PDA

View Full Version : What if...Ubi got rid of Templar only focus?



SteelCity999
09-22-2015, 04:34 PM
Meaning...How would you feel if the games shifted focus from the Assassin's exclusively fighting Templars? How many other secret societies or organizations are their throughout history that could create good conflict? With all the talk of modern day, if they are truly going to abandon it and focus on it less, why can't Ubi shift focus onto other enemies? Templar conspiracies could regurgitate themselves every other year or two but other organizations would definitely add some flavor to a franchise that is getting stale with same old same old storytelling. It might put assassin's inI a different light, make choices tougher and offer contrast to the Templars.

F3nix013
09-22-2015, 04:45 PM
Dont know about that. In history the Templars were the main military power of the Church. No one exactly knows what happened with the Templars since their history is shrouded in mystery considering their practices were secret. At that point in time the Templars were the biggest faction Europe had. And even though they were almost destroyed in the 1300s, the order still lives on in the Freemasons and other factions like them so the societies like them still exist but not in the form they used to.

Considering most of those organizations are just branches off of what the Templars used to be, it still makes sense to have them as the main group in the game. The only problem we have now is the fact that even though Desmond died, the story of the Templars and Assassins fight is almost non-existant considering there is barely any MD anymore.

EDIT: and considering how they never fully ended the Templar v Assassin feud, we MUST have a conclusion to that story before they think about changing groups and whatnot. Besides, Assassins Creed has always been Templar v Assassin. If you get rid of the Templar focus, you dont really have an AC game since that is all of what it has ever been. Unless they twist the story to say that the Templars and Church were being used by a more powerful group and the focus changes to fighting that group, we dont know. The current story must be finished before any of that happens, but since there is barely and MD in Unity and possibly Syndicate, i dont see that happening any time soon.

VestigialLlama4
09-22-2015, 04:52 PM
This is something I actually would like to see. I mean it never sat well with me that all of history was about these two organizations that never really changed ideas and beliefs over milennia. You would have thought there might be Assassin splinter factions who form the Freemasons or the Illuminati, or others who decided to try nonviolence or communism.

I would have liked multiple organizations with various philosophies and goals. It would be a little super-heroish but it would be interesting and it would prevent it like "The Illuminati are Templars and therefore evil..."

Besides within the games, there have been occassions where the Assassins haven't really fought Templars (generally in DLC),
1) You have Revelations' Altair Missions (where the main bad guy is an Evil Assassin)
2) You have Bonfire of the Vanities DLC (where Ezio fights Girolamo Savonarola).
3) You have Da Vinci Disappearance (the bad guys are Hermeticists, another secret society who want to unlock First Civilization ideas to the world).
4) There's Tyranny of King Washington DLC, which is an Alternate Dream but the main theme is an Assassin stopping the Apple from corrupting a great man and also saving America by extension.
5) Freedom Cry, where you have Assassins actually tackling a real historical problem of slavery.
6) Even Black Flag, where the main bad guy is Black Bart and the Sages were initially sold as not really Assassins or Templars (before Unity ruined even that good idea).
7) Dead Kings, well it doesn't have the same thing, but it introduces stuff like "Lady Eve" (whatever the f--k that is) and its about Napoleon coming to power, well its really fuzzy.

I think the best one is Bonfire of the Vanities, because in that brief time you had this larger social theme of religious and political fanaticism, dangers of blind faith, about the fact that some of the people who support movements like these are coerced or not entirely themselves but others are perfectly willing, and have realistic reasons, to go ahead and participate in this tyranny. It's actually weird but Bonfire DLC has longer afterlife conversations than the main game does on average. Likewise the whole sequence defines who the Assassins are and what they truly believe rather than "those guys who stop the Templars".

Likewise Freedom Cry tried to expand on that. Wish they did this more often though.

Farlander1991
09-22-2015, 05:06 PM
I don't think we really need any more secret organizations (heck, we have Erudito and Instruments of the First Will as well, but who the hell knows what's going on with them now), but I wouldn't mind there being less Templars. Or, sometimes, for that matter, Assassins.

