PDA

View Full Version : Questions that still linger



Bipolar Matt
12-13-2011, 04:56 PM
Revelations was not the answer to a lot of things I hoped it would be. There were still some things Subject 16 said that we don't have answers for:

"It is far later than you know. Too late to save them." Save who? His fellow assassins? The world? Someone else?

"She is not who you think she is. Everything you hope to become. Everything you hold dear. It's already gone." Who is she? Lucy? Juno? Minerva? And what does that second part mean?

"Eden, she, in Eden, find Eve. The key, her DNA." How does Desmond find Eve? The Animus? And why is her DNA so important?

"I cannot. The sun, your son...too weak" We get the sun part. What about "your son", though?

About the only thing we got an answer for was "find me in the darkness" referring to the Animus black room.

I realize they couldn't answer all of these questions in Revelations and had to save some for AC3. But we're still left with no joy to a lot of these questions.

Sarari
12-13-2011, 05:26 PM
A lot of people (including me) think the title doesn't suit the game so well. The only thing they explained to us was the meaning of nothing is true, everything is permitted.

I'm very disappointed that they didn't tell us anything though. It seems like they just added it to get us hyped up for Revelations and get no answers. Partially the same goes to AC2, with the Truth video. They never explained that either.

gamertam
12-13-2011, 06:50 PM
First, have you look up in Assassin's Creed WIKI online?. Second, another good source is the CE strategy guides...mainly Revelations Lot of good info and secrets are there.

For myself. ACR revealed the end to Altair's story (died at the end), Ezio's story as a phrophet(spelling) and Desmond's story. Although i'm still puzzle about it a little. But, i'm guessing the next AC game would have Desmond on a mission to find a person/thing preventing the 12/21/2012 world ending.

twenty_glyphs
12-13-2011, 06:56 PM
I have a feeling that The Truth and the Adam and Eve mystery are deeply wrapped up with the 2012 storyline. So they are hopefully just saving that for AC3 because the story will revolve around something with Eve to save the world. It's still very disappointing that they didn't even touch on any of this stuff in Revelations. At least Brotherhood had the conversation with Subject 16 that did expand somewhat on The Truth video by mentioning Eve and giving us something to chew on. They just completely ignored this plot point in "Revelations".

mustash
12-13-2011, 07:03 PM
Revelations does not live up to it's name sake. There are a bunch of lingering questions that still need to be answered. It'd have been a better idea to either rename the game or not make it at all. Off the top of my head, they still need to answer:

- Lucy. Why was she killed?
- Desmond. What is the significance of Desmond to the larger narrative? Is he to be the ultimate assassin or is he a tool? etc
- Subject 16. Why was he cryptic mentioning his son and it being far later then Desmond had been led to believe, to then when given chance to meet him, not clarifiy anything
- TWCB. Who exactly were they? We have hints but nothing concrete. How much of the future did they know? How? What are their motives for helping mankind?
- Modern Templars. How much do they know about TWCB? What exactly are they up to?
- Modern Assassins. Where are they all? Where is their base?
- Eve. Who is she? What is her significance? Why does Desmond need to find her?
- The Way. Juno and Jupiter mention it several times, what is it?
-Erudito. Who is or who are they?

What we got in Revelations was essentially clarification that everything is still as it was at the end of AC2. Desmond needs to go to the temples and do something to save the world. Only in this one, it appears he and his team are outside the main one. Nothing revelatory. We get Ezios and Altairs storys tied up in a nice neat bow but so much is still unanswered or so cryptic as to be so up to interpretation as to be useless.

To think, the developers made a big ho ha in the run up to it's release saying that the saga risks collapsing under it's own weight. That is still the case. We might have another LOST on our hands, that rushes it's answers and leaves everyone feeling that outside of the character resolution, not much of the mythology will be satisfactorily answered.

gamertam
12-13-2011, 07:12 PM
Come to think it of. I think Ubisoft did it right in Revelations in my book. This, at least wrapping up all three main character's stories without stringing players along with no ending in sight. I believes all veteran players new this would happen. 12212012 barcode or 12/21/2012 the mystery lies within. I'm been waiting for this since AC2. Wow, what an amazing ride AC series had delivered for players and ACIII would be icing on a four wonderful tier cake.

***oops i saw the post above***

mustash
12-13-2011, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by gamertam:
Come to think it of. I think Ubisoft did it right in Revelations in my book. This, at least wrapping up all three main character's stories without stringing players along with no ending in sight. I believes all veteran players new this would happen. 12212012 barcode or 12/21/2012 the mystery lies within. I'm been waiting for this since AC2. Wow, what an amazing ride AC series had delivered for players and ACIII would be icing on a four wonderful tier cake.

