PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed III story question



Rioz22222
01-10-2016, 07:50 PM
Hello , I have played AC games since AC revelations anyway I was tired of new games so I went back to playing some old games anyway I was playing AC III right now for the 2nd time and realized something weird and have some questions :


1) why haythem didn't know anything about his son conner that he was taken to a village and was living with her mother ??

2) haythem loved conners mother ( his wife ) so why the heck he didn't protect her when village was burning ?

During the time village was burning 3) WHERE WAS HAYTHEM when all of his allies including charles were there and I just saw Chales LEE was almost killing conner and breaking his neck when he was a child so why later in game haythem didn't do anything about this that those templars group including charles lee( and fellows) killed mother of connor and also charles was almost breaking connor's neck ??? where was haythem he didn't defend anything

and why later in game it sounds like George washington burned that village even if he was his orders this means he was at british army before ? why connor didn't kill him if he knew GW burned his village ?

This is totally weird or has poor story line haythem didn't know his son and didn't do anything to charles or washington for killing his wife and almost killing connor !!

just wish connor would have never killed haythem he was a poor guy ... those templares first killed his father and mother and then his lover and almost his son ...
just don't understand why he stick to templars order even after he killed that reginald brich

ERICATHERINE
01-10-2016, 08:24 PM
Hello , I have played AC games since AC revelations anyway I was tired of new games so I went back to playing some old games anyway I was playing AC III right now for the 2nd time and realized something weird and have some questions :


1) why haythem didn't know anything about his son conner that he was taken to a village and was living with her mother ??

2) haythem loved conners mother ( his wife ) so why the heck he didn't protect her when village was burning ?

During the time village was burning 3) WHERE WAS HAYTHEM when all of his allies including charles were there and I just saw Chales LEE was almost killing conner and breaking his neck when he was a child so why later in game haythem didn't do anything about this that those templars group including charles lee( and fellows) killed mother of connor and also charles was almost breaking connor's neck ??? where was haythem he didn't defend anything

and why later in game it sounds like George washington burned that village even if he was his orders this means he was at british army before ? why connor didn't kill him if he knew GW burned his village ?

This is totally weird or has poor story line haythem didn't know his son and didn't do anything to charles or washington for killing his wife and almost killing connor !!

just wish connor would have never killed haythem he was a poor guy ... those templares first killed his father and mother and then his lover and almost his son ...
just don't understand why he stick to templars order even after he killed that reginald brich

For every question you asked, you can get the answer by reading the book Assassin's creed forsaken. By your question it seems you didn't read that book which is about Haytam so just in case you want to learn it by reading the book, I'll put your answers in a spoiler tag.

The answer to 1 and 2 are the same

Connor mother learned by eavesdroping a conversation between Haytam and Charles that Haytam accepted to let the Templar take the native land, which maked Zio enraged which resulted in her separating from him and after that Haytam was bannished from the village where Ziio lived, while she was pregnant from him.

The answer to your third question is that he was searching for his sister and that after that, he has been going killing Reginald Birch. He was injured there after having saved 2 Assassins that Reginald and him captured, by the one Haytam captured. He was injured so badly that he could not stand up for quite a while.

It's only after he was healed that he returned to America.

While The village burned it was George Washington and his troups doing.

Hope it help. ^-^

SixKeys
01-10-2016, 08:26 PM
1) why haythem didn't know anything about his son conner that he was taken to a village and was living with her mother ??



2) haythem loved conners mother ( his wife ) so why the heck he didn't protect her when village was burning ?

He didn't know, Ziio dumped him before Connor's birth. Did you miss the scene where Connor tells Haytham and he's shocked to hear of her death? Or the scene where Ziio talks about how she couldn't stay with Haytham after she found out he was a Templar? She basically cut off all contact with him so he had no idea what was going on in her village.



and why later in game it sounds like George washington burned that village even if he was his orders this means he was at british army before ? why connor didn't kill him if he knew GW burned his village ?

Washington did give the order. The natives were resisting the settlers (British or American), so he tried to get rid of them. As for Connor not killing him, that's a good question, I still think it's kinda dumb. I suppose the commonly accepted theory is that he knew Washington was essential in the fight against the British and killing him would have undone a lot of the work that had already been achieved.



This is totally weird or has poor story line haythem didn't know his son and didn't do anything to charles or washington for killing his wife and almost killing connor !!

Haytham didn't punish Lee because it was Washington who burned down the village. As for killing Connor, did you again miss ther scene where Haytham himself tried to kill Connor? He had no fatherly love for Connor - or at least, he was able to cast those emotions aside in favor of his mission.



just wish connor would have never killed haythem he was a poor guy ... those templares first killed his father and mother and then his lover and almost his son ...
just don't understand why he stick to templars order even after he killed that reginald brich

Templars never killed his lover and Haytham himself tried to kill his own son. I haven't read the books, so I don't know exactly how much Haytham knows about his family background, but he was brainwashed to believe in the Templar ideology ever since he was a child. He believed in the ideology and felt that sacrifices must sometimes be made for the greater good.

Rioz22222
01-10-2016, 08:43 PM
Thanks your answers helped , but still I think connor should have killed George washington

btw didn't knew Haythem didn't have any father love for connor ? I thought he had since he said this is the last journal I write maybe connor my own son reads this and understand and maybe he even fogives me ( video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZwk3Ap8yB (Kenewy family saga)I ) also I heard connor understands killing his father was a mistake after reading his journal ! ( maybe in Forsaken novel )

story of kenewy family was sad ( dumb question but wonder why Desmound or his father didn't get kenewy lastname ) but not worse than Unity story ending anyway...
really miss good story lines like Ezio trilogy he was such a legend with perfect story altho his family died but his ending was great ( revelations ) and embers
[[but it is still unclear if he was poisoned by the templar nearby or natural death ...]]

SpiritOfNevaeh
01-10-2016, 09:21 PM
About Ziio dumping Haytham, wrong reason Erica :P

I remember Ziio dumping him because

Haytham was supposed to kill Braddock for stealing their land, Haytham went to kill him and told Ziio that he was dead, when he really wasn't. He died from his injuries a few days later. I believe Charles Lee came out to where they camping, Ziio was hiding in a tree, Charles delivered the news, then left and Ziio confronted him about the lie and asked him to leave.

SixKeys
01-10-2016, 09:39 PM
Thanks your answers helped , but still I think connor should have killed George washington

btw didn't knew Haythem didn't have any father love for connor ? I thought he had since he said this is the last journal I write maybe connor my own son reads this and understand and maybe he even fogives me ( video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZwk3Ap8yB (http://Kenewy family saga)I ) also I heard connor understands killing his father was a mistake after reading his journal ! ( maybe in Forsaken novel )

Regardless of story reasons, Connor couldn't kill Washington in the game because he didn't historically die at that time. :p

Like I said before, Haytham may have had fatherly feelings for Connor, but he was able to cast those feelings aside because he believed the Templar cause was more important than family. Connor's death would have been a necessary sacrifice for him.

Connor always hoped that he and his father could reconcile their differences and that assassins and Templars could learn to work together. He had to kill Haytham because otherwise Haytham would have killed him, but Connor still regrets things had to get to that point.