Here's the thing that bothered me in AC2 glyphs somewhat - that it made it seem like every major historical figure or event was either done/controlled by Assassins or Templars, or people affiliated with them. I know these were ancient large Orders, but still. But it was still fine, but after that this just escalated to ridiculous degrees where everything is somehow connected to the Assassin/Templar conspiracy. I mean, it's so ridiculous, that the novelization of AC4 removes the whole point of the main character's arc, that he didn't have anything absolutely to do with Assassins or Templars before events of the game, and he ****ing did (so for me the novel doesn't exist :p ). You don't have to be an Assassin or a Templar or their affiliate to be awesome or to be responsible for huge events or changes. In fact, the more things are related to these two Orders, the smaller the world begins to feel.

And while we're at it, the useage of non-Templars was pretty effective in previous games with characters who were not part of the organizations. To me the most interesting villain of AC2 is Savonarola, and that Bonfire sequence alone manages to neatly cover questions of free will, choice and control (well, in the time that it has, at least), something that is very thematic to AC (and something that the rest of the game doesn't really cover with other Templars), and that guy has nothing to do with the Assassin/Templar conflict.

And the main antagonist of Black Flag is Bartholomew Roberts, also not a Templar (Torres is not the main antagonist of the game, despite being the Grand Master of the Templar Order) or Assassin (though he does get wrapped up in the middle of this conflict like Edward does as well), and he's a quite interesting character and it's a nice change of pace.

So I absolutely wouldn't mind if Templars weren't used as often, or if they would be put a bit to the sidelines sometimes.

SteelCity999
09-22-2015, 05:49 PM
Likewise the whole sequence defines who the Assassins are and what they truly believe rather than "those guys who stop the Templars".

I think that is kind of what the series has become. With no modern day, its now as basic as Us vs Them. With other organizations in the mix, a world of possibilities exist - including Templar assassin cooperation....What dynamic might lead to this? AC3 tried a bit. It would open up more story opportunities and more of who the assassins are....after all it is Assassin's Creed not Assassins vs Templars.

Hans684
09-22-2015, 06:51 PM
More Templar games then, shift the focus to the Assassins for a while. They are the stars of the series after all.

dxsxhxcx
09-22-2015, 07:40 PM
No, I don't mind Assassins or Templars interacting with other secret organizations as a mean to an end, but I don't want to see the Templars or Assassins being replaced by any of them for an entire game, IMO both Assassins and Templars are on the top of the "food chain", so it wouldn't make much sense to focus solely on a "minor" enemy when there are bigger fishes to catch (that certainly wouldn't wait until you deal with other problems to do something)...


I would like to see a game where we control both an Assassin and a Templar (not a double agent, two different protagonists) fighting each other (with no possibility of an alliance between them happens)...

Consus_E
09-23-2015, 01:27 AM
IMO opinion this is the way it should always have been.

AC1 (and maybe ACR) should have been the only strictly Templar focused game with the other games in the franchise focusing on other organizations with the theme of Freedom vs Control running through it. Abstergo instead of being modern Templars could just be the overarching antagonists. It would make the world feel so much bigger and give the Assassins a much more grounded feel.



Instead of Hitler being a Templar puppet he could have just been some ***hole that the Assassin order opposed.
AC2 could have just been about Ezio taking revenge on a group of people who killed his family, they didn't need to be part of an ancient order.
Same with ACB the Borgia were causing oppression, perfect justification for the Assassins to fight them.
AC3 Haytham could just have led a group of like minded individuals or maybe Freemasons?
AC4 Torres is just some guy searching for the Observatory
Shay could have just been a rogue Assassin

strigoi1958
09-23-2015, 02:18 AM
It would open up new story line opportunities... I've often wondered whether an assassin or templar (or more than 1 from either faction) may have given in to greed or love or hate... and worked solely for their own objectives. I know other assassins have had their own agendas but I mean someone who uses the knowledge, skills and equipment for their own purpose without aiding any assassin or templar goals.


