PDA

View Full Version : Is there anything in the lore that you don't consider as canon?



SixKeys
07-17-2015, 09:03 PM
Is there anything that according to the official AC lore is considered canon but that you think is so outrageous, out-of-character or nonsensical that you disregard it as canon? This isn't a thread meant for arguing about why you should always accept the official explanation even if you personally don't like it. I'm more interested in what part of the Ubi-sanctioned canon is so ridiculous to you (if any) that you choose to disregard it? Just as an example, I know some people who thought Rogue was such blatant fan service that they choose to view the game as little more than playable fan fiction, despite the fact that it's officially part of the canon.

Ignacio_796
07-17-2015, 09:07 PM
Every Modern Day since Revelations...

Kaschra
07-17-2015, 09:25 PM
The Black Flag novel

In the game, Edward had no relations to either Assassins nor Templars before the start of the game. He was completely neutral at first.

In the novel? Pretty much every person who ever was a jerk to him was a Templar, and he recognized the Templar ring when he met the Caribbean Templars and was set against them from the very beginning.
Then, during the parts set after he sails back to England, he wants to take revenge on the Templars too, so it turns into another revenge story...

Just... no

Hans684
07-17-2015, 09:29 PM
No, canon is and aways will be canon no matter how disappointing or bad it is. Hatred can easily cloud judgments, so it's best to suppress it to reach a less biased and one sided result that's not a simple opinion based on the fact but is an actual fact. The only lore I consider non-canon is non-canon lore.

VestigialLlama4
07-17-2015, 09:45 PM
Is there anything that according to the official AC lore is considered canon but that you think is so outrageous, out-of-character or nonsensical that you disregard it as canon? This isn't a thread meant for arguing about why you should always accept the official explanation even if you personally don't like it.

To me its not so much about canon as it is a case of legitimacy. To me canon is simply the creator's responsibility to the audience. Even if I don't like UNITY and ROGUE, I expect the developers of the next and following games to accept the game and incorporate the lore and story rather than retcon it or ask people to forget it, because doing otherwise is a disservice to people who like the game. You can't leave people hanging and not provide some acknowledgement that yeah, Arno's actions and Napoleon had an impact on the world we play in.

There are certain aspects of the Lore that I don't consider legitimate, but I still consider canon:
1) As much as I like it for some scenes (the last one with Altair and Darim, Al Mualim's funeral), I don't think Altair's sequences in Revelations are legitimate. To me AC1 Altair and the flashback in AC2 are legitimate but not this. The main reason is that Malik isn't there and neither are the Rafiqs from the first game so the lack of that cast (much like Godfather Part 3) means that there's no continuity between versions.

2) The Ezio-Cristina sequences in Brotherhood. To me it clashes jarringly with what we see in AC2 of Ezio's character. If Ezio is a womanizer but also had a steady girlfriend, does that mean he cheated on Cristina? Also, it doesn't add much aside from giving him a "love motive" to be an Assassin rather than the intellectual and philosophical motives he develops in AC2 and Brotherhood. So again, I actually like Cristina as a character, I liked the scene where Ezio takes his father and brothers bodies a lot, but ultimately its not legitimate.

3) Oliver Bowden's books - I like Haytham's origins, but after Black Flag I can't accept it as a fitting end for Edward Kenway and Jenny. And also that whole part where Haytham supposedly saved Connor from hanging, yeah, I don't accept that at all. BLACK FLAG I accept even less, it made Edward more understandable and heroic and you know it takes away from the ambiguity of the game.

4) Rogue -- Two key reasons why for me this is fanfiction.

--For me, the earthquake machine, physical control over material and landscape, human agency over natural forces, is the crowning jump-the-shark moment of the last two games. The pieces of eden are supposed to be mind-control devices, maybe force lightning at worst, but earthquake machines is too extreme, its pure comic book territory. More to the point, Darby McDevitt and Corey May said pieces of eden are too powerful and they wanted to dial it down, how is this achieving that?

-- Finally, the whole Templar with clean hands. If I am not playing a Templar game where I kill men, women and children for the greater good or where I as a player am not given the option of burning down whole villages to hunt one lone assassin, then I am not playing a Templar game. Even Haytham in AC3 is shown ordering the Boston Massacre, murdering and torturing POWs and being a general jerk. That is the most sympathetic Templar. The Templar ethos is that they do shady and evil things because its pragmatic, gets results and there really was no cleaner alternative. Rejecting that ethos but strapping a Cross on the player for a story of contrived self-righteousness is not a Templar game at all.

Both of these to me are illegitimate because it starkly diverges from what we see and know from the previous games.

steveeire
07-17-2015, 09:50 PM
Connor.

Xstantin
07-17-2015, 10:00 PM
Anything from the novels basically

VestigialLlama4
07-17-2015, 10:04 PM
I'm more interested in what part of the Ubi-sanctioned canon is so ridiculous to you (if any) that you choose to disregard it?

You know there is the reverse. Ubi-sanctioned canon that I consider less ridiculous than the main game. For me, Eseosa's Codex in Assassin's Creed Initiates is far more legitimate than UNITY as a whole.

One, all the references to the French Revolution paint a complex picture. Like this:


4. As we are still a French colony, I have reached out to the Assassins in France for aid. I made contact with one Guillaume Beylier, who tells me that they cannot offer me reinforcements as they have their own troubles brewing. But he promised me to keep the lines of communication open, and support me however possible from the mother country. It is not much, but it feels good to have allies in spirit, if not in person.

Guillaume Beylier is actually in UNITY, he's the black guy on the Assassin Council.


8. In 1794, the French government, under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, abolished slavery, which convinced Louverture to forego his alliance with the Spanish in exchange for one with the French. It became clear to him that he would be fighting to establish permanent freedom for all former slaves of Saint-Domingue. He became a French commander and soon found his troops attacked by the British, who were trying to claim Saint-Domingue by proclamation. After expelling Sonthonax from the island, Louverture has become the de facto ruler of the colony. Although he expresses no desire to separate from France, the establishment of his own laws will surely alarm the French authorities.

The principles of the French Revolution have resonated across Saint-Domingue and reinforced the class lines that split the colony's already fractured social structure.

I have read a passage by the French writer Count Mirabeau stating that the Saint-Domingue whites "sleep at the foot of Vesuvius".


9. Napoleon Bonaparte has taken power in France. While he maintained abolition, he also sent warnings to Louverture not to overstep his bounds. Louverture ignored Napoleon, and at his request, I helped him conquer the Spanish colony of Santo Domingo, bringing the entire island of Hispaniola under his control. In keeping with our ideals, he immediately freed all slaves in the new territory.


10In October 1801, Napoleon made the decision to remove Louverture from office and sent his brother-in-law, General Charles Leclerc, to Saint-Domingue to destroy him. I intercepted Leclerc's special orders, which instructed him to disarm the black soldiers and force ex-slaves to return to their plantations.


11. After a year of fighting, Louverture negotiated a treaty with the French. He was arrested and sent to France to be imprisoned...I could not free him. I wonder if he would have wanted me to. I have reached out to the Brotherhood in France to look after him, but have received no response.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Eseosa's_Codex

This used to be part of the Initiates Website but its not there. None of this stuff is mentioned once in UNITY because then Arno comes across as a racist traitor to the Assassins.

king-hailz
07-17-2015, 10:14 PM
Nothing until I saw this...


Rogue -- Two key reasons why for me this is fanfiction.

--For me, the earthquake machine, physical control over material and landscape, human agency over natural forces, is the crowning jump-the-shark moment of the last two games. The pieces of eden are supposed to be mind-control devices, maybe force lightning at worst, but earthquake machines is too extreme, its pure comic book territory. More to the point, Darby McDevitt and Corey May said pieces of eden are too powerful and they wanted to dial it down, how is this achieving that?

-- Finally, the whole Templar with clean hands. If I am not playing a Templar game where I kill men, women and children for the greater good or where I as a player am not given the option of burning down whole villages to hunt one lone assassin, then I am not playing a Templar game. Even Haytham in AC3 is shown ordering the Boston Massacre, murdering and torturing POWs and being a general jerk. That is the most sympathetic Templar. The Templar ethos is that they do shady and evil things because its pragmatic, gets results and there really was no cleaner alternative. Rejecting that ethos but strapping a Cross on the player for a story of contrived self-righteousness is not a Templar game at all.

Both of these to me are illegitimate because it starkly diverges from what we see and know from the previous games.

GunnerGalactico
07-17-2015, 10:15 PM
- Pretty much everything about Rogue and Shay.

