PDA

View Full Version : The Lost Archive podcast featuring writer Jeffrey Yohalem!



loomer979
04-29-2012, 04:53 PM
Hey everyone, here's the new podcast episode featuring Jeffrey Yohalem (Lead Writer for Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and The Lost Archive)! Thanks to everyone who submitted and voted on questions for Jeffrey as well. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAUtjtZPNxw

P.S. If you have any feedback about using google moderator feel free to let me know either in this thread or in the video comments.

De Filosoof
04-29-2012, 06:21 PM
Thanks for posting :).

notafanboy
04-29-2012, 06:33 PM
watching it now :P

De Filosoof
04-29-2012, 08:04 PM
I'm very, very, VERY disappointed with all this info!!

especially around 40 minutes in.
"When you're a pacifist you should like the templars?!?!"
WTF is this.
I can hear the disappointment in the voice of the guy asking the questions, he also didn't expect that answer.
I don't like where this game is going.

loomer979
04-29-2012, 09:07 PM
I'm very, very, VERY disappointed with all this info!!

especially around 40 minutes in.
"When you're a pacifist you should like the templars?!?!"
WTF is this.
I can hear the disappointment in the voice of the guy asking the questions, he also didn't expect that answer.
I don't like where this game is going.

OK well I was the one asking the question and I assure it's not disappointment in my voice, if anything it's my voice being a little absent minded while I dwell on what Jeffrey had just said.

I think what he said makes total sense (including the part about pacifists and templars), and it fits in well with the philosophies of the templars and assassin's since the beginning of the series. I think the main problem with the Lucy stuff is that Vidic has pretty much been the face of Abstergo throughout the series... and he's a pretty evil person. Same goes for the Borgias and while it makes for good storytelling when you're playing as Ezio seeking revenge, it doesn't really help the writers push this notion that the Templars are not inherently evil and that they just have a different philosophy than the Assassins.

Anyway, I get the impression from what Jeffrey said (and what I've heard from Corey May in recent interviews) that they're really going to be emphasizing the humanity and good intentions of the Templars more in AC3. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

rob.davies2014
04-29-2012, 09:40 PM
I really enjoyed it, what I found particularly interesting was the idea of S16 reliving the last moment of his life over and over again and breaking the loop of humanity by helping Desmond. I'd never thought of it that way.
I think I've discovered the Email-William-inconsistency-thing that Jeffrey was talking about, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before.

27th of September 2012
William M to Shaun
"You'll be glad to know that everyone here is safe for the time being." -extract from email

6th of October 2012, 10.59pm
William M to Shaun
"I'm still with the others...You'll be up with Desmond and I'm having trouble sleeping these days anyway....The unexpected heat of this European fall is killing me." -extract form email.

I think it's safe to say that he remained in the same place between these dates. And that it was somewhere in Europe.
The Monteriggioni team are also in Europe, it is 11ish for Mont and William M says it's quite late so the timezone is similar.

4th of October 2012, 8.00pm (whilst William M was in Europe)
"William" to Lucy
"Sorry about the slow reply, just got back from lunch."
Who might appear to have lunch that late? People in different timezones. Therefore this William is not in Europe.
Probably. It's just a theory but I think that the evidence supports it.
Nice to see they had it planned since BH and it wasn't a last minute add on before Revs.

SixKeys
04-29-2012, 10:20 PM
I think the main problem with the Lucy stuff is that Vidic has pretty much been the face of Abstergo throughout the series... and he's a pretty evil person.

Not to mention he was being pretty buddy-buddy with Lucy in TLA. This inconsistency still bothers me despite Jeff Yohalem's explanation. He claims it's obvious Lucy doesn't like or trust Vidic but trusts the Templars in general because she believes in their cause. If she dislikes Vidic so much, why do they appear so close in TLA?

The thing about the e-mails in ACB being from two different William M.'s was very interesting. I'm not sure what it could mean, though. Which one was being deceived, Shaun or Lucy?

rob.davies2014
04-29-2012, 10:55 PM
What do you mean by close, SixKeys? Do you mean within Abstergo? I don't think Lucy had a choice about which department she worked in I think she was lumped with Abstergo.
If you mean emotionally I don't think she was. I when we saw Vidic placing his hand on her shoulder in TLA that was just him being creepy.
Also I don't think either of them were being deceived, Lucy was actively and knowingly contacting a member of Abstergo it seems (read my post above yours)

SixKeys
04-29-2012, 11:22 PM
I meant the way Vidic was acting towards her and how she reacted (or rather didn't react) to it. If she really disliked Vidic, you'd think it would have shown in her expressions or body language - shoulders slumped, averse to his touch, etc. Instead she looked almost like an eager school student. The way he spoke to her was much more friendly than he was at any point in AC1 and we even found out he was the one to plant the seed of her hatred or distrust of the assassins when he told her to ask Shaun and Rebecca why they left her alone for seven years. He planted in her the idea that she had been abandoned and acted like the friendly templar who was going to take care of her. In Lucy's letter to Clay, we find out she took Vidic's advice to heart and really believed the assassins had abandoned her. So she must have trusted him enough to some level and believed he only had her best interests at heart, which would seem to fly in the face of what we saw of their relationship in AC1 and what Jeff Yohalem said.

Edit: As for the e-mails, so then the William M. Lucy was talking to in Brotherhood was really an Abstergo agent and they were just disguising their conversations, kind of like the "spam" e-mail in AC1? That makes more sense. I was thinking either William M. was sending either Shaun or Lucy false information, possibly because he suspected a mole in the team but wasn't sure who to trust, or that the real William purposely had someone on his team pretend to be him and keep in contact with Lucy to see if they could make her slip up somehow.

TheHumanTowel
04-29-2012, 11:42 PM
Very interesting stuff. I knew the Lucy twist was supposed to be in the main game. The Lost Archive should have been in the main game as they intended it. It was 10x more interesting than Desmond's journey. Whoever made that decision should be shot. Still it's good to know the writers know what they're doing.

rob.davies2014
04-29-2012, 11:59 PM
I don't think it matters how Vidic acted towards Lucy because it's Lucy's allegiances we're discussing here.
I'm content with Jeffrey's explanation that Lucy disliked Vidic but agreed with the ideology of the Templars. It makes sense that she would have hidden any distaste she had for him because they had to work together and he could have made her life a lot harder if there was friction between them, he's a powerful man. I imagine she donned the "eager school student" look to get along with him.
We know how deceiving Lucy can be, we've seen her with the Assassins.
As for him speaking to her in a friendly way, that's not how I would put it. I've gone through The Lost Archive dialogue and the closest I could find was "...We're counting on you Lucy. You have served the Templar Order well and we never forget loyalty. Oh yes, once inside their hideout, perhaps you might ask the Assassins why they left you alone for so many years..."
To me, the first bit seems like he's just reminding her of her duty and that she will be payed (in whichever way they were planing on paying her). The last sentence just seems like he's gloating that the Templars won her over due to the Assassins' negligence.
His language never comes across as friendly to me.
The fact that he converted her is more a testament to his manipulative abilities and her search for support and peace than her being close to him. I don't think you need to trust someone to be affected by their words.

Yes, I think he was someone working at Abstergo, who is either coincidentally called William M. or she placed him under that name so that it wouldn't catch suspicion if someone caught a glimpse of her screen. The conversations don't seem disguised though they're quite open about going through the tapes of Desmond's Animus sessions (The reason for Abstergo's arrival at the Assassin hideout at the end of AC2)

De Filosoof
04-30-2012, 12:17 AM
OK well I was the one asking the question and I assure it's not disappointment in my voice, if anything it's my voice being a little absent minded while I dwell on what Jeffrey had just said.