***oops i saw the post above***

I disagree. First of all, Desmonds story is still incomplete but I agree that Altair's and Ezio's are now finished. Secondly, to say that the 2012 date is actually the end is probably an incorrect assessment, given the cash cow Assassins Creed has turned into. They'll find some way to waggle more games out of this series because, as they say, history is their playground. Other then that, I agree that it has at least been enjoyable thus far.

gamertam
12-13-2011, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by mustash2003:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamertam:
Come to think it of. I think Ubisoft did it right in Revelations in my book. This, at least wrapping up all three main character's stories without stringing players along with no ending in sight. I believes all veteran players new this would happen. 12212012 barcode or 12/21/2012 the mystery lies within. I'm been waiting for this since AC2. Wow, what an amazing ride AC series had delivered for players and ACIII would be icing on a four wonderful tier cake.

***oops i saw the post above***

I disagree. First of all, Desmonds story is still incomplete but I agree that Altair's and Ezio's are now finished. Secondly, to say that the 2012 date is actually the end is probably an incorrect assessment, given the cash cow Assassins Creed has turned into. They'll find some way to waggle more games out of this series because, as they say, history is their playground. Other then that, I agree that it has at least been enjoyable thus far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

okay point taken, incomplete yes i'll give that. But at least players have a better understanding now than was before. That's a weak counter-argue i know. I guess i forgot about you being abducted in the first AC game and essentially end with him in ACIII. Or Ubisoft change the the plot 360 idk.

no, i'm still stand strong on my conviction that Ubisoft isn't milking the AC franchise. Many would believe so but not me. I believed if you have a gem in the making, while fans are applauding and chanting more. Why not delivered it?. Because of the engaging story with beautiful locations and something fresh to experince and not blowing **** up or shoot someone in the face every second. Secondly, it wouldn't be a business wise decision not to. Look at Final Fantasy, Halo, shooters genre. All have sequels and with nothing or little change in the gameplay or mechanic.

mustash
12-13-2011, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by gamertam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mustash2003:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamertam:
Come to think it of. I think Ubisoft did it right in Revelations in my book. This, at least wrapping up all three main character's stories without stringing players along with no ending in sight. I believes all veteran players new this would happen. 12212012 barcode or 12/21/2012 the mystery lies within. I'm been waiting for this since AC2. Wow, what an amazing ride AC series had delivered for players and ACIII would be icing on a four wonderful tier cake.

***oops i saw the post above***

I disagree. First of all, Desmonds story is still incomplete but I agree that Altair's and Ezio's are now finished. Secondly, to say that the 2012 date is actually the end is probably an incorrect assessment, given the cash cow Assassins Creed has turned into. They'll find some way to waggle more games out of this series because, as they say, history is their playground. Other then that, I agree that it has at least been enjoyable thus far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

okay point taken, incomplete yes i'll give that. But at least players have a better understanding now than was before. That's a weak counter-argue i know. I guess i forgot about you being abducted in the first AC game and essentially end with him in ACIII. Or Ubisoft change the the plot 360 idk.

no, i'm still stand strong on my conviction that Ubisoft isn't milking the AC franchise. Many would believe so but not me. I believed if you have a gem in the making, while fans are applauding and chanting more. Why not delivered it?. Because of the engaging story with beautiful locations and something fresh to experince and not blowing **** up or shoot someone in the face every second. Secondly, it wouldn't be a business wise decision not to. Look at Final Fantasy, Halo, shooters genre. All have sequels and with nothing or little change in the gameplay or mechanic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately gamertam, it's not up to the developers who actually make the game whether to release a new title, it's the head of Ubisoft. So whilst the developers may not wish to milk the series, some market analyst motivated by sales figures will indicate that assassins creed is a strong brand that can handle yearly releases and that's all that will matter, story quality and fans be damned. I'd love to be proven wrong mind.

And to be fair, that same criticism about change in game mechanics can be levelled at Assassins Creed, that there is little change in the gameplay. What has happened since AC2 is that the fundamental core mechanics have recieved various tweaks and gimicks but not a whole lot more. You might disagree but the way I see it, gameplay wise the series is stalling. It needs fresh ideas rather then tweaking. 4 games on the same engine, on the same kind of combat system, the same kind of parkour system is probably too much. IMO of course.

