolution will be either in the DLC or CO-OP missions.


Or Ezio with the Renaissance...they both compliment each other as well. Even Connor and the American Revolution made sense...philosophy-wise.

Exactly. The same with Arno and Elise during the French Revolution. The setting is a reflection of the Assassin's internal struggle.

JustPlainQuirky
08-30-2014, 11:59 PM
Tough question.

Personally can't decide.

Whichever works best given the circumstances.

Xstantin
08-31-2014, 12:18 AM
Most of important figures and events during the French Revolution will be either in the DLC or CO-OP missions.

That's why I think Unity plays it smart. The Elise trailer (or 'Master Assassin' whatever it's called) pretty much felt the most personal in a way and yet kept the edge with historical backdrop. I hope the game keeps up.

Landruner
08-31-2014, 04:12 AM
Exactly, I think that the latter games are trying too hard to be too historically accurate and also focus a lot on the mechanics, the multiplayer elements, the fancy weaponry, not to mention “hey, look, here’s that historical figure you’ve always read about” or “here’s that event that history books have been telling us about” rather than “here are the Assassins, the Templars, the protagonist and his story that is the main focus of the story”


You are right that is also my point besides the fact that like I said they do not check deeper into the historical stuff that could sound like mythology but real and that is sad to me because they lose a lot of opportunity. I am not even referring to the kraken beneath Venice that is a local myth but that is present as a cameo in AC2, I am talking about those hysterical myths that are in fact real but so bizarre at the same time.

I give you one example, which was the "turtle" (first submarine ever made) that had been used by American during the independence war against British ship in New york bay and it could have been used as a scenarist template for the frontiersman mission aka the sea monster part of those mission, it would have been historically accurate and appropriate, and then perhaps offering an extended gameplay (A la Ezio in ACB) whereas at the same time, people were learning or discovering historical facts relating to the period the all en-globed in the game (Like Leonardo inventions that did not really and concretely made it outside the blue print and.or models, but who cares? that was historically fun to play)

For AC3 I counted a least 10 of those opportunities that could had been extended to the historical facts instead of their version and could had offer some extra opportunity of further in game game-play without being fantasist like Leonardo invention but real this time ....Nope they superficially took the easy ways around instead.

RinoTheBouncer
08-31-2014, 10:52 AM
You are right that is also my point besides the fact that like I said they do not check deeper into the historical stuff that could sound like mythology but real and that is sad to me because they lose a lot of opportunity. I am not even referring to the kraken beneath Venice that is a local myth but that is present as a cameo in AC2, I am talking about those hysterical myths that are in fact real but so bizarre at the same time.

I give you one example, which was the "turtle" (first submarine ever made) that had been used by American during the independence war against British ship in New york bay and it could have been used as a scenarist template for the frontiersman mission aka the sea monster part of those mission, it would have been historically accurate and appropriate, and then perhaps offering an extended gameplay (A la Ezio in ACB) whereas at the same time, people were learning or discovering historical facts relating to the period the all en-globed in the game (Like Leonardo inventions that did not really and concretely made it outside the blue print and.or models, but who cares? that was historically fun to play)

For AC3 I counted a least 10 of those opportunities that could had been extended to the historical facts instead of their version and could had offer some extra opportunity of further in game game-play without being fantasist like Leonardo invention but real this time ....Nope they superficially took the easy ways around instead.

I totally agree with you about that. They wasted too many historical opportunities like the ones you’ve mentioned, many that sounded too fictional but they were either real or very famous myths that everyone talked about and even believed in, back in those times. There are so many historical facts and myths that could’ve easily been linked and translated by the First Civ. mythology, yet they missed those as well. If you noticed my other thread, I talked about a movie named “As Above So Below” and how it’s set in the catacombs of Paris and the paranormal stuff that happen there along with the potential location of the Philosopher’s Stone and how there are even so many Egyptian inspired tombs and locks underneath and a man with a red Templar cross on his tunic buried yet still not decomposed!

I think all those can be in the game and they make it much more interesting, story-wise, yet they choose only to bring the fancy new mechanics, online features and gameplay upgrades. I love AC some much and I’ve been a fan since the very first game, but I’d trade any new AC game for an AC game in the style of the classics, in a heartbeat.

pacmanate
08-31-2014, 11:55 AM
I want all 3. That's what makes the game imo, the story of the protag and how he/she influences the Assassin/Templar war. Historical backdrops are a must but.

