PDA

View Full Version : I just can't get into Rogue.



Fatal-Feit
08-06-2015, 03:28 AM
So, after many thorough replays and discussions, I just can't connect with Shay and his story. Usually, after a replay or two, I am able to put myself in the shoes of the protagonist and understand their motives and personality from the core, but Shay, no matter how hard I try, is really out of my reach. I don't want to say his character is bad, but he's very inconsistent and quite possibly the biggest ''Ezio-clone'' of the bunch. <-- By that, I mean his character is very rhetorical, and I really despise narratives that rely on being rhetorical. Although, that's not my biggest problem. My problem is that Shay's story, while it had potential, took the the easy route and dropped what made these typically known narratives part of the Assassin's Creed saga.

I mean, AC1 is about a man trying to regain his honor after dishonoring his clan. How does it work as an Assassin's Creed story? Well, the narrative didn't just pin Assassins against Templars, it really went into philosophical subjects. It highlighted the good and the bad in humanity. Every dead target brings a question to our morality. Who we are and what we do. In hindsight, it's a typical one track narrative, but there's weight to it. And most importantly, it's gives us the Assassin's Creed. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. There is a lot of weight to those words and AC1 did a phenomenal job of giving us an understanding of it.

Then there's BF's story, which is about a pirate trying to make a name for himself. Cliche, but how does it work as an Assassin's Creed story? Well, Edward meet both the Templars and Assassins in very interesting ways and he learns about their ideology, their motives, their Creed, he comes to understand their POV, as well as his own and discover who he truly is. It's all objective and done in detail, as Edward often come to blows with each factions and other pirates who have joined a side. Every kill, again, adds weight to the narrative. It makes Edward question himself, and his morality, as well as our own. It's not black and white, it's very philosophical, it questions human morality, and most importantly, the story describes the importance of the Assassin's Creed. It's about why the Assassin's Creed is important, and why it should not be abused for your own means. Black Flag, despite its sketchy and controversial setup, literally nails everything an Assassin's Creed story could wish to have. --Although, that's not to say it doesn't its problems.

Then there's AC3. Here's a story that doesn't have the Assassin's Creed, and yet it still managed to do a phenomenal job of delivering an AC narrative. Why? Because despite the absence of the Assassin's Creed in its dialogue, the narrative was still very philosophical and went in depth with each faction. Assassin or Templar, both had their POV and were righteous in their own way. Many people could sit through AC3 and feel that the Templars were in the right. The setup wasn't black and white, and every assassination only opened up more questions. At the end of the game, the Creed was never prevalent as a life lesson in the dialogue, but you, the player, still saw the world in a different way.

Heck, how you feel about the story aside, even Unity's narrative still retained what makes an Assassin's Creed narrative what it is. Neither the Templars or Assassins were in the right, as they both have proven to be guilty of being corrupted and equally at fault for the disbanding of a unity between the two factions. It had proven neither factions' ethics were better than another, and at the end of the day, only the strongest will survive. And while Arno didn't care for it, he was often set to make a decision that questioned his own morality and his wants for future. At the end of the game, (SPOILER) --> Arno evolved from the Creed and we're treated to a speech. The Assassin's Creed wasn't a permission, it was a warning. Arno believed the Creed granted him the rights to fight for Elise, above all else in the world, and he discovered it was a wasted futile desire. Like Altair and Edward, Arno comes to understands the Assassin's Creed is not something to be abused for oneself. The narrative has its issues, but I can still appreciate it as part of the franchise, as it delivers the same debates of the past while offering a new perspective.

Brotherhood, a game I don't exactly appreciate for its story, STILL retained an essence of what makes the narrative Assassin's Creed. The Creed. What it is and why it is important. The narrative is quite black and white and very straightforward, but it does the job.

And then there is Rogue. ...It has the setup, don't get me wrong. An Assassin that turns rogue and become a Templar. The problem is that it doesn't actually do anything. Like other ACs, it makes a decent narrative for a game. A warrior in a clan he doesn't fit in goes rogue and joins another clan to save the world. Like AC1 or BF, sure! ...But it doesn't really speak as an Assassin's Creed game. It's not philosophical, it doesn't make me question human morality, let alone the Assassins or Templars. Honestly, it doesn't even try and that shows! I mean, the return of Haytham was hilariously wasted. With Haytham, we got a MUCH richer understanding of the Templars and their POV from the first 3 sequences of AC3 and the 2 sequences towards its end, than the entirety of Rogue, if even at all. And that's because Haytham actually had meaning. He had a purpose for the characters. He wasn't forced into the narrative for the sake of being a fan favorite Templar. No, the first 3 sequences of AC3 nailed the Templar experience in terms of the narrative. Seriously, what purpose did Haytham have for Shay? And I mean other than allowing fangirls to ship? There was no interesting dynamic between Haytham and Shay. Haytham does a phenomenal job of being a trainer and mentor for Charles Lee, a man who wanted to fight for their cause, but just wasn't there yet. He spoke about their operations, how they work, what they hope to achieve and more. Every cut-scene, every sequences, was like a step closer to understand the Templars and how they work. Then there's the 2 sequences with Connor, an Assassin working with a Templar. You would think Shay and Haytham could at least achieve 10% of the success those sequences have done with clashing philosophies and POV, considering Shay WAS an Assassin, but nada. Heck, even the short few missions with Edward disguising as Duncan Walpole in Black Flag did a MUCH better success of giving players the Templars' POV. Really, Rogue didn't have a lot to complete with, but they somehow dropped the ball.

Instead, the Assassins are bad, and the Templars are good. What Shay thought of the Templars were all wrong, they only wanted to do good for the people. The Templars were conveniently kind, respectful, and good-hearted (unlike the Assassins in Rogue...) towards Shay. I can get that would win someone over, but that's very cheap and not how AC's narratives does it. Look at BF! Where's the conflicting philosophical questions? They teased those a bit in the earlier sections of the games during the traveling bits, but is that really it? That's nothing! Shay wouldn't have became a Templar, because nothing in the game have made him deserving of the title. He killed Assassins to save the world, gotcha, but being a Templar is deeper than that. AC3, BF, the Templars in those games are the product of the orders' true nature. The Templars in Rogue? A clan of heroes. That's really all you could get from his story. Neither the white rooms or Shay's speech really described the feud at its core. There was no philosophical speech about why the Creed is wrong, or why Shay truly believes in the Templars. The narrative would have been consistent if Shay had once again gone rogue after allowing Achilles to live. The Assassin's Creed was reiterated in the first cut-scene and then forgotten about. Many would argue that Shay's action is still of the Assassin's Creed.

TL;DR: At the end of the day, if Ubisoft wanted, they could have changed the names of the two order and sold this as another game and it would have been a decent narrative for another game. Not only does Rogue fail as a Templar game, it fails to deliver an Assassin's Creed narrative. I truly hate it when people say a certain AC game shouldn't be an AC game because pirates or whatever, but with Rogue, I really believe it doesn't make an AC game. It's not because it's about an Assassin going rogue and siding with the Templars, it's not because it has sailing, it's not because it doesn't fully take place in an urban city, and it's damn well not because Shay doesn't use a hood post sequence 2. It's because the game's narrative doesn't seem to try to be, beyond using bland cameos and titles. Shay's character's arc doesn't go any deeper than a man siding with his enemies and having to get over the fact that he has to kill his old colleagues to save the world. Take away AC from it, and his arc would have been fine. I am not criticizing the quality of Rogue's narrative, I'm arguing it's status as an AC story. And, of course, these are my opinions. Agree? Disagree? Express it.

I'm not very active on this forum anymore, but I'm open for debate and discussion. I'll try to reply when I can. ^^

[EDIT] HOLY SMOKES, I WROTE A WALL OF TEXT!

SixKeys
08-06-2015, 03:51 AM
Shay is a frickin' idiot and every character in his story is a more two-dimensional cardboard cutout than the Borgias. Like you said, the story misses true greyness and philosophical ponderings about freedom vs. order. It's not even that the assassins are portrayed as a-holes, Shay is just such a naive tool that I never got what his problem was in the first place or why he thought the Templars were the solution. We're told he goes rogue because he doesn't want to endanger any more innocent lives, so he....picks up a grenade gun and starts blowing **** up around civilians and there isn't even a warning to the player that their actions are out of sync with Shay's character. So Shay tries to save civilian lives by going around killing as many civilians as he damn well pleases. Seems legit. He blames Achilles for not knowing something he couldn't possibly have known and storms off, swearing to save the world from people like the assassins who carelessly use PoE's for their own purposes, so in retaliation he goes to the OTHER group that carelessly uses PoE's for their own purposes. Logic! He doesn't believe Achilles when he says he didn't know what the PoE's were capable of, but he believes everything any shady Templar he comes across happens to feed him. He's so dumb and illogical that he just comes off as a petulant teenager who's angry at the wrong people and it's hard to find any sympathy for him. He's not a "morally grey" character at all, just naive and petty. The only logical reason he turns Templar is because the story demands it.

HDinHB
08-06-2015, 04:13 AM
I never liked how Shay's loyalty flipped like a switch, especially how he turned on his supposedly lifelong BFF Liam. They didn't even do a montage (https://youtu.be/pFrMLRQIT_k?t=15s).

Hans684
08-06-2015, 05:06 AM
It's inspired by AC2 and ACB, it's not supposed to be deep and gray.

Fatal-Feit
08-06-2015, 05:30 AM
Shay is a frickin' idiot and every character in his story is a more two-dimensional cardboard cutout than the Borgias. Like you said, the story misses true greyness and philosophical ponderings about freedom vs. order.

Personally, I think the Borgias are more two-dimensional, but they are far better written characters as Yohalem clearly understood his material.

On the other hand, Rogue's writer does not seem to understand Assassin's Creed, or its casts, and ended up writing characters that come off as pretentious, one-dimensional, or fanfic-ish. And that shines especially with the returning casts.


It's not even that the assassins are portrayed as a-holes, Shay is just such a naive tool that I never got what his problem was in the first place or why he thought the Templars were the solution. We're told he goes rogue because he doesn't want to endanger any more innocent lives, so he....picks up a grenade gun and starts blowing **** up around civilians and there isn't even a warning to the player that their actions are out of sync with Shay's character. So Shay tries to save civilian lives by going around killing as many civilians as he damn well pleases. Seems legit. He blames Achilles for not knowing something he couldn't possibly have known and storms off, swearing to save the world from people like the assassins who carelessly use PoE's for their own purposes, so in retaliation he goes to the OTHER group that carelessly uses PoE's for their own purposes. Logic! He doesn't believe Achilles when he says he didn't know what the PoE's were capable of, but he believes everything any shady Templar he comes across happens to feed him. He's so dumb and illogical that he just comes off as a petulant teenager who's angry at the wrong people and it's hard to find any sympathy for him. He's not a "morally grey" character at all, just naive and petty. The only logical reason he turns Templar is because the story demands it.

I think you nailed it there. I wrote something similar, but I deleted it because I couldn't put it correctly into words, but you did me the favor. The writer does not seem to understand who and what Shay is, and I think that may be why he's the first protagonist I cannot connect with. His actions contradicts his motive and this goes beyond side content.


It's inspired by AC2 and ACB, it's not supposed to be deep and gray.

Yeah, it clearly was, but AC2/B still, in its misguided way, retained what made these narratives work as an Assassin's Creed. The narratives were black and white, but they still offered something. The speech during the Bonfire of the Vanities DLC, for example.

Mr.Black24
08-06-2015, 05:32 AM
Nice job there brotha! Reminds me, have you read my review of Rogue? I was surprised that I had no response from you, but you did say that you don't go here as much, but here is the link anyway:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1224167-Misguided-and-Butthurt-AC-Rogue-Review


Oh and one more thing, is the podcast dead?

Fatal-Feit
08-06-2015, 06:06 AM
Nice job there brotha! Reminds me, have you read my review of Rogue? I was surprised that I had no response from you, but you did say that you don't go here as much, but here is the link anyway:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1224167-Misguided-and-Butthurt-AC-Rogue-Review


Oh and one more thing, is the podcast dead?

Oh yeah, I've seen that. It was cool. Very interesting. I skimmed through the following posts and did not want to comment.

Yeah, the podcast is dead. I really do not like the community right now, so I don't want to bother. Although, there's still the other podcast from the sub and I think they've been doing a great job of being consistent and delivering great content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibENu_UpXo

They also took my idea and upgraded to Helix Island. :)

VestigialLlama4
08-06-2015, 06:14 AM
You are quite right that the game doesn't explore the philosophical aspects, mainly because philosophically the Templars are despotic and dictatorial and in a true Templar game, you won't be remotely a "good guy".

I-Like-Pie45
08-06-2015, 06:36 AM
rogue is more potatoes and artificiality than the menu at dennys

it is like edgy kids who make internet memes out of international tragedies after they happen to make themselves feel better and edgier about themselves than they really are

and also fatal-feit

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/622162985532944384/i99SCEZX.png
http://drhelmspickett.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/check.jpg
http://www.designindaba.com/sites/default/files/news/street_0.jpg
http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/danleech/simple/1024/steam-icon.png
https://criticallyrated.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/mailbox.jpg

Fatal-Feit
08-06-2015, 07:20 AM
and also fatal-feit

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/622162985532944384/i99SCEZX.png
http://drhelmspickett.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/check.jpg
http://www.designindaba.com/sites/default/files/news/street_0.jpg
http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/danleech/simple/1024/steam-icon.png
https://criticallyrated.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/mailbox.jpg


Accept my add now, or I'll bite you.

EmptyCrustacean
08-06-2015, 08:03 AM
There is a lot more that I want to address in the OP but I'm on my phone and it isn't the best for lengthy posts so I'll keep it brief: Ubisoft were capatalising on the anti-hero we as a society are currently preoccupied with. However, by making Shay an anti-hero that would mean we won't like him. Ubisoft could not have a protagonist the fans hated (Connor) so they embraced the anti-hero trend but glossed over the really important details.

For instance, Shay left the Assassins because they killed innocents. But if he had even a margin of common sense he would have realised Achilles broke one of the tenets of the creed - it is not in any way shape or form protocol for Assassins to kill innocents at all - and therefore the next step would be to get Achilles kicked out and get a new leader. Instead his brain went : "all assassins are bad! The only life I've ever known is bad! I should join the Templars who represent everything I've been taught to believe is wrong with the world even though they slaughter innocents systematically and institutionally! Hell I'll even start the French revolution to serve their cause which would results in triple the amount of deaths of innocents even though that's why I left the Brotherhood in the first place."

