PDA

View Full Version : Was AC3's Ending really that Bad?



Namikaze_17
09-09-2014, 02:24 AM
Ever since I completed AC3 back in 2012, I've seen AC Fans everywhere expressing about how they hated the Ending. Some say it was dull, other say it was confusing, and some people just didn't like it for the sake of it being an F'N Cliffhanger.
( Even though all games have had Cliffhangers)
There's even been some fans that have quit on the Franchise entirely because of the Ending.

I've personally thought the Ending was Terrible at first, but after giving it some thought recently, I've come to the conclusion that it wasn't that Bad. It's only flaw was purely execution...it's overall premise seem in the right with having it be the end of Desmond
( which fitted him) and his story.

But sadly, that suffered from poor Execution as well... :(

What about You? What was your biggest gripe about the Ending?
( Excluding the Characters & Story)

Feel Free to Discuss!!! ;)

I-Like-Pie45
09-09-2014, 02:26 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6d79JHh3cU

Fatal-Feit
09-09-2014, 02:44 AM
It was underwhelming and disappointing. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the modern day ending part since that's the last of the pretentious modern day drama, but I can understand people's agony. Desmond was just becoming promising, like he could have been a real Assassin, performing more Assassinations in modern day settings, but then he got the 4th degree burn.

As for Connor, the ending was okay. But after reading Forsaken, I can't help but feel like boycotting Ubisoft for it. :mad:

JustPlainQuirky
09-09-2014, 03:01 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImJckbkGmYg

AdamPearce
09-09-2014, 03:04 AM
I do not want to talk about it.

guardian_titan
09-09-2014, 03:06 AM
With Connor's ending, it was confusing in that Connor still goes after Lee for his mother's death depite knowing that Lee had nothing to do with it. He harbored some ill will toward Washington as evidenced by the Benedict Arnold DLC only to put that aside by ToKW. It was inconsistent as a result. He should have been going after Lee for being a Templar (and now the Grand Master after he killed Haytham), not because Lee killed his mother. There's also the fact that Ezio got a trilogy and a movie as well as a few tie-in books and a secondary game on a handheld platform. By the time Ezio was done, we knew virtually every aspect of his life including who he married, his children, and how he died. With Connor, we only know his early years. We know nothing of who he married, his children, nor how he died. Connor's story will likely never be completed at this point because they don't want to go back to old material. They want to move forward with things they created themselves and not something someone else created that they have since fired.

There's also a cliffhanger put in by Juno saying Connor still had more to do. That would hint that there should have been a second game so where is it? It was a poor line to put in and should never have been there if there was no intention to ever finish Connor's story.

Ezio set a high standard for the Assassins which Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot with. They should have left Ezio's story with AC2 and not done Brotherhood and Revelations or even Embers. Then no one would be as concerned for Connor because even Ezio was half done. There would have been a precedent for half done stories. Yet now there's a precedent for them finishing an Assassin's life and Connor's only half done? Where's his ending? Seems Adewale will get his in Rogue. Edward got his in Forsaken before AC4 even was announced. Altair got his ending in Revelations. Connor and Aveline are the only two still unknown. Will Shay get an ending in Rogue? Will Arno get an ending in Unity? Or will both be left unfinished? They don't get endings, their fans will be harping after Ubisoft just like the Connor fans are now. If they do get endings, then the Connor fans will be even more livid.

With Desmond, the plot was a bit ... off. Desmond had 5 games leading up to the climax and he just dies? That just suggests Ubisoft wanted to toss him under the rug and move on. Even though I know next to nothing on Patrice Desilets, killing off Desmond in such a matter and throwing Connor, the last one Patrice likely had some creative input on before he left Ubisoft the first time, under the rug with him to be beaten flat certainly makes you wonder if Patrice and Ubisoft really had a lot more going on than what we saw. You just don't go and kill the brain child of someone unless you really had it out for them. That's like killing your neighbor's dog because the owner hit your car. The dog did nothing except be associated with their owner. Desmond did nothing wrong and he could have very well remained in the series even if he was demoted to a background character the player corresponded with, and yet they killed him off for some arbitrary reason? Between AC3's ending and Mass Effect 3's ending, 2012 was a year of terrible endings for long running franchises just so the companies can go in a new direction.