I would like to see a game where we control both an Assassin and a Templar (not a double agent, two different protagonists) fighting each other (with no possibility of an alliance between them happens)...

@ dxsxhxcx Yes I too have thought that a templar in the same memory as assassin would make a good multiplayer game and in the MD we could sabotage or defend each animus.

EmbodyingSeven5
09-23-2015, 05:31 AM
I would like it. Targets outside of the order would be interesting. They wouldn't automatically know who the assassin was and would question him in his brief time left.

SixKeys
09-23-2015, 09:31 AM
I wrote a long reply on my phone last night and then it refused to post for some reason. So here we go again.



Here's the thing that bothered me in AC2 glyphs somewhat - that it made it seem like every major historical figure or event was either done/controlled by Assassins or Templars, or people affiliated with them. I know these were ancient large Orders, but still. But it was still fine, but after that this just escalated to ridiculous degrees where everything is somehow connected to the Assassin/Templar conspiracy. I mean, it's so ridiculous, that the novelization of AC4 removes the whole point of the main character's arc, that he didn't have anything absolutely to do with Assassins or Templars before events of the game, and he ****ing did (so for me the novel doesn't exist :p ). You don't have to be an Assassin or a Templar or their affiliate to be awesome or to be responsible for huge events or changes. In fact, the more things are related to these two Orders, the smaller the world begins to feel.


I know I've often complained about everything being connected in the AC universe, but I don't have a problem with it in AC2. Conspiracy theories were one of the major themes in that game overall, as befits the Italian Renaissance. It was also a cute nod to The Da Vinci Code, Ezio being friends with Leonardo and all. Ancient orders and secret codes made perfect sense in that context. The glyphs brought that over to MD and toyed with the idea of "what if those conspiracies never stopped? What if they've always existed, from the dawn of humanity?" which is a conspiracy theory in itself (it's all very meta). Yes, all the stuff we learned in the glyphs was preposterous, but back then they hadn't planned the series beyond a trilogy so they most likely never intended to come back to all those references and explain them in-depth. Abstergo faking the Moon landing, Hitler being a Templar puppet etc., they were just throaway ideas that made it perfectly clear Abstergo were the bad guys and why they had to be stopped.

Now, however, the series has the burden of having to actually explain some of the stuff we saw, like Washington and Napoleon having the Apple. It becomes convoluted when you have to build an entire story around those little breadcrumbs and explain exactly how the same artifact has made its way through history, across all these different countries and conintents. AC2 briefly references Marco Polo which again, I doubt they actually expected to have to expand upon, but then they wrote him into ACR in an attempt to explain how Alta´r's Apple made it to Cyprus. Washington having an Apple wouldn't have made sense in AC3 considering he was Connor's ally and a pretty sympathetic guy for most of the game. But AC2 mentioned he held it at one point, so they had to reference it somehow. Thus we ended up with the weird "it was all a dream" DLC of ToKW, because it was the only place where they could portray Washington as a power-hungry dictator. Napoleon served no other purpose in Unity except to use Arno to deliver the Apple to him. He only seemed to be there because fans expected to see him with the Apple.

Basically the problem is that they referenced almost the entirety of human history in AC2 because they didn't expect to have to write a timeline where it all fits together. So the whole conspiracy thing, which was probably meant to be a one-off in AC2, now plagues the entire series, even where it doesn't fit or contribute anything meaningful.

Farlander1991
09-23-2015, 10:07 AM
I know I've often complained about everything being connected in the AC universe, but I don't have a problem with it in AC2.