I think what he said makes total sense (including the part about pacifists and templars), and it fits in well with the philosophies of the templars and assassin's since the beginning of the series. I think the main problem with the Lucy stuff is that Vidic has pretty much been the face of Abstergo throughout the series... and he's a pretty evil person. Same goes for the Borgias and while it makes for good storytelling when you're playing as Ezio seeking revenge, it doesn't really help the writers push this notion that the Templars are not inherently evil and that they just have a different philosophy than the Assassins.

Anyway, I get the impression from what Jeffrey said (and what I've heard from Corey May in recent interviews) that they're really going to be emphasizing the humanity and good intentions of the Templars more in AC3. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

I'm not talking about good and/or evil here
Have you played the glyph puzzles in AC2 and ACB?
If you have played them you would understand my point.
Enslaving the people is a good intention?
cool, cool.....
They try to keep people naive, without any knowledge so they can make money for them without any questioning, That's the reason why they (the templars) can be rich.
Do you think ignorance produces peace?
Do you understand that if people have more awareness and knowledge of the bigger picture, they can be more at peace? Because they are less confused and have less hate and no more prejudices?
Look at ignorant racists for example. They hate and use violence because they are ignorant.
When somebody understands race has nothing to do with criminality and understands that lower(educated) classes in this system produces criminality, he won't have prejudices against them thus more peace.
If someone understands that we are all one species on this planet born the same way, ****ting in a diaper, why would we tolerate wars?
Why would we tolerate an army bombing innocent people?
Only when people are ignorant they tolerate wars because they think they have nothing in common with those foreign people and are somehow "evil".

Understand my point?
So no, pacifists and templars don't go hand in hand.
I'm a pacifist/activist myself.

(Sorry for my English)



Yeah, listen at the text of this video from ACR:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odAcNQnaltY

Especially the part at 1:57.

De Filosoof
04-30-2012, 12:34 AM
This part at 7:30 looks very friendly as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1akjsLTXX9E

Chipping people without asking.
I like their good intentions.

morpheusPrime08
04-30-2012, 12:42 AM
I'm not talking about good and/or evil here
Have you played the glyph puzzles in AC2 and ACB?
If you have played them you would understand my point.
Enslaving the people is a good intention?
cool, cool.....
They try to keep people naive, without any knowledge so they can make money for them without any questioning, That's the reason why they (the templars) can be rich.
Do you think ignorance produces peace?
Do you understand that if people have more awareness and knowledge of the bigger picture, they can be more at peace? Because they are less confused and have less hate and no more prejudices?
Look at ignorant racists for example. They hate and use violence because they are ignorant.
When somebody understands race has nothing to do with criminality and understands that lower(educated) classes in this system produces criminality, he won't have prejudices against them thus more peace.
If someone understands that we are all one species on this planet born the same way, ****ting in a diaper, why would we tolerate wars?
Why would we tolerate an army bombing innocent people?
Only when people are ignorant they tolerate wars because they think they have nothing in common with those foreign people and are somehow "evil".

Understand my point?
So no, pacifists and templars don't go hand in hand.
I'm a pacifist/activist myself.

(Sorry for my English)

Especially the part at 1:57.


I get what your saying, but from what Ive heard in interviews the last couple of months, the whole Templars are Evil and Assassins are good was not intended to be the main plot point, there were supposed to be more grays but it somehow slipped away in the last few games, but will be better explored and explained in AC3.

Thanks Loomer, awsome podcast and I watched the whole thing. Its amazing how much goes into each and every mechanic of not just AC but games period, it not as simple as write this and make this, the AC writers sure are pasionate :D, this is the best AC info weve got in weeks, now we just need some official AC3 *cough trailer cough* infio :D

De Filosoof
04-30-2012, 12:47 AM
I get what your saying, but from what Ive heard in interviews the last couple of months, the whole Templars are Evil and Assassins are good was not intended to be the main plot point, there were supposed to be more grays but it somehow slipped away in the last few games, but will be better explored and explained in AC3.

Thanks Loomer, awsome podcast and I watched the whole thing. Its amazing how much goes into each and every mechanic of not just AC but games period, it not as simple as write this and make this, the AC writers sure are pasionate :D, this is the best AC info weve got in weeks, now we just need some official AC3 *cough trailer cough* infio :D

Templars (rich elites in the real world) are not evil, they are just power addicts and money junks to be honest.
No more wars with the "templars"? Serious?
They are the reason there are wars.
Without them, we wouldn't live in this sick system anymore to begin with because this system is build by them, for them (especially the federal reserve banking system).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwlwL-o7XqI

and have fun with watching this one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

Assassin's creed cartoon :P

Legendz54
04-30-2012, 01:03 AM
One of my favorite parts of the podcast was when they mentioned clay could come back through another body and that it was a possibility. And also when he said he could not comment if lucy was really dead. I am also relieved that he said that some of the things virtual s16 said will be answered in AC3. Very good podcast, thanks for posting.

Serrachio
04-30-2012, 01:44 AM
One thing that I suppose could be asked in the future is the situation of the rescue attempt sent for Desmond in AC1.

If Lucy was meant to be a mole for the Assassins, whose job it was to break him out, why would a rescue attempt need to be sent in the first place? After all, for all that William knew, she was still loyal to the Assassins and Clay's death could have been an unfortunate accident.

SixKeys
04-30-2012, 03:13 AM
One thing that I suppose could be asked in the future is the situation of the rescue attempt sent for Desmond in AC1.

If Lucy was meant to be a mole for the Assassins, whose job it was to break him out, why would a rescue attempt need to be sent in the first place? After all, for all that William knew, she was still loyal to the Assassins and Clay's death could have been an unfortunate accident.

I can't remember if a dev said it or if it was just fan speculation, but one theory I heard said the rescue attempt in AC1 was just a fake created by the Templars to make Desmond feel more desperate and isolated. They wanted him to feel like no-one was coming for him, so they could keep manipulating him. If that was the case though, then I don't see what was the point of Lucy helping him escape.

Acrimonious_Nin
04-30-2012, 03:16 AM
I really enjoyed it, what I found particularly interesting was the idea of S16 reliving the last moment of his life over and over again and breaking the loop of humanity by helping Desmond. I'd never thought of it that way.
I think I've discovered the Email-William-inconsistency-thing that Jeffrey was talking about, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before.

27th of September 2012
William M to Shaun
"You'll be glad to know that everyone here is safe for the time being." -extract from email

6th of October 2012, 10.59pm
William M to Shaun
"I'm still with the others...You'll be up with Desmond and I'm having trouble sleeping these days anyway....The unexpected heat of this European fall is killing me." -extract form email.

I think it's safe to say that he remained in the same place between these dates. And that it was somewhere in Europe.
The Monteriggioni team are also in Europe, it is 11ish for Mont and William M says it's quite late so the timezone is similar.

4th of October 2012, 8.00pm (whilst William M was in Europe)
"William" to Lucy
"Sorry about the slow reply, just got back from lunch."
Who might appear to have lunch that late? People in different timezones. Therefore this William is not in Europe.
Probably. It's just a theory but I think that the evidence supports it.
Nice to see they had it planned since BH and it wasn't a last minute add on before Revs.