Endings are often hard to write and to do a good one is very difficult, but the ending for AC3, for both Connor and Desmond, was terrible. I really fear Ubisoft will either give Connor a terrible DLC ending which does little to really explain anything and only results in more questions or they'll make him so boring even his fans will hate him. It gets rather tiring hearing excuse after excuse on why Connor fails to get anything more and yet you see someone else get something. Reminds me of being a little kid. You see your baby sibling get something and you go ask for something similar only to get told no. You get over it and move on only to see your older sibling get special treatment, too. You again try to get something only to get told no. On the rare chance you do it something, your siblings get it, too. On and on this goes until you eventually give up and wonder if your parents just hate you. Connor should have had a DLC in AC4, not Adewale or at least Aveline. Freedom Cry got released separately as a standalone game so Connor would have been better served with DLC for AC4, not Adewale. Or perhaps ToKW should have focused on a few years after AC3 ended and actually focused more on what he did with his life rather than doing something whimsical because it was cool and yet added nothing to the story. The DLC added to the game should serve to move the story forward, not have you scratching your head afterward.

Namikaze_17
09-09-2014, 03:08 AM
It was underwhelming and disappointing. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the modern day ending part since that's the last of the pretentious modern day drama, but I can understand people's agony. Desmond was just becoming promising, like he could have been a real Assassin, performing more Assassinations in modern day settings, but then he got the 4th degree burn.

As for Connor, the ending was okay. But after reading Forsaken, I can't help but feel like boycotting Ubisoft for it. :mad:

I understand...and I wasn't talking about Connor's ending, all his was missing was just that f***ing epilogue speech.

Just the MD Aspect...

Namikaze_17
09-09-2014, 03:32 AM
@Guardian

I agree with your points about Characters and their endings when Ezio and his games pretty much set those standards that you just mentioned. I disagree about the Charles Lee part because Connor fully knew Lee and the Templars had nothing to do with the burning of his village, he Killed Lee then simply because Lee was still a Templar and a Threat. He held Resentment for Washington if you look at the optional Conversation, or the Benedict Arnold DLC.

And finally, I agree with you about the difficulty to make Blockbuster Endings and such, but seriously? They couldn't have tried to make Desmond seem more "Heroic" in what he was doing? It wasn't until hearing the Voice Clips in AC4 and reflecting on it recently was when I finally thought of Desmond as a Hero to the world.

Oh, and the Connor's End Ordeal as well. ;)

Fatal-Feit
09-09-2014, 03:55 AM
With Connor's ending, it was confusing in that Connor still goes after Lee for his mother's death depite knowing that Lee had nothing to do with it. He harbored some ill will toward Washington as evidenced by the Benedict Arnold DLC only to put that aside by ToKW.

Connor still harbored some ill will in the ToKW. It's apparent in his sarcasm.

As for Lee, Connor wasn't after him for revenge. It was because he's a threat. He have caused too much pain and suffering. Let alone the threat to his order, tribe, and homestead. ei: Boston's Massacre / Retreating during war / Plotting to kill Washington / Almost inciting a war between the Mohawks and rebels before Connor intervened / ETC

EaglePrince25
09-09-2014, 04:18 AM
Yeah, after finding about that Washington was the cause of his village's destruction, Connor never mentions it in relation to Lee again. At that point he continues partly because of what Lee did to him as a child (first impressions stick, and that was a fairly bad one) and because he's a Templar and has to be taken out anyways.

