PDA

View Full Version : Unity's antagonist (Spoilers, obviously)



GreatBeyonder
11-10-2014, 04:10 AM
I don't get it, Why THAT guy? What did Louix XVI's silversmith do to earn himself the position of 'Mastermind of the French Revolution?" Past antagonists were generally pretty crummy human beings, except Torres, who is still treated as the nicest person in the game. So why Francois-Thomas Germain? He was just a craftsman. Yes, a famous one, but he never got involved in politics or the Revolution. Did he kick someone's dog and that guy's ancestor today works for Ubisoft? What was wring with Robespierre or Napoleon? Robespierre famously wore shades all the time and could have worked as a Sage, I think.

I suspect they were thinking of Comte de Saint-Germain, who died a few years earlier and actually did claim to be an immortal being. But why make a silversmith the mastermind of the Reign of Terror? It's not just farcical, it's actually kind of unethical. Black Bart murdered people for a living. The Borgia were hilaiously corrupt. Even Charles Lee was a pretty massive jerk and likely traitor. But to depict Monsieur Germain as a monster strikes me as extremely disrespectful and callous.

I don't really know what else to say, other than I am very disappointed in the Unity's staff for this creative choice. Yes, it's just a game, but history is NOT your playground.

VestigialLlama4
11-10-2014, 04:46 AM
I don't get it, Why THAT guy? What did Louix XVI's silversmith do to earn himself the position of 'Mastermind of the French Revolution?" Past antagonists were generally pretty crummy human beings, except Torres, who is still treated as the nicest person in the game. So why Francois-Thomas Germain? He was just a craftsman. Yes, a famous one, but he never got involved in politics or the Revolution. Did he kick someone's dog and that guy's ancestor today works for Ubisoft? What was wring with Robespierre or Napoleon? Robespierre famously wore shades all the time and could have worked as a Sage, I think.

I suspect they were thinking of Comte de Saint-Germain, who died a few years earlier and actually did claim to be an immortal being. But why make a silversmith the mastermind of the Reign of Terror? It's not just farcical, it's actually kind of unethical. Black Bart murdered people for a living. The Borgia were hilaiously corrupt. Even Charles Lee was a pretty massive jerk and likely traitor. But to depict Monsieur Germain as a monster strikes me as extremely disrespectful and callous.

I don't really know what else to say, other than I am very disappointed in the Unity's staff for this creative choice. Yes, it's just a game, but history is NOT your playground.



I am sure the smartass answer will be that Germain *gasp* broke from medieval guilds and sought funds from private financiers because as an artisan he knew the value of his work and wanted to be paid as he demanded which to some strikes them as pretty Templar-y but to me feels like legitimate common sense and human rights, and even in Brotherhood, Ezio was appalled that Leonardo was being made to work for the Borgia for free and always paid him for his upgrades. Somehow, Ubisoft with its royalist propaganda decided that this was enough to suggest the dirty middle-class and big business interests taking the Revolution away from those romantic aristocrats and their Hot Daughters. Bear in mind that such insults come from anti-semitic propaganda from the counter-revolution since Jews were at the time, equated with money-lending and the old bourgeosie, and yet somehow they remained a persecuted minority.

The real reason why they choise Germain and melded him with the legends of the Count Saint-Germain is because Robespierre doesn't make sense as either an Assassin or a Templar. He was also not really an All-Powerful Dictator, in the way they marginalize him they actually do strike against the myth of Robespierre being a dictator or personal dictator. So they took an obscure nobody.

If they made a character anything close to the real guy, he would be executing and persecuting both Assassins ''and'' Templars since he would regard them, quite logically, as subversive anti-State organizations with hidden agendas. Napoleon is closer to being a Templar but again he disrupted international trade for the sake of his military adventures and radically overturned feudalism across Europe. So not really an Assassin or Templar.

The point of villains is that they be cool (Haytham), entertaining(Borgia) or sinister (Roberts). Germain fails at all three, and his speeches are about as smart as a Bond Villain. The story of UNITY is a disaster of colossal proportions, mainly because they give Jacques de Molay and medieval Templar banking too much credit. The real philosopher who anticipated and predicted the Revolution was Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Hood2theBurbs
11-10-2014, 06:19 AM
I am sure the smartass answer will be that Germain *gasp* broke from medieval guilds and sought funds from private financiers because as an artisan he knew the value of his work and wanted to be paid as he demanded which to some strikes them as pretty Templar-y but to me feels like legitimate common sense and human rights, and even in Brotherhood, Ezio was appalled that Leonardo was being made to work for the Borgia for free and always paid him for his upgrades. Somehow, Ubisoft with its royalist propaganda decided that this was enough to suggest the dirty middle-class and big business interests taking the Revolution away from those romantic aristocrats and their Hot Daughters. Bear in mind that such insults come from anti-semitic propaganda from the counter-revolution since Jews were at the time, equated with money-lending and the old bourgeosie, and yet somehow they remained a persecuted minority.

