PDA

View Full Version : "How Assassin's Creed: Unity Fails as a Historical Fiction" [The Escapist]



D.I.D.
11-22-2014, 01:29 AM
Put the knives away - this is a great 3-page piece by a writer who has played every AC, and acknowledges the positives of Unity's Paris like so:

"Unity hits it out of the park with its setting. Ubisoft has fashioned the world's greatest digital recreation of a historical city. It has architectural majesty and street filth. Crowds and cafés. The monarchy and the mob. You walk through the city and see men fixing a wheel on a wagon. Drunks wander past. Actors preform a scene on the street. At times I would sit in the Café Theatre and just listen to the conversations. There are no idle inclusions, either. Each element serves a purpose. During the Revolution, for example, cafés served as the pressure cookers of intellectual thought and a clearinghouse for rumors, so it makes sense as a secret society's home base. (There are even theories that caffeine itself helped fuel the Enlightenment (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/04/24/178625554/how-coffee-influenced-the-course-of-history) - before coffee and tea everyone drank beer, even in the morning.) It's a well-placed detail and shows the team understands what they're doing. Loving touches grace every street corner."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/criticalintel/12639-Assassin-s-Creed-Unity-Doesn-t-Reflect-The-French-Revolution

The article is a sharp dissection of what the game does well, what it does poorly, and how it can be improved in future ACs.

king-hailz
11-22-2014, 01:45 AM
I already read it and it's great! However I doubt Ubisoft will ever hear of its existence!

Farlander1991
11-22-2014, 08:00 AM
Really interesting article, although I must say when it sets up historical fiction as a story that couldn't have happened in any other setting, and then goes on to use ACII as an example, I can't help but go 'whaaaaa?' I'm sorry, but ACII is not historical fiction by the person's definition. It uses historical characters and events quite a lot, yes, but Ezio's story is a classical archetypical tale that quite frankly doesn't require any of the historical events or notions to work as it does. If you change the Pazzi to a bunch of random shady people, nothing changes in terms of story for Ezio. Heck, there's even a point in the game when Ezio doesn't know what to do with his life when he's quite bluntly told that his actions have a great deal of effect on everything around him, yet he doesn't notice that. Transfer Ezio to any other time period and yep, it's ok. History is a part of the narrative, but it's not integral neither to the character or the story.

Something like ACIII is historical fiction, though. Quality ramblings aside, Connor's story, and arc that he goes through the game, the journey that changes him and shapes him, is a one that can't happen in any other setting. You can't put Connor in modern days and expect the same arc. Or in pre-British colonization days and expect the same arc, journey, thoughts and, well, character, because it requires a very specific set of circumstances, character world views and actions.

SixKeys
11-22-2014, 10:41 AM
I can't help but feel that all the people who complain about the French Revolution not being in focus enough didn't play all the side content. In the Paris stories you meet famous historical figures like Madame Tussaud and in the co-op missions you take part in some of the biggest events of the time period like the attempted assassination of Napoleon and Women's March. The biggest difference is that unlike in past ACs, the historical content has been scattered into various side missions and the main story's focus is the love story. The historical stuff is still there, it's just presented in a different fashion.

D.I.D.
11-22-2014, 04:30 PM
I'm sorry, but ACII is not historical fiction by the person's definition. It uses historical characters and events quite a lot, yes, but Ezio's story is a classical archetypical tale that quite frankly doesn't require any of the historical events or notions to work as it does. If you change the Pazzi to a bunch of random shady people, nothing changes in terms of story for Ezio. Heck, there's even a point in the game when Ezio doesn't know what to do with his life when he's quite bluntly told that his actions have a great deal of effect on everything around him, yet he doesn't notice that. Transfer Ezio to any other time period and yep, it's ok. History is a part of the narrative, but it's not integral neither to the character or the story.

Something like ACIII is historical fiction, though. Quality ramblings aside, Connor's story, and arc that he goes through the game, the journey that changes him and shapes him, is a one that can't happen in any other setting. You can't put Connor in modern days and expect the same arc. Or in pre-British colonization days and expect the same arc, journey, thoughts and, well, character, because it requires a very specific set of circumstances, character world views and actions.

Yes, that's true about ACII, but I definitely felt like Ezio's tragedy was intrinsically bound up in the Pazzi Conspiracy in a way that Arno's life does not connect with the French Revolution. I think if ACII was less whimsical, we might both see his point on that one more readily, but the fact that ACII was playing quite loosely with the conspiracy itself makes both games seem to be equal offenders.

Arguably, you probably could put Connor's story in another setting. For instance, you could have a Chinese assassin whose village is destroyed as part of the horrors that led to the Boxer Rebellion, and it could play out in exactly the same way. I agree that Connor's story earns its setting in a way that neither Arno or Ezio's stories do, although I liked Connor's story the least.



I can't help but feel that all the people who complain about the French Revolution not being in focus enough didn't play all the side content. In the Paris stories you meet famous historical figures like Madame Tussaud and in the co-op missions you take part in some of the biggest events of the time period like the attempted assassination of Napoleon and Women's March. The biggest difference is that unlike in past ACs, the historical content has been scattered into various side missions and the main story's focus is the love story. The historical stuff is still there, it's just presented in a different fashion.

I think the main point the author wants to make is that Arno is weirdly untouched by the events of the revolution. He doesn't feel like a Parisian - as the author says, it's like setting a game in New York over Sept 11th 2001, and having a protagonist who doesn't really have a particular opinion about the WTC attacks, or who isn't changed by them. Arno's like some kind of disinterested tourist who happens to have things to do in Paris during the revolution. Paris feels like Paris, and wonderfully so, but many of the key characters don't feel like locals.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-22-2014, 05:02 PM
I can't help but feel that all the people who complain about the French Revolution not being in focus enough didn't play all the side content. In the Paris stories you meet famous historical figures like Madame Tussaud and in the co-op missions you take part in some of the biggest events of the time period like the attempted assassination of Napoleon and Women's March. The biggest difference is that unlike in past ACs, the historical content has been scattered into various side missions and the main story's focus is the love story. The historical stuff is still there, it's just presented in a different fashion.

I can't help but feel that you didn't read the article, which specifically said that relegating the French Revolution to the side content was a bad thing (in other words, it should've been in the main story).

SixKeys
11-22-2014, 07:19 PM
I can't help but feel that you didn't read the article, which specifically said that relegating the French Revolution to the side content was a bad thing (in other words, it should've been in the main story).