His whole arc makes no sense because Ubi didn't have the balls to show us Shay gradually embracing the philosophies of the Templar Order. It was so sugar coated that I put on 10 pounds just playing the game.

I-Like-Pie45
08-06-2015, 03:31 PM
Accept my add now, or I'll bite you.

I don't see it

SpiritOfNevaeh
08-06-2015, 08:37 PM
I'm not surprised you didn't get into it Fatal. I know some people that couldnt like it because of Shay's choices or they can't accept the fact that this game is "supposedly part of the Kenway saga."

I personally think that this game didn't do much else to the saga except that it was just rushed and may even be considered a cash grab game.

Rogue has so much potential to be a better game.

I love the idiot that it was an Assassin-turned-Templar game, but the way Shay went about it and his story didn't make much sense.

Jessigirl2013
08-06-2015, 08:55 PM
I thought Rogue was better than Unity ;)
It also had an decent MD <---- which cant be said for Unity.

The only fault I have for it is that its so short!!
Compared to Unity it was finished in 5mins;)

I-Like-Pie45
08-06-2015, 10:35 PM
looks like quirky is back

hhhh

Fatal-Feit
08-07-2015, 07:08 AM
There is a lot more that I want to address in the OP but I'm on my phone and it isn't the best for lengthy posts so I'll keep it brief: Ubisoft were capatalising on the anti-hero we as a society are currently preoccupied with. However, by making Shay an anti-hero that would mean we won't like him. Ubisoft could not have a protagonist the fans hated (Connor) so they embraced the anti-hero trend but glossed over the really important details.

For instance, Shay left the Assassins because they killed innocents. But if he had even a margin of common sense he would have realised Achilles broke one of the tenets of the creed - it is not in any way shape or form protocol for Assassins to kill innocents at all - and therefore the next step would be to get Achilles kicked out and get a new leader. Instead his brain went : "all assassins are bad! The only life I've ever known is bad! I should join the Templars who represent everything I've been taught to believe is wrong with the world even though they slaughter innocents systematically and institutionally! Hell I'll even start the French revolution to serve their cause which would results in triple the amount of deaths of innocents even though that's why I left the Brotherhood in the first place."

His whole arc makes no sense because Ubi didn't have the balls to show us Shay gradually embracing the philosophies of the Templar Order. It was so sugar coated that I put on 10 pounds just playing the game.

Eh, I don't think the way the story unfolded was something Ubisoft had planned because they were afraid or whatever. Black Flag was recent, and it was a great example of a narrative that was both very controversial with its setup and protagonist, but was also well received. Unity, which was released with Rogue last year, gave us a protagonist who wasn't particularly a hero and fought for his own world. Arno wasn't written to be the like-able archetype like Ezio or Shay either. --And again, both games offered more of the Templars' perspective than Rogue.

But yeah, considering how they shaped Unity's narrative, and its status as the big bother of the two last year, I don't think Rogue was under any rough obligations for the sake of appeasing fans. Heck, AC2/B followed a similar formula of being black and white to appeal and yet it still gave fans something worth discussing. Rogue is just poor writing, really. Besides throwing in cameos and tossing the name Templars and Assassins around, the writer have proven to not understand the core of the Assassin's Creed narratives and that shows in the script. The only returning cameo that he managed to nail was Benjamin Franklin, and that's because he was neither an Assassin or Templar. He was just some random historical figure that couldn't really contribute to the core Templar vs Assassin narrative, which is why AC3 avoided him. :p

Honestly, I kind of question if the writer have even played the past titles before. Neither Haytham, Achilles, or Adewale possesses the character traits that made them remarkable characters in the past installments, and William Johnson was literally a completely different character entirely. Really. A returning Templar in a Templar game. You would think they'd nail that part. It was like some wannabe generic Templar was cosplaying as his favorite senpai.


I'm not surprised you didn't get into it Fatal. I know some people that couldnt like it because of Shay's choices or they can't accept the fact that this game is "supposedly part of the Kenway saga."

I personally think that this game didn't do much else to the saga except that it was just rushed and may even be considered a cash grab game.

Rogue has so much potential to be a better game.

I love the idiot that it was an Assassin-turned-Templar game, but the way Shay went about it and his story didn't make much sense.

Ubisoft have always been poor at marketing the games' stories, so I'm in no way sour about Rogue being the ''closure'' of the Kenway Saga. And Shay's decisions, while probably the stupidest thing an AC protagonist have done since Ezio allowed Rodrigo Borgia to live at the end of AC2, doesn't bother me as much as how redundant the Assassin's Creed title is in Rogue. It has the setup and cast to deliver a decent Assassin's Creed narrative, something that would leave us discussing our morality just a tidbit, but it doesn't. Rogue could have been the story for any other game. It felt like it was written by someone who didn't understand what he was writing about. --As though he was randomly picked off the streets to quickly write a closure to a saga he had zero clue about, and spent his weekends skimming over possible returning characters without investing any time in their individual stories.


I thought Rogue was better than Unity ;)
It also had an decent MD <---- which cant be said for Unity.

The only fault I have for it is that its so short!!
Compared to Unity it was finished in 5mins;)

Your opinion is beside the point here.

length =/= content

The first 3 sequences of AC3 or those few missions in BF did a much MUCH better job of delivering a Templar story than the entirety of Rogue. Even Unity did a better job of giving players the perspective of the Templars, and that's the issue. Just about every other game in the franchise is a better Templar game. Even Bloodlines, and to some degree, Liberation.


looks like quirky is back

hhhh

Kekekekekekek. :)

Hans684
08-07-2015, 06:00 PM
Yeah, it clearly was, but AC2/B still, in its misguided way, retained what made these narratives work as an Assassin's Creed.

It deals with the Assassins as bad as Rogue deals with Templars, both games say their motto and that's just it. The only thing giving AC2 the edge of the 3 games is because of Altaïr's Codex.


The narratives were black and white, but they still offered something.

Like bad writing and poor villains like Rogue.


The speech during the Bonfire of the Vanities DLC, for example.

This speech is an example of that, he says he's beyond revenge now and has learned yet he does't kill Rodrigo because "it won't bring my family back". He's not over it at all, had he done his duty as an Assassin he would have killed him without second thoughts.

Megas_Doux
08-07-2015, 06:04 PM
I dislike the setting to begin with and they what they did with it was not great either.
I hate Shay.
The gameplay was bad, even the combat felt way clunkier than usual.

I like some the outfits though, the traditional templar and James Gunn Armor were boss..... Plus the North Atlantic was cool, ba dum pstt haha. I really like it.

steveeire
08-07-2015, 06:46 PM
Rogue was better than Unity, but every time Shay opened his mouth I wanted to punch him in the face.

Shahkulu101
08-07-2015, 06:55 PM
Rogue was better than Unity, but every time Shay opened his mouth I wanted to punch him in the face.

Was it the terrible attempt at an Irish accent?

VestigialLlama4
08-07-2015, 07:51 PM
Was it the terrible attempt at an Irish accent?

They should have at least consulted Darby McDevitt, who actually got a Welsh guy to play a Welsh guy in Black Flag, and who is actually Irish.

As for Rogue and Unity, my feeling is that of Faulkner, "Between grief and nothing, I will choose grief", so I choose Unity. Unity just feels painful because its a betrayal of talent and potential. Rogue never had it to begin with since the premise, idea and concept was corrupt to start with.

SixKeys
08-07-2015, 07:54 PM
Is Darby actually Irish or does he simply have Irish blood somewhere in his lineage? Americans like to use those terms interchangeably while they're two completely different things, so I have to ask.

VestigialLlama4
08-07-2015, 07:56 PM
Is Darby actually Irish or does he simply have Irish blood somewhere in his lineage? Americans like to use those terms interchangeably while they're two completely different things, so I have to ask.

He studied Irish Literature at Trinity College, Dublin (aka James Joyce's college).

steveeire
08-07-2015, 07:58 PM
Its not just the accent though its the dribble that comes out of his mouth.

Shahkulu101
08-07-2015, 08:50 PM
They should have at least consulted Darby McDevitt, who actually got a Welsh guy to play a Welsh guy in Black Flag, and who is actually Irish.

As for Rogue and Unity, my feeling is that of Faulkner, "Between grief and nothing, I will choose grief", so I choose Unity. Unity just feels painful because its a betrayal of talent and potential. Rogue never had it to begin with since the premise, idea and concept was corrupt to start with.

Or got the guy that did Liam to be the main character, I mean his accent was perfectly fine.

steveeire
08-07-2015, 08:55 PM
lol yea his accent was totally fine, I spent the entire game wondering he wasn't voicing Shea.

SixKeys
08-08-2015, 04:13 PM
He studied Irish Literature at Trinity College, Dublin (aka James Joyce's college).

And? I studied Dutch at the University of Amsterdam. Doesn't make me Dutch or an expert in Dutch accents.

steveeire
08-08-2015, 04:34 PM
An example of Irish accents none of which sound like Shea. https://www.uni-due.de/IERC/index.html I suppose I have a Mid Ulster accent, not that anyone cares but still.

Farlander1991
08-08-2015, 04:50 PM
They should have at least consulted Darby McDevitt, who actually got a Welsh guy to play a Welsh guy in Black Flag, and who is actually Irish.

Edward wasn't supposed to be Welsh (I don't remember which nationality originally he was, but Matt auditioned with a Manchester accent, so most likely he was supposed to be English), he became Welsh because they got a Welsh actor (and if I remember correctly, it was Matt's proposition to make Edward Welsh as Matt felt more comfortable in doing that plus it would fit the character historically).


Is Darby actually Irish or does he simply have Irish blood somewhere in his lineage?

He's got Irish blood/lineage (I think that was one of the several main reasons of the choice of song at the end?) and studied in Ireland, but he was born in the U.S.

SixKeys
08-08-2015, 05:54 PM
He's got Irish blood/lineage (I think that was one of the several main reasons of the choice of song at the end?) and studied in Ireland, but he was born in the U.S.

Thought so. Unless at least one of your parents is from Ireland, you're not actually Irish. Claiming to have intimate knowledge of a given nation's culture and traditions requires actively engaging with that culture, among other natives. My dad is German so I'm technically half-German, but it would be arrogant of me to claim I actually know what it's like being German since I barely speak the language and have never lived there. I certainly wouldn't ask to be consulted on the accuracy of German accents in a video game.

Note: I'm not saying Darby has ever made such claims, but like I said before, a lot of Americans seem to think that being 7% Italian means you have some sort of deep connection to the country which is ridiculous.

Sorrosyss
08-08-2015, 06:35 PM
I'm 0.001% First Civilization. Ask me anything.

:p

dargor5
08-08-2015, 06:54 PM
I've tried to play Rogue but just not into it. The gameplay even though is the same as BF is not as enjoying because you are not a pirate, there's no reason for you to attack and pillage ships (yes you can but seems very out of context). For me the naval thing was unnecessary in Rogue

steveeire
08-08-2015, 07:06 PM
Thought so. Unless at least one of your parents is from Ireland, you're not actually Irish. Claiming to have intimate knowledge of a given nation's culture and traditions requires actively engaging with that culture, among other natives. My dad is German so I'm technically half-German, but it would be arrogant of me to claim I actually know what it's like being German since I barely speak the language and have never lived there. I certainly wouldn't ask to be consulted on the accuracy of German accents in a video game.

Note: I'm not saying Darby has ever made such claims, but like I said before, a lot of Americans seem to think that being 7% Italian means you have some sort of deep connection to the country which is ridiculous.
I disagree if you where not born there or have not lived there for the majority of your life then you are not from the country.

SixKeys
08-08-2015, 07:29 PM
I disagree if you where not born there or have not lived there for the majority of your life then you are not from the country.

You are right in that nationality isn't tied to living in X country. I could claim German citizenship due to my parentage if I wanted to, despite never having lived there. HOWEVER, that's as far as it goes. If only my grandmother was German and everyone else in my family was Finnish, I wouldn't have any right to claim German nationality. Why would I even want to?

If neither of your parents are from X country, you have no claim to citizenship. You have no direct ties to the language, the culture or the history. You have no intimate knowledge of everyday life in said country. In short, you don't actually know what it's like to be X nationality. If you are born in America, you are American. It doesn't matter where your great-great-great grandparents migrated from. The whole "there's 2% Irish blood in me, therefore I am Irish" nonsense gives way to silly stereotypes like "I like drinking; it must be due to my Irish genes" or "I'm 7% Italian, that's why I have a fiery temper".

steveeire
08-08-2015, 07:38 PM
lol we have a name for people who go around saying they are 2% Irish or that sort of thing, we call them Plastic Paddys.

Farlander1991
08-08-2015, 07:44 PM
Thought so. Unless at least one of your parents is from Ireland, you're not actually Irish.

I said he was born in the U.S., I didn't say who/where from his parents are :p (not that I'd know anyway)

SixKeys
08-08-2015, 07:50 PM
I said he was born in the U.S., I didn't say who/where from his parents are :p (not that I'd know anyway)

I know, just saying it since some people seem to be making the assumption that Darby is an expert in the Irish language when we don't actually know his family background.

DumbGamerTag94
08-08-2015, 07:56 PM
I'm an American and I have yet to meet anyone who claims less than 10% anything mainly because that just sounds rediculous(with the exception of Native American because for some unknown reason it seems 7/10 white people will try to tell you they are part Native American even though there's no way that math adds up). But we Americans aren't saying anything like that we know what it's like to live in another country or know subtle accents. The reason we make distinctions of our heritage is because we are all so different and most different types of people faced violent discrimination when they first came. So it's worn as a badge of honor. It was only 100-150 years ago that Irish people were treated worse than Hispanics today. And Italians and poles after that. Germans back in the 1700s. It's been a struggle for most groups to integrate so it's a matter of serious pride what your heritage and culture is here in the U.S. It's the pride of overcoming the struggles of being an Irish-American, Italian-American, and whatever else-American. And it's frankly very rude and arrogant to assume just because someone was not born in a country they no nothing of the culture. In fact because of the hardships most immigrant groups stuck together in their own communities and the culture and language stayed heavily there to this day. Hell to this day several members of my family still speak German. And the foods my family eats regularly are overwhelmingly influenced by our roots. It's funny that you speak of arrogance to cultures when it's very clear you have no understanding of American culture and why heritage is important to us.

steveeire
08-08-2015, 08:12 PM
If your not at least 50% of something then the only place should be claiming you are from, is the country where you were born or have lived the majority of your life.