MaKaVeLiTL
12-13-2011, 08:38 PM
Someone asked "Why was altair able to air assassinate in ACR, but not in AC when part of ACR was set before the first game?" or something along those lines. Their answer..... "Because Altair was in a dangerous situation, that's why he was able to do it" LMFAO, that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard, was he not in any dangerous situations in the original Assassins Creed then?

twenty_glyphs
12-13-2011, 08:56 PM
I do think the series is being milked, but I won't deny that the last 2 years have been great to have games to fill the void until AC3. I still remember finishing AC2 and wondering how in the world they were going to wrap it up in just one more game, and how painful the 2 or 3 year wait for it would be. I think Brotherhood managed to create a satisfying experience because it was an extension of AC2, so the one year development cycle didn't hurt it too much. Also the fact that multiplayer was already being worked on ahead of time helped.

I think it's obvious that Brotherhood and Revelations were just tweaks of the AC2 gameplay with a few additions here and there that didn't alter the core experience. I just don't think it was possible to do any more than that in the time that they had. I expect AC3 to refresh the gameplay on the same level as the jump from AC1 to AC2 lots of systems need to be replaced, and new ones added to fit with whatever the new time period and location are. If it doesn't do that it will be a huge disappointment and will really get boring.

I do think that they are setting things up the right way to move forward. Brotherhood and Revelations grew organically from the success of AC2, so there was not much choice but to push them out fast while they dedicated other resources to AC3. It seems like they are setting up the future to have parallel development, but there's no way to know for sure. I know they put out a call for a creative director to work on AC, and that survey about locations and time periods went out. So it seems they are setting up to make the games the right way in the future.

Animuses
12-13-2011, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by gamertam:
it wouldn't be a business wise decision not to. Business wise? Business wise?! BUSINESS WISE?!

Does it benefit us in any way that they are milking the series? No. We give them their money; they cater to us. If we aren't satisfied with annual releases, they should stop being money hungry ******bags and give us what we deserve as loyal fans.

SolidSage
12-13-2011, 09:28 PM
Answers for Matt;

- Too late to save Shaun, Lucy, all of his buddies BECAUSE, Desmond is actually a memory being relived by his son who was put in an Animus very early in his life and is being used to relive his father and other ancestors memories.

- 'She' is Lucy, but not Lucy because it's a future Templar agent animusing it to infiltrate the Assassin's last hope, Desmond Jr's mind, and get access to whatever it is they are up to in the 'real' timeline.

- Eve is D Jr's mom, who Desmond had to find in order to mate with and create the right DNA human who would be able to revive TOWCB. They were deceiving Desmond on the 'we're the good guys' bit.

- "The Sun" is bleeding effect mix up, but the "your Son" is whoever trying to tell Desmond in his timeline (memory) that HIS son is the one going to be doing stuff laterz, but Dessie don't comprende*. The message giver was "too weak" to be able to communicate the message correctly.

The New Ancestor in AC3 is going to be Desmond in his timeline.
BOOM, and your mind is at peace now.

Animuses
12-13-2011, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
- Too late to save Shaun, Lucy, all of his buddies BECAUSE, Desmond is actually a memory being relived by his son who was put in an Animus very early in his life and is being used to relive his father and other ancestors memories. That would be a big "F you" to the fans.

gamertam
12-13-2011, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamertam:
it wouldn't be a business wise decision not to. Business wise? Business wise?! BUSINESS WISE?!

Does it benefit us in any way that they are milking the series? No. We give them their money; they cater to us. If we aren't satisfied with annual releases, they should stop being money hungry ******bags and give us what we deserve as loyal fans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your entire post can be apply to other big studios or companies like Blizzard, EA, Activision and so on. Umm, think of it as a wise investment for future gain?. idk http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Master Decoder
12-13-2011, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
- Too late to save Shaun, Lucy, all of his buddies BECAUSE, Desmond is actually a memory being relived by his son who was put in an Animus very early in his life and is being used to relive his father and other ancestors memories.

Highly doubt this

LordWolv
12-13-2011, 11:43 PM
If I'm perfectly honest..
If any of these words were significant in any way, they have or will be answered. All the questions that aren't answered have no particular importance to our understanding. Yes, revelations was lacking revelations, but all I can say is that all questions that matter will be answered at some point.

Master Decoder
12-13-2011, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by BipolarMatt:
"She is not who you think she is. Everything you hope to become. Everything you hold dear. It's already gone." Who is she? Lucy? Juno? Minerva? And what does that second part mean?


Not sure about the first part, but the second part, "Everything you hold dear. It's already gone", means Lucy was meant to die, it happened to Altair, it happened to Ezio, it was bound to happen with Desmond, all 3 lost their first love(Adha, Christina, and Lucy), but ended up with their true, destined love(Maria, Sofia, and Eve, respectively)

At least, that's how I interpret it

LordWolv
12-13-2011, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamertam:
it wouldn't be a business wise decision not to. Business wise? Business wise?! BUSINESS WISE?!