But why? AC1 was great partly because it didn't have the "Gump factor". Altaïr's involvement in the Crusades was minimal, he had no real opinion on the fighting factions. He was there to do what his master commanded, which was to take out Templars who weren't famous figures. Meeting Richard the Lionheart at the battle of Arsuf was probably the biggest historical event in the game. It worked precisely because the Crusades era was just a backdrop for a more personal story. AC is at its best when it's about an assassin working in the shadows to influence history with such subtlety that no-one will ever know he was there. Compare with Ezio and Connor who apparently single-handedly took care of all the political problems of their respective eras, met every last famous historical figure and yet somehow mysteriously (and conveniently) not once are they mentioned in historical recordings of the era. That stretches the "invisible killer" fantasy to its breaking point.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-22-2014, 08:00 PM
But why? AC1 was great partly because it didn't have the "Gump factor". Altaïr's involvement in the Crusades was minimal, he had no real opinion on the fighting factions. He was there to do what his master commanded, which was to take out Templars who weren't famous figures. Meeting Richard the Lionheart at the battle of Arsuf was probably the biggest historical event in the game. It worked precisely because the Crusades era was just a backdrop for a more personal story. AC is at its best when it's about an assassin working in the shadows to influence history with such subtlety that no-one will ever know he was there. Compare with Ezio and Connor who apparently single-handedly took care of all the political problems of their respective eras, met every last famous historical figure and yet somehow mysteriously (and conveniently) not once are they mentioned in historical recordings of the era. That stretches the "invisible killer" fantasy to its breaking point.

But AC1 did have Altair and the Assassins, and Templars, involved. Both wanted the war to end, and that was their goal. They definitely had an opinion on the fighting factions. That they were fighting over land. That it was unnecessary. The crusades were front and center of their goals. I'm not saying they should've been involved with everything or even interacted with every famous figure, like the terrible AC3. But AC1 was the most accurate in that the Assassins did exist then, and they were assassinating people on both sides of the fighting. The Templars in AC1 had people on both sides, in order to bring about an end to the war. All of their goals were for that end. And their goals also extended to ending all war. The Assassins believed in peace through freedom and enlightenment. The Templars believed in peace through order and the restriction/suppression of human nature, the nature of violence, specifically. That's why they wanted control.

The point about the French Revolution is that because of its significance, the plot should have involved it, because that would have been the focus of everyone at the time. They didn't have to pick sides. They could be against both sides, but it should've been a focal point because of how significant and important and momentous it was. There's no way that they could've been detached from it, as is the case in the game.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-22-2014, 08:18 PM
In response to similar criticisms, game producer Antoine Vimal du Monteil said that "Assassin's Creed Unity is a mainstream video game, not a history lesson."

Sad to see Ubisoft, who used to be proud of Assassin's Creed's devotion to history admit that it's no longer even interested in trying to portray history accurately.

This, more than anything else that's happened, makes me seriously consider giving up on the franchise. I mean, if they don't care about history in an historical-based game, is the city architecture going to get dumbed down next? Are we going to see dragons in 19th Century London? Heck, why not Fairies and goblins.

If history is irrelevant to Assassin's Creed, then Assassin's Creed is irrelevant to me. I don't buy AC games for the architecture, and I sure as hell don't buy them for their atrocious and intellectually insulting storylines.

Shahkulu101
11-22-2014, 08:44 PM
In response to similar criticisms, game producer Antoine Vimal du Monteil said that "Assassin's Creed Unity is a mainstream video game, not a history lesson."

Sad to see Ubisoft, who used to be proud of Assassin's Creed's devotion to history admit that it's no longer even interested in trying to portray history accurately.

This, more than anything else that's happened, makes me seriously consider giving up on the franchise. I mean, if they don't care about history in an historical-based game, is the city architecture going to get dumbed down next? Are we going to see dragons in 19th Century London? Heck, why not Fairies and goblins.

If history is irrelevant to Assassin's Creed, then Assassin's Creed is irrelevant to me. I don't buy AC games for the architecture, and I sure as hell don't buy them for their atrocious and intellectually insulting storylines.

Errr...pretty sure it's not a case of ACU getting it's history wrong. It's as meticulously researched as every other AC, and the events portrayed in the game aren't exactly riddled with inaccuracies. There's still a mind boggling amount of database articles on everything to do with the history - and if any of them are incorrect then I'd be very, very surprised. The problem isn't the lack of accuracy, it's the fact the time period isn't important in the grand scheme of things, it's more of a personal love story that ties in with the Assassin/Templar war. By no means does that prove they aren't devoted to portraying the history in their games as valid, the narrative is just less focused on history to avoid the ridiculousness of our protagonist being involved in every historical event and somehow escaping the record books. The only thing I agree with in this article is the fact that Arno doesn't seem emotionally affected by the Revolution, heck he's not even a Parisian and seems more interested in personal redemption and maintaining a romantic relationship than his fellow countrymen starving. That's an issue - if the character feels detached from the time period your historical game takes place in...

Megas_Doux
11-22-2014, 08:49 PM
In response to similar criticisms, game producer Antoine Vimal du Monteil said that "Assassin's Creed Unity is a mainstream video game, not a history lesson."

Sad to see Ubisoft, who used to be proud of Assassin's Creed's devotion to history admit that it's no longer even interested in trying to portray history accurately.

T.

Nah!!!!

The problem with Unity´s story is not its "historical liberties". because AC has NEVER been 100% accurate, I can point 89380923842094820 examples on previous games. Thing is that, unlike AC III in which Connor is spammed unnecessarily in EVERY event of the American Revolution, Co op stuff that does cover the historical stuff ended up taking away some of the interest and focus of the main campaign.

The love story proved to be insufficient to make up an entire AC game.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-22-2014, 09:26 PM
Errr...pretty sure it's not a case of ACU getting it's history wrong. It's as meticulously researched as every other AC...

Maybe in terms of getting what happened when it happened right, but not in terms of the ideas and personalities involved. Just look at how the game treats Saint-Just. The game defines him by a fictional anecdote that everyone knows to be an outright falsehood.

They may have had historical consultants on payroll, but they clearly didn't pass much by them before making their story choices - certainly not in terms of the personalities of the historical people involved. Robespierre may have had his flaws, but not even conservative historians paint him as the monster that carries his name in Unity.

This game is, by a long way, the least historically accurate of all the AC games, because historical accuracy requires a bit more than getting the timing of events right.

GunnerGalactico
11-22-2014, 09:31 PM
AC has NEVER been 100% accurate

^ This.

The historical stuff in AC has always been tweaked. This has been done since AC1.

SixKeys
11-23-2014, 01:01 AM
The inaccuracies are even canonically explained with the Templars having influenced our written records of history. The whole series plays with the idea that history as we know may not be entirely accurate, that Templars and assassins have rewritten history books to suit their own purposes. The writers still do a lot of research, but some of the inaccuracies are deliberate, I think.

Heck, I just did the murder mystery of Marat and solved it immediately because I already knew who the real, historical killer was. In that way it kind of gets in the way of gameplay if everything is 100% historically accurate. If a player knows enough about history, they can already guess all the villains of the story before the game is even released.