ERICATHERINE
01-10-2016, 09:53 PM
About Ziio dumping Haytham, wrong reason Erica :P

I remember Ziio dumping him because

Haytham was supposed to kill Braddock for stealing their land, Haytham went to kill him and told Ziio that he was dead, when he really wasn't. He died from his injuries a few days later. I believe Charles Lee came out to where they camping, Ziio was hiding in a tree, Charles delivered the news, then left and Ziio confronted him about the lie and asked him to leave.

Actually, for these two reason, if I remember correctly. ^-^

Edit. And my name is Catherine. ╔ric is my brother. ^-^'

ERICATHERINE
01-10-2016, 10:12 PM
Thanks your answers helped

Your welcome. ^-^


dumb question but wonder why Desmound or his father didn't get kenewy lastname

For the same reason they don't have the last name of Auditore. Until some generation ago with each generation the womans always took the last name of their husbands right after getting married and the kids got the last name of their father. So, at least one generation between the one of Connor Kenway and the one of William Miles surely got no boy, but only girl. These girls generation took the name of their husbands which for one of them might have been "Miles".


but it is still unclear if he was poisoned by the templar nearby or natural death ...]]

Well if you take the time to read the credits of ac embers you can read that the man sitting next to Ezio at his death was just some random dude.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npaG_au4ov4

Check at 20 : 43 and you will see that it's just a "young man".

Assassin_M
01-10-2016, 11:02 PM
Connor didnt kill GW because he's not an idiot. What was Connor doing from sequence 8 till the end of 9? Stop the Templars from killing GW. Why did the Templars want to kill GW? Because they wanted to replace him with Charles Lee, one of their own, and effectively bring the colonies under their complete control. So, here's Connor trying to prevent the Templars from taking control by protecting good ol' Georgie. Lets say Connor gives in to revenge and kills the poor bloke. What happens next? Connor's work over the last 4 years would be undone. Charles Lee will swoop in and take control. Keeping that in mind, what's Connor's ethnicity? He's a Mohawk from the Kanienkah;ka tribe. Lets say I'm an american living at that time and I heard that the man fighting for my freedom and liberty was offed by a Native American. How would that look? Pretty bad for Connor AND even worse for his people, alienated as they already are. Sparing GW was the best choice for everyone involved.

Regarding Haytham, he never intended to kill Connor. No one intending to kill their son would write in their memoirs "I hope my son, that I'm about to fight, finds this". So, what, did he just write that for no reason? What if Haytham DID indeed kill Connor and came back to his journal? "Oh....well, now...that wont be necessary. Dear, Diary, I just killed my son". The novel and subtle hints from the game make it clear that Haytham had resolved to fall to Connor's blade. He never intended to compromise by saying he was wrong (Because, really, being a Templar is all he's ever known and it was too late to turn back now), but he also could not bring himself to kill his own son.

SixKeys
01-11-2016, 01:45 AM
Well if you take the time to read the credits of ac embers you can read that the man sitting next to Ezio at his death was just some random dude.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npaG_au4ov4

Check at 20 : 43 and you will see that it's just a "young man".

That doesn't rule out the possibility that he was a Templar. After all, Haytham wasn't credited as "Templar Grandmaster Haytham Kenway".

I'm only pointing this out because there's been quite a bit of debate about this guy on the forums over the years. :p

SixKeys
01-11-2016, 01:54 AM
Connor didnt kill GW because he's not an idiot. What was Connor doing from sequence 8 till the end of 9? Stop the Templars from killing GW. Why did the Templars want to kill GW? Because they wanted to replace him with Charles Lee, one of their own, and effectively bring the colonies under their complete control. So, here's Connor trying to prevent the Templars from taking control by protecting good ol' Georgie. Lets say Connor gives in to revenge and kills the poor bloke. What happens next? Connor's work over the last 4 years would be undone. Charles Lee will swoop in and take control. Keeping that in mind, what's Connor's ethnicity? He's a Mohawk from the Kanienkah;ka tribe. Lets say I'm an american living at that time and I heard that the man fighting for my freedom and liberty was offed by a Native American. How would that look? Pretty bad for Connor AND even worse for his people, alienated as they already are. Sparing GW was the best choice for everyone involved.

If Connor didn't want Lee replacing Washington, he could have simply killed both, leave the spot open for someone else. It still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. As for the natives being alienated, Connor already spent years going around murdering high-ranking officials on both sides. Why would George be the straw that broke the camel's back? Washington wasn't even terribly popular at the beginning of his career, as Lee's comments about him echo the sentiments of many at the time. (Inexperienced, unfit for office etc.) It was after the Americans won their independence that they fully embraced George.



Regarding Haytham, he never intended to kill Connor. No one intending to kill their son would write in their memoirs "I hope my son, that I'm about to fight, finds this". So, what, did he just write that for no reason? What if Haytham DID indeed kill Connor and came back to his journal? "Oh....well, now...that wont be necessary. Dear, Diary, I just killed my son". The novel and subtle hints from the game make it clear that Haytham had resolved to fall to Connor's blade. He never intended to compromise by saying he was wrong (Because, really, being a Templar is all he's ever known and it was too late to turn back now), but he also could not bring himself to kill his own son.

Then what was that scene in the church all about?

"Any last words?
-Wait!
-A poor choice." *gets ready to stab Connor*

He only stopped because Connor made a peace offering.

Assassin_M
01-11-2016, 02:11 AM
If Connor didn't want Lee replacing Washington, he could have simply killed both, leave the spot open for someone else. It still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. As for the natives being alienated, Connor already spent years going around murdering high-ranking officials on both sides. Why would George be the straw that broke the camel's back? Washington wasn't even terribly popular at the beginning of his career, as Lee's comments about him echo the sentiments of many at the time. (Inexperienced, unfit for office etc.) It was after the Americans won their independence that they fully embraced George.
Yes, kill them both and leave a huge power vacuum of instability. Who else would take their place? You don't think the Templars wouldn't have had a backup plan? Your explanation is a huge huge risk. Kill the non-Templar AND the Templar and hope no Templar would take their places or just leave the non-Templar there because you never really were about revenge in the first place. That said, Lee and his cohorts work REALLY fast. In a couple of days, they managed to pin GW's assassination on Connor. In a couple of months after Haytham's death, Charles had already mustered a small army of Templars to fight the newly founded state.

Furthermore, what you say still proves my point. Connor kills one commander in chief, and his second in command, that is one big mess. A mess that could cost Connor everything. Remember, he still had allies that he thought he could count on (That, of course, ends up miserably in the end), but if he kills GW AND Lee, he'd have no allies whatsoever. None. You're looking at this through the luxury of hindsight because we already know how it ends for Connor's people.

To your second point, that is simply not true. George Washington was very much popular among the colonists AND congress long before the war was over, far more so than Lee. Historically, Lee was challenged to many duels because of his rampant criticism and defaming of GW. More to that, there were many people like Mason Weems who greatly admired GW and wrote tons about him.




Then what was that scene in the church all about?