Does it benefit us in any way that they are milking the series? No. We give them their money; they cater to us. If we aren't satisfied with annual releases, they should stop being money hungry ******bags and give us what we deserve as loyal fans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If Ubisoft were not business wise and didn't try and scoop in all the money they can, then we would have no Assassins Creed.
Do you realise how much it costs to mass produce , develop and advertise a video game?

CRUDFACE
12-14-2011, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by gamertam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mustash2003:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamertam:
Come to think it of. I think Ubisoft did it right in Revelations in my book. This, at least wrapping up all three main character's stories without stringing players along with no ending in sight. I believes all veteran players new this would happen. 12212012 barcode or 12/21/2012 the mystery lies within. I'm been waiting for this since AC2. Wow, what an amazing ride AC series had delivered for players and ACIII would be icing on a four wonderful tier cake.

***oops i saw the post above***

I disagree. First of all, Desmonds story is still incomplete but I agree that Altair's and Ezio's are now finished. Secondly, to say that the 2012 date is actually the end is probably an incorrect assessment, given the cash cow Assassins Creed has turned into. They'll find some way to waggle more games out of this series because, as they say, history is their playground. Other then that, I agree that it has at least been enjoyable thus far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

okay point taken, incomplete yes i'll give that. But at least players have a better understanding now than was before. That's a weak counter-argue i know. I guess i forgot about you being abducted in the first AC game and essentially end with him in ACIII. Or Ubisoft change the the plot 360 idk.

no, i'm still stand strong on my conviction that Ubisoft isn't milking the AC franchise. Many would believe so but not me. I believed if you have a gem in the making, while fans are applauding and chanting more. Why not delivered it?. Because of the engaging story with beautiful locations and something fresh to experince and not blowing **** up or shoot someone in the face every second. Secondly, it wouldn't be a business wise decision not to. Look at Final Fantasy, Halo, shooters genre. All have sequels and with nothing or little change in the gameplay or mechanic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, when the people who wanted to bac off, but are being forced to make more, even they know they're milking it. The people who believed they were milking it actually left Ubisoft.

MaKaVeLiTL: that was a cruddy excuse, I know, and the worst part is, people actually accepted it! I brought it up before, and people basically said, they can do whatever they want with the series.

LightRey
12-14-2011, 02:46 AM
I don't even get why people wanted to have these specific answers so soon already. AC has always been a series about mysteries and suggestions. To just answer all the questions that linger in one game that isn't even the final game sounds somewhat ridiculous to me, especially ones of this magnitude.

Imo, they revealed more than enough in ACR and replaced many of the revelations they had given with even more mysteries, which is exactly what I like. I like wondering about the possibilities of what's going to happen/has happened.

mustash
12-14-2011, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
I don't even get why people wanted to have these specific answers so soon already. AC has always been a series about mysteries and suggestions. To just answer all the questions that linger in one game that isn't even the final game sounds somewhat ridiculous to me, especially ones of this magnitude.

Imo, they revealed more than enough in ACR and replaced many of the revelations they had given with even more mysteries, which is exactly what I like. I like wondering about the possibilities of what's going to happen/has happened.

If that were the case, then why name the game Revelations. It sets a false expectation to gain revelations or clarity from the title. Whilst it's true we get a few, they are honestly not that important. Hell, even mysteries brought up in the last game are not answered, just left to linger. I personally didn't expect to get every answer, that'd be rediculous, but I did expect it to live up to it's namesake. It'd been more accurate to call it Assassins Creed Affirmation, because it basically only affirmed much of what had already been gathered by the fanbase. And IMO, it's not "so soon" seeing as most of these mysteries have been lingering since AC2.

Il_Divo
12-14-2011, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by mustash2003:

If that were the case, then why name the game Revelations. It sets a false expectation to gain revelations or clarity from the title. Whilst it's true we get a few, they are honestly not that important. Hell, even mysteries brought up in the last game are not answered, just left to linger. I personally didn't expect to get every answer, that'd be rediculous, but I did expect it to live up to it's namesake. It'd been more accurate to call it Assassins Creed Affirmation, because it basically only affirmed much of what had already been gathered by the fanbase. And IMO, it's not "so soon" seeing as most of these mysteries have been lingering since AC2.

I do agree with this. Revelations, a much stronger word than calling it "answers", implies that it will change how we view the plot/setting, the past as well as the future.I'm totally fine with not learning everything and I think they did a great job of wrapping up Altair's/Ezio's storylines, but (beyond reaching the Temple), we didn't see anything that altered the scope of the main narrative.At the end of the game, I was hoping to find myself saying "ohh, I get it, so that's why that happened".

16 raises all these questions in Brotherhood, which Desmond never attempts to address and Juno has seemingly killed our love interest without explanation.With 16 gone, are we likely ever to get answers?