HDinHB
08-08-2015, 08:19 PM
And the foods my family eats regularly are overwhelmingly influenced by our roots. It's funny that you speak of arrogance to cultures when it's very clear you have no understanding of American culture and why heritage is important to us.

They say food is the last piece of culture you hold onto. I still know how to make some things my mom's grandmother taught her. (Although some of them are kinda gross.)

steveeire
08-08-2015, 08:23 PM
wow this thread has gone massively off topic.

HDinHB
08-08-2015, 08:28 PM
Nah, the topic is about not being able to get into Rogue. We are just demonstrating that.

DumbGamerTag94
08-08-2015, 08:30 PM
I don't mean to get angry it's just very clear that some of you don't understand how important heritage and culture is to Americans. There is no true American culture beyond music,movies,and football. Beyond those three things the only thing we all share in common is the fact that we all have nothing in common. Probably the most defining part of the American culture is a devout attachment to the cultures our ancestors brought with them. And a desire to share those cultures with others who aren't familiar with it. The smaller sub groups of us tend to live close to each other and keep the culture strong. Just travel around the county once and you will notice this. This also contributes to why we Americans are so obsessively patriotic as a group. Simply because our county and patriotism is one of the few things that cross over in to all of these different groups.

And you're correct this is off topic so back to rogue.......I didn't mind it. Not the best of the series but I found it a decent game. And somewhere on here someone didn't understand why there was ship battles/looting in the game when there were no pirates. But that is explained by the fact that it's the French and Indian war and the Templars side with Britain. So essentially Shay and his crew are acting as privateers disrupting the French war effort.

SixKeys
08-08-2015, 08:58 PM
I'm an American and I have yet to meet anyone who claims less than 10% anything mainly because that just sounds rediculous(with the exception of Native American because for some unknown reason it seems 7/10 white people will try to tell you they are part Native American even though there's no way that math adds up). But we Americans aren't saying anything like that we know what it's like to live in another country or know subtle accents. The reason we make distinctions of our heritage is because we are all so different and most different types of people faced violent discrimination when they first came. So it's worn as a badge of honor. It was only 100-150 years ago that Irish people were treated worse than Hispanics today. And Italians and poles after that. Germans back in the 1700s. It's been a struggle for most groups to integrate so it's a matter of serious pride what your heritage and culture is here in the U.S. It's the pride of overcoming the struggles of being an Irish-American, Italian-American, and whatever else-American. And it's frankly very rude and arrogant to assume just because someone was not born in a country they no nothing of the culture. In fact because of the hardships most immigrant groups stuck together in their own communities and the culture and language stayed heavily there to this day. Hell to this day several members of my family still speak German. And the foods my family eats regularly are overwhelmingly influenced by our roots. It's funny that you speak of arrogance to cultures when it's very clear you have no understanding of American culture and why heritage is important to us.

I actually really appreciate this viewpoint. I've always wondered WHY Americans are so obsessed with heritage and this gave me something to think about.

I'm not saying it's not possible for someone who wasn't born in a specific culture to know nothing about it, but I've seen too many Americans treat geneology like it's a magic key that gives one special insight into another culture without actually having to study it. THAT is arrogance. I actually know people who act like their Italian or Irish heritage gives them leave to be rude or act oppressed because "it's just part of my heritage, I can't help it".

Perhaps different cultures are viewed differently by Americans, what with past discrimination against mixed lineages, but Europeans find it nonsensical and arrogant to act like you have some claim to our culture just because one of your great-great-great ancestors may have boinked someone from Germany once, for example. We're also generally disinterested in our lineage beyond immediate family. I could be one-fifth Chinese for all I know, but so what? It has no impact whatsoever on my life or personality here and now. It certainly doesn't make me an expert in Chinese culture. It doesn't even give me an advantage in learning the language. So that part of my lineage, even if it existed, would be entirely irrelevant and useless information to me. And I would never be so bold as to presume it gives me any idea about what it's actually like to be Chinese.

I appreciate the different viewpoint though. It may be that there are fundamental differences to how lineage and heritage is viewed in America vs. Europe.

HDinHB
08-08-2015, 09:22 PM
I appreciate the different viewpoint though. It may be that there are fundamental differences to how lineage and heritage is viewed in America vs. Europe.

I wonder if you speak too broadly for all European cultures? On a short trip to Ireland, I made no pretense about being Irish and am quite obviously American, but they recognized my Irish surname (and even pronounced it correctly), and welcomed me like a long lost relative. (There was a lot of drinking.)

SixKeys
08-08-2015, 09:26 PM
I wonder if you speak too broadly for all European cultures? On a short trip to Ireland, I made no pretense about being Irish and am quite obviously American, but they recognized my Irish surname (and even pronounced it correctly), and welcomed me like a long lost relative. (There was a lot of drinking.)

Possibly. All I know is what I've learned from living in two different countries for extended periods of time and from speaking with my European friends about these things.

steveeire
08-08-2015, 10:15 PM
I wonder if you speak too broadly for all European cultures? On a short trip to Ireland, I made no pretense about being Irish and am quite obviously American, but they recognized my Irish surname (and even pronounced it correctly), and welcomed me like a long lost relative. (There was a lot of drinking.)

As an Irish person I agree with sixkeys Europeans don't really care about heritage beyond there immediate family, and Irish people generally don't give a crap where you are from, we are a welcoming bunch as long as you have enough money for a round of pints, the fact you have an Irish surname is just a coincidence, and if your Irish surname isn't pronounced properly in Ireland, then there is something wrong.

DumbGamerTag94
08-09-2015, 01:20 AM
It's just a very different viewpoint in America. Most of us aren't very interested in our ancestry either and can't name anyone beyond our immediate relations. However the one difference is we do know where our ancestors came from even if the name of that person is long forgotten. Contrary to what you seem to think most Americans have maintained at least a large portion of the culture of their old countries. While you can drive across Ireland or England for example you will find virtually no extreme difference in the people and their overall culture. However in America you can see this just driving through one state. And really extremely if you drive across the country. For instance in Louisiana you can go to areas where people will openly speak in French, or Pennsylvania in Amish country where even in the English neighborhoods it isn't uncommon to hear German spoken or polka music at a carnival which sells saur kraut and sausages with a beer tent nearby. New York and New Jersey you can be talking to someone in a neighborhood and their relative will stick their head out a window and yell at them in Italian to come in and eat(and Italians are serious about their food which is usually awesome). Its reflected in our local traditions(which are usually ones carried over). In America where your family came from tells a lot about who you are today it tells where in the country/state you may be from, your food preferences, the way you celebrate holidays or throw a party/festival, what word you use for different things, your religion, mannerisms, even the architecture of different neighborhoods reflect this.

It's just different here. In a days dive you can feel like you've been to multiple countries without crossing a boarder and without needing to brush up on other languages to ask for directions. We are extremely diverse culturally and we are all very proud of being members of these sub-categories of Americans. Whereas in Europe your counties tend to be more homogenous so there's not many differences to celebrate or care about really.

I-Like-Pie45
08-09-2015, 04:16 AM
@bmark

wrong
http://cdn.chud.com/8/8e/500x1000px-LL-8eb0869d_Hitman4thJulyBig.jpeg

do you know what cultural pride in america caused? the kkk, the native american extermination, the chinese exclusion act, japanese internment, the kennedy assassination, the iran-contra affair, the bush fraud elections, slavery and jim crow laws, online dating sites, and the list goes on of heinous crimes against decency. simply put, assimilation of the world into a single hive mind would solve all conflicts that cultural pride has created.

steveeire
08-09-2015, 11:17 AM
Or the blue and green endings from ME3 would work too.

SixKeys
08-09-2015, 12:10 PM
It's just different here. In a days dive you can feel like you've been to multiple countries without crossing a boarder and without needing to brush up on other languages to ask for directions. We are extremely diverse culturally and we are all very proud of being members of these sub-categories of Americans. Whereas in Europe your counties tend to be more homogenous so there's not many differences to celebrate or care about really.

Lol, wow. You try driving from Sweden to Holland to Estonia to Romania to Germany to Turkey to Spain to Greece to Belgium and then tell me Europe is all homogenous and there's no difference between cultures. Try smoking pot openly in Holland vs. Turkey, for example, see what happens.

steveeire
08-09-2015, 12:54 PM
I don't think he realises but he kinda contradicted himself a we bit with that last post, he says that you can drive to multiple countries without crossing a border in the US but goes on to call Europe homogenous, but in reality a good majority of the cultures in the US orignaited in Europe.

ze_topazio
08-09-2015, 01:11 PM
Even in one single European country you will find a lot of diversity, you don't need to drive around the entire continent, the difficulties of communication and mobility in past centuries, made cities, villages and regions develop sometimes very different cultures, visiting other regions sometimes can make you feel like you're in a different country altogether.

steveeire
08-09-2015, 01:17 PM
In my County in Ireland we have 4 different accents and we are a small county.

ze_topazio
08-09-2015, 01:36 PM
In Portugal we also have 10 or so different regional accents, and you can find different variants of those accents depending of the exact place in the region, and then we have a regional language and even that language can be spoken in 3 different ways.

Altair1789
08-09-2015, 04:36 PM
"Rogue doesn't make sense" -> ??? -> Cultural diversity in the U.S.A vs. Europe

VestigialLlama4
08-09-2015, 05:00 PM
"Rogue doesn't make sense" -> ??? -> Cultural diversity in the U.S.A vs. Europe

Hey its a more interesting topic than a piece of worthless fanfiction than ROGUE. You can talk endlessly about UNITY since it is at the very least doing something not based on pre-existing material and as such made a whole series of decisions and choices worth arguing and contending against. With ROGUE, if you like the premise and setting, then you have nothing to say since its a fairly one dimensional and simplistic story. If you don't like, there's nothing more to add.

steveeire
08-09-2015, 05:47 PM
meh thread derailed ages ago, just roll with it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrARl0dzd-0).

Hans684
08-09-2015, 07:38 PM
Hey its a more interesting topic than a piece of worthless fanfiction than ROGUE. You can talk endlessly about UNITY since it is at the very least doing something not based on pre-existing material and as such made a whole series of decisions and choices worth arguing and contending against. With ROGUE, if you like the premise and setting, then you have nothing to say since its a fairly one dimensional and simplistic story. If you don't like, there's nothing more to add.

Like AC2 and Brotherhood then.

VestigialLlama4
08-09-2015, 07:49 PM
Like AC2 and Brotherhood then.

Nice try but no. AC2 gave us a new cast of characters, new setting and new cities. BROTHERHOOD gave us a new city and new villains as did REVELATIONS even if it was based on assets of the earlier games.

It is possible to play Brotherhood without playing AC2. It is possible to play REVELATIONS the same way as well. You cannot play and appreciate ROGUE without playing the earlier games. The dramatic sense of being a Templar derives from our knowledge of the Assassins vs Templars lore. The sense of Achilles being a bad guy comes from us knowing him in AC3, likewise Adewale in Black Flag and Freedom Cry.

There's no new setting in ROGUE. It has New York with Havana skies, the Frontier in AC3 refashioned into drab wilderness without any of the graphic beauty, it has a North Atlantic that's essentially the Ice Palace level in Mario and Zelda games.

GunnerGalactico
08-09-2015, 07:52 PM
Very interesting discussion going on here. I suppose a lot of people out there feel it is important to know the finer details about their heritage and where they originated from. I get that it is important to them, but I don't understand why they place a lot of emphasis on tracing their heritage far out from their family tree. I'm actually South African of Indian ethnicity like my parents, grandparents and so on. I see myself as 100% Indian, even if I had a bit of Dutch or British thrown in there, it really doesn't mean a thing to me. As far as I am concerned, I trace my bloodline as far as my great-great grandparents, as there is no need for me to go beyond that.

Apologies for derailing the thread again :p

Namikaze_17
08-09-2015, 07:58 PM
Well this has taken a turn...

Er, I'm just a Caucasian dude with blond hair. :p

GunnerGalactico
08-09-2015, 08:05 PM
Well this has taken a turn...

Er, I'm just a Caucasian dude with blond hair. :p

Does that mean you look like your avatar then? :p

VestigialLlama4
08-09-2015, 08:09 PM
Well this has taken a turn...

Er, I'm just a Caucasian dude with blond hair. :p

I am sure Black Flag must have been quite interesting for you. There actually aren't a lot of Blonde Male heros in games for some reasons (unless you count Duke Nukem)...


Very interesting discussion going on here. I suppose a lot of people out there feel it is important to know the finer details about their heritage and where they originated from. I get that it is important to them, but I don't understand why they place a lot of emphasis on tracing their heritage far out from their family tree. I'm actually South African of Indian ethnicity like my parents, grandparents and so on. I see myself as 100% Indian, even if I had a bit of Dutch or British thrown in there, it really doesn't mean a thing to me. As far as I am concerned, I trace my bloodline as far as my great-great grandparents, as there is no need for me to go beyond that.

Apologies for derailing the thread again :p

Don't apologize. Its either this or discuss ROGUE and nobody wants to discuss Rogue.

Tracing the family tree is interesting provided how you do it and that's part of the appeal of AC. The idea is you have ancestry dating back to Ancient Times which is fantastical, yet its absolutely true. All of us had ancestors who lived in caveman times, who must have lived in various ancient civilizations and migrated and cross-polinated at various moments in history. So heritage matters to the extent that it doesn't matter.

Namikaze_17
08-09-2015, 08:09 PM
Does that mean you look like your avatar then? :p

Maybe. Maybe not. :p



I am sure Black Flag must have been quite interesting for you. There actually aren't a lot of Blonde Male heros in games for some reasons (unless you count Duke Nukem)...

Oh, well okay?

GunnerGalactico
08-09-2015, 08:18 PM
Don't apologize. Its either this or discuss ROGUE and nobody wants to discuss Rogue.

Tracing the family tree is interesting provided how you do it and that's part of the appeal of AC. The idea is you have ancestry dating back to Ancient Times which is fantastical, yet its absolutely true. All of us had ancestors who lived in caveman times, who must have lived in various ancient civilizations and migrated and cross-polinated at various moments in history. So heritage matters to the extent that it doesn't matter.

Well, since you put it like that, I suppose it is a little fascinating.


Maybe. Maybe not. :p

I'll take that as a "yes" :p

Hans684
08-09-2015, 08:26 PM
Nice try but no.

Of course it is, all 3 stories is black and white and whitewashes one side. Nor does it deal with what it means to be what we play and ignore the philosophical aspect.