- TOKW. There. I said it. I like AC3 but didn't really enjoy the DLC that much. Even though it was fun to play, I found the idea of drinking tea that gives you super powers too outlandish even for the AC universe. At least it's ending was far more satisfying than in AC3 IMO.

- Altair in Revelations.

-
In the game, Edward had no relations to either Assassins nor Templars before the start of the game. He was completely neutral at first.

In the novel? Pretty much every person who ever was a jerk to him was a Templar, and he recognized the Templar ring when he met the Caribbean Templars and was set against them from the very beginning.
Then, during the parts set after he sails back to England, he wants to take revenge on the Templars too, so it turns into another revenge story...

Just... no

^ And that. I kinda like Oliver Bowden's books, but I didn't really like the ide Edward getting revenge on the Templars, then in Forsaken... it ended with Haytham getting revenge on Birch. The whole revenge ploy is really old and used up.

killzab
07-17-2015, 11:08 PM
Edward's lame death !

steveeire
07-17-2015, 11:49 PM
To me its not so much about canon as it is a case of legitimacy. To me canon is simply the creator's responsibility to the audience. Even if I don't like UNITY and ROGUE, I expect the developers of the next and following games to accept the game and incorporate the lore and story rather than retcon it or ask people to forget it, because doing otherwise is a disservice to people who like the game. You can't leave people hanging and not provide some acknowledgement that yeah, Arno's actions and Napoleon had an impact on the world we play in.

There are certain aspects of the Lore that I don't consider legitimate, but I still consider canon:
1) As much as I like it for some scenes (the last one with Altair and Darim, Al Mualim's funeral), I don't think Altair's sequences in Revelations are legitimate. To me AC1 Altair and the flashback in AC2 are legitimate but not this. The main reason is that Malik isn't there and neither are the Rafiqs from the first game so the lack of that cast (much like Godfather Part 3) means that there's no continuity between versions.

2) The Ezio-Cristina sequences in Brotherhood. To me it clashes jarringly with what we see in AC2 of Ezio's character. If Ezio is a womanizer but also had a steady girlfriend, does that mean he cheated on Cristina? Also, it doesn't add much aside from giving him a "love motive" to be an Assassin rather than the intellectual and philosophical motives he develops in AC2 and Brotherhood. So again, I actually like Cristina as a character, I liked the scene where Ezio takes his father and brothers bodies a lot, but ultimately its not legitimate.

3) Oliver Bowden's books - I like Haytham's origins, but after Black Flag I can't accept it as a fitting end for Edward Kenway and Jenny. And also that whole part where Haytham supposedly saved Connor from hanging, yeah, I don't accept that at all. BLACK FLAG I accept even less, it made Edward more understandable and heroic and you know it takes away from the ambiguity of the game.

4) Rogue -- Two key reasons why for me this is fanfiction.

--For me, the earthquake machine, physical control over material and landscape, human agency over natural forces, is the crowning jump-the-shark moment of the last two games. The pieces of eden are supposed to be mind-control devices, maybe force lightning at worst, but earthquake machines is too extreme, its pure comic book territory. More to the point, Darby McDevitt and Corey May said pieces of eden are too powerful and they wanted to dial it down, how is this achieving that?

-- Finally, the whole Templar with clean hands. If I am not playing a Templar game where I kill men, women and children for the greater good or where I as a player am not given the option of burning down whole villages to hunt one lone assassin, then I am not playing a Templar game. Even Haytham in AC3 is shown ordering the Boston Massacre, murdering and torturing POWs and being a general jerk. That is the most sympathetic Templar. The Templar ethos is that they do shady and evil things because its pragmatic, gets results and there really was no cleaner alternative. Rejecting that ethos but strapping a Cross on the player for a story of contrived self-righteousness is not a Templar game at all.

Both of these to me are illegitimate because it starkly diverges from what we see and know from the previous games.

You do realise the ancients made pieces of eden with the intent of projecting a force field around the Earth, there are alot of pieces of eden all with different uses, it only really the apple shaped ones that affects minds.

Pandassin
07-18-2015, 12:10 AM
To be honest, I don't see Shay as canon. He was thrown into the series at last minute for last-gen players.

It just doesn't make sense for Haytham to never mention him, in AC3 or in the novel; so Shay most likely was never planned to exist in the series. I know he ties in to Unity pretty well, but that's the only part of his story that seems canon to me, the rest just doesn't fit in. That's just my opinion though, I don't remember the story extremely well but I remember enough.

SpiritOfNevaeh
07-18-2015, 12:12 AM
Pretty much the novels, especially Forsaken.


To be honest, I don't see Shay as canon. He was thrown into the series at last minute for last-gen players.

It just doesn't make sense for Haytham to never mention him, in AC3 or in the novel; so Shay most likely was never planned to exist in the series. I know he ties in to Unity pretty well, but that's the only part of his story that seems canon to me, the rest just doesn't fit in. That's just my opinion though, I don't remember the story extremely well but I remember enough.

^

Xstantin
07-18-2015, 12:48 AM
To be honest, I don't see Shay as canon. He was thrown into the series at last minute for last-gen players.

I always thought it was confusing that database called the whole thing "Assassin witch hunt" in ACIII but Rogue it ended up with Shay basically doing all the work cause he was so awesome

SixKeys
07-18-2015, 01:58 AM
I don't consider Altar's voice in Revelations canon. To me the only real Altar will always be Philip Shahbaz and I hate that they switched actors for no good reason. Same with Subject 16 in ACR and Ezio and Shao Jun in Chronicles: China.

I disregard the novels almost entirely as I think they're poorly written and often out of character, or sometimes turn the game's plot more ridiculous than it otherwise would be. Case in point, Edward being aware of Templars and assassins in the AC4 novel, which destroys the entire point of having an outsider as a protagonist.
Similarly, I disregard the idea that Haytham was the one who cut the rope at Connor's hanging. It plays too much into the whole "everything is connected" trope that has plagued the series for some time. It doesn't gel with Haytham's character and it's too convenient. I choose to believe it was either Achilles or one of the recruits who saved Connor.

I'm torn on Ezio/Cristina. On the one hand, I like having a hero that is flawed. On the other, when the hero is a creepy stalker who sexually assaults his ex-girlfriend and nobody ever questions his morality, that's crossing a line to me. It's also - again - just a bit too convenient that Vieri de Pazzi just happened to be after the same girl Ezio was interested in and he just happened to save her from him.



- TOKW. There. I said it. I like AC3 but didn't really enjoy the DLC that much. Even though it was fun to play, I found the idea of drinking tea that gives you super powers too outlandish even for the AC universe. At least it's ending was far more satisfying than in AC3 IMO.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I don't consider ToKW canon either. Even as a fevered dream induced by the Apple's powers it doesn't make sense.

ze_topazio
07-18-2015, 03:20 AM
Everything.

Derp43
07-18-2015, 03:30 AM
The fact that apparently Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill conspired to start WW2.

Mr.Black24
07-18-2015, 03:51 AM
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I don't consider ToKW canon either. Even as a fevered dream induced by the Apple's powers it doesn't make sense. Well isn't that the point? Its just a vision, it never happened at all, ever. Plus, as Altair established in the Codex, the Apple has the ability to show the viewer alternate realities and visions.

To add to the topic.....

I never considered the denial of Shay, Arno, Aveline and Connor's continuation canon....

Xstantin
07-18-2015, 03:56 AM
I never considered the denial of Shay, Arno, Aveline and Connor's continuation canon....

maybe we'll get a footnote and some drawing in the encyclopaedia #28 like Connor's wife last year

Mr.Black24
07-18-2015, 04:24 AM
maybe we'll get a footnote and some drawing in the encyclopaedia #28 like Connor's wife last year Oh god no...........

HOWEVER

After reading the Abstergo Handbook and Edward Thach's Journal, I would love to have a book based on all of the above mentioned. It had life, good writing, and the illustrations were fantastic. As long as the characters have great respect in writing and the artwork is good, which it always is in the books, I wouldn't mind so much really.

SixKeys
07-18-2015, 05:02 AM
Well isn't that the point? Its just a vision, it never happened at all, ever. Plus, as Altair established in the Codex, the Apple has the ability to show the viewer alternate realities and visions.

To add to the topic.....

I never considered the denial of Shay, Arno, Aveline and Connor's continuation canon....

Yeah, but it doesn't make sense that they even had such a dream. There is no such thing as eagle or wolf or bear powers, so if it was meant as a warning, it was a stupid one. It's like if I had a dream that my socks came to life and tried to eat me and I took that as some sort of a real warning. It could never happen, so what's the point?