For the game itself though, I really didn't have a problem with Connor's ending. In fact, I liked it quite a bit, and thought it was a good change that while he'd killed the Templars, he himself failed at his own personal goal of securing his people's freedom (Which of course was an unreachable goal from the start as we all knew.) I will say though at the point the game ended, I fully expected Connor to get a sequel that would wrap up his story. Therefore looking back on it, it does kind of suck because it sets up the expectation that we're going to get more adventures featuring him and his later life, when now it seems certain that's not going to happen; the game right before his wrapped up the first two player characters, and even Edward's story is taken care of, so Connor stands out as an anomaly.

For Desmond...IDK. I really didn't expect him to do. I guess I understand it from a writing standpoint, main hero dies saving the world and all, but with how long he stuck around it surprised me that they got rid of him, because I didn't think they'd ever be able to find another character to replace him in the main timeline. (And just based on Black Flag I was right.) A major reason I didn't like him was because I never thought we got to play as him enough. I really felt like the games were Altair, Ezio, and Connor's games, and not his; he was a side character to me. However, this started to change as time went on, and with Revelations I thought things were looking up for him, and that eventually we'd get just as much time playing as him in the main storyline as we did his ancestors in the past. I actually enjoyed playing as him in 3, during his missions around the globe...And then he died. I thought it was something of a waste.

Ureh
09-09-2014, 04:42 AM
The ending itself wasn't that bad to me.... Desmond being offered two choices then sacrificing himself to save the world. But I was a bit bothered with the lack of stuff leading up to the end. Like I thought we were gonna fight a lot of Templar agents that were trained in the animus, instead we get this broken Cross and a few security guards. I thought Vidic would have some big master plan and super awesome dialogue, instead he makes a huge mistake by underestimating Desmond and whines the whole time. I thought we might meet other Assassins and explore their secret bunker(s). I thought we might finally duel Alan Rikkin or something like that.

So basically, by the end of the game, I was wondering where the Templars and other Assassins were.

HeedfulMass4856
09-09-2014, 04:48 AM
Worst ending in the franchise, BY FAR. Why? Because it showed the futility of Connor's fight for freedom; he tried to save his people, yet he only helped the white men - the people who would later on exterminate his people and enslave another group of people (blacks).

Connor helped racists take his people's homeland and enslave another group of people. AC3's ending essentially made Connor the worst Assassin in the history of the Order.

Namikaze_17
09-09-2014, 04:52 AM
Worst ending in the franchise, BY FAR. Why? Because it showed the futility of Connor's fight for freedom; he tried to save his people, yet he only helped the white men - the people who would later on exterminate his people and enslave another group of people (blacks).

Connor helped racists take his people's homeland and enslave another group of people. AC3's ending essentially made Connor the worst Assassin in the history of the Order.

And the other Assassin's didn't do bad things/ help the wrong people?

Assassin_M
09-09-2014, 05:09 AM
With Connor's ending, it was confusing in that Connor still goes after Lee for his mother's death depite knowing that Lee had nothing to do with it. He harbored some ill will toward Washington as evidenced by the Benedict Arnold DLC only to put that aside by ToKW. It was inconsistent as a result. He should have been going after Lee for being a Templar (and now the Grand Master after he killed Haytham), not because Lee killed his mother.
Connor went after Charles because he's a Templar, not because he killed his mom, which he didn't. Connor says it himself when he puts on the war paint and talks about the never ending battle between the Templars and Assassins and when Charles asks him why he persists.


There's also a cliffhanger put in by Juno saying Connor still had more to do. That would hint that there should have been a second game so where is it? It was a poor line to put in and should never have been there if there was no intention to ever finish Connor's story.
That line was for him burying the amulet.


Ezio set a high standard for the Assassins which Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot with. They should have left Ezio's story with AC2 and not done Brotherhood and Revelations or even Embers. Then no one would be as concerned for Connor because even Ezio was half done. There would have been a precedent for half done stories. Yet now there's a precedent for them finishing an Assassin's life and Connor's only half done? Where's his ending? Seems Adewale will get his in Rogue. Edward got his in Forsaken before AC4 even was announced. Altair got his ending in Revelations. Connor and Aveline are the only two still unknown. Will Shay get an ending in Rogue? Will Arno get an ending in Unity? Or will both be left unfinished? They don't get endings, their fans will be harping after Ubisoft just like the Connor fans are now. If they do get endings, then the Connor fans will be even more livid.
You cannot be more right.