I don't have a big problem with it too. It was more of a minor gripe, because glyphs in time went over from 'oh wow, this is awesome' to something like, 'haha, oh and this guy's a Templar too? This is cute, but starts getting a bit annoying', and even then, it wasn't all about Assassins or Templars (for example, Washington and Napoleon you mention were never alluded to being either of those, just that they possessed at one point or another some artifacts, which is fine). Still, back then it was fine, but with ACB and further on it started to get really complicated.


but back then they hadn't planned the series beyond a trilogy so they most likely never intended to come back to all those references

Did they never intend to, though? Even when it was planned a trilogy, between the time of AC1 and AC2 release we had 3 spin-off titles, expanding the stories of the characters, and the French comic was developed that eventually became uncanon (at least some of its parts), but even then they were transforming this trilogy into a universe, I'm pretty sure they would want to continue it beyond the first three games (I mean, all the time periods you can visit - nobody would be able to resist that, really, the set-up is perfect for hundreds of games). So I think that they indeed didn't really think about the far-reaching consequences, but they did expect to get back to it at some point. I think the problem was that with further games the amount of lore and conspiracies greatly skyrocketed and it just became too much to handle.


AC2 briefly references Marco Polo which again, I doubt they actually expected to have to expand upon, but then they wrote him into ACR in an attempt to explain how Alta´r's Apple made it to Cyprus.

The Cyprus Apple thing is a whole different matter. How Altair's Apple got into Cyprus we know from Bloodlines and AC2 codex - while those things don't state it directly (which was the saving grace for the retcon that had to be made in the future), they heavily implied that the Altair hid his Apple on Cyprus that Rodrigo (due to his possession of Codex pages that we had to take from our targets) eventually found (like, even when AC2 was released, just based on Codex and what Rodrigo was searching for, even without Bloodlines, pretty much everybody made the connection - Altair hid Apple on Cyprus. Job done, no further explanation needed). And then ACB happened, where we find that same Apple that Ezio possessed in AC2, which was Altair's apple, which AC1 stated was destroyed and shouldn't exist. So ACR exists pretty much to fix that plothole - where it's shown that Altair's Apple in AC1 is a different one and that he just spread rumours that he hid it on Cyprus. But then the situation becomes even more ridiculous - Altair spreads rumours that he hid an Apple on Cyprus when in fact he did no such thing, and Rodrigo later on goes to search for an Apple that is not there but manages to find one that just happened to be there anyway. Oh, and Templars managed to find that Apple in Masyaf regardless. ... so, yeah....


So the whole conspiracy thing, which was probably meant to be a one-off in AC2, now plagues the entire series, even where it doesn't fit or contribute anything meaningful.

Yeah. And from that point of view it's understandable that they now say, 'oh Subject 16 was just crazy'. I mean, that's a cop-out for sure, but when you have to create stories around some things and 16 says one thing but it doesn't really work well for a detailed story then what do you do? 'Crazy'. That said, now that I think about it, so far they used this cop-out more related to modern day things rather than historical stuff where they try to keep true to what 16 said... hm.

VestigialLlama4
09-23-2015, 10:24 AM
Bear in mind that conspiracy theories and Lore existed right from AC1. What was it that Al Mualim said at the end of AC1, "Jesus was a fraud, the Trojan War was a bunch of First-Civ folks being bored, miracles don't happen and oh I am God." or words to that effect. And Warren Vidic said that Abstergo is behind every technical breakthrough across mankind. So I see the glyphs as merely elaborating and taking things futher. The minute you take Assassins from one time and one place (the Levant, Crusades) to another totally different time and place (Italy, Renaissance), you basically open the floodgates. If you can go from the Levant to Rome, then you can go anywhere.

For me the Templars and Assassins being connected and these conspiracy theories as a starting point is not an issue in itself. it is an issue if these conspiracies are entirely about Assassins and Templars and not about anything else.

ze_topazio
09-23-2015, 11:46 AM
Without the Templars the Assassins would just close doors, their only purpose is to make sure the Templars don't succeed in their crazy a** plans.

Farlander1991
09-23-2015, 11:55 AM
Without the Templars the Assassins would just close doors, their only purpose is to make sure the Templars don't succeed in their crazy a** plans.