VestigialLlama4
07-18-2015, 05:11 AM
The fact that apparently Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill conspired to start WW2.

Oh this, yeah, this is pretty much the pits. There's a pretty easy way to resolve this. Simply say, "Subject 16 sure was crazy and he couldn't tell Abstergo misinformation campaign from the real thing, like he couldn't figure out that the parts where the Allies and Hitler were in cahoots was something Abstergo cooked up for the tinfoil crowd."

Lucy mentions in AC1 that Abstergo does do misinformation campaign and put out stuff to convince conspiracy theorists that wild outlandish stuff is true about them so that no one would believe them but they would have enough validation to keep believing it so that way everyone can ignore real conspiracies. So some of the files Subject 16 took was probably not the real thing. He was crazy and couldn't tell alternate futures from actual ones, past from present and real files from dummy files.


You do realise the ancients made pieces of eden with the intent of projecting a force field around the Earth, there are alot of pieces of eden all with different uses, it only really the apple shaped ones that affects minds.

The Apples of Eden have always been "the most powerful of their tools", Juno says that repeatedly. The Force Field on earth was planned by using the Apple and controlling all human beings at once, some kind of mass telekinesis. The themes of the story is about control, power and the mental strength to resist tyranny. A mind-control object fits that thematically because on a metaphorical level, we can relate to it. An earthquake machine has absolutely zero correspondence to anything real even as a metaphor. It works only in comic-book land.


I don't consider Altar's voice in Revelations canon. To me the only real Altar will always be Philip Shahbaz and I hate that they switched actors for no good reason. Same with Subject 16 in ACR and Ezio and Shao Jun in Chronicles: China.

I disregard the novels almost entirely as I think they're poorly written and often out of character, or sometimes turn the game's plot more ridiculous than it otherwise would be. Case in point, Edward being aware of Templars and assassins in the AC4 novel, which destroys the entire point of having an outsider as a protagonist.
Similarly, I disregard the idea that Haytham was the one who cut the rope at Connor's hanging. It plays too much into the whole "everything is connected" trope that has plagued the series for some time. It doesn't gel with Haytham's character and it's too convenient. I choose to believe it was either Achilles or one of the recruits who saved Connor.

On this you and I are in total agreement. There are parts of Forsaken that are good but to me its not essential, the Black Flag book is really bad.

I don't consider Dead Kings to be canon either. Lazy late-retcons about Arno and Napoleon not being pals (when they are clearly shown in cahoots at the end of the campaign several years later). I also absolutely do not like The Lost Archive DLC. To me retconning Lucy into a Double Agent is just bad because 1) There's no build-up and follow-up to it. 2) It exists to absolve Desmond of any lingering guilt. 3) It takes away logical motivations for what happens to Desmond at the end of AC3. 4) It is f--king sexist as hell.

I just don't like retcons. Even if the story is genuinely bad, pretending it didn't happen or wanting to wish away or change it is even worse. You have to accept things as it is whole. To me, Desmond was the guy who was manipulated by Juno into murdering Lucy, an Assassin and good friend. Without Lost Archive DLC, the MD of AC3 would have made sense. Desmond is aloof and separated from Shaun and Rebecca because they see him as a psycho and murderer, William Miles is William Miles, he starts exploring the cave and these Juno visions and then finally he sacrifices himself because he sees that as atoning his guilt for killing someone who didn't deserve it. Boom, story automatically improves itself. ROGUE also is a huge huge retcon.

VestigialLlama4
07-18-2015, 05:24 AM
Yeah, but it doesn't make sense that they even had such a dream. There is no such thing as eagle or wolf or bear powers, so if it was meant as a warning, it was a stupid one. It's like if I had a dream that my socks came to life and tried to eat me and I took that as some sort of a real warning. It could never happen, so what's the point?

The point is they wanted to indulge in the "Magical Native American" noble savage stereotype of Connor having animalistic powers and being close to nature. They couldn't do that in the main game so the DLC does that, I suppose we should be grateful that they didn't have Connor scalp Washington. The whole skyworld and tea journey is extrapolations from Kanienka;haka folklore. Apparently they do have some myth about a tea that can give you spirit visions and a magical tree with powers. So its taking iconography from that and putting it there. You can see something similar in Far Cry 4 with that whole fake-Hindu fantasy scenes or in Far Cry Blood Dragon.

The point is that its a shared vision between Connor and Washington. Its kind of a nightmare of how Washington and the Founders appear to Connor and how Connor appears to the Founders. Washington isn't a cackling evil dark lord but to Connor and his tribes he might as well be one. Connor doesn't have magical powers but to the Founders and Redcoats, he might as well have them. So its their fantasies of each other. The game has a lot of symbolic iconography. Like in Part 3, Washington's Pyramid is the Great Seal of the United States [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States] and he uses a lot of the Masonic Eye, its obviously based on Dan Brown fantasies of Washington.

I like Tyranny DLC on the whole and for me its a legitimate and canonical conclusion to Connor and Washington's story. That ultimately Washington and Connor by rejecting power do something very few in the series did. There are no lazy retcons, and we don't see them behave out of character by the story's end, so its legitimate.

SixKeys
07-18-2015, 05:31 AM
The point is that its a shared vision between Connor and Washington. Its kind of a nightmare of how Washington and the Founders appear to Connor and how Connor appears to the Founders. Washington isn't a cackling evil dark lord but to Connor and his tribes he might as well be one. Connor doesn't have magical powers but to the Founders and Redcoats, he might as well have them. So its their fantasies of each other. The game has a lot of symbolic iconography. Like in Part 3, Washington's Pyramid is the Great Seal of the United States [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States] and he uses a lot of the Masonic Eye, its obviously based on Dan Brown fantasies of Washington.

I like Tyranny DLC on the whole and for me its a legitimate and canonical conclusion to Connor and Washington's story. That ultimately Washington and Connor by rejecting power do something very few in the series did. There are no lazy retcons, and we don't see them behave out of character by the story's end, so its legitimate.

That's a pretty good explanation except for the fact that we see the entire thing from Connor's perspective. If him being a mystical creature comes from Washington's subconscious, why does Connor see himself like that? Why do we not ever play as Washington and get his perspective?

VestigialLlama4
07-18-2015, 05:38 AM
That's a pretty good explanation except for the fact that we see the entire thing from Connor's perspective. If him being a mystical creature comes from Washington's subconscious, why does Connor see himself like that? Why do we not ever play as Washington and get his perspective?

Actually we do get Washington's perspective. In Part 3, there is one scene, when Connor and Jefferson are attacking the Pyramid and we cut into the throne room where Washington is on the throne and drinking tea, saying "He is freedom" and so on. Connor is not in the room and there's no way he could overhear this conversation since the final level shows that the throne room is at the top of the Pyramid and Connor is at the bottom.

Then all the Animus Fragments by which we unlock that memory points to Washington and Connor having a shared vision. Tyranny is a great concept and they definitely should have gone further with it, storywise and make it really crazy, but I think it story wise it works. Lore-wise it is consistent because it demonstrates how crazy powerful these Apples are, and helps you understand how it could control people and drive them insane, even Connor starts going nuts by the end of the story. Who knows what Altair saw, or what Ezio saw in Brotherhood when he looked at the Apple and decided that no he's going to whack Cesare after all? Most probably they had a lengthy vision just like Connor and Washington, only a minute passed in reality but they saw something longer and scarier within the Apple.

Mr.Black24
07-18-2015, 06:04 AM
Actually we do get Washington's perspective. In Part 3, there is one scene, when Connor and Jefferson are attacking the Pyramid and we cut into the throne room where Washington is on the throne and drinking tea, saying "He is freedom" and so on. Connor is not in the room and there's no way he could overhear this conversation since the final level shows that the throne room is at the top of the Pyramid and Connor is at the bottom.

Then all the Animus Fragments by which we unlock that memory points to Washington and Connor having a shared vision. Tyranny is a great concept and they definitely should have gone further with it, storywise and make it really crazy, but I think it story wise it works. Lore-wise it is consistent because it demonstrates how crazy powerful these Apples are, and helps you understand how it could control people and drive them insane, even Connor starts going nuts by the end of the story. Who knows what Altair saw, or what Ezio saw in Brotherhood when he looked at the Apple and decided that no he's going to whack Cesare after all? Most probably they had a lengthy vision just like Connor and Washington, only a minute passed in reality but they saw something longer and scarier within the Apple.
We can also add to the fact that whoever was hacking Connor's memories at the end of the game was looking into that set of sequences from TTOKW, and we are that said person. So while we are looking into Washington's point of view of the visions from time to time, we were mostly looking at Connor's more, due to the fact that we are the hacker are looking into Connor's memories.