"Any last words?
-Wait!
-A poor choice." *gets ready to stab Connor*

He only stopped because Connor made a peace offering.
If he wanted to kill him, he wouldn't have pounced on him without stabbing him. This event was after Haytham saved Connor in sequence 8 from being hanged. Really, it's air assassination 101 and he had a golden chance. Haytham also says as he dies "I should have killed you long ago". He's most likely referring to this event in the church. He's lamenting his emotions that stopped his blade and made him save his son in NY.

Rioz22222
01-11-2016, 09:16 AM
Connor didnt kill GW because he's not an idiot. What was Connor doing from sequence 8 till the end of 9? Stop the Templars from killing GW. Why did the Templars want to kill GW? Because they wanted to replace him with Charles Lee, one of their own, and effectively bring the colonies under their complete control. So, here's Connor trying to prevent the Templars from taking control by protecting good ol' Georgie. Lets say Connor gives in to revenge and kills the poor bloke. What happens next? Connor's work over the last 4 years would be undone. Charles Lee will swoop in and take control. Keeping that in mind, what's Connor's ethnicity? He's a Mohawk from the Kanienkah;ka tribe. Lets say I'm an american living at that time and I heard that the man fighting for my freedom and liberty was offed by a Native American. How would that look? Pretty bad for Connor AND even worse for his people, alienated as they already are. Sparing GW was the best choice for everyone involved.

Regarding Haytham, he never intended to kill Connor. No one intending to kill their son would write in their memoirs "I hope my son, that I'm about to fight, finds this". So, what, did he just write that for no reason? What if Haytham DID indeed kill Connor and came back to his journal? "Oh....well, now...that wont be necessary. Dear, Diary, I just killed my son". The novel and subtle hints from the game make it clear that Haytham had resolved to fall to Connor's blade. He never intended to compromise by saying he was wrong (Because, really, being a Templar is all he's ever known and it was too late to turn back now), but he also could not bring himself to kill his own son.

Totally agreed also if you see Haythem clip in Assassin's rouge in abstergo Berg says he was grand master of colonies ruthless .... and after a while he says he made a mistake and had gone soft which caused being killed by his son ...

altho I really doubt if all templars have been bad guy or all assassin's have been good guys

bad assassin's for example Jack the ripper or bellec ( in unity ) or achilies ( and others you kill in rouge ) ...

good templars like shay cormac / elise / father of elise de lasser ...

but still some how AC feels much more right than Templars order


I really think AC III should have been made After AC rouge ... some parts doesn't even make sense like shay cormac had no encounter with connor or the fact that achilies told nothing about his self and what happened to him to connor also in rouge young achilies says something about little connor but in AC III he doesnt tell him connor at first and then he chose that name for him also there is no picture of shay on achilies wall ... story is not complete about all characters really ... perhaps a Revelation II ?

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 03:52 PM
It could be argued that Connor "sees something" in Washington, but honestly I think this hearkens to the anachronistic ethics and philosophy of the Assassins. Even while Connor sees Washington's faults, he (like many Americans) sees him as a great and important man.

Assassins don't necessarily kill just because they dislike someone, they're not psychopaths. Ezio, for instance, never killed Duccio (though, given the part he played in the Da Vinci conspiracy, perhaps he could've been less lenient). Washington, similarly, had done some terrible things- but he was not a part of the Templar schemes, and therefore not fair game for Connor to kill.

Farlander1991
01-11-2016, 03:56 PM
Then what was that scene in the church all about?

"Any last words?
-Wait!
-A poor choice." *gets ready to stab Connor*

He only stopped because Connor made a peace offering.

Vader wouldn't have any problems killing Luke in their first meeting either :p

I didn't read Forsaken, but I always thought of Haytham's death as him allowing himself to be killed so he wouldn't have to kill his son, as he knew due to them both going too far into their own ideologies, one had to die.


Ezio, for instance, never killed Duccio (though, given the part he played in the Da Vinci conspiracy, perhaps he could've been less lenient).

While we're at it, Ezio never killed Rodrigo as well (the whole part with Rodrigo at the end doesn't make sense with Ezio's character arc being about getting above personal feelings and desire for revenge).

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 04:25 PM
Vader wouldn't have any problems killing Luke in their first meeting either :p

I didn't read Forsaken, but I always thought of Haytham's death as him allowing himself to be killed so he wouldn't have to kill his son, as he knew due to them both going too far into their own ideologies, one had to die.



To be fair, when asked later, Haytham says he spared Connor due to "curiosity". Whether or not that's true, of course, depends on if you're willing to trust a Templar.



While we're at it, Ezio never killed Rodrigo as well (the whole part with Rodrigo at the end doesn't make sense with Ezio's character arc being about getting above personal feelings and desire for revenge).
I mean, that is true, and it certainly is about Ezio's character arc. As Machiavelli points out, he probably should have killed Rodrigo- in this case, the anachronistic (and almost meta-aware) Assassin mentality caused Ezio to be merciful to a fault.

Farlander1991
01-11-2016, 05:01 PM
I mean, that is true, and it certainly is about Ezio's character arc. As Machiavelli points out, he probably should have killed Rodrigo- in this case, the anachronistic (and almost meta-aware) Assassin mentality caused Ezio to be merciful to a fault.

I wouldn't really have problems with Ezio sparing Rodrigo in general if not how it was portrayed.

Bonfire DLC shows that Ezio has learned that it's more about greater good than personal vendettas and that he shouldn't be consumed by vengeance.
So he goes in to kill Rodrigo not because it's about vengeance, but about his duty as an Assassin.
But then he gets to Rodrigo, and is like, 'I thought I was above this, but I'm not, die you ****ing bastard'. So he's actually consumed by vengeance.
And then they fight. And then they fight again, but this time he doesn't kill Rodrigo because he's above revenge and this won't bring his family back, but forgets about his duty as an Assassin.

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 05:04 PM
So he goes in to kill Rodrigo not because it's about vengeance, but about his duty as an Assassin.
But then he gets to Rodrigo, and is like, 'I thought I was above this, but I'm not, die you ****ing bastard'. So he's actually consumed by vengeance.
And then they fight. And then they fight again, but this time he doesn't kill Rodrigo because he's above revenge and this won't bring his family back, but forgets about his duty as an Assassin.

Right, which heavily implies that he absolutely went to Rome to kill Rodrigo out of vengeance than duty... which kind of negates the more powerful message in Bonfires.
Can's help but wonder if the discrepancy is due to Bonfire not being released as part of the main game originally.

ERICATHERINE
01-11-2016, 05:07 PM
To be fair, when asked later, Haytham says he spared Connor due to "curiosity". Whether or not that's true, of course, depends on if you're willing to trust a Templar.

Actually, if I remember what I readed in forsaken correctly, when answering "out of curiosity", he said this without really thinking about it.

Also, if I remember correctly. When he said, just before finding the Benjamin Church decoy, that : how is your mother doing these days? He wrote in his dairy which is forsaken that he feel stupid having said that, because he actualy knew that she was dead years ago. ^-^

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 06:07 PM
Actually, if I remember what I readed in forsaken correctly, when answering "out of curiosity", he said this without really thinking about it.