The real reason why they choise Germain and melded him with the legends of the Count Saint-Germain is because Robespierre doesn't make sense as either an Assassin or a Templar. He was also not really an All-Powerful Dictator, in the way they marginalize him they actually do strike against the myth of Robespierre being a dictator or personal dictator. So they took an obscure nobody.

If they made a character anything close to the real guy, he would be executing and persecuting both Assassins ''and'' Templars since he would regard them, quite logically, as subversive anti-State organizations with hidden agendas. Napoleon is closer to being a Templar but again he disrupted international trade for the sake of his military adventures and radically overturned feudalism across Europe. So not really an Assassin or Templar.

The point of villains is that they be cool (Haytham), entertaining(Borgia) or sinister (Roberts). Germain fails at all three, and his speeches are about as smart as a Bond Villain. The story of UNITY is a disaster of colossal proportions, mainly because they give Jacques de Molay and medieval Templar banking too much credit. The real philosopher who anticipated and predicted the Revolution was Jean-Jacques Rousseau

I was quite dissapointed by the fact that the Templars were behind the revolution. When I saw the title was AC Unity I thought that both Assassin's and Templars would be forced to join together just to survive the revolution. Instead we got Germain masterminding the whole thing but came off as meh. Was also hoping to see Napoleon crown himself and take the sword of eden for himself. After all he was unbeatable in battle for a time, but Arno seemingly takes it for himself. And I don't get why they would ever make Robbespierre a templar the dude was so paranoid of conspiracies he would never be a part of one.

guardian_titan
11-10-2014, 06:35 AM
I don't see why Ubisoft can't do a game where there's a third faction and either both the Templars and Assassins have to work together to take the third faction on or it turns into a three way war. Look at the history of the Freemasons. George Washington was a Freemason. So were many other American politicians. Meriwether Lewis, Davy Crockett, and Santa Ana were also all Freemasons to name a few. There are likely other secret orders I can't think of off hand, but the Assassin vs Templar war is getting a bit stale. Unity could have been a perfect game to throw in a third faction. Have Elise and Arno fighting together against it only for things to go wrong and their temporary alliance dies.

Or perhaps the enemy of my enemy is my friend? They need to do something to spice things up. Every game is predictable. We get an Assassin who ends up fighting the Templars. After X number of Templars die, the Assassin takes on the Grand Master Templar who then dies at the hand of the Assassin. Even reversing it with a Templar and all it becomes is the Templar kills X number of Assassins before taking on the Mentor Assassin who dies. Really? While it's not always the destination but the journey that's important, in either scenario, the journey and destination boil down to the same paths. All Ubisoft does is slap on a new coat of paint each game and attempt to throw in twists. A two faction scenario really doesn't lend itself to a long running story because it pretty much ends up the same. Either one side dominates and it ends up boring or it's a 50-50 split and it STILL ends up boring.
Looking at an MMO such as World of Warcraft, people may only see the Horde vs Alliance war, but the thing is, there's also the enemies the two factions have in common. So when you think about it, there are three (or more) factions in a game like World of Warcraft but only two are playable. If the game were truly two factions, then there would be no common enemies for the two to fight against. All you'd see would be the other faction and it would get boring fast. Ubisoft keeps pushing Templars vs Assassins and don't really mention anything else. It's getting old. Again, Unity was a perfect place to introduce a third faction and they didn't. Rogue could have also been a good place to introduce a third faction. Shay could have said screw it to both sides and formed his own mercenary group or something. Somehow, I doubt he did.

While there are mentions of Erudito, frankly, it's just a random voice at this point that hasn't really done anything. He also seems to be favoring the Assassins so, as far as I'm concerned, he is one.
Maybe Ubisoft only uses Assassins and Templars because the two factions no longer really exist as far as we know so there's no one really around to go after them for inaccuracy with those groups, but they also use people who still have family today. George Washington is a cousin of mine. While I can understand how he was portrayed from a gameplay standpoint, I can also understand the complaints regarding how he was portrayed in ToKW. Surely there are relatives alive today of many of the other characters in the games. It's funny how Ubisoft feels they can freely play with and potentially butcher people belonging to someone's family for gameplay reasons but won't play with existing secret societies like the Freemasons.

These people were members of someone's family. How many people like their family dragged through the mud in the name of entertainment? It's one thing if that person was a noted murderer or just evil, but quite often there's a lot more to a person's story. George Washington was a well loved guy by Americans. How many know he owned slaves and torched the homes of Native Americans? To use an example closer to Unity, how many know Marie Antoinette didn't have a pretty smile before she married Louis XVI? She had to have massive and painful dental surgery to fix her smile before she married him. She also didn't always wear those huge dresses and wigs she's often portrayed with. She also wore simpler down to earth dresses when she wasn't at court. Somehow, I don't think she was oblivious to the situation with the common folk as people are led to believe.