SixKeys
07-18-2015, 06:20 AM
Actually we do get Washington's perspective. In Part 3, there is one scene, when Connor and Jefferson are attacking the Pyramid and we cut into the throne room where Washington is on the throne and drinking tea, saying "He is freedom" and so on. Connor is not in the room and there's no way he could overhear this conversation since the final level shows that the throne room is at the top of the Pyramid and Connor is at the bottom.


One scene doesn't make a difference. If there had been several scenes purely from Washington's perspective, maybe it could have worked, but playing as Connor the entire time makes the whole thing nonsensical.

LoyalACFan
07-18-2015, 06:31 AM
Ezio's flirtation with that random girl in Monteriggioni at the beginning of ACB, when the repressed memories and his ACR narration show that his womanizing tendencies died with Cristina. Sleeping with Caterina made more sense, as their relationship began long before Cristina died, and it actually made it kind of poignant when she dumped him later since it was clear that he had actual feelings for her while she was only interested in the exchange of favors. But just halfheartedly trying for a one-night stand with some chick in Monteriggioni didn't make sense at all.

Several things for Connor, most notably his pickpocketing and brawling missions, plus him brutally murdering scavengers in that Captain Kidd mission in the shipwrecks.

Stupid optional objectives like "skin two crocodiles during the chase." Seriously, I think whoever wrote that was high.

Plus basically all of the conspiracy stuff in the glyphs.

I-Like-Pie45
07-18-2015, 06:35 AM
If you think it's just a crazy conspiracy than they have already won.

VestigialLlama4
07-18-2015, 06:43 AM
Ezio's flirtation with that random girl in Monteriggioni at the beginning of ACB, when the repressed memories and his ACR narration show that his womanizing tendencies died with Cristina. Sleeping with Caterina made more sense, as their relationship began long before Cristina died, and it actually made it kind of poignant when she dumped him later since it was clear that he had actual feelings for her while she was only interested in the exchange of favors. But just halfheartedly trying for a one-night stand with some chick in Monteriggioni didn't make sense at all.

Ezio is very much a horn-dog. I mean in AC2, one of the racing side-missions is in Forli where you have to do a horse race around the Wetlands at the end of it, as reward this NPC girl and he have sex on the open field (we don't see it, but there's a cutscene and a flash). Then in Venice, he hits on Theodora the Nun-Prostitute and after Carnevale's Assassination its implied he has an orgy with the Theodora's girls. The fact is Ezio really loves the ladies and the ladies love him. Being a lover boy to Cristina makes zero sense and her being his "True Love" less than zero sense. I can buy that Ezio sees Sofia Sartor as his true love in Istanbul and him being a handsome 50 year old and she this early 30s (unmarried!) woman makes that romance work.

Edward Kenway for instance cheats on his wife but there its justified in that he and Caroline were estranged before he left for the Carribean and him cheating on her with prostitutes while pining for her in letters, is the kind of hypocrisy that is in-character for him.


Plus basically all of the conspiracy stuff in the glyphs.

The conspiracy stuff in the gylphs should never have been taken literally. I always saw it as a declaration of form "This is how big, wide and awesome our lore is, we can do this setting, we can do that setting", not as something literal.


One scene doesn't make a difference. If there had been several scenes purely from Washington's perspective, maybe it could have worked, but playing as Connor the entire time makes the whole thing nonsensical.

If one scene doesn't make a difference, then nothing makes a difference I'm afraid. Economy, concision, suggestion are real things. Hammering over every point and detail is the worst thing in the world.

LoyalACFan
07-18-2015, 09:23 AM
Ezio is very much a horn-dog. I mean in AC2, one of the racing side-missions is in Forli where you have to do a horse race around the Wetlands at the end of it, as reward this NPC girl and he have sex on the open field (we don't see it, but there's a cutscene and a flash). Then in Venice, he hits on Theodora the Nun-Prostitute and after Carnevale's Assassination its implied he has an orgy with the Theodora's girls. The fact is Ezio really loves the ladies and the ladies love him. Being a lover boy to Cristina makes zero sense and her being his "True Love" less than zero sense. I can buy that Ezio sees Sofia Sartor as his true love in Istanbul and him being a handsome 50 year old and she this early 30s (unmarried!) woman makes that romance work.

But Cristina was the first person he ever worked up the courage to date, and the only one he ever had a long-standing relationship with. It's not that they were meant to be or anything, it's just that he always sort of took her for granted while he was out living in fantasy playboy land, popping back in once or twice per decade for a smooch. When she died, he lost enthusiasm for hookups and started to be more interested in real relationships. He was trying to get laid every ten minutes in AC2, then completely stopped in ACB except for that one scene I mentioned that doesn't make any sense based on his behavior and comments.

Consus_E
07-18-2015, 11:15 AM
Ezio's confrontation with Rodrigo in the final sequence of AC2. Specifically how inconsistent he is about whether or not he wants to kill the man.
First he says "I thought... I thought I was beyond this. But I'm not. I've waited too long, lost too much. Requiescat in Pace, you bastard!"
Then after some fighting he randomly switches to "No. Killing you won't bring my family back. I'm done. Nulla reale, tutto lecito. Requiescat in pace."
Feels so inconsistent especially after the previous 3 sequences (with DLC) emphasized how dedicated Ezio had become to the Assassin Order. My personal canon is that Rodrigo fled and Ezio didn't give chase because he was more curious about the vault.

The entire scene where Connor meets the Colonial Templars in the frontier. Seriously why did these men who previously seemed decent enough people with like minded goals suddenly become pure evil? And where did it go, this is the only part of the game where they seem this mean the rest of it they stay more in character. In my head-canon the Templars aren't really that mean just inquisitive, the scene would implicate the Templars in burning the Mohawk village, without making them seem outright cruel.

Drunk Arno... Yeah why did they put that bit in the game, he can be depressed for a bit but we don't need a mission devoted to stealing wine and finding his pocket watch.

Every time Ezio has said any variation of "That will help if I fall"

Locopells
07-18-2015, 11:46 AM
The thing with Ezio, is that he IS past it. Finally coming face to face with RB again brings all his past rage back to the surface, and he probably would have killed RB at that point. But after he fails, and by the time he's worked out his rage, beating the crap outta RB, he comes back to his original position.

The thing with Connor and the Colonial Templars - yes it's out of character, but I go with the theory that that's how they seemed to young Connor's perception.

GunnerGalactico
07-18-2015, 12:44 PM
To be honest, I don't see Shay as canon. He was thrown into the series at last minute for last-gen players.

It just doesn't make sense for Haytham to never mention him, in AC3 or in the novel; so Shay most likely was never planned to exist in the series. I know he ties in to Unity pretty well, but that's the only part of his story that seems canon to me, the rest just doesn't fit in. That's just my opinion though, I don't remember the story extremely well but I remember enough.

^ This. Nothing in Rogue actually makes sense to me at all. The Assassins were acting like Templars, and the Templars were vice versa. Shay sounded like a bumbling fool at times. To me he is a mismatched puzzle piece that is forced to fit in to the American saga. On another note, I'm loving it how Connor undid everything Shay had worked so hard to build... hehehe!



Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I don't consider ToKW canon either. Even as a fevered dream induced by the Apple's powers it doesn't make sense.

Like Rogue, I consider TOKW as fan service. I like to think that all events that occurred were just a dream or one big blurry vision. The only part that seems plausible and canon to me is when Connor drops the Apple in the ocean, and as a much more better conclusion to AC3 because a lot of fans out complained that the ending in AC3 being too sombre and open-ended.


We can also add to the fact that whoever was hacking Connor's memories at the end of the game was looking into that set of sequences from TTOKW, and we are that said person. So while we are looking into Washington's point of view of the visions from time to time, we were mostly looking at Connor's more, due to the fact that we are the hacker are looking into Connor's memories.

Okay, that makes sense. In Liberation, we saw Aveline's nightmare at the beginning... so maybe viewing events from character's subconscious does not sound that far-fetched, just maybe. I also agree with some of the things Vestigia had stated. I still feel that TOKW was more like fan service and experimental. The devs did say that they were trying something new and that they wanted to see how people were going to receive it.