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 01:53 AM
I thought people hated the gump factor of Connor being in a lot of major events? (even though this has happened pretty much the same amount in AC II and ACB)

and lol about "AC Unity being childish" while praising AC II's story. Sure.

D.I.D.
11-23-2014, 02:21 AM
I thought people hated the gump factor of Connor being in a lot of major events? (even though this has happened pretty much the same amount in AC II and ACB)

and lol about "AC Unity being childish" while praising AC II's story. Sure.

It's not about having Arno present at every important event. The article is an argument for embedding the protagonist into his/her world.

I honestly think getting rid of the costumes would help a lot with this. It would help, at the concept stage, if they were designing a personality of the era, with a complete life and sartorial style of their own. Then the character and his/her place in the world would flow naturally from that. The main character is always in danger of feeling insulated against the world and its events by all the trappings. I'd love it if the robes were just a ceremonial thing for the HQ anyway, but that's just me.

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 02:23 AM
It's not about having Arno present at every important event. The article is an argument for embedding the protagonist into his/her world.

I honestly think getting rid of the costumes would help a lot with this. It would help, at the concept stage, if they were designing a personality of the era, with a complete life and sartorial style of their own. Then the character and his/her place in the world would flow naturally from that. The main character is always in danger of feeling insulated against the world and its events by all the trappings. I'd love it if the robes were just a ceremonial thing for the HQ anyway, but that's just me.
I'm talking about Pr0metheus. Honestly, from what I played, Arno feels like a part of the period but I have one gripe. The removal of board games. I think that really would have added loads to the period. I especially liked the Coffee example they mention in the article.

jeffies04
11-23-2014, 02:25 AM
This is a great article and a great thread.

I agree with a lot of it, especially that it felt disconnected that Arno wasn't internalizing much of the revolution going on around him.

We have to remember that this is only ONE GUY. Remember all of those pivotal events in ACIII that Connor was involved in that reviewers called Forest Gumpy? In Unity, the revolution is definitely going on around him and he couldn't possibly realistically be a part of every bit of it. It's a bit of a dilemma for the creators to show all these pivotal events without over involving Arno.

Having an early on sequence after the Bastille/initiation with some discussion of "what's going on in France???" with Arno would have really helped me. I was really lost in what was happening in the history until about sequence 6 or 7, and that was after doing a little bit of research of my own (the Animus database just wasn't enough).

D.I.D.
11-23-2014, 02:29 AM
I'm talking about Pr0metheus. Honestly, from what I played, Arno feels like a part of the period but I have one gripe. The removal of board games. I think that really would have added loads to the period. I especially liked the Coffee example they mention in the article.

I read that as "removal of beard games" the first time.

To be fair, I think he feels like part of the period far more than Edward or Ezio. I think part of the desire for more is just how good the team have been with Unity, because they got so many things right, and got so close with others, so the misses and near-misses stand out like a sore thumb. There's obviously no point in complaining about Unity, but it's a handy way to make points about what you'd like to see more of in future games, I guess.

Are you enjoying Rogue?

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 02:34 AM
I read that as "removal of beard games" the first time.
Haha, what were you thinking, you devil, you?


To be fair, I think he feels like part of the period far more than Edward or Ezio. I think part of the desire for more is just how good the team have been with Unity, because they got so many things right, and got so close with others, so the misses and near-misses stand out like a sore thumb. There's obviously no point in complaining about Unity, but it's a handy way to make points about what you'd like to see more of in future games, I guess.
Good points. I definitely agree that you'd want more with so many things done right. I'm not an expert in this but I can sympathize. I had that problem with AC I. I didn't feel like Altair was a part of the culture nor feel of 12th century Levant. The setting itself felt empty, it didnt have a cultural feel to it but obviously, they'v come a long way.



Are you enjoying Rogue?
I haven't played it yet but I watched all of it. Shay is definitely up there with Altair and Connor for me. The story was fantastic. I presume i'll enjoy its gameplay as well because from what I saw, it's basically a reskinned black flag, which is really not a bad thing.

Namikaze_17
11-23-2014, 02:45 AM
Connor= Too involved with the AR

Arno= Hardly involved in FR whatsoever

The difference between these two is that at least with Connor, the revolution actually had an impact to his story, whilst with Arno there's hardly anything in the French Revolution that impacts him at all.


Point is, Ubi should stop doing revolutions. :rolleyes:

D.I.D.
11-23-2014, 02:49 AM
Connor= Too involved with the AR

Arno= Hardly involved in FR whatsoever

The difference between these two is that at least with Connor, the revolution actually had an impact to his story, whilst with Arno there's hardly anything in the French Revolution that impacts him at all.


Point is, Ubi should stop doing revolutions. :rolleyes:

Ha ha! I agree with the last part.

Really, it's that Arno doesn't react to the revolution, and doesn't act like he has a stake in it. He does - he's from a noble household, or you could say two noble households, which ought to have impacted his feelings and his treatment by other people, but it never really arises. It would really help when illustrating events to demonstrate their size in terms of how our man reacts to them with his eyes and ears.

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 02:50 AM
Connor= Too involved with the AR
Honestly, I don't think he was too involved much as it was more about his character taking a major backseat too many times in favor of the Revolution and its battles. For example, I detested the fact that Connor HAD to be in the Chesapeake. Connor came to the conclusion that killing Washington would be bad and that Washington is not a monster and a much more reasonable man than he might think. He was put in an impossible situation, where he had to decide between his duty as an Assassin and his desire to end the man who took the peace in his life from him. If he kills GW, he'd be giving free reign for the Templars to install their man into power. I wanted to SEE that struggle instead of Connor participating in a battle.

Namikaze_17
11-23-2014, 03:03 AM
Honestly, I don't think he was too involved much as it was more about his character taking a major backseat too many times in favor of the Revolution and its battles. For example, I detested the fact that Connor HAD to be in the Chesapeake. Connor came to the conclusion that killing Washington would be bad and that Washington is not a monster and a much more reasonable man than he might think. He was put in an impossible situation, where he had to decide between his duty as an Assassin and his desire to end the man who took the peace in his life from him. If he kills GW, he'd be giving free reign for the Templars to install their man into power. I wanted to SEE that struggle instead of Connor participating in a battle.

I personally don't think he was as involved as people made him out to be.

But after playing some of those said missions today, I do see where they're coming from.


To what you said, I agree.

Connor going through that internal struggle between his duty as an Assassin and a Native trying to protect his tribe would've been way better than any battle.

SixKeys
11-23-2014, 03:11 AM
The biggest offenders to me were Connor being present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence (WTF was he doing there?) and the memory where he commanded a whole army (was that Chesapeake?). The rest are tolerable. Paul Revere's ride had potential if they hadn't made the dumb decision of making Connor a taxi driver. Instead they should have had both him and Paul riding on separate horses, as if Connor was his bodyguard, and then throw in obstacles in their way. Like Paul would have spotted soldiers in the woods and said: "Connor, take care of them, I'll circle around." That would have been a better take on the idea that Connor was always working in the background of the Revolution without making it too ridiculous.