Just to add to this When it's 8:00pm in Italy it is 1:00pm(lunch) in the mid west of America.

Serrachio
04-30-2012, 03:27 AM
I can't remember if a dev said it or if it was just fan speculation, but one theory I heard said the rescue attempt in AC1 was just a fake created by the Templars to make Desmond feel more desperate and isolated. They wanted him to feel like no-one was coming for him, so they could keep manipulating him. If that was the case though, then I don't see what was the point of Lucy helping him escape.

Then I guess it still needs to be clarified.

infamous_ezio
04-30-2012, 03:27 AM
This was pretty cool, although their is still a little confusion in my mind..

first of all, i get that he couldn't answer my question about the ACB truth, thats part of AC3, was just a shot of hope xD aha but owell. Now he mentions that TLA was originally meant to be in the game, and the 7 gateways were for this, so we were originally supposed to view it from desmonds POV. But he said they changed it, but why are we viewing it from clays now? and how is desmond going to tell the others about lucy? the original plan was for desmond to find out about her betrayal through those memories, so i'm not sure as to how they will incorperate her betrayal into AC3 considering clay was the only one who knew..

One thing i forgot to ask was about TLA date, when desmond first enters his coma the date is 10th of october 2012, and when you load up TLA you see this same date, i wander if that was just something that wasn't removed seeing as desmond would have visited those memories on that date?

i wish they added the lucy thing to memory 7, a faceless lucy in a wedding dress, i actually would have crapped my pants ahah. Why a wedding dress tho?

Serrachio
04-30-2012, 03:31 AM
This was pretty cool, although their is still a little confusion in my mind..

first of all, i get that he couldn't answer my question about the ACB truth, thats part of AC3, was just a shot of hope xD aha but owell. Now he mentions that TLA was originally meant to be in the game, and the 7 gateways were for this, so we were originally supposed to view it from desmonds POV. But he said they changed it, but why are we viewing it from clays now? and how is desmond going to tell the others about lucy? the original plan was for desmond to find out about her betrayal through those memories, so i'm not sure as to how they will incorperate her betrayal into AC3 considering clay was the only one who knew..

One thing i forgot to ask was about TLA date, when desmond first enters his coma the date is 10th of october 2012, and when you load up TLA you see this same date, i wander if that was just something that wasn't removed seeing as desmond would have visited those memories on that date?

i wish they added the lucy thing to memory 7, a faceless lucy in a wedding dress, i actually would have crapped my pants ahah. Why a wedding dress tho?

Desmond's Journey was meant as a replacement for Clay's memories in the main game, saving them for the Lost Archive DLC instead. From the start, what was mentioned in the podcast was that Desmond was supposed to go through all of Clay's memories, instead of them being about him and his escape from the Farm.

Since it was done that way, Desmond doesn't know Lucy was a Templar, but instead that she's dead from the introduction of the game.

infamous_ezio
04-30-2012, 03:52 AM
Desmond's Journey was meant as a replacement for Clay's memories in the main game, saving them for the Lost Archive DLC instead. From the start, what was mentioned in the podcast was that Desmond was supposed to go through all of Clay's memories, instead of them being about him and his escape from the Farm.

Since it was done that way, Desmond doesn't know Lucy was a Templar, but instead that she's dead from the introduction of the game.

They should have just chucked it in the game, everything would have been alot simpler. I wander how they will find out bout her betrayal in ac3.

twenty_glyphs
04-30-2012, 04:20 AM
That was a great podcast. Thanks for putting it together and thanks to Jeffrey Yohalem for spending so much time answering questions.

I'm glad Jeffrey mentioned the Brotherhood emails from William M. to Lucy being hints towards Lucy's betrayal of the Assassins. I noticed the bit about coming back from lunch and the late time, but wasn't sure if it was a real clue or just a slip up. After finding out the truth behind the footprints in Brotherhood, I don't want to waste time digging too deep into obscure mysteries anymore.

Those emails from William M. to Lucy make much more sense when you think of them being from an Abstergo employee. I wondered why the real William M. would care that Lucy was forming too close of a rapport with Desmond, but it makes obvious sense if it's really someone from Abstergo. The emails also made it look like the Assassins suddenly knew a lot more than they had let on before, but it makes more sense that it's someone from Abstergo who knows much more of the truth so far. It also makes sense that the tapes mentioned were the tapes that Lucy left behind for Vidic when he showed up at the warehouse at the end of AC2.

I also liked Jeffrey's answer about the whole memory within a memory issue from Brotherhood. Even though it still doesn't make much sense about what the "real" genetic memory versus Ezio remembering his own past was, it at least answers the question about what is going on. In the end, knowing the general concept of what was happening there helps me understand it, so that's all that matters for now.

Serrachio
04-30-2012, 05:45 AM
I also liked Jeffrey's answer about the whole memory within a memory issue from Brotherhood. Even though it still doesn't make much sense about what the "real" genetic memory versus Ezio remembering his own past was, it at least answers the question about what is going on. In the end, knowing the general concept of what was happening there helps me understand it, so that's all that matters for now.

It kind of confused me at that part. If Ezio stored the Piece of Eden in 1506, and the fight with Cesare was in 1507, how could he somehow "remember" the fight that he would have one year after in 1507 while storing the Apple away in 1506?

Was it that when Desmond tried to access the part in Ezio's life with the Apple's location (Colosseum Vault), it shunted him into the 1507 memory where Ezio was fighting Cesare, but because he would remember the Apple's location later when Cesare was thrown from the wall, it corrupted part of the memory?

After that, once Desmond relived through the Siege of Viana, he could clearly see the memory that Ezio was reflecting back on after Cesare's demise, and the weird red Animus effects were when it relocated Desmond along Ezio remembering the event to view it?

twenty_glyphs
04-30-2012, 07:04 AM
It kind of confused me at that part. If Ezio stored the Piece of Eden in 1506, and the fight with Cesare was in 1507, how could he somehow "remember" the fight that he would have one year after in 1507 while storing the Apple away in 1506?

Was it that when Desmond tried to access the part in Ezio's life with the Apple's location (Colosseum Vault), it shunted him into the 1507 memory where Ezio was fighting Cesare, but because he would remember the Apple's location later when Cesare was thrown from the wall, it corrupted part of the memory?

After that, once Desmond relived through the Siege of Viana, he could clearly see the memory that Ezio was reflecting back on after Cesare's demise, and the weird red Animus effects were when it relocated Desmond along Ezio remembering the event to view it?

Yeah, that's what still doesn't make sense no matter how I think of it. If I understand Jeffrey right, he ends up saying that while Ezio is hiding the Apple, he remembers the final fight with Cesare, and while he's fighting Cesare, he remembers the rest of the game starting in 1499 with Minerva's speech and leading back up to the fight with Cesare. That still does not explain how he was able to "remember" the future while hiding the Apple.

Jeffrey also says that after Ezio throws Cesare off the wall, he's pulled back to the real memory of him hiding the Apple. He also mentions that Ezio is using the Apple at the point that he's hiding it. The only thing that makes sense and fits what was said is if Ezio uses the Apple to see a detailed version of the 1507 events while he's hiding it in 1505 (they say 1506 in the podcast, but the novel and Da Vinci Disappearance DLC imply that the Apple was hidden in 1505), and that the vision of the future then contains Ezio remembering the events that led up to the fight with Cesare.