VestigialLlama4
07-18-2015, 12:48 PM
The thing with Ezio, is that he IS past it. Finally coming face to face with RB again brings all his past rage back to the surface, and he probably would have killed RB at that point. But after he fails, and by the time he's worked out his rage, beating the crap outta RB, he comes back to his original position.

Well it makes sense that Ezio would spare Rodrigo. He initially joined for vengeance but he already had avenged his family by killing Uberto Alberti, the man who betrayed Giovanni and the Pazzi who ordered and planned the deaths, and from there he decided to take out Rodrigo and then went against the Barbarigo who had no involvement in Giovanni Auditore's death. Then found out that it all revolved around the Apple. He tells Rosa right before the end of Venice section that he's getting tired of the revenge stuff and is more interested in knowing what its all about.

Revenge is a big part of Ezio's quest but it isn't the only part nor is it the final part. That's a mistake people make when they do bad revenge stories.


The thing with Connor and the Colonial Templars - yes it's out of character, but I go with the theory that that's how they seemed to young Connor's perception.

That doesn't make sense. The Animus is supposed to be objective after all. It can't suddenly turn subjective all of a sudden. That means that all the Altair and Ezio sequences are subjective impressions too. William Miles himself says at the start of AC3 campaign "That's the beauty of the Animus" it shows the past as it is. Compare the Animus in Black Flag to the Templar-altered videos you see in that game.

As for the reason why the Colonial Templars appeared as jerks to young Connor is because they are jerks. Go back to the Haytham sequences, Benjamin Church in optional conversations tells Haytham that he's an entirely selfish doctor, Thomas Hickey shows no good qualities anywhere as for Charles Lee well he's probably nicer as a sidekick to Haytham than on his own. Bear in mind that the Templars in front of Connor have no interest or desire to put on a show and impress people, like they do with Haytham. To them Connor is a powerless 4 year old savage who can't fight back and they can behave as they damn please. That's what Templars are after all, why should this insignificant little nobody demand any courtesy or nicety from us, the secret masters of the world?

My main problem is simply the over-motivation and fuzziness of the finale, where it turns out that Charles Lee didn't attack the village? If Charles Lee didn't do it what was he doing there? If Haytham said to stay away from the Precursor site, does that mean Charles Lee disobeyed him and occassionally operated independently? It creates problems for the final section but in the scene itself it works fine.

SixKeys
07-18-2015, 10:10 PM
The thing is, Charles Lee was grossly out of character in the scene with young Connor. Not only due to how we had seen him portrayed earlier in the game (a bootlicker, maybe, but not a d-bag) but also his historical counterpart. Charles Lee was married to a Mohawk woman and fathered two children with her. I know they basically switched the roles in the game so that Haytham got to be the non-racist dad, but game design aside, it doesn't change the facts. The Animus is supposed to be objective, as you said. It can only show events the way they really happened. If Charles Lee was a real, historical person who was married to a native woman, the Animus couldn't just go and change that. So him being racist all of a sudden makes no sense because the historical facts surrounding the real Charles Lee still apply in the world of AC.

Megas_Doux
07-18-2015, 10:12 PM
The Black Flag novel

In the game, Edward had no relations to either Assassins nor Templars before the start of the game. He was completely neutral at first.

In the novel? Pretty much every person who ever was a jerk to him was a Templar, and he recognized the Templar ring when he met the Caribbean Templars and was set against them from the very beginning.
Then, during the parts set after he sails back to England, he wants to take revenge on the Templars too, so it turns into another revenge story...

Just... no

Gurl!!!! Im 8953845938453950% with you!

The novel takes away everything that make AC IVs story my favorite.

VestigialLlama4
07-19-2015, 05:25 AM
The thing is, Charles Lee was grossly out of character in the scene with young Connor.

There are plenty of occassions in real-life where perfectly decent people in one core group turn out to be totally cruel to people who are powerless and socially outside them. I don't know why that is a surprise. We only see Charles Lee in the first section from Haytham's perspective and by that I mean from Haytham's perspective as the senior/elder/charismatic leader, the kind who would bring out the best behavior in a guy like Charles Lee. Charles Lee doesn't do anything there aside from following orders, and following orders as we all know, is not necessarily a virtue. Even William Johnson, the guy who is so knowledgable about Mohawk relations is the classic colonialist racist, the guy who wants to save "the poor dumb natives from themselves" and points a gun at them when they ask for a more equal footing.


Charles Lee was married to a Mohawk woman and fathered two children with her. I know they basically switched the roles in the game so that Haytham got to be the non-racist dad, but game design aside, it doesn't change the facts.

You are the one who usually doesn't bother too much about historical accuracy. But anyway in the game Haytham and Charles Lee are composites of the real, historical Charles Lee. They didn't want to make Charles Lee Connor's Dad because they generally avoid assassins being related to actual historical figures (it opens a can of worms in that since Charles Lee was related to English royalty, why access the Assassin perspective when we could learn from the rulers of state?)


The Animus is supposed to be objective, as you said. It can only show events the way they really happened. If Charles Lee was a real, historical person who was married to a native woman, the Animus couldn't just go and change that. So him being racist all of a sudden makes no sense because the historical facts surrounding the real Charles Lee still apply in the world of AC.

Just because Charles Lee "married" a Mohawk woman and had children with her that doesn't mean he was race blind. Thomas Jefferson kept a slave woman as his mistress and fathered several illegitimate children (all of whom were slaves in turn) with her, but that is the man who never once moved against slavery in his entire life. Its part of the whole colonialist Mighty Whitey fantasy, "I am so big and white, I can marry the chieftain's daughter like its no big thing". And Haytham in the game itself is hardly race-blind in the game. If you actually replay AC3 (whether you choose to fix your PC copy or not), and go back to the prologue, you can actually look at the Templars critically and find that they aren't as nice as they seem even there. For me Charles Lee attacking Connor as a boy is only problematic in terms of the story and later plot resolution but the scene itself is not out of character to Lee at all.

Altair1789
07-19-2015, 07:57 AM
Assassin's Creed Unity

SixKeys
07-19-2015, 11:19 AM
snip

I still think that scene was overdone just to make him look more villainous. As if it's not enough that we think he later burns down Connor's village and that he's one of Haytham's closest lackeys, it's like they think the audience just can't hate him enough unless they come up with this completely random racist speech. They could have made Charles Lee a racist, but why turn him into such a raging a**hole all of a sudden with no provocation? We interact with him for about 4 hours before he meets Connor and nowhere does he come across as prone to violent mood swings. He comes across as someone who always takes the most efficient route. Why would he all of a sudden jeopardize their whole mission by violently assaulting a young boy who might instead be persuaded to cooperate with them with a little kindness? Why give this random big speech about how natives are animals when Connor has done absolutely nothing to provoke him? Where does this hostility come from when we hadn't seen it in all that time, in any situation, when he traveled around with Haytham?

Lee is more in-character right after he lets Connor go and Connor asks "what is your name?". Lee bends down and laughs patronizingly, looking at Connor as if he's a cute but ultimately insignificant little bug. That's more in line with how we saw him earlier. Why they felt the need to have this out-of-character burst of violence where he chokes a child for no reason is beyond me.

VestigialLlama4
07-19-2015, 12:03 PM
I still think that scene was overdone just to make him look more villainous. As if it's not enough that we think he later burns down Connor's village and that he's one of Haytham's closest lackeys, it's like they think the audience just can't hate him enough unless they come up with this completely random racist speech. They could have made Charles Lee a racist, but why turn him into such a raging a**hole all of a sudden with no provocation? We interact with him for about 4 hours before he meets Connor and nowhere does he come across as prone to violent mood swings. He comes across as someone who always takes the most efficient route.

He takes the efficient route because he follows Haytham's orders. By himself, he's not very smart. There is something called The Peter Principle, where a good lackey becomes a terrible boss. The game's version of Charles Lee is a raging, unpleasant incompetent throughout the main campaign of AC3, always frowning, unpleasant and openly treacherous by the end. The real mystery is why Haytham thinks this guy is going to be the Dictator of America that he wants to install. I mean if you look at all the Templar recruits, aside from Haytham there's not much going for them. William Johnson is a polite but corrupt jerk (in ROGUE he also told Monro to whack Shay so he's not very "enlightened" either), Benjamin Church and Thomas Hickey are scumbags, Jonathan Pitcairn is the only genuinely nice man there. They are fairly dysfunctional and Haytham was keeping them in line. In the case of Charles Lee, he's someone who needs a lot of validation. That is there in the Prologue sequences where he wants to prove himself to Haytham and its there in his hatred and jealousy towards Washington and his lust for power. The need for validation can make someone be good and bad simultaneously.