The winners write history. But sometimes, time can even erase the winner's version and replace it with another. The Exodus ring a bell? What the Bible states happened and what recent archaeological evidence shows are two very different stories. Written history can be a funny thing. Kind of makes you question the validity of what we know when archaeological evidence suggests something different.
At any rate, when it comes to a historical story, someone's always going to get the short end of the stick. I guess Ubisoft went with someone people wouldn't normally think of or normally know about rather than go for a more obvious pick.

David73105
11-10-2014, 12:24 PM
Shh... The Templars have taken over Ubisoft and are deliberately producing underwhelming material.

GreatBeyonder
11-11-2014, 06:10 AM
There is actually one thing I quite liked about Germain, or rather his Sage nature. It's his final moment he suddenly begins interacting with Arno inside his own memories. This was pretty much the only new twist on the AC universe, but I thought it was very interesting and opens up all sorts of questions about Eagle Vision and Sages. I was also intrigued by the idea that he really never knew what he was, and instead accepted Jacques de Molay's ideas of Templar control because they were similar enough to First Civ ideas of ruling humanity, to satisfy his alter ego's desires.

Still, I wish the Sage plot had SOME bearing on the plot, but it really doesn't. It's just a silly coincidence, and doesn't really drive the plot in the way that it did for BF, even though you're TOLD it's the entire point. What's worse, his body turns out to be lost beneath the catacombs, and thus, there was never really a proper crisis.

VestigialLlama4
11-11-2014, 06:25 AM
There is actually one thing I quite liked about Germain, or rather his Sage nature. It's his final moment he suddenly begins interacting with Arno inside his own memories. This was pretty much the only new twist on the AC universe, but I thought it was very interesting and opens up all sorts of questions about Eagle Vision and Sages. I was also intrigued by the idea that he really never knew what he was, and instead accepted Jacques de Molay's ideas of Templar control because they were similar enough to First Civ ideas of ruling humanity, to satisfy his alter ego's desires.

Still, I wish the Sage plot had SOME bearing on the plot, but it really doesn't. It's just a silly coincidence, and doesn't really drive the plot in the way that it did for BF, even though you're TOLD it's the entire point. What's worse, his body turns out to be lost beneath the catacombs, and thus, there was never really a proper crisis.

For me he is so boring that even that plot twist couldnt make him interesting. And the way that its shoehorned its like an afterthought. I think that twist in black flag precisely because it was a wild card element and here they took it away

GreatBeyonder
11-11-2014, 02:32 PM
For me he is so boring that even that plot twist couldnt make him interesting. And the way that its shoehorned its like an afterthought. I think that twist in black flag precisely because it was a wild card element and here they took it away

It certainly doesn't justify the dull writing, and it really only serves as a means if relating his Sage nature to his Templar convictions, something they never attempt at any point before hand. I'm merely saying, it was a pleasant surprise in an otherwise disappointing story arc.

VestigialLlama4
11-11-2014, 04:26 PM
It certainly doesn't justify the dull writing, and it really only serves as a means if relating his Sage nature to his Templar convictions, something they never attempt at any point before hand. I'm merely saying, it was a pleasant surprise in an otherwise disappointing story arc.

For me the Sage is Cool precisely because he isn't Assassin or Templar. He's outside both. Ideally they should have gone that way. When they used that in Black Flag, they made a legendary figure who nobody had real information about and made him cool and scary, gave him a personality and voice that made him the most unique villain in the Franchise, and then they took that away here.

Acrimonious_Nin
11-11-2014, 08:22 PM
Pertaining to AC:Rogue and AC:U...Is it hinted that Al Mualim, being that he was neither Assassin nor Templar, but wanted to bring about "true peace" with the apple that resembled the same tactic of the first civs that, he in fact was a sage ? I mean his eye is damaged so no one could really see the color of his eyes...But Rogue hints that Al Mualim is a "unique leader".

In AC:U we see that the grand master of the Templar is also a cunning leader that has nothing to do with the current Templar or Assassin affairs, but instead is doing his own thing his own way similar to Al Mualim...Plot twist..."Prophets are never appreciated in their own time..." -(Aita)...Al Mualim could have been Aita ? lmao...

Megas_Doux
11-11-2014, 08:55 PM
Historically, Garnier de Naplouse was said to be the nicest person ever and see what happened in AC I.....

Namikaze_17
11-11-2014, 09:28 PM
Historically, Garnier de Naplouse was said to be the nicest person ever and see what happened in AC I.....

He was still noble in his intentions...