Bottom line, I'm not entirely opposed to the Gump factor, it just needs to be handled with subtlety. AC1 was the best approach, but since the Ezio trilogy everyone expects the assassin to be personally involved in every major event.

Namikaze_17
11-23-2014, 03:23 AM
The biggest offenders to me were Connor being present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence

Yeah, that part made me cringe...

TwentyGlyphs
11-23-2014, 03:47 AM
Yeah, Arno feels disconnected from the entire setting. I never get a sense that the Revolution matters to Arno one way or another. Apparently it sort of matters to the Assassins, but you never really see their goals for it either. Arno doesn't react to the events he's seeing or discuss it with anyone. Maybe if he had talked to Elise about some of the events and had a little commentary about it, things would have felt different. My biggest issue is that the Reign of Terror is hardly even present in the main story (I haven't played the co-op missions yet). The E3 demo made it seem like the crowds and executions of Paris would form this great setting for assassinations. It reminded me of how the Crusades setting worked as a great backdrop in AC1. But in the actual game, none of that craziness feels represented in the setting. They incorporated the guillotine into the logo of the game, and yet I've hardly even seen a single reference to the device in the game other than in Sequence 10. It's just nothing like the E3 singleplayer demo where Arno pursued his target during the public executions, which had so much potential.

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 05:01 AM
Yeah, Arno feels disconnected from the entire setting. I never get a sense that the Revolution matters to Arno one way or another. Apparently it sort of matters to the Assassins, but you never really see their goals for it either. Arno doesn't react to the events he's seeing or discuss it with anyone. Maybe if he had talked to Elise about some of the events and had a little commentary about it, things would have felt different. My biggest issue is that the Reign of Terror is hardly even present in the main story (I haven't played the co-op missions yet). The E3 demo made it seem like the crowds and executions of Paris would form this great setting for assassinations. It reminded me of how the Crusades setting worked as a great backdrop in AC1. But in the actual game, none of that craziness feels represented in the setting. They incorporated the guillotine into the logo of the game, and yet I've hardly even seen a single reference to the device in the game other than in Sequence 10. It's just nothing like the E3 singleplayer demo where Arno pursued his target during the public executions, which had so much potential.
There are random public executions in a lot of places, though.


The biggest offenders to me were Connor being present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence (WTF was he doing there?) and the memory where he commanded a whole army (was that Chesapeake?). The rest are tolerable. Paul Revere's ride had potential if they hadn't made the dumb decision of making Connor a taxi driver. Instead they should have had both him and Paul riding on separate horses, as if Connor was his bodyguard, and then throw in obstacles in their way. Like Paul would have spotted soldiers in the woods and said: "Connor, take care of them, I'll circle around." That would have been a better take on the idea that Connor was always working in the background of the Revolution without making it too ridiculous.

Bottom line, I'm not entirely opposed to the Gump factor, it just needs to be handled with subtlety. AC1 was the best approach, but since the Ezio trilogy everyone expects the assassin to be personally involved in every major event.
It was the battle of Concord and yes, the ride and that battle were terrible. I kind of understand his presence at the signing, though. It's kind of a consequence to his being so involved in the Revolution. It's A LOT of his work and he NEEDS to be there, you know? Kind of overlook what's going on and staying in the loop.

SixKeys
11-23-2014, 05:28 AM
It was the battle of Concord and yes, the ride and that battle were terrible. I kind of understand his presence at the signing, though. It's kind of a consequence to his being so involved in the Revolution. It's A LOT of his work and he NEEDS to be there, you know? Kind of overlook what's going on and staying in the loop.

I dunno, I find it hard to believe this native American whom even Washington didn't know at the time would be allowed into such an important meeting. Who vouched for him? The Patriots' relationship with the natives was volatile at best and I don't think anyone else present at the signing knew all the things Connor had done to help the Patriots. (Maybe Adams, but was he at the signing?)

Fatal-Feit
11-23-2014, 05:33 AM
Paul Revere's ride had potential if they hadn't made the dumb decision of making Connor a taxi driver. Instead they should have had both him and Paul riding on separate horses, as if Connor was his bodyguard, and then throw in obstacles in their way. Like Paul would have spotted soldiers in the woods and said: "Connor, take care of them, I'll circle around." That would have been a better take on the idea that Connor was always working in the background of the Revolution without making it too ridiculous.

Bottom line, I'm not entirely opposed to the Gump factor, it just needs to be handled with subtlety. AC1 was the best approach, but since the Ezio trilogy everyone expects the assassin to be personally involved in every major event.

Ah, yes, I couldn't agree more! Unity's CO-OP missions, specifically the Women's March, are a perfect example for it done right. Instead of being forced to march with the crowd, while listening to a dialogue or some sort (something AC:3 would have done), for 10-15 minutes (give or take a few QTEs or a very linear design like - kill the enemies showing up, follow and wait for the next wave to appear, repeat), players were given the task to eliminate targets that would oppose the revolution (e.i - eliminating snipers and sabotaging cannons) in an open ended fashion. It also made sense, given the fact that the Assassins worked behind the scenes, not the other way around.

I-Like-Pie45
11-23-2014, 05:35 AM
Trust me, they would've let Connor in!

I am a woman and they let me in at the signing, after all!

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 05:36 AM
I dunno, I find it hard to believe this native American whom even Washington didn't know at the time would be allowed into such an important meeting. Who vouched for him? The Patriots' relationship with the natives was volatile at best and I don't think anyone else present at the signing knew all the things Connor had done to help the Patriots. (Maybe Adams, but was he at the signing?)
Adams and Hancock were there and Connor had saved their lives by warning them about Pitcairn, so yeah. Most likely Adams was the one who vouched for him.

Fatal-Feit
11-23-2014, 05:41 AM
I dunno, I find it hard to believe this native American whom even Washington didn't know at the time would be allowed into such an important meeting. Who vouched for him? The Patriots' relationship with the natives was volatile at best and I don't think anyone else present at the signing knew all the things Connor had done to help the Patriots. (Maybe Adams, but was he at the signing?)

Yes, Adams and the other founding fathers. He/they are also the reason for Connor's many other meetings, including the introduction to George Washington during his promotion, etc.

I-Like-Pie45
11-23-2014, 05:43 AM
Speaking of what happened to Sam Adams.

He seemed like a nice enough chap.

SixKeys
11-23-2014, 06:57 AM
Ah, yes, I couldn't agree more! Unity's CO-OP missions, specifically the Women's March, are a perfect example for it done right. Instead of being forced to march with the crowd, while listening to a dialogue or some sort (something AC:3 would have done), for 10-15 minutes (give or take a few QTEs or a very linear design like - kill the enemies showing up, follow and wait for the next wave to appear, repeat), players were given the task to eliminate targets that would oppose the revolution (e.i - eliminating snipers and sabotaging cannons) in an open ended fashion. It also made sense, given the fact that the Assassins worked behind the scenes, not the other way around.