After mulling it over some, the only thing that really makes sense to me is the following: Rebecca tries to access Ezio's memory of hiding the Apple in 1505 or 1506. While Ezio is hiding the Apple, he uses it to see a vision of the future to find Cesare, and it shows him how to find Cesare and also shows him the vision of Cesare's final speech. This vision confuses the Animus, causing it to try to jump to the 1507 memory of the fight with Cesare. While replaying that memory, Ezio then remembers the important events that led up to his fight with Cesare, which includes basically the whole game's story and explains why events from 1504-1506 are missing, and why the game jumps from the memory of Cesare's arrest straight to Ezio fighting him. When Desmond completes Ezio's 1507 memory leading up to Cesare's speech, the Animus can finally sort the memories out and sends Desmond back to complete the memory of hiding the Apple.

This is still pretty confusing and probably not even correct. But at the end of the day, I realize the following: the writers needed a story excuse for why Desmond can't just jump straight to Ezio's memory of hiding the Apple, thus justifying telling the entire story in the past, and they didn't want to use the same reason from AC1 since Desmond was already well synchronized with Ezio. The memory within a memory device was used as the reason why Desmond had to relive all of Ezio's story in Brotherhood to find the target memory. After a year and a half of wondering, this is mostly good enough for me and fits the story as presented in the game.

GLHS
04-30-2012, 10:11 AM
Yeah, that's what still doesn't make sense no matter how I think of it. If I understand Jeffrey right, he ends up saying that while Ezio is hiding the Apple, he remembers the final fight with Cesare, and while he's fighting Cesare, he remembers the rest of the game starting in 1499 with Minerva's speech and leading back up to the fight with Cesare. That still does not explain how he was able to "remember" the future while hiding the Apple.

Jeffrey also says that after Ezio throws Cesare off the wall, he's pulled back to the real memory of him hiding the Apple. He also mentions that Ezio is using the Apple at the point that he's hiding it. The only thing that makes sense and fits what was said is if Ezio uses the Apple to see a detailed version of the 1507 events while he's hiding it in 1505 (they say 1506 in the podcast, but the novel and Da Vinci Disappearance DLC imply that the Apple was hidden in 1505), and that the vision of the future then contains Ezio remembering the events that led up to the fight with Cesare.

After mulling it over some, the only thing that really makes sense to me is the following: Rebecca tries to access Ezio's memory of hiding the Apple in 1505 or 1506. While Ezio is hiding the Apple, he uses it to see a vision of the future to find Cesare, and it shows him how to find Cesare and also shows him the vision of Cesare's final speech. This vision confuses the Animus, causing it to try to jump to the 1507 memory of the fight with Cesare. While replaying that memory, Ezio then remembers the important events that led up to his fight with Cesare, which includes basically the whole game's story and explains why events from 1504-1506 are missing, and why the game jumps from the memory of Cesare's arrest straight to Ezio fighting him. When Desmond completes Ezio's 1507 memory leading up to Cesare's speech, the Animus can finally sort the memories out and sends Desmond back to complete the memory of hiding the Apple.

This is still pretty confusing and probably not even correct. But at the end of the day, I realize the following: the writers needed a story excuse for why Desmond can't just jump straight to Ezio's memory of hiding the Apple, thus justifying telling the entire story in the past, and they didn't want to use the same reason from AC1 since Desmond was already well synchronized with Ezio. The memory within a memory device was used as the reason why Desmond had to relive all of Ezio's story in Brotherhood to find the target memory. After a year and a half of wondering, this is mostly good enough for me and fits the story as presented in the game.

Yeah, see I just thought it was b/c Ezio's mind was repressing memories, so Desmond essentially had to go through everything to basically repair his mind and allow him to synch with Ezio's memory of hiding the Apple. Once Ezio was more in synch with his own memories, that allowed him hiding the Apple to become accessible. I guess he was "remembering something else" b/c he hadn't gone back through and essentially repaired his own mind, so he was shown the fight with Cesare instead.

OriginalMiles
04-30-2012, 10:47 AM
It's nice to know that TLA was going to be part of the main game, and that Desmond would find out about Lucy.

De Filosoof
04-30-2012, 10:59 AM
It's nice to know that TLA was going to be part of the main game, and that Desmond would find out about Lucy.

It was quite obvious though...
When you watch the first Desmond journey trailer it was clear that it was going to be very different at first.
Notice the red texts, it says Lucy, you will know the truth at one point. There's also a red text that says, the end is the beginning,
i wonder what that means. Maybe it has something to do with the ending of AC3.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4x1H8x9YSM

OriginalMiles
04-30-2012, 11:16 AM
It was quite obvious though...
When you watch the first Desmond journey trailer it was clear that it was going to be very different at first
(Notice the red texts, it says Lucy, you will know the truth at one point).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4x1H8x9YSM
I remember that trailer, I'm still listening to the Podcast, does it say why it was removed from the game?

EDIT: A bit further along now, so Lucy being a Templar was planned since AC2?

GLHS
04-30-2012, 11:50 AM
Well, really it was planned from early on, but he says that that story arch starts taking place halfway through AC2. So it was pretty much all planned from the beginning.

I still hate how so many questions are open-ended, but at the same time, the way he answers them pretty much says that, while possible within the AC universe, they won't be writing those things into the script. Like his joke about a zombie spin-off with Lucy. It reassures the fact for me, that while there still may be story elements of AC3 involving Lucy and Clay (which is why he's not able to talk about it), they won't actually be making a return. But I REALLY hope that they do a Clay prequel. That, for me, would be the only sort of spin-off or continuance after the main story is over that I would be interested in. I've been wanting them to do that for a while, and I've always really loved Clay and been very interested in his story.

SixKeys
04-30-2012, 01:04 PM
I thought the stuff about the characterization of Desmond vs. Clay was very interesting. So many people find Desmond boring as a character which, in a way, he is. What Yohalem explained about the "Gordon Freeman" theory being the dominant character creation template at the time AC1 was made makes sense. I've always liked Desmond exactly because he isn't a very well-rounded character but more of an outsider to the events, just like the player. In a story like AC which is full of mysteries and plot twists that'll make your head spin, I think it's necessary for the main character to be more neutral. We, as Desmond, are at the mercy of the events being played out. It wouldn't work to have a main character who is very complex and in control. With a side character like Clay you have more freedom to expand on his personality because he knows more than Desmond - and by extension the players.

she-assassin
04-30-2012, 02:31 PM
Maybe I just misunderstood, but didn't Jeffrey say something about Lucy in a wedding dress when he was talking about the original concept of TLA? What was that about? Also, I remember him saying that Lucy really cared about and loved Clay. Maybe I'm just imagining things, I was really tired and already half-asleep while listening to the podcast last night.
I wish they hadn't changed the original concept of TLA so much. It could have been so much better, although, it already is really amazing and it's probably my favourite part of ACR, but still...

Also, about William M., I think I had suspected it even before Jeffrey mentioned it. I thought the e-mails William wrote to Lucy were kind of strange and way too personal. And it really didn't make sense that William in ACR wouldn't know that Lucy had feelings for Desmond just few days after he had advised her not to put Desmond in danger just because of feelings she may or may not have. Then who is this second William M.?

OriginalMiles
04-30-2012, 02:35 PM
Maybe I just misunderstood, but didn't Jeffrey say something about Lucy in a wedding dress when he was talking about the original concept of TLA? What was that about? Also, I remember him saying that Lucy really cared about and loved Clay. Maybe I'm just imagining things, I was really tired and already half-asleep while listening to the podcast last night.
I wish they hadn't changed the original concept of TLA so much. It could have been so much better, although, it already is really amazing and it's probably my favourite part of ACR, but still...