NOT AN AC3.

They used the historical backdrop in a really stupid way, shoving Connor into every important event. He had absolutely no reason to be at the signing of the Declaration of Independence for one.

RinoTheBouncer
08-31-2014, 12:00 PM
I want all 3. That's what makes the game imo, the story of the protag and how he/she influences the Assassin/Templar war. Historical backdrops are a must but.

NOT AN AC3.

They used the historical backdrop in a really stupid way, shoving Connor into every important event. He had absolutely no reason to be at the signing of the Declaration of Independence for one.

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. The historical backdrop is really important, but I want them to remain as backdrops not the center of the story. Same goes for trying to put the whole focus on the period and the gameplay rather than the story. The last games made me feel like we’re on a historical tour and we happened to here some excerpts of a story about the Assassins and Templars, here and there.

pacmanate
08-31-2014, 12:05 PM
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. The historical backdrop is really important, but I want them to remain as backdrops not the center of the story. Same goes for trying to put the whole focus on the period and the gameplay rather than the story. The last games made me feel like we’re on a historical tour and we happened to here some excerpts of a story about the Assassins and Templars, here and there.

If I'm honest, AC3 was the only thing with the setting as the center of the story. AC4 was a little departure from what we were use too as it was more about Edward as a person, with the Assassins and Templars./ Piracy as the backdrop.

At least for AC Unity, the team have said that they are making the French Revolution the backdrop

RinoTheBouncer
08-31-2014, 12:22 PM
If I'm honest, AC3 was the only thing with the setting as the center of the story. AC4 was a little departure from what we were use too as it was more about Edward as a person, with the Assassins and Templars./ Piracy as the backdrop.

At least for AC Unity, the team have said that they are making the French Revolution the backdrop

Yeah. I gotta admit that even though I love ACIII a lot, it was the start of making the whole Assassins and Templars thing a backdrop instead of the main focus, at least for the historical portion of the game. And you’re right about ACIV. It was more focused on someone who’s neither this or that and how he ended up choosing his allegiances in the end. So the Templars and Assassins were indeed a backdrop here, rather than the main focus. I’m still worried about Unity cause I feel like the whole focus is on Co-op and new gameplay mechanics. The story of Elise and Arno is VERY interesting to me but I’m afraid that it ends up being not as epic is it seems to most of us.

I wanna go back to finding Pieces of Eden and doing stuff that are exclusive to the mythology of the games not just participating in historical event that are specific to a certain country or nation.

ze_topazio
08-31-2014, 12:45 PM
AC III shoehorned too many historical events/characters just because! Thing here is that with games being released annualy, now even TWO of them, at well the writers kinda run out of stories

I think the problem was that they wanted to show the American Revolution at all costs, not so much because they thought it was cool to have Connor there but because they thought showing those well known events to their main consumers(Americans) would please them and potentially attract new ones moved by the idea of seeing their country birth and their founding fathers in action.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2014, 01:50 PM
Eh...I like the historical stuff as an entertaining background to the Assassin/Templar conflict.

Although, I prefer character focused stories over any of the two. For all I care, the Assassin's can be an afterthought for the main character or like in Edwards case have a neutral view. I love having characters who I can really grow attached to. I think it'll be like this with Arno and Elise, at least I hope so. Fleshed out, well written and relatable characters make stories for me personally. Focus on nailing the charcaters, and the actual plot can be merely serviceable and I won't care.

Also, I don't care for the mythology at all anymore, so would like that to be focused on as little as possible. They can never mention Juno again and I'd be okay with that.

RinoTheBouncer
08-31-2014, 02:55 PM
They can never mention Juno again and I'd be okay with that.
I’d be terribly disappointed if they do that because as uncommon as it sounds, those are the elements that got me into the franchise. From the first glance at the AC artwork, I wasn’t gonna get it because I was like “Meh, not interested in a historical sword fighting game” but then a friend told me about the modern day part, so I bought it. When I finished it, I saw the Apple of Eden thing and the things we’ve learned about the First Civ. and I was like “Man, I’m digging this!”. So it would be such a big disappointment for me if it becomes just another historical tour.