The Machine Infernale mission is another good example. Instead of us riding in the carriage with Napoleon (and listening to some oh-so-meaningful discussion about freedom and choice), we get to take out snipers on rooftops. The real history is still happening on the streets below, we're just helping it along.

VestigialLlama4
11-23-2014, 08:59 AM
Ah, yes, I couldn't agree more! Unity's CO-OP missions, specifically the Women's March, are a perfect example for it done right. Instead of being forced to march with the crowd, while listening to a dialogue or some sort (something AC:3 would have done), for 10-15 minutes (give or take a few QTEs or a very linear design like - kill the enemies showing up, follow and wait for the next wave to appear, repeat), players were given the task to eliminate targets that would oppose the revolution (e.i - eliminating snipers and sabotaging cannons) in an open ended fashion. It also made sense, given the fact that the Assassins worked behind the scenes, not the other way around.

Except it made all the co-op missions (except for say, The Tournament which had some variety) feel the same, there is no variety and nothing to distinguish the missions in terms of gameplay from one another. Compare that to the Pazzi Conspiracy mission, where you get involved in a street fight, see some crowd activity around Florence, chase a dude to the top of a building and than hang him from the rafters. Extrapolating from history, dynamic in gameplay and memorable after six years. There are other examples, the Battle of Bunker Hill missions in AC3 is really memorable as well, as is the Bonfire of the Vanities. Here the Woman's March to Versailles feels like something that happens on the side, all the Co-Op missions are really the same, sneak into building, kill red dots, collect coupons and escape areas.

As for the Assassins supposed to working behind the scenes, no it's the Templars who work behind the scenes, Assassins operate in plain sight, they are all about boldness and guts.

VestigialLlama4
11-23-2014, 09:13 AM
The Machine Infernale mission is another good example. Instead of us riding in the carriage with Napoleon (and listening to some oh-so-meaningful discussion about freedom and choice), we get to take out snipers on rooftops. The real history is still happening on the streets below, we're just helping it along.

Well about the only historical role that you get to play in the game is "Be Napoleon's B-tch'', you do errands for him in Side Missions, chaperone him on Side Stories like the loyal little lapdog that Arno is and poke around like an idiot, totally fail at your objectives at the Tuileries while this guy steals an Apple of Eden under your bloody nose.

I prefer Connor's Gump Factor to playing a character who behaves, acts and makes me feel like a total moron but who I am still asked to take seriously. I don't like playing a rich fool who basically exists in the story because Ubisoft didn't have the guts to make a main title around Elise, who is obviously the main character in this plot of Templar-Versus-Templar. I mean the historical element, biased and insulting as it is, would be less offensive if they had openly asked us to root for a royalist or a Templar, than we know we are seeing things from a real point of view.

The fact is if you take away the historical level, the appeal of actually being in the past and interacting with figures like Da Vinci, Machiavelli, Washington, Blackbeard almost like they are your friends than Assassin's Creed is no different from any other action/stealth game. The historical fiction is a central aspect of the Franchise and in UNITY they moved away from it by substituting it for conspiracy mythology entirely and the end result is a terrible story altogether. The Co-Op missions are even worse, repititive gameplay and cutscenes that are laughably biased in history. Even royalist historians were more fair than this.

SixKeys
11-23-2014, 09:40 AM
Well about the only historical role that you get to play in the game is "Be Napoleon's B-tch'', you do errands for him in Side Missions, chaperone him on Side Stories like the loyal little lapdog that Arno is and poke around like an idiot, totally fail at your objectives at the Tuileries while this guy steals an Apple of Eden under your bloody nose.

I prefer Connor's Gump Factor to playing a character who behaves, acts and makes me feel like a total moron but who I am still asked to take seriously. I don't like playing a rich fool who basically exists in the story because Ubisoft didn't have the guts to make a main title around Elise, who is obviously the main character in this plot of Templar-Versus-Templar. I mean the historical element, biased and insulting as it is, would be less offensive if they had openly asked us to root for a royalist or a Templar, than we know we are seeing things from a real point of view.

The fact is if you take away the historical level, the appeal of actually being in the past and interacting with figures like Da Vinci, Machiavelli, Washington, Blackbeard almost like they are your friends than Assassin's Creed is no different from any other action/stealth game. The historical fiction is a central aspect of the Franchise and in UNITY they moved away from it by substituting it for conspiracy mythology entirely and the end result is a terrible story altogether. The Co-Op missions are even worse, repititive gameplay and cutscenes that are laughably biased in history. Even royalist historians were more fair than this.

Um, we've ALWAYS been someone's lapdog in AC games. Altaïr was Al Mualim's, Ezio had Lorenzo de Medici, then Machiavelli, then Suleiman, Connor with Washington. Arno is no exception.

VestigialLlama4
11-23-2014, 10:10 AM
Um, we've ALWAYS been someone's lapdog in AC games. Altaïr was Al Mualim's, Ezio had Lorenzo de Medici, then Machiavelli, then Suleiman, Connor with Washington. Arno is no exception.

Let's take this down, one by one:
1) Altair was Al Mualim's best and most rebellious student. The one who always questioned and "pierced the illusion", the one who ultimately proved strong enough to expose and destroy his corruption. Altair was his own man and no one's lackey. He also asked Malik to think for himself and question Al Mualim too.

2) Lorenzo de'Medici is a father-figure for Ezio. You can say that Giovanni Auditore is Lorenzo's lapdog but for Ezio who lost his family, its more emotional than rational, to him Lorenzo was a friend of his Dad's and the last connection to his youth. Lorenzo il Magnifico in history may not have been a specially kind man but the Pazzi were worse than him, and he himself (as opposed to his descendants) was a man of culture and intellectual achievement. As for Machiavelli, I don't get what you mean by this. Machiavelli was never more than a diplomat and scholar, he later became the chancellor of Florence and ran one of the few corruption-free governments of that time but we see him before that. And Prince Suleiman is someone Ezio looks at as a very young friend and he makes a mistake with Tarik Berleti that Ezio takes the rap for but he later argues for him with his hard-*** father.

3) Connor isn't Washington's lackey, he supported him because the Templars wanted him dead and he's important to the Revolution which he naively thought would be a good thing. This only makes his sense of betrayal greater. The whole Tyranny DLC shows that Connor is basically Washington's guilty conscience, the only person the General can turn to avoid becoming a worse tyrant than the King he deposed. This is an extrapolation of the fact that in his retirement, several ex-soldiers came to Washington and asked him to install a dictatorship or become a King and Washington refused.