LoyalACFan
09-09-2014, 05:11 AM
some people just didn't like it for the sake of it being an F'N Cliffhanger.
( Even though all games have had Cliffhangers)

But that's exactly the point OP. ALL of the games had been cliffhangers until that point, and AC3 was supposed to be the grand finale that tied it all together. It simply didn't. The satellite launch that had been the ongoing conflict since AC1 was simply brushed under the rug in an optional email most people probably didn't even notice, and the end of the world plot was resolved by a sloppy deus ex machina that, to this day, is still pretty much unexplained. Desmond's epic "savior" moment was laughable; he walked up to some random pedestal he only learned about five minutes earlier and fried himself. It wasn't even an ENDING. It was just the doormat for the Juno arc that's only just getting started.

So yes, AC3's ending sucked a fat one and I'm still mildly pissed off about it.

Assassin_M
09-09-2014, 05:18 AM
But that's exactly the point OP. ALL of the games had been cliffhangers until that point, and AC3 was supposed to be the grand finale that tied it all together. It simply didn't. The satellite launch that had been the ongoing conflict since AC1 was simply brushed under the rug in an optional email most people probably didn't even notice, and the end of the world plot was resolved by a sloppy deus ex machina that, to this day, is still pretty much unexplained. Desmond's epic "savior" moment was laughable; he walked up to some random pedestal he only learned about five minutes earlier and fried himself. It wasn't even an ENDING. It was just the doormat for the Juno arc that's only just getting started.

So yes, AC3's ending sucked a fat one and I'm still mildly pissed off about it.
To be completely honest, Desmond did talk about the satellite a bit

Namikaze_17
09-09-2014, 05:24 AM
But that's exactly the point OP. ALL of the games had been cliffhangers until that point, and AC3 was supposed to be the grand finale that tied it all together. It simply didn't. The satellite launch that had been the ongoing conflict since AC1 was simply brushed under the rug in an optional email most people probably didn't even notice, and the end of the world plot was resolved by a sloppy deus ex machina that, to this day, is still pretty much unexplained. Desmond's epic "savior" moment was laughable; he walked up to some random pedestal he only learned about five minutes earlier and fried himself. It wasn't even an ENDING. It was just the doormat for the Juno arc that's only just getting started.

So yes, AC3's ending sucked a fat one and I'm still mildly pissed off about it.

Can't disagree with that...but I thought it was a great way to finish Desmond's story...it's only problem was execution as I mentioned eariler if it would've been something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5KeBW-nTn8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Or...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOCllSFJy0g&feature=youtube_gdata_player
( Skip to 1:43:20)

Then it would've been alright...but atlas, it's Ubi fault for hyping up EVERY SINGLE THING about that game though.

naumaan
09-09-2014, 05:39 AM
well after the ending of ac3 .. i had a grudge, and i made a decision not to play another ac game, but i dont know what you call it, when ac4 got released, i just played it to know whats gonna happen next as i m too much glued to the story, and playing ac4 and knowing the Aita new entry and stuff, i think i am very much into ac again, however the first person modern day is not favorable by me anyhow ..

HeedfulMass4856
09-09-2014, 05:43 AM
The modern ending for AC3 was even worse. Desmond's death was done poorly and was beyond rushed... All because Ubisoft doesn't have the balls to make a modern AC game. *smh*

Megas_Doux
09-12-2014, 09:02 PM
in regards of the modern stuff, it was NOT different from many other aspects of the game: Disappointing and/or not living up to the huge hype........The Connor´s one was good though.