Also, about William M., I think I had suspected it even before Jeffrey mentioned it. I thought the e-mails William wrote to Lucy were kind of strange and way too personal. And it really didn't make sense that William in ACR wouldn't know that Lucy had feelings for Desmond just few days after he had advised her not to put Desmond in danger just because of feelings she may or may not have. Then who is this second William M.?
Probably a templar, I think Jeffrey said that was one of the hints to Lucy, so it could have been a templar using that name in case others looked at her e-mail, they wouldn't suspect anything.

infamous_ezio
04-30-2012, 03:22 PM
Probably a templar, I think Jeffrey said that was one of the hints to Lucy, so it could have been a templar using that name in case others looked at her e-mail, they wouldn't suspect anything.

Also in ACR william asks if desmond and lucy were close, but apparently he already knew this in the emails, man the hints just keep coming ahah

OriginalMiles
04-30-2012, 03:27 PM
Also in ACR william asks if desmond and lucy were close, but apparently he already knew this in the emails, man the hints just keep coming ahah
We now have more clues to her Templar-ness, and now we know it was planned at least during AC2 (and I think AC1) we can now find hints to it in that game.

infamous_ezio
04-30-2012, 03:36 PM
We now have more clues to her Templar-ness, and now we know it was planned at least during AC2 (and I think AC1) we can now find hints to it in that game.

aha yeah, still bummed out hey he couldn't answer anything about the ACB truth.. i wander if that will play a part in AC3

zerocooll21
04-30-2012, 03:39 PM
Nice Vid! Lots to think about.

Good showing with the Q's twenty_glyphs :p



I can't remember if a dev said it or if it was just fan speculation,

I mentioned that back in early april, I deff think thats all it was.

SixKeys
04-30-2012, 03:59 PM
Also in ACR william asks if desmond and lucy were close, but apparently he already knew this in the emails, man the hints just keep coming ahah

I don't think that one counts. Remember, even if it had been the real William who had an e-mail exchange with Lucy, they were meant to be private conversations which Desmond (and the players) only got to see because of Erudito. William couldn't have flat-out revealed to Shaun and Rebecca that he knew Lucy and Desmond were close because they weren't supposed to know about that private information. So he could have asked them about it in a casual way, even though he already knew the answer.

infamous_ezio
04-30-2012, 04:05 PM
I don't think that one counts. Remember, even if it had been the real William who had an e-mail exchange with Lucy, they were meant to be private conversations which Desmond (and the players) only got to see because of Erudito. William couldn't have flat-out revealed to Shaun and Rebecca that he knew Lucy and Desmond were close because they weren't supposed to know about that private information. So he could have asked them about it in a casual way, even though he already knew the answer.

What i'm saying is that the emails to lucy from "william" who was not really william but a templar, new bout them being kind of close, and the real william was concerned about this in ACR as if he didn't know.

she-assassin
04-30-2012, 04:30 PM
What i'm saying is that the emails to lucy from "william" who was not really william but a templar, new bout them being kind of close, and the real william was concerned about this in ACR as if he didn't know.
Yeah, and he told you that William could just fake it. Maybe for some reason he didn't want Becca and Shaun to know that he already knew about Lucy and Desmond. That could be an option, too.

But Jeffrey also says that we should not forget that when Desmond ran away from home he was running away from William in the first place. Is he trying to suggest that we shouldn't trust William so much?

UrDeviant1
04-30-2012, 05:18 PM
Yeah, and he told you that William could just fake it. Maybe for some reason he didn't want Becca and Shaun to know that he already knew about Lucy and Desmond. That could be an option, too.

But Jeffrey also says that we should not forget that when Desmond ran away from home he was running away from William in the first place. Is he trying to suggest that we shouldn't trust William so much?

I think the main reasons that Desmond ran away from the Farm was because his Father was pushing him to train, without giving any explanation as to what he was training for. I think William was obsessed with the safety of the Assassin order and became emotionally detached from Desmond, which In turn pushed him to run away.

Also I'm not quite sure where William showed any knowledge of Desmond and Lucy's "Relationship" prior to when he asked Rebecca and Shaun In ACR, "If they were close"..

SixKeys
04-30-2012, 06:22 PM
In AC1 Desmond says he ran away because he thought his parents (William and whoever his mother is, presumably) were crazy and had just made up the whole Templars vs. Assassins war. Not only did William probably push him too hard in his training, he must also have kept a lot of secrets or been vague about certain things, making Desmond believe he couldn't be trusted. That may be the reason we still don't know much about William and why he can't fully be trusted. He seems very distant even with people who are close to him. It may just be social awkwardness but we also know the assassins, just like the Templars, can make questionable decisions when they believe it's for the greater good. William has done many such things, such as leaving Lucy and Clay without proper support for too long in a hostile environment. In Desmond's Journey it's implied that Desmond was terrified of being caught during his escape, leaving one to wonder how severe the punishment might have been. Desmond probably knows this side of William better than anyone and that's why he doesn't trust him.

SaintPerkele
04-30-2012, 08:04 PM
First of all, i get that he couldn't answer my question about the ACB truth, thats part of AC3, was just a shot of hope xD aha but owell. Now he mentions that TLA was originally meant to be in the game, and the 7 gateways were for this, so we were originally supposed to view it from desmonds POV. But he said they changed it, but why are we viewing it from clays now? and how is desmond going to tell the others about lucy? the original plan was for desmond to find out about her betrayal through those memories, so i'm not sure as to how they will incorperate her betrayal into AC3 considering clay was the only one who knew.
I think I have an explanation for this. Just before Clay saves Desmond in the Black Room, he says "What is a man but the sum of his memories?" and hugs him with all that light and stuff going into Desmond. To me it was simple: Clay passed his memories onto Desmond to tell him what he couldn't tell him in the Black Room, because he didn't have the time and the Black Room was basically collapsing. That's why after the end of ACR, it was said that the Animus Island was 'reconstructed' or something along those lines - with Clay's memories, all gates would have been accessible (this was probably changed due to TLA being DLC though).
So if this theory would be correct, that would explain why Clay did not reveal all the stuff he hinted in the glyphs, rifts and in the miracle to Desmond. Because Desmond now possesses all of Clay's memories, he knows everything he knew. And if this again is correct, that would also explain Desmond knowing what to do at the very end of ACR. Just speculation though, please point out flaws if there are any.

GLHS
04-30-2012, 10:02 PM
It all sounds good except for the fact that Dez knew what to do b/c he found the synch nexus, not b/c of Clay.

infamous_ezio
05-01-2012, 07:28 AM
Yeah, and he told you that William could just fake it. Maybe for some reason he didn't want Becca and Shaun to know that he already knew about Lucy and Desmond. That could be an option, too.

But Jeffrey also says that we should not forget that when Desmond ran away from home he was running away from William in the first place. Is he trying to suggest that we shouldn't trust William so much?

Wait, jeffrey said in the podcast that if you look at the emails to lucy from will then the ones to shaun from will, theirs a difference, i assumed the "william" that was sedning messages to lucy wasn't actually william at all but abstergo, probably vidic, so when the real Will in ACR asked if they were close, it was just another hint that lucy was a templar.. not much to it aha.