EmbodyingSeven5
08-31-2014, 03:51 PM
Or Ezio with the Renaissance...they both compliment each other as well. Even Connor and the American Revolution made sense...philosophy-wise.

like AC 2 and black flags balance. little things in AC 3 could be changed. you should feel like you help historical figures and then they help you catch the Templar your after. not the oh what a coincidence! the thing I need done involves a Templar!

Namikaze_17
08-31-2014, 10:01 PM
@Rino

I agree! As much as I like Connor and AC3, I do think some missions were completely unnecessary, and had nothing to do with the overall story, character, or plot.
( I.e Revere mission, Battle of Lexington, Signing of declaration of independence)
And it's a shame that only Bunker Hill, and Battle of Shakespeare had any real backdrop to Connor's overall goal.

And I agree about the POE, Glyphs, and other findings should've definitely been present in the recent games...for example the underground passages in AC3 could've led to something interesting left by Juno or the Civ.
( Which I thought at first) but all it was were just some boring shortcuts that wasn't really needed. AC4 did better with the underwater quests, but it still didn't led to anything really interesting for the overall plot.

And I disagree about AC4, I thought Ubi did an amazing job making the pirate setting a backdrop for Edward's story...
( As much as how some people are blind to see it.)
Blackbeard's, Vane's, Horingold's and Mary's deaths were used as backdrops for Edward's overall growth and development as a character. As well as Roberts who had something to do with the First Civ and it's secrets.

Namikaze_17
08-31-2014, 10:05 PM
like AC 2 and black flags balance. little things in AC 3 could be changed. you should feel like you help historical figures and then they help you catch the Templar your after. not the oh what a coincidence! the thing I need done involves a Templar!

That actually somewhat happened with Connor and Putnam if you think about it...Pitcairn was that general that Putnam had to take down, but couldn't get to him, yet Pitcairn was the Templar Connor had to kill.

Their interests were aligned...PM me so we can debate about it. ;)

RinoTheBouncer
08-31-2014, 10:26 PM
@Rino

I agree! As much as I like Connor and AC3, I do think some missions were completely unnecessary, and had nothing to do with the overall story, character, or plot.
( I.e Revere mission, Battle of Lexington, Signing of declaration of independence)
And it's a shame that only Bunker Hill, and Battle of Shakespeare had any real backdrop to Connor's overall goal.

And I agree about the POE, Glyphs, and other findings should've definitely been present in the recent games...for example the underground passages in AC3 could've led to something interesting left by Juno or the Civ.
( Which I thought at first) but all it was were just some boring shortcuts that wasn't really needed. AC4 did better with the underwater quests, but it still didn't led to anything really interesting for the overall plot.

And I disagree about AC4, I thought Ubi did an amazing job making the pirate setting a backdrop for Edward's story...
( As much as how some people are blind to see it.)
Blackbeard's, Vane's, Horingold's and Mary's deaths were used as backdrops for Edward's overall growth and development as a character. As well as Roberts who had something to do with the First Civ and it's secrets.

ACIII was really great, at least for me, the only problem with it was the badly directed ending (for the modern day). Regardless of Desmond’s fate, the way it was directed was really cheap and it it could’ve been much better. However, the historical story, as you said, had some unnecessary parts and I agree with you about the tunnels and the same goes for ACIV’s underwater diving. When I’ve learned that ACIV will feature diving underwater, I was almost certain that we’ll find an underwater passageway to a First Civ. Temple and probably find a Piece of Eden there, but it was such a wasted potential, same goes for the tunnels in ACIII which I only used once or twice when I was required to do so.

One of the major problems with AC is that they not only make you go through unnecessary missions, but also give you too many stuff to do that you probably won’t need or have the time to do during the span of the story. You won’t find a good reason to do it before finishing the story and when you’re done, it either feels repetitive or just pointless. For example, after I beat all Legendary Ships in ACIV, they gave me a powerful ram move. Now ok, this is a great move and all, but really, what do I need it for? I finished the game, I’ve attacked so many ships and leveled up so much that I got strong enough to beat all those Legendary Ships so what’s the point of this attack? what am I gonna use it for?

Same goes for hunting in ACIII. I was happy that we didn’t find difficulty in finding money, cause I honestly hate wasting too much time to save for a weapon or two, so that was a plus but hunting specifically was give too many methods when you could just use 1 or 2 of those to hunt each and every animal. And I can say the same about weapons. Too many weapons that do almost the same thing, so what’s the point? a different color? it’s not like we can notice the handle of the sword especially when the camera is set a mile away from the protagonist.