Kakuzu745
09-12-2014, 09:20 PM
Ezio set a high standard for the Assassins which Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot with. They should have left Ezio's story with AC2 and not done Brotherhood and Revelations or even Embers. Then no one would be as concerned for Connor because even Ezio was half done. There would have been a precedent for half done stories. Yet now there's a precedent for them finishing an Assassin's life and Connor's only half done? Where's his ending? Seems Adewale will get his in Rogue. Edward got his in Forsaken before AC4 even was announced. Altair got his ending in Revelations. Connor and Aveline are the only two still unknown. Will Shay get an ending in Rogue? Will Arno get an ending in Unity? Or will both be left unfinished? They don't get endings, their fans will be harping after Ubisoft just like the Connor fans are now. If they do get endings, then the Connor fans will be even more livid..

This is the exact reason why people will keep asking time after time for sequels or more games for different assassins (Not only Connor) and Ubisoft will have to deal with it because of Ezio.


The modern ending for AC3 was even worse. Desmond's death was done poorly and was beyond rushed... All because Ubisoft doesn't have the balls to make a modern AC game. *smh*

Or maybe because they do not think a MD game would be profitable and dont even care about doing it.

Bastiaen
09-12-2014, 09:40 PM
@ OP,
there is no objective answer to that question, since it's a matter of taste.
Some people don't like the ending of AC3, and some people do.
It's completely subjective, and it's been argued about to no end. Some of us like it, and some of us hate it.
It's not important anymore. If you like it, keep on liking it, and if you don't, well, I'm sorry that you don't. That's your loss.

Namikaze_17
09-12-2014, 10:17 PM
@ OP,
there is no objective answer to that question, since it's a matter of taste.
Some people don't like the ending of AC3, and some people do.
It's completely subjective, and it's been argued about to no end. Some of us like it, and some of us hate it.
It's not important anymore. If you like it, keep on liking it, and if you don't, well, I'm sorry that you don't. That's your loss.

No, whether people liked it or not doesn't bother me, I was just curious about everyone's opinion on the ending as all.

I'm personally 50/50 on the ending, but how everyone feels about it whether positive or negative is all justifiable and understandable as I've been reading.

But thanks for your response... ;)

RinoTheBouncer
09-13-2014, 01:17 PM
Look, let me be fair: the ending had a very nice and powerful dialogue and the fact that Desmond sacrificed himself and even the Creed’s goals for the sake of the survival of all mankind is a very noble thing. However, they way the ending was directed was really bad. I don’t have a big problem with a protagonist dying in the end as long as it’s well executed. The ending left me like “WTF?” rather than “Ohhh no! Desmond.. you’re a hero, don’t go *crying*”. I mean I cried during AC:R’s ending and Embers film ending because those two were powerful and they were well directed. I love Desmond a lot but the ending didn’t do him any justice.

I would’ve loved it if it were like 5 or 7 more minutes longer. Let’s see some special effects, let’s see Desmond or the device actually doing something big, not just him being electrocuted and then some aurora borealis is shown all around the Earth. The idea was good, but they could’ve shown what was happening outside the Temple, and how the atmosphere starts shining and then the solar flare strikes but we are protected and all done in great CGI. It could’ve been much better, but it was cheaply made that I even wished that the cutscene of the alternate possibility was the real ending.

Fatal-Feit
09-13-2014, 02:06 PM
Look, let me be fair: the ending had a very nice and powerful dialogue and the fact that Desmond sacrificed himself and even the Creed’s goals for the sake of the survival of all mankind is a very noble thing. However, they way the ending was directed was really bad. I don’t have a big problem with a protagonist dying in the end as long as it’s well executed. The ending left me like “WTF?” rather than “Ohhh no! Desmond.. you’re a hero, don’t go *crying*”. I mean I cried during AC:R’s ending and Embers film ending because those two were powerful and they were well directed. I love Desmond a lot but the ending didn’t do him any justice.

I would’ve loved it if it were like 5 or 7 more minutes longer. Let’s see some special effects, let’s see Desmond or the device actually doing something big, not just him being electrocuted and then some aurora borealis is shown all around the Earth. The idea was good, but they could’ve shown what was happening outside the Temple, and how the atmosphere starts shining and then the solar flare strikes but we are protected and all done in great CGI. It could’ve been much better, but it was cheaply made that I even wished that the cutscene of the alternate possibility was the real ending.