I don't think so, i think the point that their trying to get across is that the templars aren't bad as jeff said many times. Its not that we shouldn't trust william, its just the templars method might be better . (highly doubt it tho)

infamous_ezio
05-01-2012, 07:31 AM
It all sounds good except for the fact that Dez knew what to do b/c he found the synch nexus, not b/c of Clay.

yeah they really messed it up their. things could have gone much more smoother if they have made desmond view clay's memories. I actually am really curious as to how lucy's death will be explained to the modern day guys, from the looks of it when desmond woke up they didn't even care.. and well technically desmond doesn't know why either.. so when he wakes up whats going to make them find out bout lucy's defection? only clay holds the answer and well... he's gone!

GLHS
05-01-2012, 09:43 AM
But if he actually did pass on the memories to Desmond, then he knows everything Clay knew. Or at least what he found out in TLA. All they have to do is explain in AC3 that that's what happened when Clay tried to save him, and it fixes the plot hole. And it could even be an accident too. Like Clay had no idea that would happen, but now Dez gets all the knowledge and can now explain things to everybody else and use that knowledge to do what he's gotta do.

infamous_ezio
05-01-2012, 10:00 AM
But if he actually did pass on the memories to Desmond, then he knows everything Clay knew. Or at least what he found out in TLA. All they have to do is explain in AC3 that that's what happened when Clay tried to save him, and it fixes the plot hole. And it could even be an accident too. Like Clay had no idea that would happen, but now Dez gets all the knowledge and can now explain things to everybody else and use that knowledge to do what he's gotta do.

I think that's a possibility, from memory im pretty sure they asked jeff about that and he said he couldn't answer it i think i can't really be boathered searching for it haha. Desmond didn't find out anything from TLA because it was clay reliving it not him, i suppose it makes sense, clay imprinting himself into desmond.

SaintPerkele
05-01-2012, 11:28 AM
I think that's a possibility, from memory im pretty sure they asked jeff about that and he said he couldn't answer it i think i can't really be boathered searching for it haha. Desmond didn't find out anything from TLA because it was clay reliving it not him, i suppose it makes sense, clay imprinting himself into desmond.
You did not read my reply to your first post, did you? ;)

I think I have an explanation for this. Just before Clay saves Desmond in the Black Room, he says "What is a man but the sum of his memories?" and hugs him with all that light and stuff going into Desmond. To me it was simple: Clay passed his memories onto Desmond to tell him what he couldn't tell him in the Black Room, because he didn't have the time and the Black Room was basically collapsing. That's why after the end of ACR, it was said that the Animus Island was 'reconstructed' or something along those lines - with Clay's memories, all gates would have been accessible (this was probably changed due to TLA being DLC though).
So if this theory would be correct, that would explain why Clay did not reveal all the stuff he hinted in the glyphs, rifts and in the miracle to Desmond. Because Desmond now possesses all of Clay's memories, he knows everything he knew. And if this again is correct, that would also explain Desmond knowing what to do at the very end of ACR. Just speculation though, please point out flaws if there are any.
It actually seems pretty obvious to me, that Desmond relived Clay's memories. Although I agree with GLHS, the knowledge about the temple was rather just a result of the Synch Nexus.

infamous_ezio
05-01-2012, 01:24 PM
You did not read my reply to your first post, did you? ;)

It actually seems pretty obvious to me, that Desmond relived Clay's memories. Although I agree with GLHS, the knowledge about the temple was rather just a result of the Synch Nexus.

Sorry i did but i just forgot to reply was replying to the other post aha xD. I agree with what your saying completely, it think its quite plausible, i'm just hoping that when desmond wakes up in AC3 shauns all up in his grill about lucy and then he just lays everything out, all the unknown answers. I'm just curious bout the truth though, jeff couldn't answer my question and said "theirs alot of stuff their.. you will have to wait and see" no help at all but im hoping desmond does have knowledge of it. When he said the loop was the point in which clay killed himself, maybe it was the point where he finally showed desmond everything.. just a thought

GLHS
05-01-2012, 02:44 PM
Well he made it seem pretty obvious that there's a lot of the whole Eve and Eden story in AC3. Since that's pretty much all that Clay talked about in The Truth in AC:B, I'm guessing that why he didn't wanna comment. He said there's a lot to that, and since it wasn't addressed at all in AC:R, that's where we'll be getting the answers. I'm sure once things settle down though, there will be some sort of dialogue between Desmond and everybody else describing why what happened to Lucy had to happen.

infamous_ezio
05-01-2012, 03:49 PM
I suppose so, and if anything ubisoft are really good at piecing things together to make for a good story, who knows they will probably blow our minds away, only 182 more days. seriously this wait is killing me.. i remember waiting for revelations was hard enough..

she-assassin
05-01-2012, 03:54 PM
Okay, again...what was the thing with Lucy and a wedding dress all about? What was it supposed to mean?

SixKeys
05-01-2012, 06:17 PM
Okay, again...what was the thing with Lucy and a wedding dress all about? What was it supposed to mean?

I'm wondering about this too. It sounds like it would have been really cool but the wedding dress confuses me.

GLHS
05-01-2012, 06:30 PM
From what I understood, she was supposed to be like this haunting shadow that followed you around all the levels and then she would become this faceless Lucy in the last one that made ground disappear and it would become this big platforming level. But I have no idea what the wedding dress thing was for either. Maybe Clay had more feelings for her than we were told...? Idk.

infamous_ezio
05-01-2012, 06:43 PM
I'm not sure what the wedding dress was suppose to symbolize, i get that the faceless lucy haunting clay makes sense, but the wedding dress... and white.. hmm maybe its like when dead girls in movies are always wearing white gowns to give that scary feeling (yep.. definitely not sleeping tonight because of this.. ahhaah). so maybe it was just to give that effect, but ubisoft always make everything have a purpose, so the wedding dress. that's kind of puzzling.

GLHS
05-01-2012, 08:51 PM
You're gonna have nightmares b/c of creepy wedding dress? Lol you are totally not a horror fan I take it. There's way scarier stuff then that.

infamous_ezio
05-02-2012, 06:10 AM
You're gonna have nightmares b/c of creepy wedding dress? Lol you are totally not a horror fan I take it. There's way scarier stuff then that.

i was only kidding! the only real thing that freaks me out in a scary movie is a girl in a white dress... its freaky aha

goclo822
05-02-2012, 08:04 AM
I think the wedding dress was suppose to symbolize that Clay had feelings for Lucy. Maybe there was something more there than a partnership. Who knows. Either way, I think that idea would have been much more interesting than what we actually got in the DLC.

GLHS
05-02-2012, 08:11 AM
Me too! It would've been like 10 times better, and would've given a good concept to an otherwise mediocre one. It just bothers me that the things they took out from the game as whole were better sounding and more important to the story than the things they left in.

infamous_ezio
05-02-2012, 12:03 PM
it really would have, now that i think about it i wish they would put it in, it would have honestly made people help understand clays situation alot better. I agree, i still don't understand why the creative director chose to not have TLA in the actually revelations game. kind of funny how we were all wrong about the meaning of 'breaking the loop'

she-assassin
05-02-2012, 12:54 PM
Jeffrey said that Lucy "did love and care about Clay and she did care about Desmond." What he's saying is basically that Lucy and Clay were more than just friends (or would have been more than just friends if Ubisoft hadn't scrapped the original concept of TLA). In that case, the wedding dress would make perfect sense.