Also, if I remember correctly. When he said, just before finding the Benjamin Church decoy, that : how is your mother doing these days? He wrote in his dairy which is forsaken that he feel stupid having said that, because he actualy knew that she was dead years ago. ^-^

Haven't read the book, so I guess I can't say.

I really need to pick it up, though.

poptartz20
01-11-2016, 06:52 PM
I still feel that "I should have killed you long ago" is the closest thing that we'll get to an I love you / care for you.

Assassin_M
01-11-2016, 07:16 PM
Actually, if I remember what I readed in forsaken correctly, when answering "out of curiosity", he said this without really thinking about it.
He actually does think about it. When Connor asks, Haytham thinks: "I could have let you die at the gallows, I thought. I could have had Thomas kill you in Bridewell. What stayed my hand on those two occasions also? What was the answer? Was I getting old? Sentimental? Perhaps I was nostalgic for a life I never really had.None of this I especially cared to share with Connor, however, and, eventually, after a pause, I dismissed his question with: “Curiosity. Any other questions?”"

ERICATHERINE
01-11-2016, 07:23 PM
Haven't read the book, so I guess I can't say.

I really need to pick it up, though.

I have read it 2 times, but I don't have the book and my friends don't have it either. To read it, I borrow the book at the library. ^-^

ze_topazio
01-11-2016, 07:28 PM
I still feel that "I should have killed you long ago" is the closest thing that we'll get to an I love you / care for you.

That was the best final line for Haytham, means he acknowledged Connor's skills, probably the kindest thing he ever said to anyone.

ERICATHERINE
01-11-2016, 07:29 PM
He actually does think about it. When Connor asks, Haytham thinks: "I could have let you die at the gallows, I thought. I could have had Thomas kill you in BridewellPrison. What stayed my hand on those two occasions also? What was the answer? Was I getting old?Sentimental? Perhaps I was nostalgic for a life I never really had.None of this I especially cared to share with Connor, however, and, eventually, after a pause, Idismissed his question with: “Curiosity. Any other questions?”"

Ahh, dismissed the question. That's what he said. Sorry. I just said what I remember at the best of my memory. The last time I readed forsaken happenned aproximately half a year ago, so I hope you understand my error. ^-^'

SixKeys
01-11-2016, 11:53 PM
If he wanted to kill him, he wouldn't have pounced on him without stabbing him. This event was after Haytham saved Connor in sequence 8 from being hanged. Really, it's air assassination 101 and he had a golden chance. Haytham also says as he dies "I should have killed you long ago". He's most likely referring to this event in the church. He's lamenting his emotions that stopped his blade and made him save his son in NY.

You will notice I carefully avoid mentioning any book events in my posts. That's because I don't care about what's in them, I only care about what we see or what is implied in the games. I believe I shouldn't have to buy external media in order to get the full story. What we see in the game is that Connor is saved from a hanging right after we see his assassin recruits on the rooftops and Achilles is already underneath the podium to help him. Achilles couldn't possibly know Haytham would save Connor so WTF was he doing there? The game implies it was one of the assassin recruits who saved Connor. I think the novel as Haytham's journal is stupid (for precisely the reasons you mentioned earlier - as if he would write all these things in advance on the off-chance that Connor might one day find the book) and in many ways goes against his character as presented in the game, so I don't take it into consideration when discussing the plot of the game. I recognize that the books are officially considered canon, but for me, what's not in the games doesn't matter.

cawatrooper9
01-12-2016, 12:00 AM
I only care about what we see or what is implied in the games. I believe I shouldn't have to buy external media in order to get the full story.



I recognize that the books are officially considered canon, but for me, what's not in the games doesn't matter.

This x1000.

I appreciate that we get lots of AC media (though I honestly have read only a little bit of it, so far, but I don't think that it should necessarily focus on what is in the games at all, but contribute to the overall universe. From what I understand, the comics significantly improved after leaving Desmond's story behind (I've read all the comics with Desmond), which makes sense, because they consistently caused huge continuity errors. Similarly, Forsaken basically walled in Haytham's story, even outside of the events of ACIII. Maybe we could've gotten Haytham as the star of Rogue instead of Shay if the book hadn't existed.

SixKeys
01-12-2016, 12:10 AM
This x1000.

I appreciate that we get lots of AC media (though I honestly have read only a little bit of it, so far, but I don't think that it should necessarily focus on what is in the games at all, but contribute to the overall universe. From what I understand, the comics significantly improved after leaving Desmond's story behind (I've read all the comics with Desmond), which makes sense, because they consistently caused huge continuity errors. Similarly, Forsaken basically walled in Haytham's story, even outside of the events of ACIII. Maybe we could've gotten Haytham as the star of Rogue instead of Shay if the book hadn't existed.

The whole question of what is canon and what is not is a bit vague anyway. The novels sometimes have glaring differences, like AC2's novelization which ends with the Pope killing himself. Haytham's journal makes no mention of Shay who was supposedly a key figure in eliminating the American brotherhood. The French comics featuring Desmond have been officially declared non-canon except the parts that don't clash with the games. So Aquilus is still officially one of Desmond's ancestors but other stuff like Subject 16's real name being Michael is not canon. Hell, there's even some question marks as regards the games. Who is in the Animus during Alta´r's Chronicles? Desmond? Since when did he have time for that?

The AC universe is getting more complicated than Marvel and DC and it's ludicrous to expect everyone to keep up with all external media on offer. The games' stories should - nay, must - be strong enough to stand on their own, without the player having to keep Wikipedia on hand at all times.

BATISTABUS
01-12-2016, 06:39 AM
Thanks your answers helped , but still I think connor should have killed George washington
https://youtu.be/H6d79JHh3cU?t=18
"They did, I suppose, do what was right...what was right for them."

Connor and Washington trusted each other (at the least, they possibly considered each other friends) before this truth was revealed. Washington making this decision had nothing to do with Connor as an individual or any sort of hatred for a group of people; he did it in defense of the people that he was sworn to serve. Since Connor believes in duty and the greater good, it was something that he could understand even if he completely disagreed with it. After all, Connor has killed plenty of people for what he thought was right.

At the moment Haytham revealed this, Washington was currently doing what Connor thought was right, and that was more important. Their relationship would never be the same, but Connor could forgive enough to not feel the need to murder the man.


and embers
[[but it is still unclear if he was poisoned by the templar nearby or natural death ...]]
The ending was meant to be ambiguous, but there is an answer and it is definitive.

If you pause at the right moment and zoom in on the young man's bracer...
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb218/justinbatista12/cross_zps88c3abe7.png
Source: I took this screenshot myself.



Ezio, for instance, never killed Duccio.
While Duccio is a jerk, he's pretty harmless overall.


While we're at it, Ezio never killed Rodrigo as well (the whole part with Rodrigo at the end doesn't make sense with Ezio's character arc being about getting above personal feelings and desire for revenge).
I think this is the biggest character-based plot hole in all of AC. The only excuse that makes sense is that Rodrigo did not die on this date, and thus they had to just force this character development.

cawatrooper9
01-12-2016, 03:56 PM
The whole question of what is canon and what is not is a bit vague anyway. The novels sometimes have glaring differences, like AC2's novelization which ends with the Pope killing himself.