Why would he all of a sudden jeopardize their whole mission by violently assaulting a young boy who might instead be persuaded to cooperate with them with a little kindness? Why give this random big speech about how natives are animals when Connor has done absolutely nothing to provoke him? Where does this hostility come from when we hadn't seen it in all that time, in any situation, when he traveled around with Haytham?

Well this is my head-canon but when I played the game I got the sense that Charles Lee was in love with Haytham and that he was jealous of Kanieh;tio and out of that jealousy he developed a hatred for Native Americans, so that's why he called the boy a "savage" (and later that rivalry becomes intense when he finds out that he's Haytham's son as well). Its similar to North by Northwest where Martin Landau is jealous of the villain's affections and is taking out the hero in an overly sadistic way to protect his man. Or for that matter Rebel Without A Cause where that kid is in love with James Dean and jealous of his romance with Natalie Wood. There is a lot of Oedipal angst on top of that, like Charles Lee also sees Haytham as the big brother/father and wants validation from him and so competes with Connor who despite being an Assassin is someone Haytham is indulgent to. It also serves as a foil to Connor. Connor ultimately chooses his adopted father Achilles over Haytham, Haytham chooses his adopted son/successor/ Charles Lee over Connor. So that ultimately creates the tragedy where the son kills the father.

The main problem with Lee attacking Connor's village is the story. Like they say Washington was in charge but historically Washington was retired from commission at that time and in the game itself, its never outright mentioned in dialogue between Connor and Washington that he ordered that attack as a young man, Washington in fact starts challenging Haytham when he brings that accusation. Washington's Sullivan Expedition is enough all by itself to trigger a break between him and Connor, adding that additional thing on top is unnecessary. Then if Charles Lee didn't order the attack what was we doing there that day at the village? If Haytham had ordered the Templars before to leave the Precursor site alone, why did Lee ignore the order?. So there are serious problems with that whole scene but to me Charles Lee picking on a 4 year old and calling him a savage is not all that out-of-character for him at all.

You are right that the whole scene exists to make us hate Charles Lee and its contrived and over-motivated and that's a genuine flaw of AC3's story. Ideally I would have had Ziio die at childbirth, and Connor raised as an orphan with fuzzy memories and stories about his parents told to him by the village elders and then pick up with the Juno Quest Vision as a teenager. Connor already has motivations enough to be an Assassin since he's an oppressed minority and Assassins like oppressed minorities.

dimbismp
07-19-2015, 03:30 PM
Wow,you guys made me understand how incosistent the writing has been all these years.

For me.ACU's coop is definitely "not canon".

First of all,it really confuses me that we don't actually see Arno and 3 other real life assassins complete the mission.Instead,we see 4 Arnos participating through the helix.So,what did the real life Arno do in that mission?Did he take the stealthy direction that i took,or did he engage in combat with everybody,like the other "Arno" did?Did he kill the target,or did he not?To make things even more confusing,these missions are not assigned by the Council,but by Bishop via the Helix.

Furthermore,some coop mission dates are completely non canon,and this really makes me mad.For example,the "women march" mission takes place in 1789,before Arno even became an Assassin.In another example,Arno takes part in coop missions,during the period in which he was exiled from the Brotherhood.I am talking about that "chase the templars in the catacombs" mission,which takes place 2 weeks after Elise's and Germain's death,when Arno was actually not part of the brotherhood.

VestigialLlama4
07-19-2015, 03:45 PM
For me.ACU's coop is definitely "not canon".

First of all,it really confuses me that we don't actually see Arno and 3 other real life assassins complete the mission.Instead,we see 4 Arnos participating through the helix.So,what did the real life Arno do in that mission?Did he take the stealthy direction that i took,or did he engage in combat with everybody,like the other "Arno" did?Did he kill the target,or did he not?To make things even more confusing,these missions are not assigned by the Council,but by Bishop via the Helix.

He is Quantum Arno, we must track the superposition of all the Arnos in a co-op mission but until that point he is Shrodinger's Arno, simultaneously stealthy, combatant, agile and projectile using at the same time.

Kidding aside, it maybe that the Co-Op missions are not "canon" that they are Animus simulations.


Furthermore,some coop mission dates are completely non canon,and this really makes me mad.For example,the "women march" mission takes place in 1789,before Arno even became an Assassin.In another example,Arno takes part in coop missions,during the period in which he was exiled from the Brotherhood.I am talking about that "chase the templars in the catacombs" mission,which takes place 2 weeks after Elise's and Germain's death,when Arno was actually not part of the brotherhood.

Pr0metheus1962 worked on creating a Timeline that integrates main, co-op and side missions and I was happy to serve as consultant.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/952229-Unity-Timeline-(helps-players-chronologically-integrate-storyline-and-co-op-missions)

dimbismp
07-19-2015, 04:12 PM
He is Quantum Arno, we must track the superposition of all the Arnos in a co-op mission but until that point he is Shrodinger's Arno, simultaneously stealthy, combatant, agile and projectile using at the same time.
Lol :P

Pr0metheus1962 worked on creating a Timeline that integrates main, co-op and side missions and I was happy to serve as consultant.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/952229-Unity-Timeline-(helps-players-chronologically-integrate-storyline-and-co-op-missions)
I am aware of the timeline and well done for the job.I will just talk about the two missions i referred to in my initial post.

1)The "Women's March" couldn't have happened because Arno is officialy ready during the "graduation" mission.Aside from that,even if we assume that Arno could have participated in that coop mission,even though he wasn't properly trained yet,there is also another problem:When you finish the "Rebirth" mission,which takes place in 1789,the sequence ends and you automatically time travel to 1791,when sequence 3 begins.In other words,there is no way to properly play this coop mission.

2)As for the "Jacobin Raid" mission,it is completely clear that Ubi messed the timeline up:
-Arno gets expelled from the Brotherhood in the end of sequence 10,in early 1793.
-Elise and Germain die in 1794
-One day later,Arno takes part in the specific mission(which apart from incosistent with the timeline,is also completely crazy,as Arno must have been heavily mourning in that time)
-According to the novel,Arno is reintroduced to the brotherhood many years after
In other words,Arno participates in the mission even though he is not a member of the brotherhood.

Bonus)
Reading the timeline,i came up with more incosistencies.
6 whole coop missions take place between the Versailles events and the return of Arno and Elise in Paris before the Robespierre events.
Firstly,Arno shouldn't even participate in these missions,because during that time he is not even in Paris!!!Arno returned with Elise in June 1794,while he hadn't been in Paris since his exile in early 1793.
As if this wasn't enough,even if he was in Paris during that time period,he wasn't even a part of the brotherhood,which means that he couldn't take part in the missions either way!

All in all,the majority of the coop missions in Unity are completely out of place.The most likely scenario is that the people who wrote them weren't aware of the main story's narrative,which is unprofessional for a big company like Ubi.The other scenario is that the responsible didn't even care about continuity and logic...

VestigialLlama4
07-19-2015, 05:26 PM
1)The "Women's March" couldn't have happened because Arno is officialy ready during the "graduation" mission.Aside from that,even if we assume that Arno could have participated in that coop mission,even though he wasn't properly trained yet,there is also another problem:When you finish the "Rebirth" mission,which takes place in 1789,the sequence ends and you automatically time travel to 1791,when sequence 3 begins.In other words,there is no way to properly play this coop mission.

Well the Women's March takes place in October 1789, Arno broke out of the Bastille on July 1789, so you have two months between initiation and the Versailles mission. The only explanation is that Mirabeau (who is highly indulgent to Arno) told him to work on that mission with three other Assassins as a test. The Women's March is not a complicated mission, its simply crowd control as women leave Paris (the actual March was way more intense and exciting as the women moved from Paris to Versailles and forced the King and Queen to come back to Paris with them, escorting the carriage...sigh, missed opportunities), so they thought it was a good mission for a promising rookie.


2)As for the "Jacobin Raid" mission,it is completely clear that Ubi messed the timeline up:
-Arno gets expelled from the Brotherhood in the end of sequence 10,in early 1793.
-Elise and Germain die in 1794
-One day later,Arno takes part in the specific mission(which apart from incosistent with the timeline,is also completely crazy,as Arno must have been heavily mourning in that time)
-According to the novel,Arno is reintroduced to the brotherhood many years after
In other words,Arno participates in the mission even though he is not a member of the brotherhood.

Bowden's novel can be safely discounted since even in Forsaken and Black Flag (considered canonical by writers for the parts not in the game) there are bits that don't align.