I couldn't agree more. Sadly, AC have always had poor executions with great concepts.

GunnerGalactico
09-13-2014, 02:41 PM
I really disliked Desmond's ending, I didn't feel that it was fitting for him at all.

Shahkulu101
09-13-2014, 02:54 PM
I don't think it's as bad as people say, but it should have been way more emotional. Desmond should have been distraught, his father more devastated at the situation. Shaun could have shown a sincere and considerate side for once by giving a painful good bye to Desmond - Rebecca could've said something as well.

But in reality they all stood there with straight faces, William pleads with him rather unconvincingly and none of the characters seem to react to the situation. It all came across quite deadpan and soulless. They just didn't really feel...like real humans. Desmond trying to free himself was a good bit of drama - nice little subtleties like that are missing in the series.

Namikaze_17
09-13-2014, 08:02 PM
I really disliked Desmond's ending, I didn't feel that it was fitting for him at all.

How would you have done it, Gunner? :)

GunnerGalactico
09-13-2014, 10:28 PM
How would you have done it, Gunner? :)

Hmmm... good question :p

For starters, I wouldn't have killed Desmond. When he stands on the pedestal, instead of sacrificing himself... I would rather that he lost the ability to use eagle vision permanently. That way, he would've still remained alive and also, I think it would've been cool if he was the one who got to relive Edward's memories in AC4. In my opinion without Desmond, the MD bits don't really have a rhyme or reason.

Anyways, that's just my take on things

RinoTheBouncer
09-13-2014, 10:40 PM
I couldn't agree more. Sadly, AC have always had poor executions with great concepts.

Yeah. That’s the sad part. I mean you half-a**ed most parts of Desmond’s story, at least send him off in a proper way, not just electrocute him with some magic ball and the let it fade to black and show his arm burned later with some hologram hovering around. They usually don’t show the hero when they’re down/dead. At least give him some respect and let him go in a great cutscene. That would’ve at least let us look back and admire the saga for what it had to offer and if the past was so and so then a good ending would make up for it. But no, they looked for the easiest and cheapest way.

Namikaze_17
09-13-2014, 10:52 PM
Hmmm... good question :p

For starters, I wouldn't have killed Desmond. When he stands on the pedestal, instead of sacrificing himself... I would rather that he lost the ability to use eagle vision permanently. That way, he would've still remained alive and also, I think it would've been cool if he was the one who got to relive Edward's memories in AC4. In my opinion without Desmond, the MD bits don't really have a rhyme or reason.

Anyways, that's just my take on things

Then after living through Edward, he regains his Eagle vision
( And Skills) and understands the Creed even more to fight off against Juno...

( Sigh) Only in fanfiction could I write that... :rolleyes:

GunnerGalactico
09-13-2014, 10:57 PM
Then after living through Edward, he regains his Eagle vision
( And Skills) and understands the Creed even more to fight off against Juno...

( Sigh) Only in fanfiction could I write that... :rolleyes:

It would be really funny if he annoyed Shaun with the clichéd pirate phrases and terminology :p

Namikaze_17
09-13-2014, 11:06 PM
It would be really funny if he annoyed Shaun with the clichéd pirate phrases and terminology :p

Hehe, it would. Plus, it would've gave him his next Objective...

FIND EVE'S DESCENDANT!!!

Desmond Saga:

Stop Abstergo Satellite ==> Stop End of the World==> Frees Juno==> Finds Redemption==> Find Eve's Descendant ==> Unites Assassins & Templars ==> Stops Juno

By this way, it would've made both the AC3 Ending and Initiates feel relevant you know?

EmbodyingSeven5
09-14-2014, 12:47 AM
I really didn't like the modern day ending. I was really liking desmond and thought the could profit by holding on to him, in terms of modern day. I wouldn't mind the death if it was executed better. I would still be a little upset, but I would also understand it if it was done well. It was unsatisfying in my opinion and I stiil hope

Fatal-Feit
09-14-2014, 12:55 AM
That hope will be the end of you.