So yeah, I think AC gives too much unnecessary stuff that can easily be replaced by much more useful ones, and at the same time, wastes a lot of opportunities that have the ability to make whatever they’re giving us much more entertaining.

Regarding ACIV. I do see the effect of the Assassins and Templars or Edward, and I honestly love Edward so much, but I felt like the game focused a lot Edward himself and how he decided to become an Assassin, a subject that felt like something we already know or something that could’ve been better seen in the 1st or 2nd game, not the 6th. Maybe I was expecting more about the Creed and that we actually dive deeper into the mythology of the game and the evolution of where we got with the previous part, rather than zooming out and looking at the picture from a distant spot.

naumaan
08-31-2014, 10:26 PM
i agree mate .. the myth is more important ... and what is more interesting is how they show their myths incredibly in almost real fictitious history ... so even if they make a game about an assassin it always turns out to be about the era which turns out to be about a myth of first civ .. which is great .. even if i hate some of the ac games personally

Namikaze_17
08-31-2014, 10:44 PM
ACIII was really great, at least for me, the only problem with it was the badly directed ending (for the modern day). Regardless of Desmond’s fate, the way it was directed was really cheap and it it could’ve been much better. However, the historical story, as you said, had some unnecessary parts and I agree with you about the tunnels and the same goes for ACIV’s underwater diving. When I’ve learned that ACIV will feature diving underwater, I was almost certain that we’ll find an underwater passageway to a First Civ. Temple and probably find a Piece of Eden there, but it was such a wasted potential, same goes for the tunnels in ACIII which I only used once or twice when I was required to do so.

One of the major problems with AC is that they not only make you go through unnecessary missions, but also give you too many stuff to do that you probably won’t need or have the time to do during the span of the story. You won’t find a good reason to do it before finishing the story and when you’re done, it either feels repetitive or just pointless. For example, after I beat all Legendary Ships in ACIV, they gave me a powerful ram move. Now ok, this is a great move and all, but really, what do I need it for? I finished the game, I’ve attacked so many ships and leveled up so much that I got strong enough to beat all those Legendary Ships so what’s the point of this attack? what am I gonna use it for?

Same goes for hunting in ACIII. I was happy that we didn’t find difficulty in finding money, cause I honestly hate wasting too much time to save for a weapon or two, so that was a plus but hunting specifically was give too many methods when you could just use 1 or 2 of those to hunt each and every animal. And I can say the same about weapons. Too many weapons that do almost the same thing, so what’s the point? a different color? it’s not like we can notice the handle of the sword especially when the camera is set a mile away from the protagonist.

So yeah, I think AC gives too much unnecessary stuff that can easily be replaced by much more useful ones, and at the same time, wastes a lot of opportunities that have the ability to make whatever they’re giving us much more entertaining.

Regarding ACIV. I do see the effect of the Assassins and Templars or Edward, and I honestly love Edward so much, but I felt like the game focused a lot Edward himself and how he decided to become an Assassin, a subject that felt like something we already know or something that could’ve been better seen in the 1st or 2nd game, not the 6th. Maybe I was expecting more about the Creed and that we actually dive deeper into the mythology of the game and the evolution of where we got with the previous part, rather than zooming out and looking at the picture from a distant spot.

I agree completely about the MANY unnecessary things we earn thoughout the games. For example in AC3, the weapons...what was the point of having them? I pretty much could kill 50+ guards with my bare hands, hidden blade, and Tomahawk...so it really made the additional weapon feel worthless unless I just wanted Connor to show-off some different animation with them. And Now that I think about it, AC3 did some type of interaction with First Civ tech...during the peg leg missions.

But even then, the ring still felt really worthless as all it did was repel gunshots. Like seriously!? All that hardwork, and we get some whack ring that only repel stuff? Same goes for that "Mayan Armor" for Edward. And regarding Edward, I actually felt like he was one of the deepest Characters we've had yet to get into the Assassin Mythology, and understand the Assassin's Creed.

Kakuzu745
09-01-2014, 05:10 AM
I think now I want it to be more focused on the story of the Order during an important period.

I just want them to be focused on this and dont care about the modern story which for me is worthless.