The one explanation is that there is some distance between Arno and Elise's confrontation with Robespierre and their final confrontation with Germain and this mission happened between that interval.


Bonus)
Reading the timeline,i came up with more incosistencies.
6 whole coop missions take place between the Versailles events and the return of Arno and Elise in Paris before the Robespierre events.
Firstly,Arno shouldn't even participate in these missions,because during that time he is not even in Paris!!!Arno returned with Elise in June 1794,while he hadn't been in Paris since his exile in early 1793.
As if this wasn't enough,even if he was in Paris during that time period,he wasn't even a part of the brotherhood,which means that he couldn't take part in the missions either way!

Yeah, that part doesn't make sense to me either. Arno's exile from the Brotherhood is the one huge plothole in the entire game. They just didn't know what to do with the Brotherhood once Mirabeau and Bellec are gone. Arno has no more relationships with any of the other Assassins nor does he get a mission where he proves his worth, like say rescuing them from a guillotine or something.

SixKeys
07-19-2015, 07:11 PM
Speaking of the Women's March mission, ironically it's one of the more difficult ones as I recall (5 stars). So Arno's first mission, before he was even officially initiated, was a really difficult one. They basically sent a rookie to do a veteran's job. Man, Mirabeau really was a crap leader, wasn't he? :p

VestigialLlama4
07-19-2015, 07:29 PM
Speaking of the Women's March mission, ironically it's one of the more difficult ones as I recall (5 stars). So Arno's first mission, before he was even officially initiated, was a really difficult one. They basically sent a rookie to do a veteran's job. Man, Mirabeau really was a crap leader, wasn't he? :p

Perhaps but I also think Mirabeau saw Arno's potential and wanted to groom him. So he put him on a tougher learning curve. And also after Al Mualim, the Assassins tend not to be too deeply interested in ranks and learning curves. Like in AC2, Ezio despite being a "novice" and not even an Assassin for most of the game gets sent by Mario, Machiavelli and others to do dangerous missions, like say infiltrating the Doge's Palace, whacking the Doge at Carnevale and hunting down the Pazzi. Logically they should send someone with experience rather than the revenge obsessed rookie who screamed his name to high heavens on his first assassination. Maybe because they all knew Ezio was some kind of prodigy. In Black Flag, Edward Kenway again is a pirate for most of the game and officially becomes a novice at the end but Ah Tabai gives him dangerous missions like hunting down the Templar grandmaster and others, when logically he has many other Assassins on hand to do that for him. In AC3, they changed things slightly because Connor is the only Assassin.

Related to that, in UNITY, you get a sense in the main game that Mirabeau hated his fellow Assassins, privately dealing with the King without telling them, getting into arguments with them and then complaining to Arno that they're as dumb as the National Convention and the King. Its also probably why he wanted to make peace with the Templars or at least with de la Serre because he found the other Assassins hard to work with as time went on. I wish they developed him as a character, the real Mirabeau was quite a weirdo and shrewd, this game is kind of a generic old wise mentor guy.

dimbismp
07-19-2015, 07:59 PM
Perhaps but I also think Mirabeau saw Arno's potential and wanted to groom him. So he put him on a tougher learning curve. And also after Al Mualim, the Assassins tend not to be too deeply interested in ranks and learning curves. Like in AC2, Ezio despite being a "novice" and not even an Assassin for most of the game gets sent by Mario, Machiavelli and others to do dangerous missions, like say infiltrating the Doge's Palace, whacking the Doge at Carnevale and hunting down the Pazzi. Logically they should send someone with experience rather than the revenge obsessed rookie who screamed his name to high heavens on his first assassination. Maybe because they all knew Ezio was some kind of prodigy. In Black Flag, Edward Kenway again is a pirate for most of the game and officially becomes a novice at the end but Ah Tabai gives him dangerous missions like hunting down the Templar grandmaster and others, when logically he has many other Assassins on hand to do that for him. In AC3, they changed things slightly because Connor is the only Assassin.
Nah..
IRL there must have been ranks.The more experienced assassins would take the most difficult missions etc.But in the game,we have to see something exciting.The protagonists are usually "wonder kids",but even then,i don't think that the mentors would risk their lives before they were properly trained for a big period of time.
The thing,as i said,is that they want to keep things exciting.IRL novices would probably clean some rooms,or at best eavesdrop on a very minor templar(or whatever).But how exciting is that? :P

steveeire
07-19-2015, 08:06 PM
If it doesn't happen in a game then I don't consider it canon.

VestigialLlama4
07-19-2015, 08:23 PM
If it doesn't happen in a game then I don't consider it canon.

But of course.


IRL there must have been ranks.The more experienced assassins would take the most difficult missions etc.

Bear in mind that after Altair, the organization changed and Altair reformed and redid the ranks to make it more meritocratic and inclusive. Especially since Altair told them to go underground, take regular jobs, start families and live among people.


The thing,as i said,is that they want to keep things exciting.IRL novices would probably clean some rooms,or at best eavesdrop on a very minor templar(or whatever).But how exciting is that? :P

Well experienced Assassins do that anyway. I mean Connor does his own eavesdropping, as does Ezio when he tails Tarik Berleti in Revelations, he doesn't tell Assassins to eavesdrop for him and come back with the information, he goes hands on.

I think its more fluid and flexible.

Alphacos007
07-19-2015, 08:57 PM
For me everything that doesn't contradict the main stories are cannon.
For example the AC4 novel, that is completely uncannon for me, I'm not going to get into details because it was already explaned by other people here.
But as far as it's adding to the lore without contradicting the main installments, it's ok for me.
Except for TOKW, for me it's just a fun DLC, completely separated from the lore, like Undead Nightmare for Red Dead Redemption.

Mr.Black24
07-19-2015, 10:03 PM
I still think that scene was overdone just to make him look more villainous. As if it's not enough that we think he later burns down Connor's village and that he's one of Haytham's closest lackeys, it's like they think the audience just can't hate him enough unless they come up with this completely random racist speech. They could have made Charles Lee a racist, but why turn him into such a raging a**hole all of a sudden with no provocation? We interact with him for about 4 hours before he meets Connor and nowhere does he come across as prone to violent mood swings. He comes across as someone who always takes the most efficient route. Why would he all of a sudden jeopardize their whole mission by violently assaulting a young boy who might instead be persuaded to cooperate with them with a little kindness? Why give this random big speech about how natives are animals when Connor has done absolutely nothing to provoke him? Where does this hostility come from when we hadn't seen it in all that time, in any situation, when he traveled around with Haytham?

Lee is more in-character right after he lets Connor go and Connor asks "what is your name?". Lee bends down and laughs patronizingly, looking at Connor as if he's a cute but ultimately insignificant little bug. That's more in line with how we saw him earlier. Why they felt the need to have this out-of-character burst of violence where he chokes a child for no reason is beyond me.

Ever thought that Charles was already an established ******* since the beginning. The only reason we see him all nice and stuff is because he is around Haytham and the crew, being a total kiss *** and stuff. However if he is with a bunch of lower grade Templar mooks or other non important people, he is a total ****.

Remember there is such thing as two faced people in this world, and I thought it was easily established that Charles was this type of person. And this is speaking by experience of meeting a two faced racist, all nice and good, but have a hispanic show up and he gives you such a ****ing look, and the things you hear him say when he thinks you ain't listenin....

Smash his face I want to, I do.

The_Kiwi_
07-20-2015, 12:29 AM
The helix, the surrogate system, any co op in Unity
That's it
Perhaps the novels as there are conflicting events between them and the games, but yeah that stuff

LieutenantRex
07-20-2015, 02:16 AM
Anything after AC3.

X_xWolverinEx_X
07-20-2015, 03:24 AM
anything after ac3.

gtfo ----->

LieutenantRex
07-20-2015, 05:39 AM
gtfo ----->

Dude, I'm serious. After AC3 is when the series jumped the shark. Black Flag was pushing it, but honestly, it wasn't even an AC game, just a pirate's story. It gave us no major development overall in the modern day plot, nor did the historical plot have much reference to past Assasains, if at all. Then Unity came out and completely wrecked the series, and my excitement for the future of this once beloved set was drained completely. It's just been disappointment after disappointment, and with nothing really being explained or accounted for to pay off for the time and effort demanded, it just isn't worth considering any lore after AC3 valid until there can be some serious wrap-ups and answers instead of the same vague, unsure BS that Ubi has been cramming down our throats since ACB.

steveeire
07-20-2015, 09:23 AM
Well I would go one better and saying anything after ACR, the MD in AC3 is ********, worst MD in any of the games.