Il_Divo
12-14-2011, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by MaKaVeLiTL:
Someone asked "Why was altair able to air assassinate in ACR, but not in AC when part of ACR was set before the first game?" or something along those lines. Their answer..... "Because Altair was in a dangerous situation, that's why he was able to do it" LMFAO, that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard, was he not in any dangerous situations in the original Assassins Creed then?

That is a pretty dumb explanation, but I'm willing to just give it to Ubisoft. So many game sequels rely on giving their protagonists new moves, often times without any real explanation. In this case, I think we're better off just assuming that Altair just knew how to perform all those stealth kills and just decided to write them into the codex. It makes more sense to me that way, at least.

MaKaVeLiTL
12-14-2011, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by SolidSage:

The New Ancestor in AC3 is going to be Desmond in his timeline.
BOOM, and your mind is at peace now.
If we only played as Desmond then it wouldn't be an ancestor would it.

MaKaVeLiTL
12-14-2011, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MaKaVeLiTL:
Someone asked "Why was altair able to air assassinate in ACR, but not in AC when part of ACR was set before the first game?" or something along those lines. Their answer..... "Because Altair was in a dangerous situation, that's why he was able to do it" LMFAO, that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard, was he not in any dangerous situations in the original Assassins Creed then?

That is a pretty dumb explanation, but I'm willing to just give it to Ubisoft. So many game sequels rely on giving their protagonists new moves, often times without any real explanation. In this case, I think we're better off just assuming that Altair just knew how to perform all those stealth kills and just decided to write them into the codex. It makes more sense to me that way, at least. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Surely they could have come up with a better excuse than that though, or for the memories set before AC1 made it so Altair could only perform the moves he knew in the original Assassins Creed, that way they could give a reasonable explanation and say he learned the moves after the events of AC.

Nomad86x
12-14-2011, 11:25 AM
Totally agree with the questions about Subject 16's message in ACB, it was crazy cryptic. None of it really makes much sense...

Another question: Who is the "Father of Understanding?"

An old member of the First Civilization? A quick Google search yields the result "Baphomet", but who knows if that's who it is?

RzaRecta357
12-14-2011, 11:35 AM
People still whine about Altair knowing how to do that move?

You could kind of do it in AC1.

There was this game one time, years ago. Called AC2. Where they made new moves up. Fast forward a few years to a newer game in the same series and that move is still there!?

OMG!? You mean they didn't want to take out a gameplay element they just didn't think of during AC1?

OMG!?! I can't believe it! I just can't! It must be the end of the world! The sky must be falling!


Get over it. It was a new gameplay idea they didn't want to take out because....why remove ideas?

Bipolar Matt
12-14-2011, 04:41 PM
Yes, I neglected to mention why Juno made Desmond stab Lucy. That was never answered. And who is the Father of Understanding? Thank you Nomad86, that is another great question.

Revelations should have answered at least 2/3 of these IMO, and left just a few mysteries to tantalize us until AC:3 next fall. That wasn't the case, however. We are left with just as many questions as before; as someone else said, mainly more affirmations.

mustash
12-14-2011, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by BipolarMatt:
Yes, I neglected to mention why Juno made Desmond stab Lucy. That was never answered. And who is the Father of Understanding? Thank you Nomad86, that is another great question.

Revelations should have answered at least 2/3 of these IMO, and left just a few mysteries to tantalize us until AC:3 next fall. That wasn't the case, however. We are left with just as many questions as before; as someone else said, mainly more affirmations.

I think one of the most likely theories is that Lucy was a mole, a templar. Only she was indoctrinated like Daniel Cross but the templars never got chance for her trigger to come into play. Juno does say "The Cross darkens the horizon" as she seizes control of Desmond. Just removing her because she is a potential love interest for Desmond would be disappointing.

As for whoever the father of understanding is, it's likely it's another roman/greek god/TWCB figurehead. Perhaps Apollo as he was known for being a god of light, truth and prophecy. I can't imagine it being Mars, as he is the Roman god of war. If the Assassins are being aided by the Capitoline Triad, I imagine the Templars are getting help from another set of TWCB.

But this is all speculation, we should have a solid idea if not out right answers for this by now. If I had to guess, given how Ubisoft has shown us it's idea of "answers", we can expect this 2012 plotline that's been built to for the past 4 games to be bait and switched so that the series can continue.

SolidSage
12-14-2011, 09:43 PM
@Animuses
I was joking but, no matter what Ubi does with AC, some fans are going to consider it a big F U.

@Makiaveli t i ?
If you read my entire post you would have noticed that I suggested that Desmond was actually a memory being relived by one of his descendants, his son to be exact. I was kidding but that being the case, (which it isn't), Desmond would, in fact, be the new ancestor.
There's no holes in my fishing net yo!