Yeah, we all misunderstood the breaking of the loop. I wish someone had asked Jeffrey about the date at the beginning of TLA when the game loads and 30 October 2012 pops up on the screen. It's the day when a lot of stuff happens: Lucy is killed, Desmond falls in coma... Quite suspicious, don't you think?

infamous_ezio
05-02-2012, 02:38 PM
Jeffrey said that Lucy "did love and care about Clay and she did care about Desmond." What he's saying is basically that Lucy and Clay were more than just friends (or would have been more than just friends if Ubisoft hadn't scrapped the original concept of TLA). In that case, the wedding dress would make perfect sense.

Yeah, we all misunderstood the breaking of the loop. I wish someone had asked Jeffrey about the date at the beginning of TLA when the game loads and 30 October 2012 pops up on the screen. It's the day when a lot of stuff happens: Lucy is killed, Desmond falls in coma... Quite suspicious, don't you think?

I guess it makes sense, loved ones or family don't betray each other, in this case it could symbolize the brotherhood, which lucy defiled.

I actually was going to ask that, when i asked my question about the ACB truth i was just thinking.. their was one more thing.. and i only remembered when i was listening to the podcast, I think its due to the fact that desmond was originally going to view clays memories, so he would have seen them on the 10/10/2012

iNEEDSmeINSIDES
05-03-2012, 01:27 PM
That was very informative, thanks.

I enjoyed TLA, but it sounds like it could have been a better experience and more coherent. It seems a shame they reacted to the criticism of Desmond's Journey by abandoning their original plans for it.

GLHS
05-03-2012, 02:13 PM
Which makes no sense, b/c it's the exact same thing as Desmond's Journey, just with Clay instead.

loomer979
05-03-2012, 07:19 PM
That was very informative, thanks.

I enjoyed TLA, but it sounds like it could have been a better experience and more coherent. It seems a shame they reacted to the criticism of Desmond's Journey by abandoning their original plans for it.

Glad you enjoyed it. From what I understand I think the criticism of Desmond's Journey mainly affected the marketing (or lack thereof) of The Lost Archive... not really the development of it.

twenty_glyphs
05-03-2012, 07:52 PM
Glad you enjoyed it. From what I understand I think the criticism of Desmond's Journey mainly affected the marketing (or lack thereof) of The Lost Archive... not really the development of it.

Yeah, it sounded like the marketing was lacking because of the reception of the Desmond's Journey gameplay. Jeffrey made it sound like The Lost Archive was originally going to be one of the big revelations of the game called "Revelations". It seems like they were originally developing it as Desmond living Clay's memories to learn the truth about Lucy, which was going to be a climax of the main game. It sounds like at some point Alex Amancio decided that the game's story should be more about Desmond himself, and so they took the gameplay from Clay's memories and used it to build the Desmond's Journey segments and make the story about Desmond instead of Clay.

I wonder if all of the portal doors on Animus Island were originally going to lead to Clay's memories. This could be why the 2 doors were repaired at the end of the game, if they were additional memories of Clay's that he passed on to Desmond when he "hugged" him. There were 7 doors after the last 2 were repaired, and The Lost Archive had 7 memories with the last 2 memories being the big reveal moments. It also makes the whole Animus Island concept much more interesting when you realize it was originally planned for Desmond to relive Clay's memories, and Jeffrey also mentioned Lucy sort of "haunting" you on the island. It would also explain why Subject 16 didn't tell you much, since he was going to reveal it through his memories anyway.

It was interesting to realize that the writers don't drive the whole game and that the creative director is ultimately responsible for a lot of the decisions. I hate to blame Alex Amancio, but he made several decisions that really went against the core of Assassin's Creed and came out of left field. The decision to not reveal the truth about Lucy in the game itself was the worst one of all though, because naturally that was one of the biggest questions that fans of the series had. I'm glad they were still able to get it to us in some form.

De Filosoof
05-03-2012, 08:01 PM
Yeah, it sounded like the marketing was lacking because of the reception of the Desmond's Journey gameplay. Jeffrey made it sound like The Lost Archive was originally going to be one of the big revelations of the game called "Revelations". It seems like they were originally developing it as Desmond living Clay's memories to learn the truth about Lucy, which was going to be a climax of the main game. It sounds like at some point Alex Amancio decided that the game's story should be more about Desmond himself, and so they took the gameplay from Clay's memories and used it to build the Desmond's Journey segments and make the story about Desmond instead of Clay.

I wonder if all of the portal doors on Animus Island were originally going to lead to Clay's memories. This could be why the 2 doors were repaired at the end of the game, if they were additional memories of Clay's that he passed on to Desmond when he "hugged" him. There were 7 doors after the last 2 were repaired, and The Lost Archive had 7 memories with the last 2 memories being the big reveal moments. It also makes the whole Animus Island concept much more interesting when you realize it was originally planned for Desmond to relive Clay's memories, and Jeffrey also mentioned Lucy sort of "haunting" you on the island. It would also explain why Subject 16 didn't tell you much, since he was going to reveal it through his memories anyway.

It was interesting to realize that the writers don't drive the whole game and that the creative director is ultimately responsible for a lot of the decisions. I hate to blame Alex Amancio, but he made several decisions that really went against the core of Assassin's Creed and came out of left field. The decision to not reveal the truth about Lucy in the game itself was the worst one of all though, because naturally that was one of the biggest questions that fans of the series had. I'm glad they were still able to get it to us in some form.

Exactly, i hope the new creative director really understands the assassin's creed franchise and i hope they won't screw up the franchise for more profit.
Don't change stuff that isn't broken but in fact brilliant, like the complex storyline...Please.

infamous_ezio
05-04-2012, 10:25 AM
Which makes no sense, b/c it's the exact same thing as Desmond's Journey, just with Clay instead.

maybe its just something they forgot to remove aha.

goclo822
05-04-2012, 12:40 PM
Me too! It would've been like 10 times better, and would've given a good concept to an otherwise mediocre one. It just bothers me that the things they took out from the game as whole were better sounding and more important to the story than the things they left in.
Agreed. I hate how they dumbed down and simplified a really complex storyline. It would have made the game and storyline make so much more sense!



That was very informative, thanks.

I enjoyed TLA, but it sounds like it could have been a better experience and more coherent. It seems a shame they reacted to the criticism of Desmond's Journey by abandoning their original plans for it.
Which makes no sense, b/c it's the exact same thing as Desmond's Journey, just with Clay instead.
Exactly. They took out all the bits of the game that would have changed it from the Desmond missions making it more interesting and different in all the right ways. The things people disliked about the Desmond missions other than the actual gameplay was the missions were repetitive, weren't visual enough, didn't tell the storyline in a very interesting way and didn't have a climactic ending. From what I saw on the forum, most were willing to look past the gameplay if they at least listened to the criticism and tried making the unpopular gameplay more interesting as well as how they told the story. If the storyline was at least told better and they made the missions more visually stimulating, the DLC would have been much better received. Seems like they did exactly that and then changed it all taking out everything that players wanted and substituting it just to give us exactly what we were complaining about.


Yeah, it sounded like the marketing was lacking because of the reception of the Desmond's Journey gameplay. Jeffrey made it sound like The Lost Archive was originally going to be one of the big revelations of the game called "Revelations". It seems like they were originally developing it as Desmond living Clay's memories to learn the truth about Lucy, which was going to be a climax of the main game. It sounds like at some point Alex Amancio decided that the game's story should be more about Desmond himself, and so they took the gameplay from Clay's memories and used it to build the Desmond's Journey segments and make the story about Desmond instead of Clay.