AC2 gave us a new cast of characters, new setting and new cities. BROTHERHOOD gave us a new city and new villains as did REVELATIONS even if it was based on assets of the earlier games.

And? The stories still are the same black and white comic book stories with mustache twirling villains with no potential. No depth or grayness, Rogue simply does it from the other side. Would be hypocritical to only accept one side having unambiguous black and white stories.


It is possible to play Brotherhood without playing AC2.

I'd suggest you read M's Everything wrong with AC2 and Ezio along with Farlander's takes on the story. The Carnevale sequence bring pointless and badly written along with AC to ditching the satellite plot and adding the end of the world plot messing up the original story for a cliche that's run dry. Brotherhood is nothing but an expansion of the problems from AC2.


It is possible to play REVELATIONS the same way as well.

The reason I didn't mention Revelations is because the story is gray, deep and philosophical unlike AC2, Brotherhood and Rogue. I might as well ad Syndicate by the looks of it.


You cannot play and appreciate ROGUE without playing the earlier games.

So the game has connections and some good ol' characters like ACB.


The dramatic sense of being a Templar derives from our knowledge of the Assassins vs Templars lore.

AC2 and ACB is just as bad one the case.


The sense of Achilles being a bad guy comes from us knowing him in AC3, likewise Adewale in Black Flag and Freedom Cry.

Adéwalé was nice in BF but we got to see his darker side in the last assassination in FC where he wanted the governor to suffer like the slaves suffered by killing him with the hot iron and stab him with his machete as he was about to die. He's defiantly is colder than Shay killing Charles.

Achilles was always an ******* and full of himself. And again, story wise it's as ambitious as AC2/ACB. AC2 threw away the potential from AC for stories without moral dilemmas and the philosophical depth. Rogue simply makes it backfire just as ridiculous, it's a parody of AC2/ACB.


There's no new setting in ROGUE. It has New York with Havana skies, the Frontier in AC3 refashioned into drab wilderness without any of the graphic beauty, it has a North Atlantic that's essentially the Ice Palace level in Mario and Zelda games.

And? Reusing stuff is typical Ubisoft. But they could have set the Seven Years War in Russia instead if that had made you feel better.

VestigialLlama4
08-09-2015, 09:03 PM
...

Again you are proving my point. There is nothing to discuss in ROGUE. You either accept the premise or you don't. In Brotherhood, even if you didn't like the idea of continuing the story, you at least had Rome and a new set of monuments and unique culture. In Unity, even if (me particularly), you hated the game, you can still discuss stuff and choices it made about the open world, gameplay, historical dimension and aesthetic choices.

In ROGUE the premise itself is something that can only appeal to the already converted. If you are obsessed with playing as a Templar, or perhaps play as a white guy who can self-righteously target and hunt down minorities as part of a mostly white vigilante despots, then Rogue's the game for you. It has nothing to offer to people interested in history, gameplay, setting, period and architecture...aka the stuff that actually makes Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed.

Hans684
08-09-2015, 09:29 PM
Again you are proving my point.

We proved each other's.


There is nothing to discuss in ROGUE.

We are discussing it, there is always something discussed about all games.


You either accept the premise or you don't. In Brotherhood, even if you didn't like the idea of continuing the story, you at least had Rome and a new set of monuments and unique culture. In Unity, even if (me particularly), you hated the game, you can still discuss stuff and choices it made about the open world, gameplay, historical dimension and aesthetic choices.

I'm simply taking your attitude and apply it other games in the series for the same reasons, so reflect on that.


In ROGUE the premise itself is something that can only appeal to the already converted.

That apply to other games like it, AC2 and ACB. Seeing as we started as Assassins first those was accepted without question despite being just as bad.


If you are obsessed with playing as a Templar, or perhaps play as a white guy who can self-righteously target and hunt down minorities as part of a mostly white vigilante despots, then Rogue's the game for you.

Achilles Brotherhood being multi-cultural has nothing to with him being a bad Mentor or black(isn't it racist to say that he's a bad mentor for bring black?), but I like your method. Using racism to spark hatred, I won't stop your crusade. And no, Templars like Assassins is in every ethnicity and culture, it's a world wide battle after all.


It has nothing to offer to people interested in history, gameplay, setting, period and architecture...aka the stuff that actually makes Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed.

I'm guessing I'm speaking with everyone then, you must love speaking for all people and claim ultimate truths. Where as other men blindly follows the truth, remember? Nothing is true. You of all should know that.

pacmanate
08-09-2015, 09:51 PM
http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Why+are+they+both+naked+the+entire+time+_702c30e76 b5e88619b1b088374fc2378.gif

VestigialLlama4
08-09-2015, 10:05 PM
http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Why+are+they+both+naked+the+entire+time+_702c30e76 b5e88619b1b088374fc2378.gif

Hey gimme credit for bringing the discussion back on topic.

steveeire
08-09-2015, 10:15 PM
Well this has taken a turn...

Er, I'm just a Caucasian dude with blond hair. :p

Me too, we should start a club.

Wait....

SixKeys
08-09-2015, 10:50 PM
I have to give Rogue credit for one thing: its locations were more beautiful and interesting than AC3's. I regularly stopped between missions to admire how green the forests were and how the sunlight would filter through the trees. I never got into the Frontier in AC3 due to the boring navigation and drab colors but Rogue was nice to explore.

Farlander1991
08-09-2015, 11:10 PM
I have to give Rogue credit for one thing: its locations were more beautiful and interesting than AC3's. I regularly stopped between missions to admire how green the forests were and how the sunlight would filter through the trees. I never got into the Frontier in AC3 due to the boring navigation and drab colors but Rogue was nice to explore.

Speaking of exploration, Rogue had a lot of its boring AC collectible objects put into locations that are really interesting to get to, the design of those side-areas was pretty cool, so I noticed I was going after animus fragments just because I knew that most likely this would lead me through some interesting parkour sections (which made the fact of collectible actually enjoyable, as it didn't matter that the goal object was mundane, the journey was interesting and I think that's a good way to do collectibles like that). Also, the locations with the mayan totems were quite interesting to explore as well.

Honestly, I found more enjoyment in Rogue in its side-content rather than in the main storyline. Though, even then, not all side-content.

SixKeys
08-09-2015, 11:45 PM
Yeah, Rogue's gameplay was fine since it was basically just more of Black Flag, and BF's side content is so good you can happily ignore the main story if you wish. That's why I don't harbor such hate for Rogue as some do. Sure, the story is bad and it's just more of the same old, but the gameplay is solid and non-glitchy so it remains entertaining.

Mr.Black24
08-10-2015, 02:52 AM
I have to give Rogue credit for one thing: its locations were more beautiful and interesting than AC3's. I regularly stopped between missions to admire how green the forests were and how the sunlight would filter through the trees. I never got into the Frontier in AC3 due to the boring navigation and drab colors but Rogue was nice to explore. I highly praise the North Atlantic. Now that place was amazing! I was actually jealous that AC3 didn't have the option to explore it, especially more so since Connor went up there to retrieve a item from Captain Kidd.

Speaking of which, am I the only one who was miffed that in the E3 for AC3, we could free roam the Caribbean, but we never could in the final product. Like I know we can obviously do it in Black Flag, but it would have been nice to do at least a small part with Connor.

VestigialLlama4
08-10-2015, 05:42 AM
Speaking of which, am I the only one who was miffed that in the E3 for AC3, we could free roam the Caribbean, but we never could in the final product. Like I know we can obviously do it in Black Flag, but it would have been nice to do at least a small part with Connor.

Well open-world sailing doesn't fit Connor's character and situation. He's a man of the forest right, so the land based gameplay was privileged in AC3 over the Naval component and rightly so. I think open-world sailing was removed for the right reasons in that it would have been a vast map with nothing to do. And the way they did it, with Connor working as a Privateer who went out on specific contracts and situations is both fitting in character and apt. He's not a Pirate who absolutely must scuttle and plunder to maintain upkeep, he has legitimate sources of income in the Homestead. That's why ROGUE is a game of no value, because it stupidly transports Black Flag gameplay into a new context without any great sense of thought in terms of how it fits.

I do regret not having the canoe however. That would have been a lot of fun to traverse around the Frontier with.

Rogue's forest gameplay is pathetic. The colours there have none of the subtlety and richness of AC3, its just artificially pastelled out like any other video game.

Locopells
08-10-2015, 12:39 PM
To be fair, the navel does work for Rogue, since Shay is effectively acting as a privateer for Britain (since that's where the Templars' allegiance lay, at the time).

Jessigirl2013
08-10-2015, 01:09 PM
Speaking of exploration, Rogue had a lot of its boring AC collectible objects put into locations that are really interesting to get to, the design of those side-areas was pretty cool, so I noticed I was going after animus fragments just because I knew that most likely this would lead me through some interesting parkour sections (which made the fact of collectible actually enjoyable, as it didn't matter that the goal object was mundane, the journey was interesting and I think that's a good way to do collectibles like that). Also, the locations with the mayan totems were quite interesting to explore as well.

Honestly, I found more enjoyment in Rogue in its side-content rather than in the main storyline. Though, even then, not all side-content.

I know, I noticed this too.
The ice caves were really well done.;)

Farlander1991
08-10-2015, 03:10 PM
To be fair, the navel does work for Rogue, since Shay is effectively acting as a privateer for Britain (since that's where the Templars' allegiance lay, at the time).

Side-naval like in AC3 would fit, I'll give you that. But core naval like in BF? Doesn't fit at all.

The gameplay/economy loop of Rogue makes no sense. Our main source of income are ground-based activities - raiding enemy outposts, liberating villages, getting money from renovated buildings (all recapped mechanics, but they also make sense from a Templar viewpoint). You barely need to raid a ship to sustain an economy. But most of the resources are spent on your ship, and the main end-game part of your loop are naval battles, which are part of privateering, but honestly are merely side activities in terms of both character and the Templar fantasy. Also, as a side-note, hunting doesn't make any sense either in Rogue (in AC3 it's a part of both economy system, broken economy but still, and the character's heritage, in AC4 it's tied to the upgrade system because our character is somebody who would 'live off the land', so why a Templar with tons of resources would have a need to live off the land?) Not to mention that the ship doesn't play any role in the narrative at all to play such important part in the gameplay loop.

Look, in comparison, how AC4 handles the ship. Getting the ship:
1. It lets you start controlling other people's ships, so you get the feel of it, but you can't go anywhere you want.
2. You're then stuck on the ground for a whole sequence, not being able to leave the location at all.
3. You then get your own ship by getting out of a FREAKING' HURRICANE (which is quite frankly a bad-*** moment)
4. As soon as you get the ship, the whole worlds opens up to you.
So, first, the ship represents freedom both thematically and in gameplay loop (you're stuck in closed environments until you get one). You get to feel what it's like not having your own ship until you get one. And when you get one, it's a very exciting moment.

Compare it to Rogue, where you get your ship in the very first mission, and in a thing we do all the time - by killing a bunch of guards on it. Meeeeh.

Now, the name the Jackdaw is not just a random name. It's directly related to Edward's character arc. And not just in name, but in the gameplay loop as well. The main way we get money is WITH the Jackdaw, so we could upgrade the Jackdaw to get more money with it to upgrade it until we become the most powerful and rich pirate in the Caribbean (i.e. the Eagle). And the final bosses of the gameplay loop - the legendary ships, fit that theme as well. Also, Jackdaw is central to the gameplay economy, you can't sustain it without using the ship and upgrading it. I've already mentioned how Rogue handles economy, and the name, while Morrigan might make sense, there's no reason why Shay names it like that, there's no punch in the reasoning behind the name, and, honestly, the Morrigan is a very side thing to the story, like Aquilla is a side-thing to Connor in AC3.

Naval in AC4 is core part of the gameplay loop, the character, and his arc. The ship is an extention of Edward.

Naval in ACRo is.... just there. The game would feel more cohesive if they wouldn't try to make it seem as important.

VestigialLlama4
08-10-2015, 05:00 PM
Side-naval like in AC3 would fit, I'll give you that. But core naval like in BF? Doesn't fit at all...Not to mention that the ship doesn't play any role in the narrative at all to play such important part in the gameplay loop.

On this we completely agree. Your whole post.


To be fair, the navel does work for Rogue, since Shay is effectively acting as a privateer for Britain (since that's where the Templars' allegiance lay, at the time).

That actually is exactly why it doesn't make sense. The Templars and the British are the Empire, they have super resources and abilities. Why does Shay need to plunder and scuttle and upgrade like the Jackdaw? He's not an underdog, he's an establishment guy. Edward and Connor are the underdog, so they have to pirate by foraging and other stuff. The hunting and stuff also doesn't make sense. As a Templar, he should be getting a regular salary for all his Templaring work.

The other thing is that the promotion mentioned that the Templars had superior resources, but in the game the Morrigan gets its key upgrades when Shay is working as an Assassin. The guy Le Chasseur attaches the Puckle Gun, the Boiling Oil and the Caronades. So even by its gameplay logic, the Templars give Shay no great technical upgrade and advantage.

Again the lack of thought on display is really appalling in Rogue.

phoenix-force411
08-10-2015, 05:37 PM
Again the lack of thought on display is really appalling in Rogue.

Not to mention that the textures and optimization of the game are really, really lacking. ACIII was so ambitious that it looked really good and ran pretty well for consoles, but Rogue is just full of messes. The textures are poor; the draw distance is very, very noticeable; and the fact that there are random loading times shows that the game had little care for. Rogue feels choppy at best. Nonetheless, it had better story telling, but its relevance to the universe is as close as Unity. They didn't really offer much to the universe, and were mainly fillers. The only important parts are parts that the casual gamer wouldn't even bother with.

Locopells
08-10-2015, 06:23 PM
That actually is exactly why it doesn't make sense. The Templars and the British are the Empire, they have super resources and abilities. Why does Shay need to plunder and scuttle and upgrade like the Jackdaw? He's not an underdog, he's an establishment guy. Edward and Connor are the underdog, so they have to pirate by foraging and other stuff. The hunting and stuff also doesn't make sense. As a Templar, he should be getting a regular salary for all his Templaring work.

The other thing is that the promotion mentioned that the Templars had superior resources, but in the game the Morrigan gets its key upgrades when Shay is working as an Assassin. The guy Le Chasseur attaches the Puckle Gun, the Boiling Oil and the Caronades. So even by its gameplay logic, the Templars give Shay no great technical upgrade and advantage.

Again the lack of thought on display is really appalling in Rogue.