Wait, really?

See, this is why I don't read the novels, they just seem like a waste of time to me. Let alone that Forsaken probably didn't help the development of the Kenway saga at all, this just seems easily avoidable. Even with being completely ignorant of the ending of the game, a simple Google search would show Pope Alexander VI dying in 1503, about four years after the ending of AC2. Somebody in the multimedia department needs to hire Shaun Hastings to get their facts straight.

Farlander1991
01-12-2016, 04:39 PM
Wait, really?

See, this is why I don't read the novels, they just seem like a waste of time to me. Let alone that Forsaken probably didn't help the development of the Kenway saga at all, this just seems easily avoidable. Even with being completely ignorant of the ending of the game, a simple Google search would show Pope Alexander VI dying in 1503, about four years after the ending of AC2. Somebody in the multimedia department needs to hire Shaun Hastings to get their facts straight.

You are being unfair now, as AC2 novel ends in 1503 :p It would be based on the story AC2 had in the middle of development, and AC2 originally ended in 1503 with Rodrigo's death.

This is also why the novel has things like Cristina sections we wouldn't see in game until ACB, that were originally planned for AC2 and script for them was found in game files.

ERICATHERINE
01-12-2016, 05:42 PM
Let alone that Forsaken probably didn't help the development of the Kenway saga at all, this just seems easily avoidable.

I think not. Forsaken, while showing us every thing needed to be known about Haytam (except for the part about ac rogue) and finishing with Connor, also tell us how Edward died. ^-^

cawatrooper9
01-12-2016, 05:47 PM
You are being unfair now, as AC2 novel ends in 1503 :p It would be based on the story AC2 had in the middle of development, and AC2 originally ended in 1503 with Rodrigo's death.

This is also why the novel has things like Cristina sections we wouldn't see in game until ACB, that were originally planned for AC2 and script for them was found in game files.

Ah. Well, maybe I shouldn't be talking about these books having not read them. Though, again, the writer clearly outstepped his jurisdiction in this case.


I think not. Forsaken, while showing us every thing needed to be known about Haytam (except for the part about ac rogue) and finishing with Connor, also tell us how Edward died. ^-^

And it also tied Haytham up so that he couldn't be the protagonist of future games (after all, no one would want to play a game that had already been the plot of a book a year or more before. Plus, it introduced some contradictions (like many have noticed the contradictions with Eddie Kenway's behavior).

Farlander1991
01-12-2016, 06:43 PM
Ah. Well, maybe I shouldn't be talking about these books having not read them. Though, again, the writer clearly outstepped his jurisdiction in this case.

Did he, though? I guess from a trans-media lore perspective you can argue that he did, but back then AC wasn't really a transmedia franchise, and the novel was, well, novelization of a game. An adaptation. Saying that he outstepped his jurisdiction to me is like saying that Jackson shouldn't have added Osgiliath in The Two Towers (which has one of the best moments in the entire movie), or that creators of X-Men Origins: Wolverine game shouldn't have made all the changes to support gameplay and narrative (arguably making it a better narrative than the movie), etc. etc. Quality of the final product aside (I haven't read it so can't judge), changes are inevitable in any adaptation.

And even if we look at it from trans-media perspective, changes and inconsistencies aren't necessarily bad. Maybe that's a person who once was a fan of Star Wars talking, where each movie had 4 versions of it (movie, novel, comic, game) each with their own differences, plus the Extended Universe had so much stuff in it a lot of it contradicting, that I don't really mind those things. Even Tolkien's work which is like the most consistent fictional universe has inconsistencies and retcons.

Ultimately, one should look at this IMO from the perspective of mythology rather than history. And, most importantly, that the work itself is good. I agree with SixKeys fullheartedly that as AC is primarily the games, then it's the games that should matter and that you don't need any kind of trans-media, just the games. But the whole extended universe thing, well... one should focus on it telling good stories and enriching the universe rather than looking if it avoids every possible contradiction.

cawatrooper9
01-12-2016, 10:02 PM
Well, Farlander, that's pretty much my point- sure, it's difficult to not make changes in an adaptation. But if, in a transmedia situation like this, a supplementary material ends up boxing in the primary material's options, then it should never have existed in the first place.

The games should always come first. If we can find a way to make novels, graphic novels, and the like work with them, then great! But until then, I think we should focus on not overcomplicating things for the fans and developers alike. Heaven knows AC could use it.

rebelguy007
01-13-2016, 02:48 PM
Ah. Well, maybe I shouldn't be talking about these books having not read them. Though, again, the writer clearly outstepped his jurisdiction in this case.



And it also tied Haytham up so that he couldn't be the protagonist of future games (after all, no one would want to play a game that had already been the plot of a book a year or more before. Plus, it introduced some contradictions (like many have noticed the contradictions with Eddie Kenway's behavior).

I'm pretty sure the books are based on the scripts though, changes occur/scenes are cut before the game is released but after the book is out, so if anything its not his fault for discrepancies unless they're his idea. For Edward though, his behaviour in Forsaken makes a lot of sense to me. He acts a lot like he did at the AC4 finale, a man of conviction. He's grown up, become a father twice, become a wise assassin and has a loving wife. It seemed like the best arc, character wise and not OOC imo

Rioz22222
01-13-2016, 03:10 PM
I think not. Forsaken, while showing us every thing needed to be known about Haytam (except for the part about ac rogue) and finishing with Connor, also tell us how Edward died. ^-^

that is BECAUSE Assassin's creed story is not like star wars or marvel comics OR hobbit and lord of rings and by that I mean those were written before and then they made movies and games from them but AC is totally different it first came up with a game and it was meant to be only 3 episodes which means AC : III should have been the last but when developers see how successful the world of Assassin's creed is so they just continued making games every single year you can easily detect this by seeing how story changed after AC III and some even say assassin's creed series died with end of AC III and desmound's death


The whole question of what is canon and what is not is a bit vague anyway. The novels sometimes have glaring differences, like AC2's novelization which ends with the Pope killing himself. Haytham's journal makes no mention of Shay who was supposedly a key figure in eliminating the American brotherhood. The French comics featuring Desmond have been officially declared non-canon except the parts that don't clash with the games. So Aquilus is still officially one of Desmond's ancestors but other stuff like Subject 16's real name being Michael is not canon. Hell, there's even some question marks as regards the games. Who is in the Animus during Alta´r's Chronicles? Desmond? Since when did he have time for that?

The AC universe is getting more complicated than Marvel and DC and it's ludicrous to expect everyone to keep up with all external media on offer. The games' stories should - nay, must - be strong enough to stand on their own, without the player having to keep Wikipedia on hand at all times.


Wait, really?

See, this is why I don't read the novels, they just seem like a waste of time to me. Let alone that Forsaken probably didn't help the development of the Kenway saga at all, this just seems easily avoidable. Even with being completely ignorant of the ending of the game, a simple Google search would show Pope Alexander VI dying in 1503, about four years after the ending of AC2. Somebody in the multimedia department needs to hire Shaun Hastings to get their facts straight.