As evidenced by Savonarola, Templars are not the only ones with crazy *** plans :p Assassins can have their hands full (and probably do) with a bunch of stuff that's not Templar-related.

ze_topazio
09-23-2015, 12:02 PM
Savonarola stole the Apple of Eden, he got on Ezio's way, he got killed, he also did it as a personal thing "This crazy *** fundamentalist is ruining mah city", but that is not the Assassin's creed, they believe humanity should be allowed to do as they please, based on those beliefs the Assassins in theory should not interfere with Savonarola, he had the freedom to do what he did and it was up to the citizens of Florence to stop him if they were not pleased by his actions.

VestigialLlama4
09-23-2015, 12:16 PM
Savonarola stole the Apple of Eden, he got on Ezio's way, he got killed, he also did it as a personal thing "This crazy *** fundamentalist is ruining mah city", but that is not the Assassin's creed, they believe humanity should be allowed to do as they please, based on those beliefs the Assassins in theory should not interfere with Savonarola, he had the freedom to do what he did and it was up to the citizens of Florence to stop him if they were not pleased by his actions.

Savonarola using the Apple to impose religion is not humanity doing what they please, it's one man building a theocracy.

The Assassins definitely do care about a bunch of stuff nothing to do with the Templars. As Altair says,


Man seeks dominion over all that he encounters. I suppose it is a natural tendency for us to aspire towards mastery of our surroundings. But this should not include other human beings. Every day more and more are pressed into service – by deception or by force. Others, though not so firmly imprisoned, are made to feel as if their lives are worthless. I have seen the ways in which men persecute women. Heard the cruel words hurled at those who come here from other lands. Watched as those who believe or act differently are made to suffer...

We discuss such things often – watching as we do from the spires of Masyaf. What can be done to stop this? To encourage tolerance and equality? Some days we speak of education, believing that knowledge will free us from immorality. But as I walk the streets and see slaves sent off to auction – my heart grows cold. When I see the husband hurl abuses and stones at his wife, insisting she exists only to serve him – my fists clench. And when I see children torn from their parents so that another man might profit – sent off to suffer beneath the desert sun and die...
...On these days, I do not think that dialogue will make a difference. On these days, I can think only of how the perpetrators need to die.

Altair's Codex - 14

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Alta%C3%AFr_Ibn-La'Ahad's_Codex



There's not any mention of Templars there. Only anger at injustice. In fact the thing about Altair is that most of his life was spent tackling non-Templars. Whether it's Evil Assassin Abbas, the Mongols under Genghis Khan (who is definitely not a Templar but a dude with a First Civ Sword). It's only the early part with AC1 and Bloodlines that he fought Templars, then he married one and kind of focused on rebuilding the order, changing rites and rules and focusing on bigger issues. Like say, ensuring that the Assassins go underground even if the Mongols take out Masyaf, or finding out what the Apple and First Civ means, writing down Codex and becoming a philosopher.

Assassins definitely do believe in interfering that's for sure.

Farlander1991
09-23-2015, 12:30 PM
Savonarola stole the Apple of Eden, he got on Ezio's way, he got killed, he also did it as a personal thing "This crazy *** fundamentalist is ruining mah city", but that is not the Assassin's creed, they believe humanity should be allowed to do as they please, based on those beliefs the Assassins in theory should not interfere with Savonarola, he had the freedom to do what he did and it was up to the citizens of Florence to stop him if they were not pleased by his actions.

So what you're essentially saying is, if Savonarola wouldn't have any personal connection to Ezio, if he'd took control of an Apple of Eden in an unrelated way and with its power would impose his rulership over one city (and possibly more to follow after that) then Assassins would do nothing simply because he wasn't a Templar? I'm sorry, but that's kinda ******** :p Assassins protect the free will of humanity, and Templars aren't the only ones who can be a threat to it.

Besides, Assassins don't believe humanity should be allowed to do as they please. Assassins believe humanity should become wise and responsible to achieve peace, and the path to that shouldn't be imposed or forced on them. That's different. How Altair puts it, 'Our Creed does not command us to be free, it commands us to be wise'. And how Connor puts it, 'my enemy is a notion, not a nation'. Just because Templars represent that notion the most doesn't mean that they're the only ones with it.

ze_topazio
09-23-2015, 12:52 PM
The Assassins like the Templars don't want any common human touching a piece of eden, anyone who comes in contact with one is dealt with, the same for anyone who discovers too much about TWKB and the Assassins and Templars.