It's not that he need the resources to upgrade the Morrigan, he simply makes use of the stuff he steals. The whole point is about disrupting French/Assassin trade and supplies. That's what privateers do.

You do have a point about the major upgrades though, I've thought that as well...

VestigialLlama4
08-10-2015, 07:27 PM
It's not that he need the resources to upgrade the Morrigan, he simply makes use of the stuff he steals. The whole point is about disrupting French/Assassin trade and supplies. That's what privateers do.

Well I don't know about supplies, because if that were the case the Morrigan should have been attacking food transports. I wish they did that, because it would be a Templar thing to do and fitting with the historical period. During the seven years war, the British Royal Navy put a blockade around France on any food and military supplies.


You do have a point about the major upgrades though, I've thought that as well...

I suppose the Grenade Launcher is a key upgrade except he gets that during his Assassin period as well. I mean its a reall fuzzy game. There's no consistency in their metaphor. The Templars represent "progress" yet the Assassins are pretty cool on the tech side. They have Hope Jensen Mob-Boss and Scientist, Le Chasseur who is a one-stop Shipyard for all your boiling oil needs and they are pretty good at intercepting Templar technology too.

About the only thing the Templars actually represent is being part of a gang of vigilant white men so as to better protect their property against those minorites.

steveeire
08-10-2015, 07:52 PM
lol

Locopells
08-10-2015, 07:57 PM
Well I don't know about supplies, because if that were the case the Morrigan should have been attacking food transports. I wish they did that, because it would be a Templar thing to do and fitting with the historical period. During the seven years war, the British Royal Navy put a blockade around France on any food and military supplies.

They do in-game too, you hear the soldiers talking about it.


...and they are pretty good at intercepting Templar technology too.

I suppose that's it, all their plans are stolen, after all...


About the only thing the Templars actually represent is being part of a gang of vigilant white men so as to better protect their property against those minorites.

http://www.postavy.cz/foto/jack-weeks-foto.jpg

Jack Weeks might have something to say about that...

Farlander1991
08-10-2015, 08:06 PM
Jack Weeks might have something to say about that...

To be honest, Jack Weeks' role in the game is pretty much of a token black guy... I mean, he's there, and he talks, and one time he even does something (the heist of outfits with us) so it would be 'see? He's here for a reason!' He's like Smurfette among the Smurfs. Or smth.

Locopells
08-10-2015, 08:10 PM
I'd be more inclined to say that if they actually made something of him being black - it could be argued that, since the fact seems unimportant to the Templars, he's just one of them, rather then a token...

Farlander1991
08-10-2015, 08:13 PM
I'd be more inclined to say that if they actually made something of him being black - it could be argued that, since the fact seems unimportant to the Templars, he's just one of them, rather then a token...

Oh, in-universe he's just one of them I don't argue that, I'm just saying that he doesn't really play any role in the narrative and his inclusion in it feels artificial (while we're at it, Johnson's inclusion feels artificial as heck also).

Hans684
08-10-2015, 08:20 PM
If we are gonna bring racism in to this we might as week play the on everything.

AC: "Give a Muslim power and he will enslave the world."(Al Mualim) or "Give a Muslim a creed and he will kill for it."(Altaïr) As bonus on the second one you can use ISIS as prof.
AC2/B: "Give a Spaniard the position of a Military Commander or Pope and he will abuse the system for personal gain."
ACR: "Let an Italian travel to your city and he will destroy it and massacre it's people."
AC3: "Let an Native American fight your battles and he will fail at everything."
AC3L: "Give a black woman freedom and she will murder everyone in her path."
BF: "Hire a Brit and will betray you for money."
FC: "Give a black man freedom and he will murder everyone in his path."
ACRO: "Give a black man power and he will destroy the world." Or "Try to kill an Irishman and he will murder all of you."

Fatal-Feit
08-10-2015, 08:26 PM
Oh, in-universe he's just one of them I don't argue that, I'm just saying that he doesn't really play any role in the narrative and his inclusion in it feels artificial (while we're at it, Johnson's inclusion feels artificial as heck also).

Here's the thing. Almost every Templar after sequence 2 felt artificial. Haytham, Johnson, etc. Their sole purpose was to populate the narrative with Templar characters and give players the impression that Templars can be a family who look out for each other too. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only two Templars that had some decent impact on the narrative and Shay, as a character, was George Monro and Christopher Gist and boy were they as pretentious as it get. George Monro's demeanor and dialogue was so outstandingly forced, you could feel the good-boy Templar role oozing at every cut-scene. Then there's Gist, and the less said about him the better.

Farlander1991
08-10-2015, 08:42 PM
If we are gonna bring racism in to this we might as week play the on everything.

AC: "Give a Muslim power and he will enslave the world."(Al Mualim) or "Give a Muslim a creed and he will kill for it."(Altaïr) As bonus on the second one you can use ISIS as prof.
AC2/B: "Give a Spaniard the position of a Military Commander or Pope and he will abuse the system for personal gain."
ACR: "Let an Italian travel to your city and he will destroy it and massacre it's people."
AC3: "Let an Native American fight your battles and he will fail at everything."
AC3L: "Give a black woman freedom and she will murder everyone in her path."
BF: "Hire a Brit and will betray you for money."
FC: "Give a black man freedom and he will murder everyone in his path."
ACRO: "Give a black man power and he will destroy the world." Or "Try to kill an Irishman and he will murder all of you."

I agree that 'token black guy' might not have been the best choice of words, the point was in the, well, pointlessness of the character, which you can't say about any of the examples you gave there.


Here's the thing. Almost every Templar after sequence 2 felt artificial. Haytham, Johnson, etc. Their sole purpose was to populate the narrative with Templar characters and give players the impression that Templars can be a family who look out for each other too. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only two Templars that had some decent impact on the narrative and Shay, as a character, was George Monro and Christopher Gist and boy were they as pretentious as it get. George Monro's demeanor and dialogue was so outstandingly forced, you could feel the good-boy Templar role oozing at every cut-scene. Then there's Gist, and the less said about him the better.

Eh, I'd argue that Haytham wasn't completely pointless, he was pretty much the driving force for the rest of the quest in terms of strictly plot and Templar goals to stop the assassins. And I actually liked that relationship with him was strictly business, I feel that was the right way to approach the relationship between Shay and Haytham.

Also, I like Gist. :p Oh, by no means he's a great character, but there's something cheesily awesome about him :D

VestigialLlama4
08-10-2015, 08:53 PM
I'd be more inclined to say that if they actually made something of him being black - it could be argued that, since the fact seems unimportant to the Templars, he's just one of them, rather then a token...

Well he's the only African American Templar we see and the fact is that he doesn't explain why he's a Templar is dubious, especially since the Rogue Templars are genuinely bad guys. One of the Templars Shay (as Assassin) kills is Lawrence Washington, a slaveowner. In Rogue, this guy isn't one of the "deviant" Templars or heretics, he's a respected member and Christopher Gist later guilt-trips Shay about his death. That means that the Templars do in fact condone slavery and that makes them racist, there's no way out of that. The other Templar James Wardrop is responsible for ethnic cleansing of Native Tribes, and he's painted as a guy Shay should regret killing. The fact that this isn't touched on or followed on after Shay's "conversion" is really dubious.

I am not saying Ubisoft is racist or anything, its just that they didn't think things through about the story they are telling. This is what happens when you get carried away with Lore at expense of the historical fiction which grounded it. The Templars believe in working within society and accumulating power and influence, while the Assassins resist from below. That means the Templars have to gather money wealth and power. There's no way anyone became rich and powerful in the New World, definitely not in the mid 1700s, without being involved in slavery. If the Templars were anti-slavery they would be dismissed as SJWs (like Governor Torres is in Black Flag) and laughed out of polite society, that was how society worked at that time. Rogue is supremely dishonest about the game and story its telling. You can't have a "good Templar" without qualifying or explaining where that person fits in with what the Templars actually do.

The main reason why Shay turns is this utterly ridiculous earthquake crackpot story and this stupid contrivance. The plot, setting and story inconsistencies adds to a plot that says, "Put an African American in charge of the Assassins and the world will crumble and humanity's only hope is a vigilante team of white men and their token black and irish guy".


Eh, I'd argue that Haytham wasn't completely pointless, he was pretty much the driving force for the rest of the quest in terms of strictly plot and Templar goals to stop the assassins. And I actually liked that relationship with him was strictly business, I feel that was the right way to approach the relationship between Shay and Haytham.

Well considering that Haytham is this English snob he probably saw Shay as Irish scum and errand boy. Shay's role in ROGUE is essentially the classic collaborator, he's a lackey to his new masters and betrays his friends by ratting them out.

Farlander1991
08-10-2015, 09:10 PM
Well considering that Haytham is this English snob he probably saw Shay as Irish scum and errand boy.

Eh, I doubt that, considering that two of Haytham's team members in AC3 were Irish. Well, one of them was Hickey, which Haytham probably didn't respect much, but the other guy was Johnson who's from Ireland and Haytham certainly respected, so I don't really think Haytham's view on people is affected by nationality.

RA503
08-10-2015, 09:10 PM
I only pass here to say that Rogue is awesome and I don't read the first post because is too big lol...

steveeire
08-10-2015, 09:15 PM
So you came in just to say tl;dr?

VestigialLlama4
08-10-2015, 09:16 PM
Eh, I doubt that, considering that two of Haytham's team members in AC3 were Irish. Well, one of them was Hickey, which Haytham probably didn't respect much, but the other guy was Johnson who's from Ireland and Haytham certainly respected, so I don't really think Haytham's view on people is affected by nationality.

Well Johnson is a collaborator type anyway. In AC3, the optional conversation has William Johnson state that he converted from Catholicism to Protestantism to rise above his station. So Haytham obviously felt that he was a guy who understood the need for "order" and Hickey obviously conforms to the English view of Irish as being shifty scumbags who drink and have no conviction. The only one Haytham really treats as an equal is Charles Lee, another English snob.

People really shouldn't take Templars at face value when they claim to be enlightened. Haytham is a benign racist, the guy who says "I will treat all of you equally" but not make any commitment for actual equality. Governor Torres in Black Flag is more sincere but even he's willing to massacre tribal people for a foolish mission and the slaves who work on his plantations in Havana don't seem to be treated too well. Among the modern Templars the ones who run things are mostly rich white men.

RA503
08-10-2015, 09:22 PM
Talking serious now,Templars is against slavery, they become rich without doing it, because they are The Templars the guys who rule the world since the ancient times, they don't need slavery to be rich even in 1700's...

Hans684
08-10-2015, 09:25 PM
Looks like we can announce the Bellec of the forums...

Fatal-Feit
08-10-2015, 09:35 PM
Eh, I'd argue that Haytham wasn't completely pointless, he was pretty much the driving force for the rest of the quest in terms of strictly plot and Templar goals to stop the assassins. And I actually liked that relationship with him was strictly business, I feel that was the right way to approach the relationship between Shay and Haytham.

Sure, I'm not arguing his importance in the later parts of the narrative, but rather his redundancy as a character and Templar leader. A professional relationship does not mean Haytham and Shay's relationship had to be stale and dull as a plank. Let's look at Haytham and Charles Lee. Strict and professional, HOWEVER, there was a lot of substance there. Haytham taught Charles Lee a lot about the Order (something Rogue, in its entirety, failed to do), and you could feel a sense of bond between the two, even if it ended in professionalism. Their characters weren't suffering from stale dialogue and personality together so, as players, we got attached to them. We enjoyed the dynamic between Haytham and Charles. There was something there. We, as fans, could recite dialogues and scenes. In Rogue, Haytham could have been any other Templar GM. His character, at its core, was bland and generic, and a very disappointing presentation for fans such as myself. And his relationship with Shay was just as lame.


Also, I like Gist. :p Oh, by no means he's a great character, but there's something cheesily awesome about him :D

Gist plays his role as a comic-relief appropriately, but his character was disappointingly lacking and annoying.

But on a similar note, that's the thing about Rogue, and the reason why I made this thread. Rogue's story and its characters aren't Assassin's Creed material. Gist doesn't really play the role of a substantial Templar follower for Shay. He makes a good friend and comic-relief (although, kind of annoying), but his role as a Templar, the main support who's suppose to enlighten Shay about the Order, past the simplicity is not there. He could have been any other character in any other story, just like everyone else in Rogue. AC is known for having straight-forward narratives and cliches, but it's the extra touch of Assassin's Creed that makes these narratives interesting and worth investing in. It's why BF's story, despite being another pirate tale about a man searching for riches and fame, is so engrossing for us fans.

VestigialLlama4
08-10-2015, 09:38 PM
Talking serious now,Templars is against slavery, they become rich without doing it, because they are The Templars the guys who rule the world since the ancient times, they don't need slavery to be rich even in 1700's...

Okay then answer me this, if The Templars rule the world since ancient times, and if they don't need money, then why didn't they abolish slavery or other colonialist exploitation while they ran the American Colonies. I mean between Achilles' defeat and Connor's arrival they had fifteen years without Assassins supposedly stopping their noble plans and in that time they let people be driven off land, they let slavery continue and whatnot. Heck if the Templars really did care why were the Crusades or other historical bad things happened. The answer, supported by what the series shows and the historical setting, is that the Templars profit of these bad things if it serves their interests. They don't really care. And people who don't care about slavery cannot be "against slavery", to be "against slavery" you have to be "against slavery".

The Templars are for slavery, they think human beings should submit to what a benevolent group of leaders tell them to do. At best you can call them plutocrats, at worst you can call them despots. Governor Torres says that their goal is to enslave the mind and he's against Woodes Rogers indulging in the slave trade but Torres never kicks out Rogers or takes a stand against him at all.

In ROGUE, Lawrence Washington is a slaveowner. This is told to you by the Assassins. Lawrence Washington is also a good Templar. He is not criticized by Christopher Gist at all. Take this conversation where Shay is discussing hunting down Adewale with Gist:

Gist: Aren't you? He's a powerful man in his own right, and a symbol of hope for the Assassins. Eliminating him would shake them to their core.
Shay: It would, I know. But it seems a shame. He's a good man, Gist.
Gist: So was the elder Washington. And Smith, I rather enjoyed drinking with him. Wardrop too, though the man could not hold his liquor. He and Weeks never got along, you know.
Shay: If you're trying to test my conscience, Gist, you've succeeded.

So basically, we are supposed to believe that this slaveowner and ethnic cleanser guy are good men on the same extent that Adewale was, when that is objectively false.