Namikaze_17
09-14-2014, 12:57 AM
Fatal, let him dream... :rolleyes:

Fatal-Feit
09-14-2014, 01:00 AM
We all have dreams. Connor's future sequel, for example. :)

Namikaze_17
09-14-2014, 01:05 AM
Or Victorian London. :rolleyes:

Fatal-Feit
09-14-2014, 01:11 AM
A movie about Haytham.

Namikaze_17
09-14-2014, 01:22 AM
A meaningful MD... :rolleyes:

EmbodyingSeven5
09-14-2014, 01:28 AM
We all have dreams. Connor's future sequel, for example. :)

lol...... that's my other dream

Namikaze_17
09-14-2014, 01:35 AM
A perfect AC is another one...

EmbodyingSeven5
09-14-2014, 01:38 AM
A perfect AC is another one...

ok now someone needs to make a hopeless dream thread.:p

Journey93
09-14-2014, 02:37 AM
the idea wasn't bad at least part of it
I like Desmond sacrificing himself to save the world but then he also releases Juno that made the ending
just ****ty and nonsensical

They should have resolved the MD part of the game in AC III if they really didn't like it anymore (its pretty clear with how they handeled the execution and the MD part in IV was
just terrible) with Desmond saving the world and somehow defeating Juno
But nope ..

Namikaze_17
09-14-2014, 04:29 AM
Juno being Released was just so the Series could Continue...

Matt.mc
09-14-2014, 05:05 AM
[QUOTE=guardian_titan;10221512]
Ezio set a high standard for the Assassins which Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot with. They should have left Ezio's story with AC2 and not done Brotherhood and Revelations or even Embers. Then no one would be as concerned for Connor because even Ezio was half done. There would have been a precedent for half done stories. Yet now there's a precedent for them finishing an Assassin's life and Connor's only half done? Where's his ending? Seems Adewale will get his in Rogue. Edward got his in Forsaken before AC4 even was announced. Altair got his ending in Revelations. Connor and Aveline are the only two still unknown. Will Shay get an ending in Rogue? Will Arno get an ending in Unity? Or will both be left unfinished? They don't get endings, their fans will be harping after Ubisoft just like the Connor fans are now. If they do get endings, then the Connor fans will be even more livid.
QUOTE]
I'm sorry but I hate when people say that they shouldn't have done Brotherhood/Revelations. I effing LOVE those games and I love Ezio. Just because Connor wasn't as well received as Ezio doesn't mean it's Ezio's fault.

RinoTheBouncer
09-14-2014, 11:35 AM
[QUOTE=guardian_titan;10221512]
Ezio set a high standard for the Assassins which Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot with. They should have left Ezio's story with AC2 and not done Brotherhood and Revelations or even Embers. Then no one would be as concerned for Connor because even Ezio was half done. There would have been a precedent for half done stories. Yet now there's a precedent for them finishing an Assassin's life and Connor's only half done? Where's his ending? Seems Adewale will get his in Rogue. Edward got his in Forsaken before AC4 even was announced. Altair got his ending in Revelations. Connor and Aveline are the only two still unknown. Will Shay get an ending in Rogue? Will Arno get an ending in Unity? Or will both be left unfinished? They don't get endings, their fans will be harping after Ubisoft just like the Connor fans are now. If they do get endings, then the Connor fans will be even more livid.
QUOTE]
I'm sorry but I hate when people say that they shouldn't have done Brotherhood/Revelations. I effing LOVE those games and I love Ezio. Just because Connor wasn't as well received as Ezio doesn't mean it's Ezio's fault.

Perfectly said. ACII, AC:B and AC:R are my most favorite AC games, and while I love Connor so damn much, Ezio remains my No.1. I don’t think that these games were a mistake. It’s Ubisoft’s fault that they didn’t bother promoting Connor well or did not finish his story, rather than Ezio’s fault for being so successful and interesting to many.