By interfering with the affairs of humans in the name of the "Assassin Brotherhood" that makes the Assassins just like the Templars, that doesn't mean they can't occasionally help a little but interfering too much goes against their beliefs of letting humans learn by themselves and craft their own road to wisdom.

The Assassins go against that all the time though.

VestigialLlama4
09-23-2015, 01:02 PM
The Assassins like the Templars don't want any common human touching a piece of eden, anyone who comes in contact with one is dealt with, the same for anyone who discovers too much about TWKB and the Assassins and Templars.

So why didn't Leonardo da Vinci get stabbed in the neck by Ezio? The first thing the Assassins do on coming in contact with it is go to the smartest guy they know.

In any case would you have a common human being come in contact with a Nuclear Weapon, or even for that matter a rocket launcher or a flamethrower? Or anything that deadly.


By interfering with the affairs of humans in the name of the "Assassin Brotherhood" that makes the Assassins just like the Templars, that doesn't mean they can't occasionally help a little but interfering too much goes against their beliefs of letting humans learn by themselves and craft their own road to wisdom.

The Assassins go against that all the time though.

Well the question that must be asked is if the Apple of Eden is genuinely useful or not. I don't think it's especially useful and mostly it drives people nuts.

ze_topazio
09-23-2015, 01:22 PM
Leonardo was a special associate, one they could trust, some of the Brotherhood Mediterranean missions deal with killing historians who discovered too much about them, remember?!

In that way the Assassins are just like the Templars, they have knowledge and evidence that all religions are nothing more than myths, they could end all religious problems in the world, yet they don't, they have access to technology that could improve everybody lives and health, yet they don't share it, in that way they're just like the Templars, had they shared all their knowledge with humanity since the beginning and by the time of Renaissance Humanity would be colonizing other planets, maybe...

The Assassins are just like the Jedi, "Only the Sith deal with absolutes", yet they're the ones who work as the galaxy police force.

dxsxhxcx
09-23-2015, 01:31 PM
Leonardo was a special associate, one they could trust, some of the Brotherhood Mediterranean missions deal with killing historians who discovered too much about them, remember?!

In that way the Assassins are just like the Templars, they have knowledge and evidence that all religions are nothing more than myths, they could end all religious problems in the world, yet they don't, they have access to technology that could improve everybody lives and health, yet they don't share it, in that way they're just like the Templars, had they shared all their knowledge with humanity since the beginning and by the time of Renaissance Humanity would be colonizing other planets, maybe...

The Assassins are just like the Jedi, "Only the Sith deal with absolutes", yet they're the ones who work as the galaxy police force.

you have too much faith in humanity, even Altair almost was corrupted by its power, put this kind of power into the hands of the "common" folk would be disastrous

ze_topazio
09-23-2015, 01:42 PM
The Assassins need to have faith in Humanity, is the Templars that think Humans are too stupid to be free.

But Altair had the monopoly of the Apple and became obsessed with studying it, if he had an entire group of people analyzing the Apple maybe he wouldn't have nearly succumb to it.

VestigialLlama4
09-23-2015, 03:15 PM
Leonardo was a special associate, one they could trust, some of the Brotherhood Mediterranean missions deal with killing historians who discovered too much about them, remember?!

Don't remember this at all. All I know is the main game where they defend a printer in one of the mercenary missions.


The Assassins are just like the Jedi, "Only the Sith deal with absolutes", yet they're the ones who work as the galaxy police force.

I don't really care for Star Wars but to me the point of this topic is whether Assassins should tackle other kinds of bad guys instead of Templars, to do a story where its not always about the Templars. After all in Black Flag, you had a fresh look at the Assassin's by having a total outsider, a pirate discuss and assess the theme of the Creed. In that game, one of the key Assassination missions is Laurens Prins, a slaveowner, not a Templar. It defines that the period where the pirates were hunted down by authorities who are in fact far more evil and bigger crooks than pirates ever were.