RA503
08-10-2015, 10:01 PM
Okay then answer me this, if The Templars rule the world since ancient times, and if they don't need money, then why didn't they abolish slavery or other colonialist exploitation while they ran the American Colonies. I mean between Achilles' defeat and Connor's arrival they had fifteen years without Assassins supposedly stopping their noble plans and in that time they let people be driven off land, they let slavery continue and whatnot. Heck if the Templars really did care why were the Crusades or other historical bad things happened. The answer, supported by what the series shows and the historical setting, is that the Templars profit of these bad things if it serves their interests. They don't really care. And people who don't care about slavery cannot be "against slavery", to be "against slavery" you have to be "against slavery".

The Templars are for slavery, they think human beings should submit to what a benevolent group of leaders tell them to do. At best you can call them plutocrats, at worst you can call them despots. Governor Torres says that their goal is to enslave the mind and he's against Woodes Rogers indulging in the slave trade but Torres never kicks out Rogers or takes a stand against him at all.

In ROGUE, Lawrence Washington is a slaveowner. This is told to you by the Assassins. Lawrence Washington is also a good Templar. He is not criticized by Christopher Gist at all. Take this conversation where Shay is discussing hunting down Adewale with Gist:

Gist: Aren't you? He's a powerful man in his own right, and a symbol of hope for the Assassins. Eliminating him would shake them to their core.
Shay: It would, I know. But it seems a shame. He's a good man, Gist.
Gist: So was the elder Washington. And Smith, I rather enjoyed drinking with him. Wardrop too, though the man could not hold his liquor. He and Weeks never got along, you know.
Shay: If you're trying to test my conscience, Gist, you've succeeded.

So basically, we are supposed to believe that this slaveowner and ethnic cleanser guy are good men on the same extent that Adewale was, when that is objectively false.

Ok... but this can be a some sort of plot hole or script error ? because templars being in favor of slavery contradict Unity (you also said that the revolution banishes slavery and is mentioned in Eseosa codex) and Darby said that they against it.

Also maybe Gist is just a idiot,

The thing about Rogue is that Shay is not happy being a assassin(even before the earthquake)even with them done the right thing, is not his ''destiny''(see the last sentence of Skywoman myth and understand as allegory for shay's life)...

VestigialLlama4
08-10-2015, 10:19 PM
Ok... but this can be a some sort of plot hole or script error ?

I prefer to think that all of ROGUE is a script error and most of Unity as well. Dialogue in a game scene, however much you disagree with it, cannot be written out, it was spoken and recorded and animated. That takes time and effort.


because templars being in favor of slavery contradict Unity

Slavery is not mentioned in UNITY at all, for the very simple reason that if they mentioned it the Assassins will become automatically bad guys.


(you also said that the revolution banishes slavery and is mentioned in Eseosa codex)

Transmedia does not matter as much as the main game. In lore terms, obviously Assassins in different countries have their own agenda. Rogue's War Letters shows that, you have Achilles very elegantly exchanging letters and comparing notes with different Assassin branches and all of them are like "Wow, you sound like a cool guy, but I got my problems and life to deal with, but if you're ever in town, drop in." In Unity, the French Assassins are obviously totally corrupt with the exception of Bellec. And Arno is a renegade right-wing psychopath who is a pawn for Elise and later betrays the Haitian Assassins by aiding Napoleon.


and Darby said that they against it.

I spoke to him on twitter as well and he said that it was an issue for some Templars but not all Templars. In BLACK FLAG, Woodes Rogers is a slaveowner and a Templar. He and Corey May discussed it but they didn't fully map out exactly how they were exactly on the issues.

In any case the games themselves show otherwise.

Mr.Black24
08-10-2015, 10:39 PM
I prefer to think that all of ROGUE is a script error and most of Unity as well. Dialogue in a game scene, however much you disagree with it, cannot be written out, it was spoken and recorded and animated. That takes time and effort.
Agreed. Especially the "ending" for Shay. I don't know if either he became a ruthless Templar or just one big screw up in dialogue, but the whole "We'll start a revolution of our own" hints that Shay doesn't mind causing mass loss of life to help Templars gain power. And the fact that Germian and his fanatic fraction ignited the French revolution and the conservative regular Templars were against him hints Shay is a Templar fanatic as well. Which is more confusing since Shay joined the Templars to stop mass slaughter of innocents in the first place. Talk about messing with crucial character development.

This whole story is a mess when it comes to showing the Templars as "the better good".

VestigialLlama4
08-10-2015, 10:54 PM
Agreed. Especially the "ending" for Shay. I don't know if either he became a ruthless Templar or just one big screw up in dialogue, but the whole "We'll start a revolution of our own" hints that Shay doesn't mind causing mass loss of life to help Templars gain power.

My headcanon is that Shay came to Paris to find the Box, but was rebuffed by Master de la Serre because Serre is a French Snob and he saw Shay as Irish scum, so meanwhile Germain heard of him and had him do odd jobs for him until he located the box and told him how to get in and reach Franklin. That's how I see it.


Which is more confusing since Shay joined the Templars to stop mass slaughter of innocents in the first place. Talk about messing with crucial character development.

Well its just the gameplay has him kill innocents as well and that doesn't come in.


This whole story is a mess when it comes to showing the Templars as "the better good".

I think you can do a Templar game but it has to be done right and with attention and honesty. In AC3, the Haytham section worked on a fundamental deception and lasted for three sequences anyway, after that we see that those Templar fools we hung out in were not (with the exception of John Pitcairn) good guys. To do a Templar game you have to make it like Spec Ops. You have to "burn down whole villages to find one lone Assassin".

Farlander1991
08-10-2015, 11:34 PM
Speaking of Rogue's story, one of the reasons I believe it didn't turn out so well, is because the game most definitely had a very short development period of time. A year at most I presume (which would have like a month or two for pre-production). They had to make a full open-world game that tackles one of the most complex things a human can do - change ideologies. So I guess it's natural that they chose the simpler route - one group was *******s (or followed an *******), the other was not, making the shift pretty easy. I think it would benefit in a game of Rogue's development scope if we started as a Templar and didn't have to deal with the shift in ideologies.

Btw, in the lore, we know of one other Assassin turned Templar - Vali cel Tradat from Revelations. Now, the lore doesn't really go deep into Vali cel Tradat's background, it says he idolized Vlad Dracula who was a Templar and got killed by Assassins and that was the reason for his turn, which, without historical context, is not exactly exciting. However, there are still hints of said historical context in Vali's final words:

"If a man’s philosophy does not let him protect his people, his home, and his family…what good can it do for the world?"

Vlad Dracula, the historical one, wasn't the nicest of persons, that's for sure (though the anecdotes/stories that exist and a lot of people know were written by the Ottomans and other enemies so they greatly exaggerate some things). However. He fought the Ottomans to make Wallachia independent from the Empire (and successfully kicked their ***, alongside with his cousin, Stefan cel Mare from my home country of Moldova who was doing similar ***-kicking there), got rid of corruption in the country, fixed the situation with crime, fixed the economic situation... in Romania he's a national hero, and for a good reason. He was doing good stuff for the country. And he was a Templar in the AC lore, who was pretty much in a way achieving the goal of the assassins - I'm sure Wallachian assassins didn't mind that there was no Turkish oppression, corruption, that life for the people was getting better.

And then the Ottoman Assassins mucked it all up - killed Vlad and let the Turks get back into the country and put it under their heels again. **** like this would break your belief in a certain philosophy for sure.

I honestly believe that behind this little snippet we saw in Revelations lies a really good AC story.

steveeire
08-10-2015, 11:43 PM
Has there ever been a Templer turned Assassin, if not we need that game.

Consus_E
08-11-2015, 12:33 AM
Has there ever been a Templer turned Assassin, if not we need that game.

Maria Thorpe, Altair's wife is the only notable example that comes to mind. Her change of allegiance was pretty glossed over though.

steveeire
08-11-2015, 12:40 AM
Oh yeah forgot about her.

Mr.Black24
08-11-2015, 03:28 AM
Ok... but this can be a some sort of plot hole or script error ? because templars being in favor of slavery contradict Unity (you also said that the revolution banishes slavery and is mentioned in Eseosa codex) and Darby said that they against it.As long as it favors the Templars, they'll do whatever they want. Its the reason why how Shay was manipulated to remove the Assassin gangs, but decades later the Templars do the exact thing and control all of London through vicious gangs in Syndicate. I can hear Shay and Haytham's graves spinning from here. Even in Boston during a recruitment mission in AC3 that the Templars use gangs as well.




The thing about Rogue is that Shay is not happy being a assassin(even before the earthquake)even with them done the right thing, is not his ''destiny''(see the last sentence of Skywoman myth and understand as allegory for shay's life)... I like to think that the wall stories of the good and bad spirits hints off Connor and Shay's eventual crossing. Although the end result of this is unknown.

steveeire
08-11-2015, 03:48 AM
Templers use any means at there disposable to achieve their goal of as Edward puts it: " You would see all of mankind corralled into a neatly furnished prison, safe and sober, yet dulled beyond reason and sapped of all spirit. So, aye... with everything I've seen and learned in these last years, I do believe it."

VestigialLlama4
08-11-2015, 06:30 AM
As long as it favors the Templars, they'll do whatever they want. Its the reason why how Shay was manipulated to remove the Assassin gangs, but decades later the Templars do the exact thing and control all of London through vicious gangs in Syndicate. I can hear Shay and Haytham's graves spinning from here. Even in Boston during a recruitment mission in AC3 that the Templars use gangs as well.

Actually Haytham is entirely okay with the underworld. That's what Thomas Hickey is there for.


I like to think that the wall stories of the good and bad spirits hints off Connor and Shay's eventual crossing. Although the end result of this is unknown.

Connor is still alive as of 1804 and Shay would have been what, 70 at that time. Not a fair fight, Shay would be dead, but then my understanding of the Lore is that Shay died before that. He got killed in the incident at the Observatory in the 1780s.


Speaking of Rogue's story, one of the reasons I believe it didn't turn out so well, is because the game most definitely had a very short development period of time. A year at most I presume (which would have like a month or two for pre-production). They had to make a full open-world game that tackles one of the most complex things a human can do - change ideologies. So I guess it's natural that they chose the simpler route - one group was *******s (or followed an *******), the other was not, making the shift pretty easy. I think it would benefit in a game of Rogue's development scope if we started as a Templar and didn't have to deal with the shift in ideologies.

For me the essential thing is to not hide or deny what Templars actually do. No superficially "good Templars". A Templar game should deal with the fact that you kill innocent people for the greater good. Trying to hide or deny that is lying to your audience. The games have never denied that Assassins kill people after all.


I honestly believe that behind this little snippet we saw in Revelations lies a really good AC story.

There was, Vali cel Tradat in his brief section offered a more moving and meaningful reason for joining the Templars than Irish-Collaborator Stereotype did. But then Darby McDevitt is a writer of ability and in the short time that it took to make Revelations researched the Byzantine era to enough to tap into the regional grudges and issues in that era.

Anykeyer
08-11-2015, 08:00 AM
Also maybe Gist is just a idiot,


Almost everyone is Rogue is. This includes Shay ofc.
The game has very basic cliche story suitable for 3-8 years old kids. Its somewhat better than Liberation, so Ubi Sofia made some progress here LOL.

Jessigirl2013
08-14-2015, 05:19 PM
Has there ever been a Templer turned Assassin, if not we need that game.

I second this.

I think it would be more interesting storywise.;)

But it would need to be deeper than the character learning that "Templars are bad".:rolleyes:

dargor5
08-14-2015, 05:25 PM
I second this.

I think it would be more interesting storywise.;)

But it would need to be deeper than the character learning that "Templars are bad".:rolleyes:

I think it would be better to have a game where the main character is neither. Part of why Edward Kenway was such a great character in my opinion, is because at the beggining he did not care for the creed nor the templars. This could be focused in a less selfish way. Cause if you think it over, both sides are just wrong, one wants freedom through terrorism, the other wants order through oppression. There should be a character that questions this and follows a better sense of morale. Arno was very close to that what I'm saying, he was an assassin but all he wanted was his loved one back, and he did not care she was a templar. I believe if Elise had not died there would have been space for a new "faction", one that has the perks and training of both sides but doesn't follow each sides rule so blindly

Fatal-Feit
08-15-2015, 06:03 AM
I think it would be better to have a game where the main character is neither. Part of why Edward Kenway was such a great character in my opinion, is because at the beggining he did not care for the creed nor the templars. This could be focused in a less selfish way. Cause if you think it over, both sides are just wrong, one wants freedom through terrorism, the other wants order through oppression. There should be a character that questions this and follows a better sense of morale. Arno was very close to that what I'm saying, he was an assassin but all he wanted was his loved one back, and he did not care she was a templar. I believe if Elise had not died there would have been space for a new "faction", one that has the perks and training of both sides but doesn't follow each sides rule so blindly

I agree with this. With the way Rogue headed, it could have very well done that with the story and delivered something new and unique. A narrative that gave us a 3rd party. Not in the same way as BF with its pirates, but from a perspective of a guy who has been there and done that on both sides. A character that have seen both perspectives and have gone completely rogue and became his own thing. Or died saving people instead of joining the opposite faction and causing the same havoc that made him leave the Assassins in the first place. A fitting end for Rogue would have been for Shay to sacrifice himself, not only to stop the Assassins, but the Templars as well. To once again, at the ending of Rogue, attempt to sink himself to the bottom of the ocean with the manuscript. Keeping the destruction of the earth from the hands of either faction. He was always a rogue, and he died a rogue. I can also see Liam supporting Shay in this endeavor to make amends for his ignorance in supporting Achilles. Instead of getting angsty when seeing Shay and trying to shoot him again after realizing he was wrong, he would have tried to make up, not only for obeying Achilles, but for abandoning Shay. They were best friends from childhood and now they die together. Haytham and Achilles would have then seen the destruction first-hand and honored Shay's sacrifice by not pursuing the box, and instead, leaving it at the bottom of the ocean with Shay and Liam, in memorial. And instead of killing each other, they would have agreed that there was enough death from both sides. --Hence, Achilles' retirement (he gets his leg broken during his escape from the collapsing ice berg or something). I think with how Rogue's narrative was handled, THAT would have been the best way to end it. Shay could have been a character I could look up to and say, he just wanted to save people. Sure, the narrative didn't exactly give us a proper understanding of either faction, but it offered something different, something new, something arguably just as remarkable as AC3 or BF. It showed that both factions are a destructive force that equally harms people. Whether Shay was an Assassin or Templar, he wouldn't have been at home, because neither of them are who he is. And despite treating him better, Shay is willing to give his own life if that meant opposing the Templars to keep them from owning such a destructive device...