I wonder if all of the portal doors on Animus Island were originally going to lead to Clay's memories. This could be why the 2 doors were repaired at the end of the game, if they were additional memories of Clay's that he passed on to Desmond when he "hugged" him. There were 7 doors after the last 2 were repaired, and The Lost Archive had 7 memories with the last 2 memories being the big reveal moments. It also makes the whole Animus Island concept much more interesting when you realize it was originally planned for Desmond to relive Clay's memories, and Jeffrey also mentioned Lucy sort of "haunting" you on the island. It would also explain why Subject 16 didn't tell you much, since he was going to reveal it through his memories anyway.

It was interesting to realize that the writers don't drive the whole game and that the creative director is ultimately responsible for a lot of the decisions. I hate to blame Alex Amancio, but he made several decisions that really went against the core of Assassin's Creed and came out of left field. The decision to not reveal the truth about Lucy in the game itself was the worst one of all though, because naturally that was one of the biggest questions that fans of the series had. I'm glad they were still able to get it to us in some form.
Yea sounds like that is exactly what they had planned which made sooo much more sense. Seems like everything people had problems with and everything that was wrong with Revelation, would have been solved had they not changed all their original plans. The annoying thing is that there was really no reason for the changes. They made everything all complicated for nothing.

I almost wish they didn't put the reveal in the DLC and instead found a way to incorporate it into AC3 in a very climactic way. I'm sure they will still in some way but now it won't be as surprising and ground breaking

GLHS
05-04-2012, 12:59 PM
Well the reasons for a lot of the things that they left out was because of time constraints and flow. Which leads to another thing that a lot of people were complaining about, the annual releases. B/c of how everything played out, they had to release it last year in order to release AC3 this year, so they didn't have enough time to put everything in that should've been included. So, even though everything ended up working out ok, they still screwed up pretty bad.

SixKeys
05-04-2012, 01:20 PM
I wonder if all of the portal doors on Animus Island were originally going to lead to Clay's memories. This could be why the 2 doors were repaired at the end of the game, if they were additional memories of Clay's that he passed on to Desmond when he "hugged" him. There were 7 doors after the last 2 were repaired, and The Lost Archive had 7 memories with the last 2 memories being the big reveal moments. It also makes the whole Animus Island concept much more interesting when you realize it was originally planned for Desmond to relive Clay's memories, and Jeffrey also mentioned Lucy sort of "haunting" you on the island. It would also explain why Subject 16 didn't tell you much, since he was going to reveal it through his memories anyway.


This makes a lot of sense and definitely sounds like that was the original plan. They probably decided to make it more about Desmond since people have been complaining for years that we don't know enough about him to care about him as a character. In a way I understand the decision as having Desmond in a coma is a perfect excuse to take pause and have him tell us more about himself. I just wish they'd have found a better balance between Desmond introspection and Clay's memories which actually gave us some revelations.

I just thought of something: during some of the cut scenes, Clay tells Desmond he'll be keeping the Animus busy so Desmond can explore his memories in peace. I wonder if by "keeping busy" Clay originally meant he was reconstructing his memories for Desmond to explore? In the final game it just seemed like such a throaway line, we never actually saw him do anything except creating pointless database entries. It would have made more sense if keeping the Animus busy while Desmond was exploring Ezio's memories was Clay's way of trying to gain Desmond access to his own memories, hacking the system in order to create new gates. That would explain why two of them were unavailable up until the final moments. (Had they gone with the original plan of all 7 gates being Clay's instead of Desmond's, the last two gates likely would have been repaired before the "hug" scene.)

infamous_ezio
05-04-2012, 03:45 PM
I get that the 2 extra gates were to hint at DLC. I suppose it was good to get a little bit more insight into desmond's story, both clays and desmonds memories from desmonds journey and TLA were both essential for revealing unanswered questions and building desmond as a character, Desmonds life was interesting and i guess was cool to have, but i would have preferred if TLA was in the actual game. I think they really stuffed up by making TLA DLC, it seems like they just couldn't fit the two in the game in time, due to the constraints? but i doubt it because the leaked DLC audio came out in December 2011, so i don;t see why they didn't just add both, as a reward from doing 1 desmonds journey for example you get a clay memory, and once you collect all the fragments you would get the last 2 memories, i can't say for sure that they did it just to get more money, but i think it was a very inconvenient decision on their behalf.


I almost wish they didn't put the reveal in the DLC and instead found a way to incorporate it into AC3 in a very climactic way. I'm sure they will still in some way but now it won't be as surprising and ground breaking

They have to, from what we know desmond has no idea of lucy's betray, we can't be sure of the significance of clay hugging him, i wander if at the start desmond will be like "alright lets do this" then shauns all angry and sais "wait.. you killed lucy.. WHY" then desmond will have a moment just like when clay mentioned lucys funeral, and everything will come to him, but ofcourse in a very awesome way :D haha

SixKeys
05-04-2012, 05:49 PM
I get that the 2 extra gates were to hint at DLC. I suppose it was good to get a little bit more insight into desmond's story, both clays and desmonds memories from desmonds journey and TLA were both essential for revealing unanswered questions and building desmond as a character, Desmonds life was interesting and i guess was cool to have, but i would have preferred if TLA was in the actual game. I think they really stuffed up by making TLA DLC, it seems like they just couldn't fit the two in the game in time, due to the constraints? but i doubt it because the leaked DLC audio came out in December 2011, so i don;t see why they didn't just add both, as a reward from doing 1 desmonds journey for example you get a clay memory, and once you collect all the fragments you would get the last 2 memories, i can't say for sure that they did it just to get more money, but i think it was a very inconvenient decision on their behalf.


If they originally had completely different plans for TLA which were then changed once the focus became about Desmond, it's no wonder they had to put it off until DLC. If they had had more time than one year for development, they might have been able to put both in the game (or even better, scrap the whole first-person idea and give us something better :P ). As it turned out, the Clay stuff they originally had planned was probably too complex so they turned it into a simple Desmond-style DLC.

infamous_ezio
05-05-2012, 05:15 PM
If they originally had completely different plans for TLA which were then changed once the focus became about Desmond, it's no wonder they had to put it off until DLC. If they had had more time than one year for development, they might have been able to put both in the game (or even better, scrap the whole first-person idea and give us something better :P ). As it turned out, the Clay stuff they originally had planned was probably too complex so they turned it into a simple Desmond-style DLC.

Yeah, the annual releases weren't exactly helping them haha.

Serrachio
05-06-2012, 05:50 AM
I would have preferred it also if for the Desmond sequences, there wasn't just Desmond yammering on, and they actually showed us something like a flashback when he touched one of those interactive blue hands.

I figure it would have driven the point better about Desmond running away from the Farm, since what's in there now is just boring monologue. And to be fair, while it does give some small details about Desmond's early life, it's only "I ran away and I became a bartender before I was kidnapped by Abstergo", which is the equivalent of what is told you at the very start of AC1.

Though I suppose that's great for someone who joined late into the series, I didn't feel like it was worthwhile to someone who was a long time follower of Assassin's Creed. Maybe that's why I wanted to actually see something, as opposed to this whole "Ooh, it's so abstract-y!" *shimmer* *shiny* *Desmond waffling on about how much his life sucked, even though he was designed to be the blandest character in the series from the beginning* etc.

Ahem, anyway, I also felt the first person perspective was silly. I personally felt that the camera was too zoomed in, which is kind of detrimental, since you could hardly see the edges of the platforms you created. And seeing as the whole point was "spawn platform to go", it's kind of unforgivable in some respects.