As I said above It's just because they are trying to fix story and make it more exciting but if they only go with the story they had in mind first then AC is over until AC III

Bottom line : I think the real problem is they didn't had good plans for future saw the future of AC games story LIMITED just to AC III (( like Prince of persia which was ended after some games )) and that is why we can't connect those comics and recent games such as rouge DIRECTLY to previous AC games story but in a different way ...
anyway that was the mistake developers did not having a good plan for story line and the results is something like syndicate perfect gameplay awful story and really none sense ending [I just hope this rumors about assassin's creed : empire 2017 be true and we get some kind of trilogy for hawk or who ever the character is going to be ]

in my opinion it is like you are willing to make a building and when it is done you really don't wanna stop just there you want to continue on but when you make new parts of it you can't see much of connection between this building and more specific having no plans for future of your story is like making a building from middle of it you try to fill the holes all the time but there are some empty holes all the time and you can't undo what you have done (rule of AC universe no reboot in it ) ...

aside of all these I think trying to explain history events with AC characters exactly like they happened make it even more worse for story since you can't kill some lead historical characters in games such as Geroge washington not because you assassins doesn't want to but because they didn't officially died at that time and so on you can't change history but I really hope they just put Real history aside and change some parts of it why we play games anyway to have fun and also

it will be good and really funny to see how ubisoft is playing with history and what is offspring of it or what happens in future ( for example if adolf hitler was assassinated 7 years sooner than his death on his plane ) Not just showing the history the way it was cuz sometimes it sucked :) please ubisoft don't take history too serious

cawatrooper9
01-13-2016, 03:29 PM
that is Assassin's creed story is not like star wars or marvel comics hobbit and lord of rings and by that I mean those were written before and then they made movies and games from them


Be that as it may, apparently the development team has planned out a story for the next 15 years or so. Not sure how true this is, but their word is all we have to go on for now. Also, I'm not sure Marvel is a great example there either. The comics (as much as I love them) are basically the definition of "milking a franchise", and the movies are getting to be similar too.

Rioz22222
01-13-2016, 03:51 PM
Be that as it may, apparently the development team has planned out a story for the next 15 years or so. Not sure how true this is, but their word is all we have to go on for now. Also, I'm not sure Marvel is a great example there either. The comics (as much as I love them) are basically the definition of "milking a franchise", and the movies are getting to be similar too.

sorry I missed because in my post ---- hope so if that rumor is true then we should be expecting great games coming out altho if they keep doing major gameplay changes games will BOOM like zip lines for syndicate really can't imagine how great Assassin's creed games could be if they work on each for 5-6 years like gta / witcher series ----

Yea you'r right marvel was not a very good example it has LOTS of different version and tons of comics for each character and alot of characters at ( in one word multiple universes makes it really confusing to know every thing about a hero well so you can only rely on movies which are more realistic and story feels better [ some of marvel comics feel like fairy tales ( too imaginary ) ] but at least AC universe is moving in one line even tho marvel had alot of different basics, back grounds and stories but when they are making a movie they chose the story wisely not exactly like the comic or better say comics and make some changes in it but AC universe didn't have any good basics that can grantee future so :) but as I said above will be really cool if they do now !!
indeed I agree novels most of times in most of cases are waste of time but some can be really great like novels of witcher such as lady of lake ( if i am not wrong it's a sad story ) forsaken ain't that bad too

VestigialLlama4
01-17-2016, 09:49 PM
1) why haythem didn't know anything about his son conner that he was taken to a village and was living with her mother ??

The brief moment in the game...the bridge between Haytham and Connor's section has Ziio noting that eventually she and Haytham broke up because she disagreed with the whole Templar idea. Haytham didn't know she was pregnant at all.


2) haythem loved conners mother ( his wife ) so why the heck he didn't protect her when village was burning ?

During the time village was burning 3) WHERE WAS HAYTHEM when all of his allies including charles were there and I just saw Chales LEE was almost killing conner and breaking his neck when he was a child so why later in game haythem didn't do anything about this that those templars group including charles lee( and fellows) killed mother of connor and also charles was almost breaking connor's neck ??? where was haythem he didn't defend anything

This part is actually never really explained or clarified. It's never made clear what Charles Lee, Hickey and others were doing that day at Connor's village when Lee beats up 4 Year Old Connor. Haytham tells Connor that he told Lee and Co. to stay away from First Civilization sites. So this means that Lee was acting independently from Haytham. But basically it's a huge plot hole.


and why later in game it sounds like George washington burned that village even if he was his orders this means he was at british army before ? why connor didn't kill him if he knew GW burned his village ?

Well again it's not explained since George Washington never verbally acknowledges that he did it. Haytham mentions it and we are just meant to accept it even if it makes no sense. You are welcome to take that anyway you want. As for why Connor doesn't kill George Washington (even if he seemingly believes Washington did it), it's because the Creed and opposing the Templars matters more, that Connor feels conflicted and loyal to Washington and the Patriot's vision of America (even if they themselves will never truly live up to it).

Connor does get catharsis in Tyranny of King Washington, where George Washington rejects the Apple and resolves to make America a Republic, which the Templars were totally opposed to. They wanted a dictatorship with Charles Lee in Charge and Haytham in Charge of Charles.


just don't understand why he stick to templars order even after he killed that reginald brich

Yeah that part makes zero sense to me. I guess it's a case of having come too far he can't back out.


This is totally weird or has poor story line haythem didn't know his son and didn't do anything to charles or washington for killing his wife and almost killing connor !!

You actually hit the nail on the central flaw of AC3's story. The Climax is a huge mess. Basically the writers didn't know how to resolve the Connor-Haytham/Connor-Washington/Connor-Lee issues and they came up with a poorly written and nonsensical hodgepodge. It's clear from the game until then that Lee was definitely involved in the burning of that village, that he was there that morning and it's not specified why but for weird reasons they didn't follow through on the actual plot logic of their story.

VoldR
01-17-2016, 11:02 PM
This part is actually never really explained or clarified. It's never made clear what Charles Lee, Hickey and others were doing that day at Connor's village when Lee beats up 4 Year Old Connor. Haytham tells Connor that he told Lee and Co. to stay away from First Civilization sites. So this means that Lee was acting independently from Haytham. But basically it's a huge plot hole.

Something I post on the same question on another forum for this question. :)

According to the lore, Connor finds Haytham's journal indicating he does indeed know of his existence and have even been the one who saved him from execution by cutting the rope with a knife.

As for his whereabouts during the burn, according to the timeline, Haytham was with Shay when the village burned and he told his Templars not to endanger the village for his own reasons and as u said GW is the one who ordered it as Haythem later points out late in AC:III.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFsXwLwKkWI&index=13&list=PLCF9E0Sg9_ldZ_dgUFBnhsMpnOq57Ly4d
In this video, it begins at the ending of AC:Rogue and around 13:00 AC:III begins where we first see Connor and the village before the fires.

That is where he's father was at the time and busy with "work" while mother & son and back at home.
Haytham saw a vision of the village when he pushed that Assassin through the Precurser energy field. 4:35

ERICATHERINE
01-18-2016, 12:09 AM
Yeah that part makes zero sense to me. I guess it's a case of having come too far he can't back out.