However, with how the narrative is right now, Shay's a tool who was easily manipulated and is a complete hypocrite. And leaving him alive only did more harm to the series. Not only did he kill Charles and started the FR, he's still out there. He's now a character that fans want to see an end for. They gave us a driving force for Connor, Arno, Eseosa, and Aveline to group up and start a game with, however, we all know that's not happening. It's messed up. It's like if the MCU didn't have an Avengers movie.

Hans684
08-15-2015, 11:05 AM
For me the essential thing is to not hide or deny what Templars actually do. No superficially "good Templars". A Templar game should deal with the fact that you kill innocent people for the greater good. Trying to hide or deny that is lying to your audience. The games have never denied that Assassins kill people after all.

Looks more like you're lying to yourself...

Ubisoft and their games decides what is and isn't, not disappointed fans. They said it's a Templar game so it is, fans with their constant definitions of what's "true" will never be right because of that because Ubisoft has said and done otherwise.


Not only did he kill Charles and started the FR, he's still out there.

Any proof that he did?

VestigialLlama4
08-15-2015, 12:00 PM
Looks more like you're lying to yourself...

Where exactly am I lying? Please specify.


Ubisoft and their games decides what is and isn't, not disappointed fans.

And their games show the Templars as being ruthless individuals dedicated to creating a despotic plutocratic society and they often hurt and kill innocent people. Haytham Kenway organized the Boston Massacre, Garnier de Naplouse tortured the mentally ill and broke their legs, Woodes Rogers was a slaveowner, Governor Torres massacred a hundred people in the Island of the Observatory. Prince Ahmed supported extremists like Sahkulu and dishonorably conducted himself with Ezio by trying to kill Sofia Sartor after Ezio returned the seals to him. These by the way are the "good Templars", since Rodrigo Borgia is apparently not a real one. Rogue likewise has Templars who are a slaveowner and ethnic cleanser who is totally mourned by others but the main narrative glosses over what Shay does because it would destroy any likability the character has.

Jessigirl2013
08-15-2015, 12:47 PM
I think it would be better to have a game where the main character is neither. Part of why Edward Kenway was such a great character in my opinion, is because at the beggining he did not care for the creed nor the templars. This could be focused in a less selfish way. Cause if you think it over, both sides are just wrong, one wants freedom through terrorism, the other wants order through oppression. There should be a character that questions this and follows a better sense of morale. Arno was very close to that what I'm saying, he was an assassin but all he wanted was his loved one back, and he did not care she was a templar. I believe if Elise had not died there would have been space for a new "faction", one that has the perks and training of both sides but doesn't follow each sides rule so blindly
At the end of BF I assumed that Edward was just helping the assassins and had no interest as being one.
But he did become one? Did this surprise anyone else?

I agree with this. With the way Rogue headed, it could have very well done that with the story and delivered something new and unique. A narrative that gave us a 3rd party. Not in the same way as BF with its pirates, but from a perspective of a guy who has been there and done that on both sides. A character that have seen both perspectives and have gone completely rogue and became his own thing. Or died saving people instead of joining the opposite faction and causing the same havoc that made him leave the Assassins in the first place. A fitting end for Rogue would have been for Shay to sacrifice himself, not only to stop the Assassins, but the Templars as well. To once again, at the ending of Rogue, attempt to sink himself to the bottom of the ocean with the manuscript. Keeping the destruction of the earth from the hands of either faction. He was always a rogue, and he died a rogue. I can also see Liam supporting Shay in this endeavor to make amends for his ignorance in supporting Achilles. Instead of getting angsty when seeing Shay and trying to shoot him again after realizing he was wrong, he would have tried to make up, not only for obeying Achilles, but for abandoning Shay. They were best friends from childhood and now they die together. Haytham and Achilles would have then seen the destruction first-hand and honored Shay's sacrifice by not pursuing the box, and instead, leaving it at the bottom of the ocean with Shay and Liam, in memorial. And instead of killing each other, they would have agreed that there was enough death from both sides. --Hence, Achilles' retirement (he gets his leg broken during his escape from the collapsing ice berg or something). I think with how Rogue's narrative was handled, THAT would have been the best way to end it. Shay could have been a character I could look up to and say, he just wanted to save people. Sure, the narrative didn't exactly give us a proper understanding of either faction, but it offered something different, something new, something arguably just as remarkable as AC3 or BF. It showed that both factions are a destructive force that equally harms people. Whether Shay was an Assassin or Templar, he wouldn't have been at home, because neither of them are who he is. And despite treating him better, Shay is willing to give his own life if that meant opposing the Templars to keep them from owning such a destructive device...

However, with how the narrative is right now, Shay's a tool who was easily manipulated and is a complete hypocrite. And leaving him alive only did more harm to the series. Not only did he kill Charles and started the FR, he's still out there. He's now a character that fans want to see an end for. They gave us a driving force for Connor, Arno, Eseosa, and Aveline to group up and start a game with, however, we all know that's not happening. It's messed up. It's like if the MCU didn't have an Avengers movie.

We don't know if they did start the FR.


Looks more like you're lying to yourself...

Ubisoft and their games decides what is and isn't, not disappointed fans. They said it's a Templar game so it is, fans with their constant definitions of what's "true" will never be right because of that because Ubisoft has said and done otherwise.



Any proof that he did?
It is a Templar game.;)
Who said it wasn't :confused:


Where exactly am I lying? Please specify.



And their games show the Templars as being ruthless individuals dedicated to creating a despotic plutocratic society and they often hurt and kill innocent people. Haytham Kenway organized the Boston Massacre, Garnier de Naplouse tortured the mentally ill and broke their legs, Woodes Rogers was a slaveowner, Governor Torres massacred a hundred people in the Island of the Observatory. Prince Ahmed supported extremists like Sahkulu and dishonorably conducted himself with Ezio by trying to kill Sofia Sartor after Ezio returned the seals to him. These by the way are the "good Templars", since Rodrigo Borgia is apparently not a real one. Rogue likewise has Templars who are a slaveowner and ethnic cleanser who is totally mourned by others but the main narrative glosses over what Shay does because it would destroy any likability the character has.

They actually don't.
Haytham is a prime example, sure near the end of his life he became more ruthless.
But he truly believed for society to prosper under Templar rule for the good of the people, Unlike other some Templars (like the Borgia) that used the cause for their own power gain.

Templars were actually against slavery as they thought " a slaved body causes the mind to revolt" <---- Not sure if that the exact wording.

The reason I like AC is the fact that there is no "good" side.;)
I want them to show a game where it does not portray the assassins as being whiter than white. <--- Pun not intended but its there. :rolleyes:

AC Rogue did do this to a point. <---- The assassins sponsored street gangs to cause upheaval for the Templars. <--- I mean they harassed innocent people like the Finnegans, sure there son was a Templar but why harass them!

dargor5
08-15-2015, 01:56 PM
At the end of BF I assumed that Edward was just helping the assassins and had no interest as being one.
But he did become one? Did this surprise anyone else?

It kinda hints like he did join the assassins but still, wasn't at all what I was talking about, there has to be a character that questions both sides and has no desire to join either, that would have been the true rogue

Farlander1991
08-15-2015, 06:48 PM
Btw, speaking of Templar representation in Rogue. One of the, I suppose staples, of Templars that we've seen is that they commit bad things for the greater good. Now, how justifiable that is would be in question, for each person to decide. But, for example, such thing as Boston Massacre was created by Haytham to increase population's dissatisfaction with the British so they'd be even more willing to secede from them and live under the new and just Templar rule. Ok, well, that's never stated anywhere directly, but given the information we have, that has to be the reason. But you can find other examples.

The point is, in Rogue the Templars are heroes saving the world from ignorant Assassins' actions. Nobody commits there an atrocity for what they believe is the greater good. And that's considering we have artifacts in the game that start freakin' earthquakes. What would be far more fitting for a Templar game, is to have to use that artifact at the end to create an earthquake (and not in a desolate location) on purpose. And to have Shay do that. Of course, there have to be justifications for such a thing. But Templars never really get their hands dirty in Rogue, at least on screen.

Mr.Black24
08-16-2015, 04:36 AM
Actually Haytham is entirely okay with the underworld. That's what Thomas Hickey is there for. I know that, it just shows how easily Shay was more duped into the Templars. Haytham is ok with gangs as long as its TEMPLAR gangs.




Connor is still alive as of 1804 and Shay would have been what, 70 at that time. Not a fair fight, Shay would be dead, but then my understanding of the Lore is that Shay died before that. He got killed in the incident at the Observatory in the 1780s. It can be said he died, created a pact with Connor, or simply retired from the Templar Order. But the Observatory? Where did you get this information?

VestigialLlama4
08-16-2015, 06:38 AM
It can be said he died, created a pact with Connor, or simply retired from the Templar Order. But the Observatory? Where did you get this information?

From inferences. Its never specified in the games how they got hold of Shay's DNA. Thanks to the Data Dump Scanner and the upgraded Animus, there are now different ways to get hold of DNA rather than harvest a living specimen like they did with Desmond. The Templars can get a blood or hair sample for instance from an old corpse.

In Rogue, its hinted by Violent Da Costa and Juhani Otso Berg that Shay died in battle. If you listen to what they say, they keep expressing surprise that Shay survived. Like after that fall of a cliff, Violet tells Juhani that Shay survived this. Then when you get to the first Paris flash-forward, she says, "This means Shay will survive till this decade and time period"). That dialogue doesn't make sense if they got that blood sample from a descendant. If they did get ut from a descendant, then they know that they're stuck with Shay until romance/marriage/one-night-stand. That implies that Shay was Killed-In-Action.

As for the Observatory, Otso Berg states that he investigated and found that it caved in sometime earlier. Then you read the Abstergo Handbook and you note that Sivert (an associate of Haytham Kenway apparently) funded an expedition to the Observatory in the 1780s. Since that comes after the final flashback of ROGUE, my feeling is that Shay was involved in it, since he connects France and the New World. And Otso Berg recovered his body from there and that's how they got the DNA. The only problem with this theory is that if they found the body at the Observatory, they would know how he died so there shouldn't be room for confusions. The other explanation is simply that they found his body in a grave. I am sure the Templars must have collected DNA samples when the Animus program kicked in, so as to better understand their past. They would know where Templars are buried.

Hans684
08-16-2015, 01:40 PM
I know that, it just shows how easily Shay was more duped into the Templars. Haytham is ok with gangs as long as its TEMPLAR gangs.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Hickey

Before that he didn't have any underground, in the seven years war he was a British solider.

"Over the next several years, Hickey maintained a low profile, leading an underground black market for the Templars, primarily focusing on forging counterfeit money and providing information through espionage."

Nothing compared to Hope's gangs.


Where exactly am I lying? Please specify.

Saying good Templars don't exist is as wrong as saying bad Assassins don't exist.


And their games show the Templars as being ruthless individuals dedicated to creating a despotic plutocratic society and they often hurt and kill innocent people.

Far more than that, The Templar goal isn't tyranny or enslavement but peace, stability, order, purpose, direction, unity, equality and progression. A world where people can live side by side regardless of what or who they are.


Haytham Kenway organized the Boston Massacre, Garnier de Naplouse tortured the mentally ill and broke their legs, Woodes Rogers was a slaveowner, Governor Torres massacred a hundred people in the Island of the Observatory. Prince Ahmed supported extremists like Sahkulu and dishonorably conducted himself with Ezio by trying to kill Sofia Sartor after Ezio returned the seals to him.

True but we have discussed some if this before. There is also far more Templars in AC than these. However if you want a "my daddy is stronger than yours discussion":

Al Mualim aimed to enslave the world and creating artificial peace with people being nothing but mindless robots is the worst goal an Assassin has had, being Mentor just makes it worse.

The French Brotherhood(plus Mirebeau and Arno), They is anti-revolutionary and right-wing royalists traditionalist supporting and saving "innocent" nobles that let the people starve while they lived their luxury life in expensive palaces and eating as much food as they want. And they supported Napoleon and got him in power, they even saved him after he invaded Egypt and took back the AOE. They are responsible for the Napoleonic Wars. Yes I've been reading your take on the Brotherhood, perspective is everything after all.

The Colonial Brotherhood and Haitian brotherhood, lead by Achilles and the another by François Mackandal.

Achilles Brotherhood is responsible for destroying a city, terrorizing the Colonies with gangs. They themselves trained and lead those gangs with each group containing an Assassin leading them on land and sea. They wanted to gas the Colonial authorities, that would cause major civilian casualties and chaos. As icing on the cake he also attacked natives. His brotherhood is an army with an Assassin fleet with their own gangs, and their leaders is corrupt. They could have made Rogue a game where we played a corrupt and extremist Assassins doing all this with them instead of purging them. However since they are black and multi-cultural they can't be bad so just ignore everything his brotherhood did.

François Mackandal's Haitian Brotherhood in Saint-Dominique is known for it's violent ways. Mackandal rejected Antó's aid, claiming that his Brotherhood was strong enough, and belittled Antó and his Mentor Ah Tabai, believing both to be weak and prone to compromise. He also warned Antó against sending his Assassins, whether to assist him or oppose him, assuring him that they would die either way and with both the Box and Manuscript he did the same mistake as Achilles. He sent Vendredi, one of his students to a First Civ. Temple in Port-au-Prince and Vendredi indirectly caused a massive earthquake while investigating the site. He also aimed to poison the colonists in Saint-Dominique, just like Achilles wanted to gas the colonial authority in the Colonies. His Haitian Brotherhood was considered a disgrace by Eseosa, Mackandal also used The Creed as a policy of aggression and unrestrained use of power. Adéwalé and his son lived during the time and didn't even oppose this brotherhood.

Old and unwise Ezio(with indirect support by the Turkish Brotherhood). He runs around with bombs in the streets and uses them(civilian casualties), destroys The Great Chain(plus two towers in the process), starts a riot causing the death of innocents and after they broke down the door he does't stop to help any remaining people fighting Janissaries(most trained guards in the game), so they get cut down where they stand. Then by detonating Cappadocia's supply of gunpowder and creating a large explosion that blazed through the stronghold. The results is fire seared through the wooden fortress, choking the entire city with flames and smoke. The people end up in both panic and chaos as they get chocked to death. He is responsible for the slaughter of innocents and destruction. And the Turkish Brotherhood is responsible for not stopping his unneeded killing spree. Then there is his attempt at killing the Sultan and him beating old drunk Duccio for no reason other than being an *******. Compare this to Prince Ahmet who also suggested that they should unite instead of fighting and he's far better than Ezio & Co terrorizing Constantinople. And the Ottoman Assassins killed Vlad.