@Matt
Juno made Desmond stab Lucy because she wanted Lucy dead. Bit of an obvious one that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Skaevola
12-15-2011, 01:08 AM
The much more obvious reason for Altair's sudden gain in abilities is that Ezio could do those moves, but Desmond couldn't. When Desmond was playing as Altair in AC1, he didn't know you could jump on a dude like that without breaking your leg. So even though Altair could have done it, Desmond, as the player, elected not to, having never been trained in the maneuver. Then later, when he learns the trick from Ezio, he can still go back and do it as Altair and be a little closer to 100% sync. After all, AC2 was Desmond's big "training session", and air assassinations weren't taught in the five-minute crash course at the beginning of AC1.

Although honestly, it's just because games evolve. How come Sam Fisher is faster when he's sixty than when he's thirty? (Because he's mad? That's stupid.) How come Master Chief can only wield one weapon in Halo 1, despite having received no training between games on dual-wielding? How come Link can jump in Link's Awakening but not in A Link to the Past? Games add new abilities with new technology and new ideas, and restricting the player from an evolving gameplay mechanic for continuity's sake would be silly.

ProdiGurl
12-15-2011, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
@Animuses
I was joking but, no matter what Ubi does with AC, some fans are going to consider it a big F U.


That is very obvious as I read this board the past few wks. I haven't been here at the time of a new release, so this has been really surprising to me. Nothing I expected at all.

No matter what they do or don't do, isn't enough or is too much...
I can guarantee that if anyone who's unhappy with things hired into UBI to create this game, their work would be mocked & trashed by any number of gamers wanting something else.

With that said, I will say that I do agree ACR had some legit issues for people to have concern with, I know I have a few - I just didn't expect it to this extent.

LightRey
I don't even get why people wanted to have these specific answers so soon already. AC has always been a series about mysteries and suggestions. To just answer all the questions that linger in one game that isn't even the final game sounds somewhat ridiculous to me, especially ones of this magnitude.

Imo, they revealed more than enough in ACR and replaced many of the revelations they had given with even more mysteries, which is exactly what I like. I like wondering about the possibilities of what's going to happen/has happened.


I say the same - if ACR was the final of all AC's, then absolutely, I'd be right there demanding some closure. I don't follow AC to be strung along and left in the dark.

But AC is continuing w/ another installment plus sounds like they're projecting an AC4.

How can we have all this explained in Ezio's final trilogy with more AC's to come? Better yet, WHY do they have to all be explained now?

I don't want anything in AC3 to be spoiled or ruined. I'm going to try to patiently wait to see what happens w/ the story).

Like I had said before too, AC3 is going to heavily deal w/ Desmond, it only makes sense that the Lucy details & probably S16 are going to be addressed then.
Ezio's send-off is probably not where they wanted to do it. It will work much better in Desmond's next story.
It would be out of sequence I guess you could put it. Sticking these answers in to the ending of one when it belongs in the climax of Desmond's journey instead.

This is a post I added last night - not sure if I was coherent... had a L O N G day.


Here's the short trailer again of what Ezio's seeking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfR_ncxSRGU

He isn't asking what happened w/ Lucy, etc.

I think his answers get revealed to him and he got his Revelation as to the past (w/ Altair) & what he needed to do next with his own life.
That he fought a worthy cause and it's time for the next Assassin to take the reigns.

I just cant' see it any other way - the Series isn't over with for us to get the complete answers to everything, it's continuing to lead us thru it.

ProdiGurl
12-15-2011, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by Nomad86x:
Totally agree with the questions about Subject 16's message in ACB, it was crazy cryptic. None of it really makes much sense...

Another question: Who is the "Father of Understanding?"

An old member of the First Civilization? A quick Google search yields the result "Baphomet", but who knows if that's who it is?


Are you referring to the Templars using that term "father of understanding"? Just trying to remember who said it.

Inorganic9_2
12-15-2011, 03:35 AM
Many people have said it. Rodrigo, Robert, at least one of the other ACI Templars, Vieri, Jacopo, Francesco and Odai Dunqas...they're the ones I can remember.

ProdiGurl
12-15-2011, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
Many people have said it. Rodrigo, Robert, at least one of the other ACI Templars, Vieri, Jacopo, Francesco and Odai Dunqas...they're the ones I can remember.

Thanks. I do remember it said, just that it's so much dialog & detail when I haven't played those parts in a long time.

So . . interesting if Satan is their father - makes sense though since their goal is enslavement, power & suppression of the masses.

The issue becomes if they recognize their 'father'. This could get interesting later on.