The way I see it, it's more like Alta´r said in the last video of it's first mission in ac revelations. How could he regret the only life he ever known or something like that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGkmua1V-Ek

7:16 to 7:24.

VestigialLlama4
01-18-2016, 05:23 AM
The way I see it, it's more like Alta´r said in the last video of it's first mission in ac revelations. How could he regret the only life he ever known or something like that.

That's not really the same thing at all. Haytham had known different lives. He had a happy family life and then an entire long adolescence under a guy who mentors him. Haytham finds out that his second life has been a lie. He's been serving the very people who killed his father and sold his sister into slavery and then after doing that, he basically decides "Guess Templars, amirite?".

He doesn't have a logical reason to continue serving that organisation. I mean in AC3, Haytham rants to Connor about the Templars not needing indoctrination by desperate old men...but that's precisely what happened to him. He was indoctrinated by a crazy, desperate old man.

SixKeys
01-18-2016, 07:11 AM
That's not really the same thing at all. Haytham had known different lives. He had a happy family life and then an entire long adolescence under a guy who mentors him. Haytham finds out that his second life has been a lie. He's been serving the very people who killed his father and sold his sister into slavery and then after doing that, he basically decides "Guess Templars, amirite?".

He doesn't have a logical reason to continue serving that organisation. I mean in AC3, Haytham rants to Connor about the Templars not needing indoctrination by desperate old men...but that's precisely what happened to him. He was indoctrinated by a crazy, desperate old man.

People don't always act in logical ways after being brainwashed. How many stories are there of people who grew up in a religious cult and made it out, only to fall into something similar to fill that void? It's not easy to throw away your entire world view.

VestigialLlama4
01-18-2016, 08:09 AM
People don't always act in logical ways after being brainwashed.

If Assassin's Creed were a series with realistic plots than I would agree with this, but the games have a lot of melodramatic plots with revenge and orphan fantasies (the only games with what I'd consider realistic plots are AC1, Black Flag and Syndicate). In the Forsaken novel, which is our only source for Haytham's background and which Rogue's MD via Otso Berg confirms is canon, Haytham joins the Templars hoping that they will help him avenge his father and rescue his sister. That was his personal goal and the journal is mainly written to account for that. After going through all that, in the end, he kills Birch and basically still continues as a Templar knowing that many of the leaders were in cahoots with his father's murder. So in that sense his character motivation makes little sense.


How many stories are there of people who grew up in a religious cult and made it out, only to fall into something similar to fill that void? It's not easy to throw away your entire world view

Yes but people do that when faced with great betrayal. Like these ex-Scientologists coming out of the woodwork. People breaking out of a set of beliefs they are indoctrinated with by questioning and debating that ideology is a wholly different thing (Altair questioning Al Mualim in AC1 is an example of this) than being out-and-out betrayed and used like a puppet by the same organization from your very arrival.

This is actually similar to the Connor-Washington problem and the over-written story of AC3 really. Basically the writers pile on melodrama where none is needed. In AC3, when Washington orders the Sullivan Expedition, which the real life guy did do. That itself is sufficent motivation for Connor to break away from Washington. But then unnecessarily they have Haytham saying Washington ordered the village which directly contradicts with what we see: Charles Lee and his other Templars being there at that village that morning. If Washington did order that attack (when historically he had retired his commission at this time), and Haytham told them to leave Ziio and the First Civ Precursor site alone, then what was Lee and Co. doing there? They never answer that latter question nor do they provide good reasons for why Connor continues to hunt down Lee and Haytham. When you play the game you get that they are trying to put the emotion of hoplessness and pyrrhic victory for Connor, that no matter what he does, he still loses, and that emotional idea gets communicated well, but plot wise it's dissatisfying.

Ultimately, it comes down to the whole problem of Haytham as a character. Darby McDevitt and Corey May decided that they needed Templars who are not as bad as Rodrigo Borgia and make the Assassin-Templar conflict like AC1 which was a more gray affair. But they never manage to hammer it down properly because for Connor's story to be satisfying, the Templars need to be the bad guys, he needs to have a certain avenue of victory as a player character when in the larger historical context he is a loser. That's basically the problem with minority characters in historical settings. So Haytham became the "Good Templar" without really defining or thinking deeply about it. In gameplay terms, the most linear sections of AC3 are with Haytham, the opening sequence and then when Haytham and Connor meet up, from Thomas Hickey Assassination mission onwards.

You have similar stupidity with Laureano Torres in Black Flag and other Templars being opposed to slavery. Again the concept has potential but the point of the Templars is that they work to impose order from within society by infiltrating it. As such the Templars can never be the on "the right side of history" and truly oppose slavery and colonialism, if they did that they would never have power and influence.

ERICATHERINE
01-18-2016, 05:12 PM
which directly contradicts with what we see: Charles Lee and his other Templars being there at that village that morning. If Washington did order that attack (when historically he had retired his commission at this time), and Haytham told them to leave Ziio and the First Civ Precursor site alone, then what was Lee and Co. doing there?

In forsaken, before he left America, Haytam said to Charles Lee to continu commanding the Templar while he was gone which he did for a while since Haytam was with Ziio. So, I imagine Charles decided to continu to search the temple, while Haytam was gone. From what we know, Charles was there to search the temple, when the american troops arrive to destroy the village, but Charles Lee and the others Templars were outnoumbered and that's why what happened, happenned. ^-^


They never answer that latter question nor do they provide good reasons for why Connor continues to hunt down Lee and Haytham.

That's an easy one. Connor is an Assassin and they are Templars. :p

VestigialLlama4
01-18-2016, 05:48 PM
In forsaken, before he left America, Haytam said to Charles Lee to continu commanding the Templar while he was gone which he did for a while since Haytam was with Ziio. So, I imagine Charles decided to continu to search the temple, while Haytam was gone. From what we know, Charles was there to search the temple, when the american troops arrive to destroy the village, but Charles Lee and the others Templars were outnoumbered and that's why what happened, happenned. ^-^

But that contradicts what we see and know. The minute Haytham comes to the Grand Temple site and sees that it needs an Apple, he comes back and tells his fellow Templars to forget the Grand Temple for now and focus on Templar control. He repeats this later to Connor. My feeling is that the original plot of AC3 was that Lee was betraying or trying to usurp the Templars from Haytham, because that is clearly being implied before and after. In either case, this is poor writing. Because it doesn't make sense on a logical level. This is what I mean by overwritten. You have people foisting multiple motivations and situations on top of each other for sake of "complexity".


Connor is an Assassin and they are Templars.

Well, in AC2 or Revelations or Black Flag and Syndicate, we didn't have to be told that or have it spelt out, it was clear to us why it was happening. In AC2, Ezio and the Borgia have a clear relationship. In AC1, Altair and the Templars have a clear relationship. In Revelations, Black Flag and Syndicate, we have clear answers. Now in AC3's defense, it's plot is different in that it doesn't really involve a McGuffin. In AC1, it's about Robert de Sable finding the Apple, in AC2, Borgia finding the Vault, in Revelations, Prince Ahmet finding Altair's library, Black Flag has observatory and Syndicate has the Shroud. The motivations of the AvT conflict is one group beating the other to finding it and using it, and through this vehicle you have complex discussions...or not.