Arno is very different. For one thing he gets sent by the Assassins to do a mission. He arrives there and he finds that, what is in his eyes, a guy who he never heard of with no pedigree whatsoever rummaging in the King's rooms. He doesn't find this in the least bit suspicious. Arno basically thinks, this guy has guts and he's so cool and he knows where the King hides his documents, so why not. Later he sees Napoleon pull out a sizable box while he decides to focus on burning on papers, when he should think, "I wonder what's in that box" and why did this guy break in the King's rooms to take that one specific thing instead of state secrets and other jewels. As they escape, Napoleon charms the pants of the guy and tells him he can help him find his target. And then at the end we find out that he told Napoleon about Germain and cast his lot with him. The side-missions which supposedly has Arno help the people during the Revolution, has you spying on Napoleon's first girlfriend and serving as her chaperone. To me what we see is Arno being made a fool of, unaware he is being made a fool of, being the worst Assassin we have seen so far. This is far more different than the earlier games equation with historical figures.

GunnerGalactico
11-23-2014, 10:55 AM
Paul Revere's ride had potential if they hadn't made the dumb decision of making Connor a taxi driver. Instead they should have had both him and Paul riding on separate horses, as if Connor was his bodyguard, and then throw in obstacles in their way. Like Paul would have spotted soldiers in the woods and said: "Connor, take care of them, I'll circle around." That would have been a better take on the idea that Connor was always working in the background of the Revolution without making it too ridiculous.

Bottom line, I'm not entirely opposed to the Gump factor, it just needs to be handled with subtlety. AC1 was the best approach, but since the Ezio trilogy everyone expects the assassin to be personally involved in every major event.

I actually agree with this. I hated the idea of being Paul Revere's personal chaffeur. It makes me wonder if Connor will be there too when the Statue of Liberty is being constructed.

It also didn't help that gameplay footage at the Frontier was somewhat misleading. In the video Connor said, "Let the patriots fight their own battle. I'm just here for the Templar". This gave me the impression that he will be subtly involved in major events, however that is not what we got in actual game.

Namikaze_17
11-23-2014, 11:16 AM
It also didn't help that gameplay footage at the Frontier was somewhat misleading. In the video Connor said, "Let the patriots fight their own battle. I'm just here for the Templar". This gave me the impression that he will be subtly involved in major events, however that is not what we got in actual game.


Yeah, that part kinda bothered me too... :confused:

GunnerGalactico
11-23-2014, 11:23 AM
Yeah, that part kinda bothered me too... :confused:

I really wish that they hadn't scrapped that. I was hoping to see medics carry injured patriot soldiers on stretchers and other stuff featured on that video.

For the most part, I did enjoy the overall campaign in AC3... but a lot of things were really poorly executed. And that really hurts my soul to say it :nonchalance:

Pr0metheus 1962
11-23-2014, 02:21 PM
Speaking of what happened to Sam Adams.

He seemed like a nice enough chap.

Really? I heard he was a bit of a *****.

LoyalACFan
12-13-2014, 08:05 AM
Altair was stoic and hardened by the Third Crusade and his life as essentially an Assassin from birth.
Ezio was a carefree playboy lulled by the explosion of arts and intelligentsia in the Renaissance.
Connor was torn between two competing worlds, both of which he belonged to, in the Revolution.
Edward was reckless and self-loathing after the deaths of everyone he cared for in the Golden Age of Piracy.
Adewale was swayed by his conviction to help his people during the Atlantic Slave Trade.

...

Arno... kicked around for a bit in the French Revolution.

I'm actually in complete agreement with the author. While AC3 went way too far by stuffing Connor into a leadership role in every event they could, Unity didn't go nearly far enough in actually making Arno feel like a man of his own era. I mean, the frigging KING OF FRANCE, who lived in ARNO'S HOMETOWN for his entire life, got dragged into the streets and got HIS HEAD LOPPED OFF, and Arno barely even bats an eye. I thought Unity's story was bad in general, but the main missions certainly didn't feel at all like a work of historical fiction. And it's a shame, because the world itself is just so damned immersive.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-13-2014, 11:14 AM
Oddly enough my opinions are opposite on all points..
For starters AC1, AC2, ACB, and ACR ALL did a better recreation of their cities in terms of life...
Paris is of course packed with NPCs, but i found them to be artificual and lifeless especially compared to the NPCs in Revelations which imo is tied with the original AC with getting crowds right
They feel very copy and paste.. not a single moment outside of the side missions did i feel 'these characters have a life of their own'
And as far as the story goes.. I LOVE how personal the Unity story is....
Assassin's Creed's job isn't to give us a history lesson, it's to let us time travel and wonder....
We don't need our character Forest Gumping their way through the world .
Side missions are still part of the game and actually some of my favorite parts of the game....
You cant whine about it not being there when it is AND its accessible with no extra cost...
IMO these side missions are up to par with the main campaign of the past 7 games

Pr0metheus 1962
12-13-2014, 11:47 AM
We don't need our character Forest Gumping their way through the world .

Right - when we're involved in everything, as we were in AC3, it makes us lose the suspension of disbelief. But we don't need him completely detached from the world either - that makes us lose the sense that we're connected to the historical happenings in the game, and that's what happens in Unity. The trick is to find the sweet spot - not too hot, not too cold. Ubisoft found that perfect balance in every AC game until AC3, and then they lost the knack. They got it back with AC4, but Unity proves that they don't really know the trick of it.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-13-2014, 09:17 PM
Right - when we're involved in everything, as we were in AC3, it makes us lose the suspension of disbelief. But we don't need him completely detached from the world either - that makes us lose the sense that we're connected to the historical happenings in the game, and that's what happens in Unity. The trick is to find the sweet spot - not too hot, not too cold. Ubisoft found that perfect balance in every AC game until AC3, and then they lost the knack. They got it back with AC4, but Unity proves that they don't really know the trick of it.

The story was fine in my opinion though...
It's very personal.... Whats wrong with being a character detached from politics as he made very clear and the other assassins made clear that everything was a personal vendetta....
Heck if I was a protagonist, my story would be kind of the same... i stay away from news and politics to prevent my mind from being bent and corrupted.,..
The city wasnt arnos life like it was Ezios life or the frontier connors life....
Arnos life was his step father and Elise and im fine with that..
For the first time since AC1, I felt like i was jsut another face in the crowd rather than the center of attention.. that the world was built around me

Pr0metheus 1962
12-13-2014, 09:39 PM
The story was fine in my opinion though...

Yeah, but most reviewers say it's bad, most of the players who have expressed an opinion on it in these forums say it's bad. Good stories tend to get more people saying they're good. Heck, I enjoyed the movie "Scrooged" but that doesn't mean it was a good movie - it only means I liked it. Personal opinions only work for the person who has those opinions, and to get closer to objective fact, we have to cast our net a bit wider.