LightRey
12-15-2011, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by mustash2003:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I don't even get why people wanted to have these specific answers so soon already. AC has always been a series about mysteries and suggestions. To just answer all the questions that linger in one game that isn't even the final game sounds somewhat ridiculous to me, especially ones of this magnitude.

Imo, they revealed more than enough in ACR and replaced many of the revelations they had given with even more mysteries, which is exactly what I like. I like wondering about the possibilities of what's going to happen/has happened.

If that were the case, then why name the game Revelations. It sets a false expectation to gain revelations or clarity from the title. Whilst it's true we get a few, they are honestly not that important. Hell, even mysteries brought up in the last game are not answered, just left to linger. I personally didn't expect to get every answer, that'd be rediculous, but I did expect it to live up to it's namesake. It'd been more accurate to call it Assassins Creed Affirmation, because it basically only affirmed much of what had already been gathered by the fanbase. And IMO, it's not "so soon" seeing as most of these mysteries have been lingering since AC2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is not. As I said they revealed more than enough in ACR (meaning there were more than enough revelations). There are other threads about this where I go into more detail about this. Suffice it to say that the game is definitely worthy of the title: Revelations, even if only to be a reference to Jupiter's message being called "The Revelation".

YuurHeen
12-15-2011, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
Many people have said it. Rodrigo, Robert, at least one of the other ACI Templars, Vieri, Jacopo, Francesco and Odai Dunqas...they're the ones I can remember.

Thanks. I do remember it said, just that it's so much dialog & detail when I haven't played those parts in a long time.

So . . interesting if Satan is their father - makes sense though since their goal is enslavement, power & suppression of the masses.

The issue becomes if they recognize their 'father'. This could get interesting later on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sounds more like the abrahamic god himself but i doubt he will play any part in this serie.
maybe a enemy of the twcb. the twcb was in war.

ProdiGurl
12-15-2011, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by YuurHeen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
Many people have said it. Rodrigo, Robert, at least one of the other ACI Templars, Vieri, Jacopo, Francesco and Odai Dunqas...they're the ones I can remember.

Thanks. I do remember it said, just that it's so much dialog & detail when I haven't played those parts in a long time.

So . . interesting if Satan is their father - makes sense though since their goal is enslavement, power & suppression of the masses.

The issue becomes if they recognize their 'father'. This could get interesting later on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sounds more like the abrahamic god himself </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

? uh not seein' that.

Anyways I found this other Poster's comments on the Revelations given, I'll just paste them here:


joshuathao64

Posted Wed December 14 2011 13:16 Hide Post
This game actually revealed a lot of stuff. Lucy is dead if you stuck around long enough to hear. Subject 16 has been deleted from the Animus where he pushes Desmond back into the Synch Nexus! They revealed the true meaning of the Assassin's "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". They revealed why the Juno, Minerva, and Jupiter failed to save the world from the Solar Flare. They revealed that there were actually two apples, that Ezio and Altair's apples are different. They talked about the Central Vault where Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva conducted the experiment to save the world. And the activation and location of the central vault at the end. See! So much crap and all you are worried about is useless stuff. :P

SolidSage
12-15-2011, 10:50 AM
@Prodigurl
I agree that ACR has it's issues. All games do. And bringing them up and trying to get them addressed is almost a fan's responsibility.
HOW that discussion is presented is the problem. The angry forum user who just wants to get on here and either argue or completely insult the product and the efforts put into it is where I fail to see reason. It's those people that I think aren't actually fans, but are more interested in displaying their arrogant and infantile natures, having their tantrums in public.
I'm not pointing fingers at specific members, most are reasonable and rational and are here to participate in a discussion about an enjoyable medium.
you've fot to sift through them though, and figure out which is which.

That said, the one chief complaint I don't understand is the one regarding story arcs. In AC1 we were sat down and told a story. We enjoyed it so much that more stories were written and told. Now, complaining because one of the stories didn't get written the way you would have liked is ridiculous, you're not the story teller, what makes you think you are in any way qualified to determine how it should or shouldn't go?
Again, the presumptious infantile nature. Citing that people who have 'established careers' in the medium "aren't doing it right", what a laugh, that's like a 100lb weakling telling Schwarzenegger how to lift weights.
People give themselves way too much credit. I'd suggest checking their own qualifications before acting like an expert about a craft that is someone elses specialty.

Saying "I didn't enjoy the story" however, is an entirely different matter, and of course completely valid.

burtie80
12-15-2011, 11:43 AM
As much as I would love to have answers to all the questions and puzzles brought up through out the games I suspect that even at the end of AC3 we will be left with even more questions. As much as this will infuriate me it's what AC does best... leaves us with big cliff hangers while we ponder over all the big questions and scratching our heads. After all it's not about the ending for me but it's the ride getting there, and what a ride it's been so far.