AC3 is mostly a personal and ideological conflict between Assassins and Templars, it's more intricate. The goal of the story is that Connor must win and remain an Assassin at the end. This is the goal purely for the demands of the open world game where a player must have some sense of achievement and satisfaction at the end, but the setting of the American Revolution complicates that. This gets even more complicated by the developer's desire to make the Templars sympathetic.

The result of this complication is that Connor, the player, must have proper psychological and sensible goals for his Assassination missions. This is the case of William Johnson, Connor initially thinks Boston Tea Party should be enough and then lounges back in the Homestead. Then kanieh;tio tells him that Johnson is threatening the village. This leads to the Assassination where we see Johnson doing the parley mission, threatening them and then Connor assassinates him and we learn why Johnson did what he did. The point is we have logical reasons on three sides. We see this with Pitcairn again. We know why Connor is doing what he does, we know why Pitcairn is doing what he does. Hickey is assassinating Washington, so there's that. With Haytham, logically we can get why Connor accepts that deal because he is personally the guy who would like peace, he wants a connection with his Dad and he has his doubts about the revolution. Together they hunt Church...then the game goes off the rails with that Haytham-Washington-Connor cutscene because all that carefully written tension and design goes, and we have melodrama.

I guess that eventually they realized they couldn't supply it, so they came up with a bunch of melodramatic short-cuts to short circuit the story and manufacture an ending, and hope that the over-riding emotion and tragedy wins people over. And it does. But I cannot deny that it's a falling off at the game's ambitions.

ERICATHERINE
01-18-2016, 08:29 PM
My feeling is that the original plot of AC3 was that Lee was betraying or trying to usurp the Templars from Haytham, because that is clearly being implied before and after.

Well that's actualy that. At the end of the part of forsaken that Haytam wrote (so just before Connor continu the story), there is a conversation where Haytam said to Charles that if he think he would make a better grand-master, he just have to tell it and at the end of that conversation, just before Connor arrive, Charles IS the grand-master just because he wanted it while Haytam is still alive AND a Templar.


Well, in AC2 or Revelations or Black Flag and Syndicate, we didn't have to be told that or have it spelt out, it was clear to us why it was happening. In AC2, Ezio and the Borgia have a clear relationship. In AC1, Altair and the Templars have a clear relationship. In Revelations, Black Flag and Syndicate, we have clear answers.

Well it was always clear to me that what the Assassins do is not only to search for first civ thing, but also to kill Templars.


Now in AC3's defense, it's plot is different in that it doesn't really involve a McGuffin. In AC1, it's about Robert de Sable finding the Apple, in AC2, Borgia finding the Vault, in Revelations, Prince Ahmet finding Altair's library, Black Flag has observatory and Syndicate has the Shroud. The motivations of the AvT conflict is one group beating the other to finding it and using it, and through this vehicle you have complex discussions...or not.

The the role of the Assassins is also mostly to kill Templars for liberty, because they want control. The Templars of ac iii, apart from wanting to fing the grand temple want to control the entire America. So the job of Connor is to not leting that happen by killing them.


The result of this complication is that Connor, the player, must have proper psychological and sensible goals for his Assassination missions. This is the case of William Johnson, Connor initially thinks Boston Tea Party should be enough and then lounges back in the Homestead. Then kanieh;tio tells him that Johnson is threatening the village. This leads to the Assassination where we see Johnson doing the parley mission, threatening them and then Connor assassinates him and we learn why Johnson did what he did. The point is we have logical reasons on three sides. We see this with Pitcairn again. We know why Connor is doing what he does, we know why Pitcairn is doing what he does. Hickey is assassinating Washington, so there's that. With Haytham, logically we can get why Connor accepts that deal because he is personally the guy who would like peace, he wants a connection with his Dad and he has his doubts about the revolution. Together they hunt Church...then the game goes off the rails with that Haytham-Washington-Connor cutscene because all that carefully written tension and design goes, and we have melodrama.

Is that me or you don't like melodram? Here we have a saying. It's not because someone like or dislike something that the other people are wrong. For instence I like melodram and you may or may not like it, it makes diference and the world all about difference. It's like our version of let's agree to disagree, if you prefer. ;-)


Then kanieh;tio tells him

Actualy, it wasn't the long dead mother of Connor, but instead his friend Kanen'tˇ:kon. :rolleyes:


I guess that eventually they realized they couldn't supply it, so they came up with a bunch of melodramatic short-cuts to short circuit the story and manufacture an ending, and hope that the over-riding emotion and tragedy wins people over. And it does.

It does. It's my favorite ac games just as syndicate. ^-^

VestigialLlama4
01-18-2016, 09:29 PM
Is that me or you don't like melodram?

It's not a question of like or dislike. It's a question of style and aesthetics. I think if you try to go in a realistic direction and then swerve towards melodrama it's well questionable in choice.


The the role of the Assassins is also mostly to kill Templars for liberty, because they want control.

Which is a perfectly melodramatic situation. I kill you because you are bad and you act bad and you look bad. In a realistic story, you would need more complex motivations, your character, if he actually is a conflicted Assassin (as Assassins should be as per the Creed and AC1) would need complex reasons to kill a man. AC1 and AC2 used melodrama by having the targets do evil stuff before Altair arrived and then undercut it in the deathbed monologue. It was having your cake and eating it too. So you kill a man because you see him do evil stuff and then you talk to his spirit, and "lounge in the sun and feel bad about it."

AC3 actually tried to change and alter that. The thing is since AC2, every Assassin's Creed game is about two stories...one is the historical era and story, the other is the AvT conflict. AC2 was largely about the Renaissance Feuding Families serving as a vehicle for the AvT game. So there it blended perfectly because it has the motif of gang warfare and the melodramatic element works well because the context and era suits it. Black Flag retuned to the First Civ object again and it works because the whole McGuffin fits in with the Pirate Treasure trope so the narrative works within that. In AC3, you are dealing with a more complex reality. So within AC3, they actually tried, really tried, to recreate the historical era and make the AvT fit in that context. That meant greater realism and since the conflict is about ideology rather than finding some First Civ object.

This depends on how you play the games. For me, the games are primarily historical fiction. The AvT conflict only matters to me as a metaphor and vehicle to immerse into that era and relate to the historical events and characters. Inherently I don't care for either Assassins or Templars. What I care for is what the games make them represent. I have said elsewhere that I wouldn't mind playing a game with just Assassins, no Templars and having a story that grappled with real issues. The Few times where AC has done that, in the DLC (Bonfire of the Vanities, Freedom Cry, Jack the Ripper) and in Black Flag (where non-Templar Black Bart is the main villain) the stories have been quite compelling

ERICATHERINE
01-18-2016, 09:55 PM
Lol this conversation we have remind me of this one :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N23h2yoBS5Y

From the start to 0:43. I would be infoman and you David Suzuki of course. XD

Rioz22222
01-18-2016, 10:23 PM
AC series were inspired by historical events tho how ever I don't remember Earth like that in 2012 :)