Agaté, Aveline's Mentor wanted to prevent the execution of François Mackandal, his Mentor despite all the bad things he'd done. And when one another of François students(Baptiste) he teached the Assassin ways wanted to reattempt his failed try at poisoning colonists in Saint-Dominique he suddenly is against it despite being a supporter of François Brotherhood. He also was paranoid and, nearly nothing while treating Aveline like **** when she did everything and when she toke her who the Company Man is he attacks her.

Connor, he saved a corrupt nation full of slavers and massacres of natives by helping them(they used him) to rise up against the British. So he took it from revolt to a war that he also ends. The results is that his "allies" and the "free and equal" corrupt country push the natives away and it results in another war. He simply fails and fails again, even his Homestead ended at some point as well. It's the American Nightmare, him fighting the Templars caused all of this pain and misery that could have been avoided. He was doomed before he started. His enemy is a nation, not a notion. In case you want to argue against the Colonial Templars, remember this. He ended up regretting killing both William, Pitcain and Haytham along with admitting he was wrong. I'm curtain he would end up regretting killing Hickey after seeing what Washington does in the Northwest Indian War. So technically we could say he started two wars and the results is bad.

Edward just like Connor saved corrupt nations by stopping the only people that could end it. And in an interview with Darby McDevitt with AC youtuber loomer979, he explained on how he wrote Edward, he was supposed to be viewed as a type of villain at first. Not the worst type but enough to be called one. After all, he killed many people for their riches, simple Spanish and English Navy soldiers who had family and friends waiting for them back home, and conquering forts in the game. Remember killing the fort leader in the game, in cold blood? He had his hands up, never fought back, and yet still ruthlessly shot down by Edward. He mentions that not even the Templars were true villains as they had truly never killed anyone in the game, other than self-defense from Assassin attacks(the Guardians work with the Assassins). He even mentions that the Templars have an equivalent set of rules like the Assassin’s Creed, which he dubbed, “The Templar’s Goals.” He talked about the philosophies of both Assassins and Templars that he openly implemented in the games, trying to make people think more.

Abbas Brotherhood didn't fight for the Assassin cause, oppressed and killed people in Masyaf.

The Russian Brotherhood has no problem with torture, kidnaping and killing of children seeing as how they treated the Orelov family.

Hamid, he's a Mentor that abuses his deaf slave. Shouting and punching him for no reason. As far as i'm aware his slave is innocent and not even part of the war against the Templars. A power abuser and an *******, glad Arbaaz Mir saved him. The downside is that he had to pay his Mentor to get him.

Are these "good Assassins"? Some harm innocents and others watch the world burn because killing every Templars automatically means the nations improve. Sure some is good characters like Connor and Adéwalé however they all failed or ended up a villain. So the Assassins are ruthless individuals dedicated to creating a chaotic society and they often hurt and kill innocent people direct or indirect. Did Adéwalé's fighting in Freedom Cry end the slavery done by the French without any Templars there influencing? No, that place was "free" and nothing had improved. At least he gave the Maroons a fighting chance for their rights but killing governor didn't solve it either. He'd by replaced by someone else who won't change a damn thing and continued the slavery. So even good Assassins have killed innocent to some degree or indirectly caused something far worse that the Templars did.

And yes I know all of WW and MD Templars, so before pulling those cards you should know how many of them that follows the rules.

Now as an example we can use old Ezio that's a "good Assassin" and use his body count to find out what Templars to consider good by your standard. Boston massacre, a less killed in that event that Ezio. So Haytham can get a pass.
Garnier de Naplouse tortured the mentally ill and broke their legs, less then good guy Ezio so he can get a pass.
Woodes Rogers was a slaveowner, slavery is a big thing so no pass.
Governor Torres massacred a hundred people in the Island of the Observatory, allies of the Assassin that he killed in self-defense. Shouldn't be an argument, so pass.
Prince Ahmed supported extremists like Sahkulu and dishonorably conducted himself with Ezio by trying to kill Sofia Sartor after Ezio returned the seals to him, pass because of Ezio's bigger body cout.

However if you want to compare big you have Al Mualim's enslavement and the French Brotherhood being anti-revolution right wing royalists putting Napoleon in power. Not big enough to be compared to the MD or WW Templars but it's hight up there.


These by the way are the "good Templars", since Rodrigo Borgia is apparently not a real one.

Rodrigo is a corrupt Templar aiming for nothing but power for himself. And you act as the Assassins never have killed innocents. You do know Washington is no better than his brother as he has burned down villages himself and slaughtered natives again and again yet Connor does't consider him bad at all. You know, the Templars have an equivalent set of rules like the Assassin’s Creed, which Darby dubbed, “The Templar’s Goals.” So before calling corrupt Templars "honest", I'd suggest you look up those rules before saying what they is and isn't.


Rogue likewise has Templars who are a slaveowner and ethnic cleanser who is totally mourned by others but the main narrative glosses over what Shay does because it would destroy any likability the character has.

And Connor's story glosses over that he supports a corrupt nation that's been killing natives before he was born... Unless you are saying the French, British and the Patriots/Americans isn't slave nations that only care about themselves. I mean they have to keep him likable like Shay so obviously the dirty history is glosses over. Tell me, did Connor accomplish his goals of an equal nation without slavery where the nations didn't harm natives?

But you missed the point. Ubisoft are in charge here and since they made Rogue as they did it's just as much AC as every other game because they made it and said what it is, fans don't rule this series, they do. They havn't lied or hidden anything, you being so disappointed that you go on a raging campaign against because there is no good Templars is no different that Connor haters back in the day. It won't change what's said and done by Ubisoft. It's a Templar game because they said it is, Shay is a Templar because they said he is. Élise is a Templar because they say she is, her father is a Templar because they say he is. Rogue is a honest Templar game because Ubisoft said it's a Templar game, you calling it dishonest fan-fiction for being a black and white story that whitewash a side is hypocritical by you as neither AC2 or ACB is criticized for the same reasons, so you take it to the point of racism to spark hatred as a final act. The double standards and hypocritazy makes it hard to take serious.

VestigialLlama4
08-16-2015, 05:25 PM
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Hickey

Before that he didn't have any underground, in the seven years war he was a British solider.

FALSE. In the prologue of AC3, set before Rogue, Hickey is already a lowlife. What we see, hear and play in the game matters.


Saying good Templars don't exist is as wrong as saying bad Assassins don't exist.

The only genuinely good Templars I can think of are Jonathan Pitcairn and George Monro. Pitcairn was likewise party to a plot to assassinate Washington, but otherwise he's a genuinely decent soldier and honorable man. The same applies to George Monro, who went against his fellow Templar wishes and rescued Shay. The only ones after who I can say come close to being good is maybe Abul Nuqood (I can get behind any guy who decides to murder his war-profiteering guests). Nicolaus Copernicus was a good person who joined the Templars (in the PS3 DLC) except he quite when the Templars got all anti-Science and he became an Assassin associate and had to be rescued by Ezio. None of the others count as being decent people whatever other qualities they may have.


Far more than that, The Templar goal isn't tyranny or enslavement but peace, stability, order, purpose, direction, unity, equality and progression. A world where people can live side by side regardless of what or who they are.

Every tyrant in history says they want that. Napoleon said his goal was "Liberty and Order", Stalin likewise justified his crimes saying he was bringing stability and give direction. You read Hitler and Mussolini and they keep railing against the anarchy of democracy and the lower orders. In America, McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover and other right wingers refused to give rights to minorities and women saying they wanted to provide order. The goal may not be "tyranny and enslavement" but in practise that is what it becomes. That is what we see in these games.


Al Mualim aimed to enslave the world and creating artificial peace with people being nothing but mindless robots is the worst goal an Assassin has had, being Mentor just makes it worse.

Al Mualim is a Templar.


True but we have discussed some if this before. There is also far more Templars in AC than these. However if you want a "my daddy is stronger than yours discussion":

I don't want that at all. The Assassins have never claimed to be perfect. Altair's Codex points out that they are mired in contradictions and hypocrisies and there's no real chance of consistency and its up to each Assassin to figure it out for themselves. Achilles regrets and takes responisibilites for his actions and the like. We have not seen one Templar admit they could be wrong.

Namikaze_17
08-16-2015, 06:02 PM
Al Mualim is a Templar.

Actually, he's not.

Otso Berg doesn't think so anyway:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkLrc-iUH-0&feature=youtu.be

VestigialLlama4
08-16-2015, 06:12 PM
Actually, he's not.

Otso Berg doesn't think so anyway:

Robert de Sable calls him a Templar. He said that there was ten of them who visited Solomon's Temple. I'll take Robert's word over Otso Berg's.

Hans684
08-16-2015, 06:36 PM
FALSE. In the prologue of AC3, set before Rogue, Hickey is already a lowlife. What we see, hear and play in the game matters.

Yeah your right, forgot the conversations with Haytham.


The only genuinely good Templars I can think of are Jonathan Pitcairn and George Monro. Pitcairn was likewise party to a plot to assassinate Washington, but otherwise he's a genuinely decent soldier and honorable man. The same applies to George Monro, who went against his fellow Templar wishes and rescued Shay. The only ones after who I can say come close to being good is maybe Abul Nuqood (I can get behind any guy who decides to murder his war-profiteering guests). Nicolaus Copernicus was a good person who joined the Templars (in the PS3 DLC) except he quite when the Templars got all anti-Science and he became an Assassin associate and had to be rescued by Ezio. None of the others count as being decent people whatever other qualities they may have.

And by saying who you consider good Templars you just proved me right. There exist good Templars.


Every tyrant in history says they want that. Napoleon said his goal was "Liberty and Order", Stalin likewise justified his crimes saying he was bringing stability and give direction. You read Hitler and Mussolini and they keep railing against the anarchy of democracy and the lower orders. In America, McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover and other right wingers refused to give rights to minorities and women saying they wanted to provide order. The goal may not be "tyranny and enslavement" but in practise that is what it becomes. That is what we see in these games.

I'm not saying they are perfect either, just that there is more too it. The Colonial Templars isn't as shady as most but they are better than the Patriots and British by a long shot.


Al Mualim is a Templar.

And Assassin.


I don't want that at all.

Great.


The Assassins have never claimed to be perfect. Altair's Codex points out that they are mired in contradictions and hypocrisies and there's no real chance of consistency and its up to each Assassin to figure it out for themselves. Achilles regrets and takes responisibilites for his actions and the like.

True.


We have not seen one Templar admit they could be wrong.

True enough, can't remember any.

Namikaze_17
08-16-2015, 06:41 PM
Robert de Sable calls him a Templar. He said that there was ten of them who visited Solomon's Temple. I'll take Robert's word over Otso Berg's.

But he used Altaïr to take out Robert and the other Templars as well as betraying the Assassins - essentially, he was acting on his own. His actions may have been aligned with the Templar philosophy, but he wasn't necessarily a Templar in practice or allegiance.

Not a full one at any rate, as he took power for himself instead of sharing with the others.

If anything, it's debatable over what he truly was or where his mind lied which makes him a facsinating character in my opinion.

VestigialLlama4
08-16-2015, 06:58 PM
But he used Altaïr to take out Robert and the other Templars as well as betraying the Assassins - essentially, he was acting on his own. His actions may have been aligned with the Templar philosophy, but he wasn't necessarily a Templar in practice or allegiance.

Not a full one at any rate, as he took power for himself instead of sharing with the others.

If anything, it's debatable over what he truly was or where his mind lied which makes him a facsinating character in my opinion.

Look for me, Robert de Sable said Al Mualim was one of them, that's what matters, all the other factors that make up "True Templar" is fan wish-fulfillment. Templars can betray each other you know. Reginald Birch betrayed Haytham all the time.

Namikaze_17
08-16-2015, 07:08 PM
Look for me, Robert de Sable said Al Mualim was one of them, that's what matters, all the other factors that make up "True Templar" is fan wish-fulfillment. Templars can betray each other you know. Reginald Birch betrayed Haytham all the time.

Wish-fulfillment?!

Okay, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

HDinHB
08-16-2015, 07:20 PM
Saying good Templars don't exist is as wrong as saying bad Assassins don't exist.

The only good Templar is a dead Templar.



Far more than that, The Templar goal isn't tyranny or enslavement but peace, stability, order, purpose, direction, unity, equality and progression. A world where people can live side by side regardless of what or who they are.


That's what they say. Their true goals are power, control, and domination. The "peace" they seek is the lack of resistance.to their authority. Tyranny, enslavement, and even mind control are just some of the tools they use. "Equality" under the Templar Order would look a lot like the "equality" on the Animal Farm.

http://jwsurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/all-animal-equal.jpg

If you look closely, you can see the Templar crosses on their medals.

VestigialLlama4
08-16-2015, 07:52 PM
Wish-fulfillment?!

Okay, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

I apologize for my phrasing, its just that I am tired of people saying that so-and-so is not a good Templar and whatnot.

Hans684
08-16-2015, 07:58 PM
The only good Templar is a dead Templar.


That's what they say. Their true goals are power, control, and domination. The "peace" they seek is the lack of resistance.to their authority. Tyranny, enslavement, and even mind control are just some of the tools they use. "Equality" under the Templar Order would look a lot like the "equality" on the Animal Farm.

http://jwsurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/all-animal-equal.jpg

If you look closely, you can see the Templar crosses on their medals.

True... In 2009/10.


I apologize for my phrasing, its just that I am tired of people saying that so-and-so is not a good Templar and whatnot.

Just stating lore.

strigoi1958
08-16-2015, 08:57 PM
Assassins and Templars want the same thing but are divided by which method is best to achieve it.... all kill with abandonment and then hunt killers as though they were better... they are blurred.. no right, no wrong... only a perceived right or wrong depending upon whichever side is judging.

All games are made this way... rob and steal then chase and catch a thief ;)... good guys chase bad guys because the bad guys act exactly like the good guys... but with a different badge

Jessigirl2013
08-17-2015, 10:58 AM
It kinda hints like he did join the assassins but still, wasn't at all what I was talking about, there has to be a character that questions both sides and has no desire to join either, that would have been the true rogue

Yeah, It just seemed kind of forced though.
I just assumed at the end of AC4 he would go back to his life and raise his daughter, After all he got what he wanted.