It's very personal.... Whats wrong with being a character detached from politics as he made very clear and the other assassins made clear that everything was a personal vendetta....

There's nothing wrong with someone being detached from politics in times of peace and plenty. But being detached from politics during the French Revolution would be like being detached from politics during WW2. It's just impossible for someone at that time to say "Freedom vs. Fascism? Who cares." Same with the French Revolution. Arno acts as if what's happening is a minor political disagreement, rather than a disaster that is costing thousands of people's lives and threatening millions more.

The fact is, anyone who ignored the French Revolution would most likely have ended up with his head cut off, because one side or the other would have found him and figured out that he wasn't committed enough. No one in 1791-94 was detached from politics, because it was tantamount to committing suicide. Sure, Arno can take care of himself, so he doesn't have to worry too much, but that makes it even worse, because when he ignores the situation when he's capable of doing something to make a real difference, it makes him seem either incredibly callous or incredibly stupid.

Hans684
12-13-2014, 09:46 PM
Yeah, but most reviewers say it's bad, most of the players who have expressed an opinion on it in these forums say it's bad. Good stories tend to get more people saying they're good. Heck, I enjoyed the movie "Scrooged" but that doesn't mean it was a good movie - it only means I liked it. Personal opinions only work for the person who has those opinions, and to get closer to objective fact, we have to cast our net a bit wider.



There's nothing wrong with someone being detached from politics in times of peace and plenty. But being detached from politics during the French Revolution would be like being detached from politics during WW2. It's just impossible for someone at that time to say "Freedom vs. Fascism? Who cares." Same with the French Revolution. Arno acts as if what's happening is a minor political disagreement, rather than a disaster that is costing thousands of people's lives and threatening millions more.

The fact is, anyone who ignored the French Revolution would most likely have ended up with his head cut off, because one side or the other would have found him and figured out that he wasn't radical enough. No one in 1791-94 was detached from politics, because it was tantamount to committing suicide. And for Arno to ignore the situation when he's capable of doing something to make a real difference? Well, it makes him seem either incredibly callous or incredibly stupid.

Let's not forget that he's also a noble man, building and becoming rich in the revolution, I was surprised the people didn't burn his place to the ground.

Namikaze_17
12-13-2014, 09:54 PM
Errr...pretty sure it's not a case of ACU getting it's history wrong. It's as meticulously researched as every other AC, and the events portrayed in the game aren't exactly riddled with inaccuracies. There's still a mind boggling amount of database articles on everything to do with the history - and if any of them are incorrect then I'd be very, very surprised. The problem isn't the lack of accuracy, it's the fact the time period isn't important in the grand scheme of things, it's more of a personal love story that ties in with the Assassin/Templar war. By no means does that prove they aren't devoted to portraying the history in their games as valid, the narrative is just less focused on history to avoid the ridiculousness of our protagonist being involved in every historical event and somehow escaping the record books. The only thing I agree with in this article is the fact that Arno doesn't seem emotionally affected by the Revolution, heck he's not even a Parisian and seems more interested in personal redemption and maintaining a romantic relationship than his fellow countrymen starving. That's an issue - if the character feels detached from the time period your historical game takes place in...


Let's not forget that he's also a noble man, building and becoming rich in the revolution, I was surprised the people didn't burn his place to the ground.

IKR?

Even the smallest things like leaving home and having a groups of radicals trying to kill you on your front yard would've been nice.

But nope, Arno just gets off free.

D.I.D.
12-13-2014, 10:06 PM
The story was fine in my opinion though...
It's very personal.... Whats wrong with being a character detached from politics as he made very clear and the other assassins made clear that everything was a personal vendetta....
Heck if I was a protagonist, my story would be kind of the same... i stay away from news and politics to prevent my mind from being bent and corrupted.,..
The city wasnt arnos life like it was Ezios life or the frontier connors life....
Arnos life was his step father and Elise and im fine with that..
For the first time since AC1, I felt like i was jsut another face in the crowd rather than the center of attention.. that the world was built around me

Then it needs to be a plot point. We'd need to see Arno refusing to engage with the circumstances. This would have added an interesting slant to his character.

The thing is, none of the Assassins seem to be particularly bothered about the whole thing. My lasting impression, and the lasting impression of lots of other people, is that Amancio and the writer did not care about the revolution either.

It's not as if they didn't take sides - they came out heavily on the side of the royalty as victims, aside from a brief blip that makes Marie Antionette look a bit callous at the beginning of one co-op mission because she's enjoying a party amid the worsening situation. You'd be hard pressed to find a historian who would have this take on the revolution (and indeed, the article points out the late inclusion of a historian from the Sorbonne who was drafted in for fact-checking, and had a lot to say about what was wrong with the work). If you don't want to know about the situation then you're always going to be unaware of the narrative opportunity that was missed here. It's the difference between "passable" and "enthralling".

Hans684
12-13-2014, 10:12 PM
IKR?

Even the smallest things like leaving home and having a groups of radicals trying to kill you on your front yard would've been nice.

But nope, Arno just gets off free.

Or having a missions where the people burn down his house, but you'd have to complete all caffe missions and renovations to get past that story mission.

He properly gave them a free coffe deal :rolleyes:

Namikaze_17
12-13-2014, 10:22 PM
Or having a missions where the people burn down his house, but you'd have to complete all caffe missions and renovations to get past that story mission.

He properly gave them a free coffe deal :rolleyes:

Haha, that could've worked too. XD

STDlyMcStudpants
12-13-2014, 10:51 PM
Yeah, but most reviewers say it's bad, most of the players who have expressed an opinion on it in these forums say it's bad. Good stories tend to get more people saying they're good. Heck, I enjoyed the movie "Scrooged" but that doesn't mean it was a good movie - it only means I liked it. Personal opinions only work for the person who has those opinions, and to get closer to objective fact, we have to cast our net a bit wider.



There's nothing wrong with someone being detached from politics in times of peace and plenty. But being detached from politics during the French Revolution would be like being detached from politics during WW2. It's just impossible for someone at that time to say "Freedom vs. Fascism? Who cares." Same with the French Revolution. Arno acts as if what's happening is a minor political disagreement, rather than a disaster that is costing thousands of people's lives and threatening millions more.

The fact is, anyone who ignored the French Revolution would most likely have ended up with his head cut off, because one side or the other would have found him and figured out that he wasn't committed enough. No one in 1791-94 was detached from politics, because it was tantamount to committing suicide. Sure, Arno can take care of himself, so he doesn't have to worry too much, but that makes it even worse, because when he ignores the situation when he's capable of doing something to make a real difference, it makes him seem either incredibly callous or incredibly stupid.