SolidSage
12-15-2011, 12:04 PM
The funny thing about these forums is that a lot of the questions are generated by fans over analyzing things too much, and not the actual intentions of the game makers.
the 'red trail' in ACB is a good example of this. A huge discussion with a ton of theories popped up in regards to what this red trail was really about, what secrets it held. Fans sxrutinized the shapes in the trail and determined that it was in fact, some sort of DNA strand that held further importance.
I said from the outset, (its probably here still, somewhere), that I thought the trail was part of the mission and included only to lead the player to the area where they would initiate the next sequence, or maybe it was to find a hidden item, Mario's sword I think. Anyway, that was discounted and a year long discussion was birthed about the red trail.

I just read somewhere that the developers didn't have any underlying secrets in regards to it and that it was just an action motivation tool.

My point is that WE overthink a lot of stuff in Creed. Lucy's death for example was very straight forward, Juno made Desmond do what he did, there was evidence suggesting that she, you know what and then ACR included something to confirm it. Now there's uproar and questions about how it wasn't conclusive enough or clear enough. It's our minds that are having difficulty comprehending the clarity, the cut and dry is there but we are so conditioned to expect twists and earth shattering reveals that we can't just accept the straight forward explanations for what they are, and suddenly dissapointed when the developers are forced, outside of the game to point out that "NO, there is no special revelance to that specific thing" or "YES, that really did happen and thats the end of it".

Its almost like we are coercing them to back track and contradict things they already did in order to amaze us with a bevvy of ridiculous twists.

ProdiGurl
12-15-2011, 12:07 PM
SolidSage
The funny thing about these forums is that a lot of the questions are generated by fans over analyzing things too much, and not the actual intentions of the game makers.

That ^

burtie80
12-15-2011, 01:24 PM
You hit the nail right on its head Solidsage!

Animuses
12-15-2011, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Isaac500:
If Ubisoft were not business wise and didn't try and scoop in all the money they can, then we would have no Assassins Creed.
Do you realise how much it costs to mass produce , develop and advertise a video game?
There is a difference between being business wise and greedy.

Go ahead and take Ubisoft's side on everything, but remember, they aren't always right.

ProdiGurl
12-15-2011, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Isaac500:
If Ubisoft were not business wise and didn't try and scoop in all the money they can, then we would have no Assassins Creed.
Do you realise how much it costs to mass produce , develop and advertise a video game?
There is a difference between being business wise and greedy.

Go ahead and take Ubisoft's side on everything, but remember, they aren't always right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure they aren't but then neither are we

Il_Divo
12-15-2011, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by SolidSage:


My point is that WE overthink a lot of stuff in Creed. Lucy's death for example was very straight forward, Juno made Desmond do what he did, there was evidence suggesting that she, you know what and then ACR included something to confirm it. Now there's uproar and questions about how it wasn't conclusive enough or clear enough. It's our minds that are having difficulty comprehending the clarity, the cut and dry is there but we are so conditioned to expect twists and earth shattering reveals that we can't just accept the straight forward explanations for what they are, and suddenly dissapointed when the developers are forced, outside of the game to point out that "NO, there is no special revelance to that specific thing" or "YES, that really did happen and thats the end of it".

Its almost like we are coercing them to back track and contradict things they already did in order to amaze us with a bevvy of ridiculous twists.

The only aspect I consider straightforward about Lucy's death is that I saw Desmond stick his hidden blade inside her stomach. But now I need to know why he did it. Or why Juno made him do it.

The analogy would be appropriate if the red trail had any actual plot relevance to it, which doesn't really seem to be the case. The problem is that Lucy constituted a major character/potential Love Interest and Brotherhood left off on a cliffhanger, with her fate uncertain. If a Templar had shot Lucy in the head, you wouldn't be seeing these complaints. You might see complaints that she died, but people would at least be aware of why. Juno, as a member of TWCB, is supposed to be on our side, in attempting to stop this solar flare. Cryptic speech really doesn't do the job in explaining to me why Ubisoft killed a major character, especially when the tone of TWCB seems to be that they're trying to help me in some capacity. There needs to be special relevance because the developers gave it special relevance.

ProdiGurl
12-15-2011, 03:35 PM
The only aspect I consider straightforward about Lucy's death is that I saw Desmond stick his hidden blade inside her stomach. But now I need to know why he did it. Or why Juno made him do it.

I think most of us want to know that, but this wasn't the end of the AC series.
AC3 is much more about Desmond - ACR was more about Ezio and his final journey.

It would be more logical to me if AC3 covered the Lucy issues than ACR. That's the only point I have in this issue of Revelations where some of these questions are concerned.