Much like Ezio/Savonarola, this kind of opponent defines what kind of character the player is and what he's fighting for (rather than fighting against). The fact that Edward kills this guy is important. Edward could have been a slaveowner, it's a legal profession at that time and more profitable than piracy after all, but the fact that he doesn't do that proves that there are lines he won't cross to get there. Edward is greedy but not as greedy as Prins otherwise he'd have sold Adewale rather than make him his First Mate. None of this is put into words but it comes across visually in interactions. The whole idea of the Assassin's Creed is about challenging conventional morality, in this case "what's more evil illegal piracy or legal slavery?" and that's what Black Flag does. I like that and I would like to see more of that. Use different villains to tell us what this guy is for, rather than what he's against.

The real purpose of the Assassin and Templar conflict is to ensure that the Assassins/the player doesn't change history too much. If not for the Templars, the Assassins would have made a better world and have greater successes. That's really what the conflict is about, that both of them are agents of history but neither gets to change things or win to do what they want. That's the deeper reason for the A v T fight and the way it uses conspiracy theories. Like AC3 had Assasins and Templars fight for history and both of them get screwed over and nobody wins. So the Templars have a role but it's more a stumbling block than a meaningful challenge. Aside from AC1 and AC3, the Templars are either forgettable (Revelations, Black Flag) or pure evil (AC2, Unity, MD Templars) and storylines will keep getting dull and predictable. So that's why introducing new kinds of stories/villains/opponents outside this black-white thing is a good idea.

Sorrosyss
09-23-2015, 03:44 PM
Nope, if anything I want more Templar focus - even a game dedicated to playing a Templar.

The two factions have existed since the start of humanity pretty much. Through history they are the ones who have guided and counter balanced the human race as their war raged on. If you introduced new enemies, it would fly in the face of this established continuity. There is no power vacuum in this universe, save for Juno. The only area you could add new factions is the Modern Day, and they have kind of done that with the Initiates, First Will and Erudito - but still they are still tied to the main factions in some fashion.

I see some people keen to drop modern day, and others keen to drop Templars. At this rate what are we going to have left? These elements make the series what it is. If you remove them all and try something different, you have a new IP in my view. And I don't want that. Or Watch Dogs replacing my modern day. :p

VestigialLlama4
09-23-2015, 03:47 PM
The other reason for Ubisoft to either modify or transcend exclusivel A v T stories is that after a while the stories will get depressing, in terms of leaving you hollow.

Like ROGUE, leaving aside my feelings about it's merits, is a depressing game, because you fight good guys and don't really serve any big cause aside from being part of a new gang. You are not really fighting for something. You just stumbled along by accident and bad luck (contrary to what he says, Shay does not make his own luck) and Shay ends up becoming Haytham's lapdog. In UNITY, the Templars basically win, Arno kills those guys but he doesn't win or achieve anything. Of course this only works by Unity's absurdly stupid schema but leaving aside my feelings about the game, Arno doesn't have anything at stake, he isn't really for something, and at the end it's not even clear he's an Assassin. Because both Rogue and Unity are entirely tunnel-focused on the A v T stuff, characterization and gameplay and stories, even in side missions is entirely filtered through this guy's a Templar/this guy's an Assassin.

I mean Black Flag, Edward doesn't have a happy ending, he loses his wife, all his friends and even Adewale has left the Jackdaw (I always do all the activities with Ade on deck, because to me Adewale is the First Mate and the Jackdaw is about their friendship) but he's at least had some kind of growth. And that's because the story is about something more than kill Templars. Even in AC3, it's a sad story on the whole but it's not depressing, because with the Homestead, with the Revolution, you get a sense that Connor at least had some kind of impact or achievement, even if a highly mixed one. The Homestead missions are the only real side missions where the Assassins basically help regular folk, not like Ezio, help Rome to fight Borgia and so on. Just basically help people because Connor's a good guy.