The_Kiwi_
07-20-2015, 10:06 AM
I don't understand the hate for AC3 MD
AC1 had you listen in on convos through a vent and looking at emails, not exciting at all, nor very interesting
AC2 had a chase sequence, a climbing sequence, and an anticlimactic semi-fight scene, not exciting at all
ACB had you turn on power, look at statues and heaps of senseless climbing, although I will admit it did have good progression, just boring gameplay
ACR didn't have any progression, but it had fantastic character moments and very emotional backstory shown through very unique platforming sequences
But AC3 had actual assassin missions, infiltrations, espionage, even an assassination; it had the most interesting and action-packed MD of the series

steveeire
07-20-2015, 10:17 AM
I suppose it more to with the last part of AC3's MD but lets be fair AC3 is a poor game overall.

SixKeys
07-20-2015, 10:22 AM
AC3 MD had too much to live up to. We had been waiting for the epic showdown between Desmond and Vidic since the very beginning and then that moment was robbed from us by having a random security guard shoot Vidic in a cut scene. We had been teased with Daniel Cross being a super badass who single-handedly brought down almost the entire modern brotherhood, but in the game he was a whiny wuss who kept running away from every confrontation. We had been teased with the prospect of exploring multiple temples, in AC3 we only had one and we were stuck in one room for 99% of the game. We were promised a conclusion to the satellite launch that had been built up as this huge thing since day 1 and then it was concluded in a throaway line like "oh BTW, the whole satellite thing is a non-issue now". We were led to believe Desmond was going to do something amazing to stop the world from burning and in the end all he did was touch a glowing ball, sizzle for a few seconds, then drop dead. We never found out who or what Erudito was and why they were sending us e-mails in ACB.

They did themselves no favors by stretching the story with all kinds of cliffhangers and subplots they had no way to wrap up in one game.

VestigialLlama4
07-20-2015, 10:24 AM
I don't understand the hate for AC3 MD
AC1 had you listen in on convos through a vent and looking at emails, not exciting at all, nor very interesting
AC2 had a chase sequence, a climbing sequence, and an anticlimactic semi-fight scene, not exciting at all
ACB had you turn on power, look at statues and heaps of senseless climbing, although I will admit it did have good progression, just boring gameplay
ACR didn't have any progression, but it had fantastic character moments and very emotional backstory shown through very unique platforming sequences
But AC3 had actual assassin missions, infiltrations, espionage, even an assassination; it had the most interesting and action-packed MD of the series

I have said this repeatedly, until they do a full MD game with historical sections treated to smaller sections and slices, the MD in Assassin's Creed will always disappoint.

In the case of AC3, I rather liked the Grand Temple and all these platform missions to put the batteries and Juno talking to you, and Desmond interacting with Rebecca, Shaun and even William Miles. The missions themselves though, while nice (I like the construction site platform mission best) are fairly ordinary because Desmond is a Medieval Assassin in MD. The whole blending mechanics and stuff is not good enough to support a true MD assassin's creed. That would involve updating Parkour, Social Stealth and all to contemporary society. And you know there are suggestions of more exciting mission types. Like William Miles stole a First Civ battery from a museum, imagine if we played that, it would be like a museum heist mission.

Likewise, returning to Abstergo for instance was a huge disappointment. I mean you would think that this would be a true mission where rather than be the nobody and victim you were last time, this time you would plan your operation, it should have been like Mission Impossible movies where you infiltrate buildings from a roof. You should have had multiple objectives. Steal Abstergo servers, destroy their files and research, rescue the Animi Assassin hostages if possible. Doing all that work would require mechanics for a whole new game imposed for a throwaway mission.

But you know now that Watch_Dogs is out, they have a cool idea for MD. If you want a cheap and quick way to put trendy AC modern missions, repurpose Watch_Dogs assets for an AC game, and make these MD missions totally optional.

The_Kiwi_
07-20-2015, 11:08 AM
It seems that most of the discontent with AC3 MD is over what it could have been, instead of about what it was
I agree that the ending of AC3 was stupid, they obviously changed it last minute so they didn't have to worry about stuff like that in AC4, but Desmond saved the world as he was going to, we actually got to do some stuff in MD instead of walk around empty warehouses and rooms, and it had significant progression to the story

Just because Ubisoft could have done some things better doesn't mean it's bad overall

steveeire
07-20-2015, 12:04 PM
No, it was bad overall.

The_Kiwi_
07-20-2015, 01:16 PM
No, it was bad overall.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=sleN176n4tc&app=desktop

LieutenantRex
07-20-2015, 10:06 PM
I don't understand the hate for AC3 MD
AC1 had you listen in on convos through a vent and looking at emails, not exciting at all, nor very interesting
AC2 had a chase sequence, a climbing sequence, and an anticlimactic semi-fight scene, not exciting at all
ACB had you turn on power, look at statues and heaps of senseless climbing, although I will admit it did have good progression, just boring gameplay
ACR didn't have any progression, but it had fantastic character moments and very emotional backstory shown through very unique platforming sequences
But AC3 had actual assassin missions, infiltrations, espionage, even an assassination; it had the most interesting and action-packed MD of the series

AC3 may have had more modern day content, but it was done piss poorly. At least in the past, the other games kept things contained to disguise that a full modern day section would be unappealing both visually and gameplay wise. Honestly, you think that AC3's modern day wasn't cringe worthy? I love AC3 to death, but after listening to the BELIEVABLE banter between the whole crew in ACB, AC3's attempts to build character just came off looking half-arsed and melodramatic. And that Brazil section was awful. The character models, awful. It didn't make me think that we were out of the Animus at all, which all previous modern day sections did.

SixKeys
07-20-2015, 10:07 PM
It seems that most of the discontent with AC3 MD is over what it could have been, instead of about what it was
I agree that the ending of AC3 was stupid, they obviously changed it last minute so they didn't have to worry about stuff like that in AC4, but Desmond saved the world as he was going to, we actually got to do some stuff in MD instead of walk around empty warehouses and rooms, and it had significant progression to the story

Just because Ubisoft could have done some things better doesn't mean it's bad overall

It's impossible to say the two are independent of each other. As if expectations shouldn't matter when you consider the inherent value of something. If your parents promised you a Ferrari for your birthday and then you get a 1985 Buick, you're probably not gonna say "it's okay, at least it runs". You weren't just expecting a car that runs.

The_Kiwi_
07-21-2015, 02:17 AM
It's impossible to say the two are independent of each other. As if expectations shouldn't matter when you consider the inherent value of something. If your parents promised you a Ferrari for your birthday and then you get a 1985 Buick, you're probably not gonna say "it's okay, at least it runs". You weren't just expecting a car that runs.

I actually would feel that way
But even then, maybe I didn't have a problem with AC3 MD because I didn't have expectations

SixKeys
07-21-2015, 11:34 AM
I actually would feel that way
But even then, maybe I didn't have a problem with AC3 MD because I didn't have expectations

The parents comparison is probably a poor one anyway, since your parents aren't a business and getting a free gift would be nice in any case. It's more like you went to a store to reserve a Ferrari (if you were rich enough) and the salesperson happily took your down payment for the price of a Ferrari. Then on the day you arrive to retrieve your expensive Ferrari, they give you the Buick and say "here's your Ferrari, sir. Nice doing business with you".

The_Kiwi_
07-22-2015, 04:39 AM
The parents comparison is probably a poor one anyway, since your parents aren't a business and getting a free gift would be nice in any case. It's more like you went to a store to reserve a Ferrari (if you were rich enough) and the salesperson happily took your down payment for the price of a Ferrari. Then on the day you arrive to retrieve your expensive Ferrari, they give you the Buick and say "here's your Ferrari, sir. Nice doing business with you".

No, that is also a bad analogy
In that scenario, you know exactly what car you're buying

It's more like:

You go to the Ferrari dealership and put a deposit on the new car releasing in October
You've never driven it before, but in the pictures it looks fantastic
And you pick it up at release, drive it out the store, and find out it runs like a Buick despite looking great
The Ferrari dealership made no promises though, and any promise you say they made that it'll run like a Ferrari can be turned around to say "running like a Ferrari is subjective"

dxsxhxcx
07-22-2015, 03:17 PM
Let's make it simple, people expected AC2 and got Unity instead...

Namikaze_17
07-23-2015, 08:18 AM
I'm fine with most things in the lore regardless of how ridiculous they get sometimes - but the BF novel takes my vote so far.

It undermines what made BF & Edward so great and unique from the rest.