Detachment and lack of care are not the same thing...
Im sure he cares what happens to his country.. but not enough to connor out...,.
And my review will say the story is good...
Unity is not nearly as bad of a game as people make it out to be... hype reviewers is why unity has such a low metacritic score...
Many reviewers review based on a set expectation and how close did this game come to achieving that expectation..
I on the other hand review a game for what it is at hand, and I loved the story and Arno both.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-13-2014, 11:00 PM
Then it needs to be a plot point. We'd need to see Arno refusing to engage with the circumstances. This would have added an interesting slant to his character.

The thing is, none of the Assassins seem to be particularly bothered about the whole thing. My lasting impression, and the lasting impression of lots of other people, is that Amancio and the writer did not care about the revolution either.

It's not as if they didn't take sides - they came out heavily on the side of the royalty as victims, aside from a brief blip that makes Marie Antionette look a bit callous at the beginning of one co-op mission because she's enjoying a party amid the worsening situation. You'd be hard pressed to find a historian who would have this take on the revolution (and indeed, the article points out the late inclusion of a historian from the Sorbonne who was drafted in for fact-checking, and had a lot to say about what was wrong with the work). If you don't want to know about the situation then you're always going to be unaware of the narrative opportunity that was missed here. It's the difference between "passable" and "enthralling".

Why though?
Why does he have to make a deal about not getting involved in a war?
I'm an american and I'm not a part of the military...
But according to everyones complaints I HAVE to join a side because america is at war....
No...
If you played both Rogue and Unity you would know that undernearth it all.. Arnos story wasnt just coincidental.. it was indeed a product of the revolution...
That doesnt mean he needs to go out and try to single handedly fix france
He kind of made it clear to the brotherhood that he joined for him...not for them...
It was a refreshing change to have a REAL character rather than a larger than life hero...
This was a selfish tale and in the end he loses everything
I mean I 100% understand the frustration.. the time period and setting wasnt used to its full potential
And in my opinion neither were the americas and the american revolution....
That doesnt take away from AC3 being my favorite game of all time...
Critique games for what they are.. not what they couldve or shouldve been....
Thats hype review...

And to note that doesnt mean you sshouldnt speak on potential and suggestions for FUTURE releases,
But whats the point in complaining about lost potential on something that is already released?
That changes nothing

Pr0metheus 1962
12-17-2014, 02:39 PM
Why though?
Why does he have to make a deal about not getting involved in a war?
I'm an american and I'm not a part of the military...

You're not living in America during the American Revolution. If you were, you'd care. Same with the French Revolution, except in that revolution, even if you DID care, if you didn't care enough, you'd likely be killed by nutcases whose idea of a counter-revolutionary was anyone who wasn't desperate to cut someone else's head off.

That's why it's unthinkable that Arno wouldn't care. The French Revolution did not take place in a modern liberal democracy in which "not caring" was viewed as "okay". It took place at a time when revolutionary fervor was at insane levels and survival required people to at least pretend to be violently opposed to the aristocracy and visibly pro-revolution.

As for Arno, who is a member of the minor aristocracy, his entire family would have been under threat. Same with Elise - her family and the friends of her family would either have been arrested or they'd be living in exile. The idea that these characters would not care is more than unusual, more than unthinkable: it would mean they were literally psychopaths, unable to empathize with even their friends and relatives.

Latte10010
12-17-2014, 03:25 PM
This is our first Assassin whose main focus is chasing a girl like an idiot. Elise! Elise!
It's just my opinion but this main story is so shallow, it just makes me laugh, not because it's fun, but how this Arno guy is miserable.
I couldn't help chuckling at the end.

I love other stories involving French Revolution because it was what I was looking for. A few stories around Napoleon were
exciting, just like Ezio was best friended with Da Vinci, Edward was friended with other famous Pirates.
But all our Arno thinking is about this very angry, stupid girl called Elise.
French Revolution related missions are in side missions or co-op, I couldn't feel I was involved in there.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-17-2014, 07:48 PM
You're not living in America during the American Revolution. If you were, you'd care. Same with the French Revolution, except in that revolution, even if you DID care, if you didn't care enough, you'd likely be killed by nutcases whose idea of a counter-revolutionary was anyone who wasn't desperate to cut someone else's head off.

That's why it's unthinkable that Arno wouldn't care. The French Revolution did not take place in a modern liberal democracy in which "not caring" was viewed as "okay". It took place at a time when revolutionary fervor was at insane levels and survival required people to at least pretend to be violently opposed to the aristocracy and visibly pro-revolution.

As for Arno, who is a member of the minor aristocracy, his entire family would have been under threat. Same with Elise - her family and the friends of her family would either have been arrested or they'd be living in exile. The idea that these characters would not care is more than unusual, more than unthinkable: it would mean they were literally psychopaths, unable to empathize with even their friends and relatives.

I never said i didnt care, and neither did arno....
clearly arno and elise were their friends and family... i never got a sense of a large family... i got a sense of a man, a butler, a step son, and a daughter....
Heaven forbid someone serve something other than societies pressures.
If you paid attention to the game and not jsut the story, you got a sense of people having to choose an allegiance....
Im sure they didnt forget to add it to arnos story... they just made arno a character neutral about the situation until about 3/4 into the game.... but even still then there was a personal vendetta attached to these political statements being made

xNick26
12-17-2014, 07:51 PM
A lot of stuff I didn't know very interesting

VestigialLlama4
12-17-2014, 10:21 PM
Heaven forbid someone serve something other than societies pressures.
If you paid attention to the game and not jsut the story, you got a sense of people having to choose an allegiance....
Im sure they didnt forget to add it to arnos story... they just made arno a character neutral about the situation until about 3/4 into the game.... but even still then there was a personal vendetta attached to these political statements being made

Which again shows that Arno is not really a character that comes organically out of the story. He's imposed from outside to provide a fake neutrality to a situation. Neutrality doesn't really exist in a given historical event. It comes from a safe position outside the conflict or from later historians privilged with hindsight. In AC3, they can use Connor as a Native American to organically provide a neutral position without being super pro-American and anti-British. The French Revolution offers no such luxury since it wasn't France versus so-and-so but as Victor Hugo memorably put it, "Paris versus France and France versus Europe". Like Arno is not a real Parisian, he grew up in Versailles and magically ends up in Bastille on the Big Day and there's little in the sense of the dramatic impact Revolutionary Paris would have made on his consciousness. So even if it recreates the monuments, it doesn't get the city right at all. Paris was always an anarchic city(well until say the 60s), Kings tried to avoid it and when the Revolution broke out, Parisian Women dragged the King to the city(which we only briefly get a glimpse of on the side mission-reduced to a simple protest march), that was politically a bigger impact than the fall of the Bastille.

Jackdaw951
12-18-2014, 08:46 PM
I find it hard to fault a development team who clearly cared too much rather than too little, and perhaps had more ambition than they did development time.

More ambition than hardware power too. A most important part of the development project is setting realistic goals. Shooting for the moon with a slingshot is a naive mistake, and I'm surprised they made it.