In AC2 likewise, the Bonfire mission is important for defining the Assassins. What Ezio tells people isn't "I met these friends who told me all I had to do was kill Templars and that's the true path of enlightenment", it's "there's no book to tell you, don't listen to the Church, to Savonarola, to the Medici and don't follow anyone, not even me". So you have to have a larger dimension and that comes easily when it's not as focused on fighting Templars.

VestigialLlama4
09-23-2015, 03:54 PM
I see some people keen to drop modern day, and others keen to drop Templars. At this rate what are we going to have left? These elements make the series what it is. If you remove them all and try something different, you have a new IP in my view. And I don't want that. Or Watch Dogs replacing my modern day. :p

Well what Assassin's Creed really is, if you come down to it is Parkour, Social Stealth, Historical Fiction, Architecture and stories about killing targets and the whole question about why such person needs to die and how these actions affect the character and his relationships. It's also about the humanity of these targets.

That's really what the games are about at heart, at its core. The Bonfire DLC shows that this can be done with non-Templars as effectively, in fact more effectively than with Templars. In that short span you have 10 characters who have far more interesting motivations and characterization then all of Unity's Templars and it's a similar kind of story and setting moreover.

Remember the title is Assassin's Creed, it's not Assassins Vs Templars, it's not Templar's Tenets. It's AC, the Assassins are the protagonist, the heroes, it's their ideas and viewpoint that governs the series. And in any case, the title is about the Creed, about "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" which means that it doesn't even have to be the Assassins themselves. It can be metaphor.

cawatrooper9
09-23-2015, 04:04 PM
I'd love to see more secret societies, but I think the Templars should always be the main villains (or at least a strong supporting villain).

Think Batman: Arkham Origins, which I won't spoil because people are overly sensitive to that kind of thing, or the second and third Transformers movies which I will spoil because no one needs to ever see them (Megatron is more of a secondary but persistent villain).

We don't need a complete focus on Templars, but their presence should be felt and heavy.

SixKeys
09-24-2015, 09:02 AM
Dropping the Templars at this point would be a major jump-the-shark moment - not that AC hasn't done that a long time ago already, but I digress. :rolleyes: The assassin/Templar war has always been the heart of the entire series. You can't just get rid of one side and replace it with something else entirely. It's about opposing ideologies, and the Templars are the opposing ideology to assassins. Savonarola, in comparison, was just a religious extremist but "crazy" isn't the polar opposite of free will. Total control is. The white room speeches wouldn't be nearly as thought-provoking without that mirror image theme.

The only thing I could see happening after the events of AC3 was the assassins and Templars grudgingly agreeing on a temporary truce to fight against Juno. It feels like that's what they may have been planning originally, judging by the parallels in Desmond's ponderings about a possible truce and Connor working with Haytham. But that never happened, and now Juno's been out and about for over 3 years and still hasn't achieved crap, so apparently she's not much of a threat anyhow. Now they've got the Instruments of Free Will which seemed like an attempt at injecting a third party, but they weren't even mentioned in Unity so who knows if they've dropped that idea or not. That's the thing: I don't trust the devs to come up with a new threat and stick with it.

cawatrooper9
09-24-2015, 07:20 PM
The only thing I could see happening after the events of AC3 was the assassins and Templars grudgingly agreeing on a temporary truce to fight against Juno. It feels like that's what they may have been planning originally, judging by the parallels in Desmond's ponderings about a possible truce and Connor working with Haytham. But that never happened, and now Juno's been out and about for over 3 years and still hasn't achieved crap, so apparently she's not much of a threat anyhow.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that there might be a Templar/Assassin truce in the makings once Juno actually does do something. As of Rogue last year (and some obscure text in Unity) Juno is still part of the franchise and working to regain power.

It's a slow burn (way too slow, to be honest) and Ubisoft would be wise to really jumpstart that thread again with Syndicate. We'll see if they actually do, or if I'm even more naive than I realize.